etlamatey

Intent

2011-11-20T20:55:00.000-08:00

I plan to stop writing on this blog. Will keep the blog up for a while, then take it offline perhaps at the turn of the year. Thanks for reading!

Notes on the Occupy movement in America

2011-10-30T20:39:00.000-07:00

There is nothing that I agree on with those in the Occupy movement. At the same time, I support their right to demonstrate and put their viewpoints across. Some of the force and violence directed by local police against the demonstrators is misguided and should never have occurred.

Now back to the points of disagreement. A few thoughts:

1. The rich are rich because?

Because we make them so. LeBron James can dunk like few others, and we freely pay to see him do that. Steve Jobs had a mind like few others, and we paid him profusely to use it. Surgeons are rich because few go through the rigor and have the skill to cut open humans to save their lives. Of course, not all rich are exceptionally skilled or gifted like Mr. Jobs or brain surgeons, but are so simply because there is a big demand for what they do. Take bankers for instance. If you take out the rogue few who created ingenuous financial instruments, the others do mundane stuff like maintain your bank accounts, sell you loans, and invest your retirement kitty.

America is a country hooked on debt; people take out debts to go to school, to buy cars, to buy household appliances, and to buy houses. Someone organizes, administers and collects that debt. Naturally, bankers lead good lives in America; is it their fault? Which brings us to the second point.

2. The bankers were surely to blame. But blame yourselves too.

There is no debate that some unscrupulous bankers conducted acts with criminal intents; acts which had far-reaching impacts on the greater financial system. Yet, if the American people were not linked so closely to the financial system through their debts, the impacts would have been softer. In China, for example, where the average citizen owes little money and has larger savings, a few economic blows don't snowball into a fatal punch. In 2010, the average US household debt was 136% of income; in China the number was 17%. Leveraging amplifies your vulnerability to factors beyond your control.

As a society, America decided at some point that leveraging was okay. Granted that the big-business-dominated mainstream media promotes spending, but if the voices promoting the Occupy movement today are sane, where were they when America was going crazy and taking on debt in various forms? As we speak, the American government is trying to promote even more debt through various monetary measures.

Had the American public not been so severely leveraged in 2008, would the housing meltdown had caused such deep-reaching effects? I venture no. As it is, by pinning all the blame for the economic crisis on the few (or many, does not matter) bankers, Americans are missing an opportunity to learn a lesson.

3. Stop feeling sorry for yourself

This goes beyond those in the Occupy movement. All of American seems to be in a grip of self-pity and pessimism. It is fashionable, for everyone from the president of the country down, to say that "America is broken", to say that this country needs a reformation, to say that that American infrastructure is falling down, to conjure up visions of doom unless one thing or the other is done. I disagree. The miserable state exists in the American psyche only. As such, apart from its criminal martial intervention in other countries, the country is a place where most people are free, the rule of law prevails, accountability and order are the norm, public corruption is not widespread, life is considered valuable, commerce has a good chance, and education and innovation flourishes.

Perhaps Americans should see this as the time of renewal. For all its faults, America's fundamentals remain strong. If anything, America needs faith and patience.

A beat deconstructed

2011-10-21T20:32:00.000-07:00

Musical, cultural, and legal fallout of the 6-second Amen Break. Good stuff.

Killing without anesthesia

2011-10-13T20:53:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt from In Evil Hour by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The setting: The 'lieutenant', an agent of a regime that has murdered and brutalized the people of town, has a painful tooth that is making his life hell. The town dentist is staunchly against the regime, so the desperate lieutenant raids the dentist's office with his men, and the tooth extraction proceeds under gunpoint:

The dentist located the sick molar, using his index finger to push aside the inflamed cheek and adjusting the movable lamp with the other hand, completely insensible to the patient's anxious breathing. Then he rolled his sleeve up to the elbow and got ready to pull the tooth. The lieutenant grabbed him by the wrist.

"Anesthesia," he said.

Their eyes met for the first time.

"You people kill without anesthesia," the dentist said softly.

Strangely familiar, isn't it? Even as half of Americans quibbles about namby pamby things like universal healthcare and the other half quibbles about namby pamby things like traditional social values, America's relentless warring machine rages on, abroad. Since Barrack Obama took charge of the machine, about 6,800 people have died in Iraq. Anywhere between 200-1000 people died in the US' uncalled-for bombing of Libya.

In the carefully constructed "fog of war", mistakes happen, brutalities happen, and even if they didn't, many kills are murders. For all the panty-wringing over inane issues at home, when abroad, things are easy. For native fucks, hope stops at the terminal end of a amputated limb, knowledge is distributed far and wide as brainmatter split open by a 50 cal litters a street, and everyone who avoids being blown up stays in the pink of health. Without anesthesia.

Notice how, at 9:50, a van picking up the wounded is engaged. Without anesthesia.

This made my day

2011-10-08T10:47:00.001-07:00

Popservation

2011-09-27T21:36:00.000-07:00

Think of a Mobius strip when listening to Kelly Rowland's Motivation. The Mobian tone flips that Ms. Rowland produces stand out; it probably does not take an exceptional effort from a trained singer to perform it, but it is pleasantly startling because of its uncommonness, like seeing somebody do acrobatics in a doctor's waiting room.

Another exceptional thing is the unabashed, unrestrained carnality of the song-content. Makes a grown blogger blush; one has to block it off the mind to get the Mobius-strip experience.

Lil Wayne is featured on the song; while his performance is nothing to write home about, one line attributed to him is particularly amusing:

"...she hold me like a conversation."

See it? Personification is a rather common tool in the literary arts, but such anti-personification is rare. Its the difference between saying "I had a sweaty jog today" and "I jogged like sweat today". But Lil Wayne makes it works here.

* * * *

Talking of personification, whenever the stock market falls sharply, I keep my eyes peeled for a certain headline that is expected to follow. Inevitably, some copy-editor somewhere thinks it fit to use the phrase "the stock market swooned...". Literarily speaking, even delicate ladies don't swoon any more; its awfully cute of stock markets to keep the tradition alive.

On dogmas

2011-09-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

Another insightful proclamation by Danae. In the American political jungle, I would suggest that flexible dogmas are more a characteristic of the right than the left.

While not agreeing with any liberal positions, I must concede that those positions - such as social justice and a propensity for a large central government - are relative constant and internally consistent.

But, not so with the other camp. For instance, some bedrock dogmas of conservatives such as free trade, personal liberty and pro-life are countered by other dogmas held by the same camp. For example, an onerous border policy is at odds with free trade, a propensity for laws against marijuana and gay unions undermine personal liberties, and the pro-life position is corroded by the pro-war one.

Of course, liberals have one gaping hole in their otherwise stellar reputation. One dogma that liberals held during the Bush years was an aversion to war; personally, I got completely fooled into thinking this was a permanent liberal position. Of course, as we all know now, that aversion has quickly diffused once their own warmonger came to power. Far from the Bush wars being wound down, the American militaristic orgy has been expanded in scope since 2009, when a liberal president was elected.

That Palestinian entity

2011-09-21T13:26:00.000-07:00

Palestine seems to have mightily unsettled the United States by approaching the United Nations for statehood. In a speech at the UN today, the American president insisted that the Palestinian move was misguided, and that "there is no shortcut to peace". His Secretary of State has said that "the path to an independent Palestinian state lies through direct talks (with Israel), not through the United Nations". To paraphrase the American position:Palestine, wait another 60 years while we jerk you around some more.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has derided the Palestinian decision to seek statehood for being "unilateral". It seems that the word 'unilateral' has come to mean 'without American support', which would explain why the Prime Minister does not consider Israel's successful bid for statehood in the UN in 1949 as unilateral. Double standards, you see, lie only in the eyes of the beholder.

Capitulation - a tiny bit at a time

2011-09-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

The Indian media's obsession with any references to India in American media or government is morbid, but one does not expect the same from senior Indian statesmen.

After a US congressional study was reported to have praised Narendra Modi's governance and predicted a future national leadership role for him, LK Advani picked up the story and posted it on his blog, as if the report was vindictive.

This is sovereignty turned on its head. Next, perhaps Mr. Advani will suggest that elections are unnecessary in India. Why bother when the US Congress does the job of picking leaders for you?

Baby deserves to be thrown out with the bathwater

2011-09-16T11:03:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is catching flak for claiming that Social Security is like a "ponzi scheme". I am not sure what is wrong with the comparison. Even if you set aside any kind of personal judgment about Social Security, it does fulfill the definition of a ponzi scheme to the extent that it pays off previous "investors" based on the the income from new investors, without any kind of new-money-making activity taking place. Yes, it is a ponzi scheme, just like the housing market (yet, how common it is for commentators to yearn for the housing market to come back up). Or like religion.

On that subject, Mr. Perry has been effusive about his religiosity at a number of public appearances. He deserves to not be nominated for just that reason (sir, what part of separation of church and state do you not understand?).

Ball and chain

2011-09-11T23:04:00.000-07:00

For a long-past period of time, I considered Ball and Chain sung by Janis Joplin as one of my better-liked songs. I had assumed she had also written the song, till I recently discovered it was by blues singer Big Mama Thornton, a discovery most satisfyingly accompanied by a video of Big Mama performing it.

A powerful, powerful voice. Art with unmistakable force, like stone-sculpting the form of a feather. Notice how muted, almost minimalist, the accompanying music is.

Here is the Janis Joplin version, with its emphasis on distortion of both the vocal and rhythmic parts.

Three years in, where is the change?

2011-09-09T13:41:00.000-07:00

The US is still in Afghanistan and in Iraq, like it was under George Bush. As a matter of fact, American diplomats are presently putting the screws on the Iraqi government to extend the agreement to keep their troops in Iraq after the end of this year. And of course, under the current administration, America opened yet another war of aggression against a country which posed no danger to it (Libya).

And to think that Barack Obama was ostensibly elected on an anti-war sentiment. Regarding those who yelled out against Bush's wars, supported Mr. Obama, and are silent now, there is only one explanation: they were disingenuous in their opposition to war.

As I have quibbled before, a dangerous moment for democracy is when there is no disagreement, and consequently no debate, about a major policy decision. When it comes to American militarism today, Republicans have no inclination to oppose it because war-mongering is their adopted gene characteristic and Democrats have abandoned their briefly+conveniently adopted anti-war position. If America's finances were not so messed up, this would be a golden time for the military industry.

* * *

A friend of mine has always argued that the bell curve of American political positions is tightly clustered around the average position, and that average position is too much to the right for his comfort. An example of this: a number of people I know who call themselves liberals think that while the Iraq war was a bad idea, American should intervene militarily in humanitarian situations (e.g., genocide). That means, of course, that America should keep a standing army at all times, capable of striking anywhere in the world where humanitarian duty beckons.

It is up to anybody's imagination if a powerful standing army like this is open or not to abuse. I find this mindset analogical to that of those who who keep pitbulls "with good intentions"...

A step backwards

2011-09-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

My father being a keen follower of scientific developments, I first heard of Annasaheb Hazare from him in my early teens, around the time the successful story of the village of Ralegan Siddhi in Maharashtra became more widely known. There, Annasaheb had employed what is now known as a 'comprehensive watershed treatment' approach to tend for natural resources and transform the village agriculturally and economically. A few years later when I chose a career in watershed hydrology, I may not have listed Anna Hazare as a direct motivator, but thinkers/doers like Anil Agarwal and Rajendra Singh who influenced me certainly did count him as an inspirational figure.

Anna Hazare would sometimes be invited to speak/advise at Center for Science Environment, a New Delhi environmental think tank where I worked for a period of time. As a rookie, I was once charged with receiving Anna at the railway station and riding back with him to the office. At that point of time, he had little recognition in broader public life but was already a hero in water/environmental circles, and I remember feeling privileged and in awe. Being a non-native Marathi speaker, I don't look forward to conversations in Marathi with native Maharashtrians for fear of sounding boorish, but Annasaheb was quite comfortable conversing in his Marathi-accented Hindi, and my last name never came up, so it was all good.

In my later years in rural watershed development, Anna Hazare and Ralegan Siddhi were always in the backdrop, as ideological tools to be employed during friendly debates with colleagues about our work. For rural watershed practitioners, Anna holds a place similar to what Frank Lloyd Wright holds for some young architects or John Milton does in the minds of some aspiring economists.

The purpose of the above passage, besides gloating about my remote brush with fame, is to preempt the projection of prejudice against Anna Hazare when I make the following argument. I hold the man in very high personal and professional esteem.

I do not have the same warm feelings for what went down with the Lokpal bill. As unreasonable as the idea of an unelected ombudsman is, let us assume for a moment that it is a good idea. But it is certainly questionable whether the way it was hustled to debate is a healthy precedent for a democracy. Ironically, the blame for it does not lie with Anna Hazare's movement. As a free citizen, he has the complete right to advocate a position in an orderly and non-violent way like he did.

Should the central government have acted on such a long-range and weighty issue, given the fact that it had no electoral mandate on it (i.e., the government was not elected on a manifested position for or against the Lokpal bill)? Perhaps not. It had two options - to negotiate tabling the issue till the a mandate for it is won in the next election, or offer to dissolve the government and see if the Lokpal bill is mandated by voters in the resulting election.

There is no disagreement about whether many Indians want the Lokpal Bill enacted, the question is whether implementing policy changes through a show of strength at Ramlila Maidan is not an abuse-proof way to proceed.

I rarely agree with Nitin Pai on anything, but when he says that this development has "injected a dangerous element into the Indian polity", I must grudgingly nod in approval.

Some kind of post-modern feminism, perhaps?

2011-08-24T20:14:00.000-07:00

One of the more intriguing songs on today's hip-hop charts is Super Bass. The melodic portions of the songs are quite unlike anything you hear in that genre. If you have no patience for the full song, skip over to 0:47, when the first chorus begins.

Equally intriguing is the singer, Nicki Minaj. Much has been written about her brand of feminism; read about it here, here, or here. If at all, I relate to a rather orthodox concept of feminism and Ms. Minaj's outward demeanor and song themes are certainly a bit perplexing. Need to work on my dogmas.....

Time it is to me. Space it’s unto you.

2011-08-23T22:32:00.000-07:00

Bend has an ongoing series of "shameless broadcasts" of his various trips. With no pretense to poetic greatness, the broadcasts offer warm familiarity to anyone who relates to rural India in any kind of personal way.[Link]

Abusing a beautiful idea

2011-08-21T09:20:00.000-07:00

The idea of individual freedom is a compelling one. Free trade is only the natural result of the freedom of individuals. This duo of liberty/free trade then forms a coherent, elegant and free-standing intellectual argument which has been debated for centuries, yet today it is the bed rock of modern "western" civilization.

But how much intellectual authority does the idea wield today?

In a 1992 article "Intellectual Authority and Institutional Authority", Charles Collier says (albeit in the context of jurisprudence):

Intellectual authority is defined as the authority of arguments that prevail by virtue of good reasoning and do not depend on coercion or convention.

Collier goes on to define another term:

A contrasting notion, institutional authority, refers to the power of social institutions to enforce acceptance of arguments that may or may not possess intellectual authority.

When the American president asks Syrian president Assad to step down, it is a perfectly acceptable act within the realm of the intellectual authority of the idea of individual freedom and democracy. But when bombers roll over Vietnam, Libya or Iraq to tamp down undemocratic regimes, all intellectual authority is lost, that is when the idea is being forced. As an ardent proponent of individual rights and free trade, it distresses this writer to see the abuse.

Communism's fundamental appeal to the senses was mauled for generations by the repression that Communist states subjected their populations to. The idea of Islam has been corrupted in the minds of modern observers by the random violence inflicted on others by some of its proponents. It follows that the intellectual weight of freedom is also tarnished to some extent at least when its proponents use military might to advance it.

Instead of using the force of persuasion, the persuasion is through force.

Industrial revolutions

2011-08-19T17:47:00.000-07:00

The song is The Wolves by Ben Howard. The wheeled artist is Danny Macaskill.

On Buffett

2011-08-17T13:12:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, when the US Congress was in the middle of a debate about tax breaks, Republicans had to face shame because of a widespread misrepresentation of their position. They were asking for continuing an across-the-board tax break, while Democrats were asking to continue the breaks for everyone but rich Americans. Many commentators critical of the Republican position framed it as "They want tax breaks for the rich!" which was not fully accurate.

Republicans and fiscal conservatives now seem to be using the same trick on Warren Buffett. The latter recently wrote a piece in the New York Times wherein he advocated:

(a) Straightening out the tax code that allows the rich to pay taxes on a smaller proportion of their incomes than their wage-earning fellow citizens
(b) Increase the tax rate on the rich

Note that an increase in tax rate is only part of the proposal. Yet, fiscal conservatives have continuously been bashing Buffett for his "damaging" advice. Even when tax reform has been on nearly everyone's agenda for a long time, conservatives included!

The small-government lobby that this writer belongs to has gotten the reputation of being the pro-rich lobby, and it is unfortunately true for at least some of my brethren, as these reactions to Buffett show.

It then has to be put on record that I do not support either selective tax breaks or selective tax increases. Consequently, I do agree with with Buffett about getting rid of tax subsidies for the rich and super-rich, but not with the argument that the rich should pay at a higher rate. A government of the people has no reasonable justification to subsidize or penalize the activities of some people - whether it be the rich through tax breaks/increases or the middle class through the mortgage tax deduction.

If you are richer than me, you should certainly pay more money in taxes, but you should not be paying a bigger (or smaller) proportion of your income than I do. A flat tax is the only fair tax.

Like jazz

2011-08-15T23:03:00.000-07:00

Ralph Ellison, famous for Invisible Man, has often been criticized for being too personal and not political enough in his depiction of black American life, and for freely using European writing styles thus not contributing to the advancement of a distinctive African-American style. That surely accounts for Ellison not being in the same class as "politically black" writers such as Toni Morrison, but does that really deserve of criticism?

This unnamed anti-critic offers a jazz-supported defense of Ellison:

Ellison drew heavy fire for being, in their view, politically disengaged and removed from the collective plight of black America. A lifelong lover of jazz, Ellison sought to create its literary equivalent. Invisible Man follows the stylistic foundations of jazz by using discordant rhythms, drawing on other literary works, and synthesizing prior traditions into a new art form.

Makes one want to read Ellison again, this time with jazz playing in the background. Jazz is good, jazz metaphors are better.

Paul is wrong, and under-represented

2011-08-14T09:41:00.000-07:00

This blogger supports Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, but that doesn't mean he is gorgeous at all times. His strong anti-abortion message in his Ames speech was disturbing to say the least. See below, till the 4:40 mark.

His message was that life comes from "our creator", is precious, and neither humans nor governments can "play god" and make the decision to terminate life (i.e., via abortion). This line of argument always leaves me befuddled. If parents "play god" when they decide to terminate a pregnancy, do they also play god then they conceive? Or is conception a divine act? Contraception is what separates man from animals, yet why such a hands-off attitude towards conception?

Mr. Paul, any discussion about the morality of abortion is incomplete without sorting out the morality of conception. Why draw an arbitrary line between god's work and Man's work right at the moment after fertilization?

* * *

As a Paul -supporter, it is a bit stunning to see how little coverage he gets in the mainstream media. If one's only source of news is major newspapers and network channels, you can miss him completely. Paul is actually doing well on at least two metrics - he has raised more funds than any other candidate other then Mitt Romney and he came in second after Michelle Bachmann in the Ames straw poll. Yet, switch on the TV and the focus is on Bachmann, Romney, and Pawlenty (and even Gingrich!). The institutionalized media is used to the clout its powers of making self-fulfilling prophesies bring, but thanks to diverse sources on the internet, that clout is slowly eroding.

FYI, Mr. Wilson

2011-08-05T22:18:00.000-07:00

Check out the last panel.

Dennis the Menace, the cartoon strip, has been around since 1950 so I estimate Mr. Wilson to be approximately 120 years old now. There is statistical evidence that older citizens are more aware and engaged in public policy and political affairs, so I would have expected Mr. Wilson to not make the error of writing to his Congressman.

In the United States, minimum legal ages for driving are mandated by individual states, not the federal government. If at all, Mr. Wilson's letter should be directed to his representative in the state legislature, not Congress.

Too much power invested in distant, central government is bad. But when citizens attribute power that it does not really have to central governments, it is scary.

In the wake of the long-running debate over the debt ceiling, Americans have been wringing their hands about their government which cannot agree about something so important, and worry how the country will run properly. My question is, which government? The error in their fears, and the silver lining to the situation, is that America is thankfully not (yet) run by Congress and the President. The county has a fascinatingly decentralized and autonomous system of governance. Community governments are not answerable to state governments, and state governments are not answerable to the federal government (as long as they are breaking no laws).

Granted, the federal government does have the authority to make some choices that have a profound impact on the nation (defense, interest rates, federal taxes), but America functions on a day-to-day basis on the backs of local governments. FYI, Mr. Wilson.

Day in the life of a dentist

2011-07-30T09:07:00.000-07:00

I find it odd when economic commentators talk of the "informal economy" as a remote, sometimes undesirable, entity. All you can expect from a healthy business is here: a consumer base, customer service, brand loyalty, operating principles, and yes, money. Respect, respect.

TINA to US debt?

2011-07-28T22:05:00.000-07:00

I picked up the term TINA while living in Anand from friends who were graduates of the Indian Institute of Rural Management where, apparently, its usage was rampant. TINA stands for There Is No Alternative. A typical instance usage would go thus:

Question: Why are we eating at this crappy restaurant again??
Answer: It is 2 AM. TINA.

The ongoing knicker-bunching about the lack of a debt/budget deal between the US Congress and its executive oft brings up the notion of TINA to mind. One asks oneself, so what will the sovereign bond-buyers buy if they balk from buying US bonds (remember, selling bonds is how nations borrow money)?

Those who raise the specter of horrible consequences of a US default choose to ignore the fact that the transaction of a loan is a win-win situation, in most situations. The creditor finds a place to gainfully park his wealth, and that parked wealth floats the debtor's boat. If you were a sovereign bond buyer, what other bond-issuer would you go to, who has the ability to issue you such dependable paper, and in such volume?

As a matter of fact, the long painful discussions within the American leadership only reinforce the fact that the nation is serious about fulfilling its obligations. They are not fighting about whether, they are fighting about how (to pay off the debts). Contrast this with Greece, where thousands descended on the streets and rioted because they didn't want their country to make peace with its creditors. Remember, nobody in America - not the politicians, not the people - is talking about stiffing the country's investors.

This is not to say that a default would not raise interest rates on US bonds. However, that would be a long-overdue manifestation of America's suffering economic strength and its profligacy, not its inability to reach a political consensus. Indeed, if there was an example of good democracy, the current debt fight is it - two groups strongly entrenched in their principles fighting each other in a perfectly civil way. While most in the country may wish for a quick resolution, they will as quickly also add that "their" side's plan is better than the other. Long live democracy, long live the debt talks.

Bridge of love

2011-07-22T12:33:00.000-07:00

Graffiti-ed on the structural member of a road bridge...

(Click to expand)

Ginger dance of individual freedom

2011-07-19T20:32:00.000-07:00

This blog has always advocated gay rights, bad-mouthed the concept of state-sanctioned marriages, and defended the freedom to enter a consensual polygamous relationship. Wendy McElroy (link) talks about the "lurking urges" that prevail with such positions.

Disappointment

2011-07-16T11:35:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul has started his video campaign for 2012 with a disaster. It is titled "Conviction, Not Compromise' and is so trite in its message that put any current runner for the Republican nomination in the ad, and it will still work.

"Millions unemployed"? "No compromise"? "Standing up to Washington"? These are not the reasons I want to see Ron Paul as the president of the United States. This is not the Ron Paul.

This is Ron Paul. Having the balls to talk about the blowback arising out of interventionism. In the middle of a Republican debate.

This is Ron Paul. With the sense to say that the state should have no role in deciding marriages. Gay or otherwise.

This is Ron Paul. Talking about how federal intervention in the markets is feeding the housing bubble. In 2001.

Perhaps he is trying to attract the average Republican voter. The problem is that the average Republican ideal is in the woods, having completely replaced the idea of limited government with that of favorable government.

I don't expect Mr. Paul to ever win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency. But with messages like these I wonder if I will even support him throughout.

The state government shuts down......so?

2011-07-16T00:21:00.000-07:00

For the past few days, the Minnesota state government has been shut down because of a dispute between the executive and legislative branches about how to pass the state budget. There is much hand-wringing, and a lot of national attention on the matter.

But when you ask: so what happens when a state government shuts down, the answer is likely to surprise. For instance, a few days into the Minnesota shut-down, NPR ran a story in which they reported (with a straight face) the following "impacts" of a shut-down :

1. State parks (i.e., recreational use) have been shut down
2. New road construction has stopped
3. Some alcohol vendors are having to stop selling since their licenses are not renewed
4. Some state workers have been laid off

Barring the last, where is a real impact on those individuals, state government shut-downs have little impacts (in the short term) on the general population.

The reason for this is the highly fragmented and autonomous way in which America is run. Most public services are provided either by local governments or private companies; both of which depend on user fees, not top-down tax revenues.

For instance, I explored what services a Minneapolis (a city in Minnesota) resident uses on a day-to-day basis and if any of these are at the mercy of the state of government:

1. Police protection: Forces are raised and managed by the city
2. Schools: Run by locally administered school districts
3. Roads: Most managed by city and county
4. Electricity: Excel Power, a private utility company
5. Gas: Centerpoint Energy, a private utility company

Some of these functions do get funding from state and federal governments, but local agencies run a lot of their operations on fees and/or assessments. If there is an example of the benefits of decentralized governance, it is this.

Ditto with the federal government. When a shut-down was feared earlier this year, the top-quoted example of an "impact" of a shut-down that many fear-mongering commentators came up with was that tourists would have to be turned away from federally-administered national parks. Really?

The curse of leverage

2011-07-12T12:56:00.000-07:00

As argued before, this blogger thinks tax deductions on mortgage interests that American homeowners enjoy are a mistake. At the level of public policy, this subsidy is as reprehensible as any other subsidy; at the level of individuals, it exacerbates the moral hazard of buying stuff with someone else's money.

The good news is, the said blogger is finding new friends in high places. Recently, a Federal Reserve President, N. Kocherlakota, went on record that tax incentives to mortgage interests should be trimmed.

Read about it here.

Kocherlakota notes that:"...leverage made the financial sector more sensitive to downward movements in the price of land."
Indeed so. What is true for the financial sector, so is it for housing. Compare the highly-leveraged American housing market with the barely-leveraged Chinese one. In 2009, there were fears that the Chinese market would crash too in the wake of the American one, but nothing of that sort happened. Leverage made all the different. Or the lack of it.

Why to win friends and influence people

2011-07-12T12:38:00.000-07:00

Iran and the United States on the same side? Nitin Pai thinks so.

"...Washington has allowed a dogmatic petulance over Iran take over strategic sense."

Indeed.

But unfortunately Pai buttresses his rebuttal of one dogma with yet another. Namely, why China and India's geopolitical interests cannot converge is something I have never understood...

What two-party stranglehold?

2011-07-11T21:19:00.000-07:00

Commentator Bruce Maiman asks in the Sacramento Bee: "Is it time to break the stranglehold of Republicans and Democrats in American politics?" Maiman argues against the two-party system of America, claiming that it is radicalizing the democracy.

I myself often bemoaning the lack of a viable "third" option (or fourth, or fifth,...) in the American electorate so the argument should strike a chord with me.

But it doesn't. Because, for all their visibility, the two main political parties in the United States do not dominate the political process as much as one would think.

For starters, unlike notable parliamentary democracies where the "majority party" gets invited to form a government, America's system of separation of powers ensures that the chief executive officer will be elected even if no political parties exist. Indeed, it is theoretically possible for an independent/third-party candidate to be elected as president even as the legislature stays under the domination of the two major parties.

Secondly, the system of primaries for nominating party candidates in state and national elections opens another major pathway for non-conformist candidates to win nomination. This also speaks a lot for local independence, a major break from some other electoral systems where party headquarters patronizingly nominate candidates. A recent manifestation of the success of this system was when numerous Tea Party candidates dislodged well-entrenched Republican candidates to win nominations and elections. Indeed, my candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination - Ron Paul - is far from your stereotypical Republican, but he is still a legitimate runner for the party nomination.

Lastly, observe how legislators in US states and federal governments vote. While contentious issues are sometimes sharply split along party lines, voting on many other issues is not. Because candidates do get elected without the patronage of the centralized party bureaucracy, the system of "party whip" is much weaker here.

So, while Mr. Maiman's outrage at the "stranglehold" of the two main parties is rightly placed, there is nothing that needs to be done. A few minor tweaks like discontinuing public sponsorship of party primaries and banishing the use of partisan titles in state and national legislatures (e.g. "Democratic leader" or "minority leader") would be nice. But besides that, the apparent domination of political dialogue by the two parties is as fickle as Justin Bieber being wildly popular. Nobody can do anything about it, but there's no harm coming out of it either.

I'll scratch your back...

2011-07-04T10:42:00.000-07:00

Candid words from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in justification of the Libyan war:

"These allies, particularly the British and the French, and the Italians for that matter, have really been a big help to us in Afghanistan. They consider Libya a vital interest for them. Our alliance with them is a vital interest for us. So as they have helped us in Afghanistan, it seems to me that we are in a position of helping them with respect to Libya."

Hmm. Anyone familiar with the term "imperialist war"?

Stuff that makes the internet precious

2011-07-03T22:05:00.000-07:00

Miscellaneous political note: I had a lot of fun replacing "honey badger" with "John McCain" in the above video. Try it.

Worth reading

2011-06-30T12:49:00.001-07:00

Amit Verma wants this from India's Second Freedom Struggle (link):

One: Limit the power of government
Two: Unleash Private Enterprise. Remove the License and Permit Raj
Three: Reform the Indian Penal Code
Four: Ensure Free Speech in India
Five: Respect Taxpayer’s Money
Six: Treat the Right to Property as Sacred

I only included the first six of his list of eight. 7 and 8 are moot if 1 and 2 happens.

When messengers become too important

2011-06-29T12:27:00.000-07:00

For a few months now, western news reports about Libya and Syria have had a common theme - they all complain about how western reporters are not allowed freedom of movement and liberty to report. For instance, NPR's Cairo-based Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson starts many of her otherwise impeccable reports with how she has been cooped up in her hotel, not allowed to cross a certain border, or somesuch hardship.

I cry foul. Not because of lack of sympathy for news staffers who risk life and limb to do their jobs, but because:

1. In the backdrop of the profound historical events happening in the Middle East right now, focusing on the reporters' difficulties is absurdly out of place. Even in normal circumstances, it is unprofessional to do so.

2. In this age of cell phones and Twitter, it is hard to understand why basic reporting should be hostage to the physical presence of foreign reporters. With some wads of cash, a few satellite phones and a network of informants, all that remains for foreign reporters to do is sit at their desks and put their spin on field reports. Western governments have no scruples about fomenting violence and insurrections in foreign countries with supplies of cash and weapons to locals, why are western news publishers shy of using subterfuge for the legitimate purpose of getting information from locals?

In a free market, one should be able to walk away from an unprofessional service provider to another who is not, but with global news there are none I know who think their newspersons are less important than the news. Even Al-Jazeera, which is rooted in the Middle East, seems as stodgy and bureaucratic as the others.

Coming to terms

2011-06-27T12:27:00.000-07:00

It was at the height of the Iraq war that I started earnestly tracking American politics. Because of my anti-war position, I naturally often found myself aligned with liberals, whose anti-Iraq-war stance I mistook to be a genuine anti-war sentiment. Hobnobbing with them to the point of calling myself liberal, I shared jokes with them at George Bush's expense and roundly criticized the war policy many a time.

But come 2011, come the Libyan war, and I found myself betrayed and left alone. Where were my liberal friends now? When, in response to a Congress reprimand, Mr. Obama claimed there were no hostilities in Libya, where was the uproar from the liberals? There was none.

It has since dawned on me that the anti-war stance of the liberals in case of Iraq was simply partisan positioning. It was not the Iraq war they were against, they were only against Bush's Iraq war. Liberals do stand for many things, but pacifism is not one of them. As I write this, many liberals are bending backwards in Congress and outside it to defend the Libyan war on behalf of "their" president.

The president is hardly to blame; as the leader of a warmongering nation, he is only fulfilling his mandate. It is civil society that has failed itself. As I pointed out earlier, in a democracy, all sides agreeing on something is dangerous.

* * *

The president has an unlikely bedfellow in his defence of the Libyan no-hostilities war: Senator John McCain, who has been berating his own party colleagues and warning Americans of the risk of isolationism. This is only another episode in Mr. McCain's never-ending war.

When I speak,
the military-industrial complex speaks.

Some high standards in journalism...

2011-06-23T14:56:00.000-07:00

...pertain to the level of readers' tolerance/apathy.

This blogger was just reminded why he never goes to the Times of India website, instead filtering their content through Google News. Here are three headlines, which were found in close proximity to each other:

1. "Jaipal Reddy's niece's husband arrested" (Say what??)

2. "Aung Suu Kyi ready to shun non-violence" (No other journalist in the world seems to have made that interpretation from her speech)

3. "I am ugly, so no chicks: Rahul" (With reference to Rahul Bose; I can't decide if the copy editor is innocent, cynical, or trying to be funny)

I am ordinarily too indolent a person to be WTF'ed easily, but here I am.

More on equality

2011-06-22T12:22:00.000-07:00

On Cafe Hayek (link), Don Boudreaux compares muscles with wealth to make a point about economic inequality.

A slippery slope to equality

2011-06-20T12:20:00.000-07:00

There is an Indian fable about two quarreling cats and a monkey. The cats are fighting over a treat when a monkey offers to help out by splitting the treat into two equal parts for them. He brings out a weighing scale, cuts the treat into two, and places each part in a pan. Finding that one part is slightly heavier than the other, the monkey bites off a little chunk to make them equal. Sure enough, the other part is now heavier, so he takes a small bite off the other. And so on, till he finishes the entire treat himself before the cats know what is going on.

Large, centralized governments are like the shrewd monkey. Their quests for equality only make them fatter.

Instances of the slippery slope to equality are numerous. Corn ethanol producers want subsidies because the oil industry has it. Now soy growers want it too because the corn/growers have an unfair advantage. That immediately raises the rent on land that wind farms operate on, so they want a break too. The solar lobby clamors for a subsidy since they are now at a disadvantage. Coming a full circle, the oil industry now wants another break since the subsidies are now too much in favor of other energy sources. And so on goes the downwards spiral.

One prospective sled sitting on the slippery slope to equality is a bill in the U.S. Congress (H.R.1834) that is proposing to give American multinational companies a repatriation tax holiday so they can bring in billions earned worldwide back home while paying little taxes. Proponents such as Google, Apple and a host of other companies claim that up to $1 trillion in earnings are sitting outside the country, waiting for a tax holiday. Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers tugs at our heart-strings by telling us that all this money is "trapped overseas" (awww, poor money) by punitive federal tax laws.

Of course, the backbone of the argument for this tax holiday is that the money coming in will help spur new jobs and help the economy. Remember what this smells like? The bank bailouts, which were supposed to help the economy and people and not the banks themselves. Once the bailouts were done with, people said "if you bailed out the banks, why not us?". Once the corporations have their tax holiday, guess who will be asking for it next?

And so it goes on...

The way of the proud

2011-06-17T09:27:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the debate on abortion I am generally in favor, from the perspective of the bearer's right and the belief that humankind has irresponsibly over-reproduced. Yet, convince me that a fetus is human, and I may be willing to reconsider my position from the point of view of common law.

However, when it comes to euthanasia, it is hard to believe there is a viable argument against it. We have no say over our own births, we should have a right to decide when it has been enough.

BBC2 recently aired a documentary on assisted dying. Watch part of it here, and judge as you will. Be warned, it shows a person swallowing a prepared poison and passing away.

Dark lining in the cloud

2011-06-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

Ten U.S. Congressmen have sued the president for violating the Constitution by going to war with Libya without Congress' authorization.

Momentarily encouraging,except that even if the president had gone to Congress, there is not a slim chance that he would have been rebuffed.

Censorship by consensus

2011-06-07T22:27:00.000-07:00

There is a cliche in American political culture about autocratic societies where individual speech and mass media are controlled. Conjure up the popular image of China, Iran and the former Soviet Union. The narrative that goes with the cliche is that opinions that don't agree with that of the ruling power are suppressed, which leads to terrible things.

There is surely some truth in that; yet, terrible things also result where there is textbook freedom of speech. Case in point is the USA Patriot Act, for which the Warmonger-in-Chief signed an extension on May 26.

The liberal president wanted it because he has no reason to not want it. The majority conservatives in Congress did not oppose it because it was originally drafted under their watch. The minority liberals in Congress did not oppose it because they have nothing to gain from opposing it. The media did not mention it because there is no controversy surrounding it.

Indeed, there has been a stunning mainstream media silence about the extension of the Patriot Act. Maverick liberals and conservatives in Congress have raised voices against the extension but those voices have barely made it through the media filter.

When the ruling power, the opposition, and the media all agree on something, it creates a proxy for censorship. Consensus is supposed to be good for democracy but then again maybe not. Think of horrors like racism and slavery which lasted too long not because opposition to them was stifled, but because there was overwhelming political consensus that it is okay for these institutions to exist.

The lack of a vocal opposition and debate by elected representatives or civil society on any public policy issue is dangerous.

Even one is one too many

2011-05-11T20:21:00.000-07:00

From the environmental perspective, God is the enemy of earth.

While the general narrative in most religions runs to the effect that "God created this world", that may not be the case. Think about this: over the past thousands of years, and especially in the last couple hundred years, human beings have prospered at the cost of other species of flora and fauna. Human development has been intimately proportional to the detriment of other earth-dwellers; for all our so-called "environmental awareness", this continues to be the case.

Every new house that is built takes the earth underneath away from its former inhabitants. Ever new square foot of cropland takes away from forests. Nearly every act of significance you do in the modern world leaves some kind of effluent on earth.

It is then plausible that God is really the antithesis of earth. God is in a perpetual fight with earth; human beings are His/Her soldiers.

The two most important institutions of God's war/propaganda machine are religion and economics. The dominant doctrines in both these areas are based on a heavy reliance on procreation or growth. Think of the anti-abortion movement as an example of the former, and the the idea of "demographic dividend" as one of the latter.

Read this letter by one of my favorite libertarian writer/economist, where he berates a newspaper for suggesting that bigger populations bring misery. The pro-population thinking is almost the bedrock of libertarian thought. Etlamatey consider himself libertarian-leaning in most affairs, but here he peels away.

Two stories

2011-05-09T20:49:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, US Congressman Joseph Crowley from New York did this on the floor of the House:

I'll be! For those too young to know, too old to remember, or too disrespectful to care, Crowley stands on the shoulder of a giant. Bob, the Bob, the mother of all lyrical Bobs, did it first:

Note: The message in both presentations is make-believe.

Denial of a crisis foretold

2011-05-07T21:19:00.000-07:00

Buttonwood has an interesting chronology of the widespread denial that has accompanied the financial crisis. It is worth your time:

Back in 2005 and 2006 received wisdom denied that the rapid growth of subprime mortgages was a problem. American house prices were extremely unlikely to fall at the national level. In any case, the debt had been widely spread among investors thanks to the derivatives market.

Once the subprime woes became obvious optimists still argued that their economic impact would be limited. The banks downplayed the extent of their exposure to subprime lending. As the scale of their exposure was revealed they switched tack to argue that they had a liquidity, rather than a solvency, problem.

When the banks duly had to be bailed out and debt was transferred from the private to the public sector, a further layer of denials was needed. The finances of governments are not like those of individual households, it was said. Governments have the power to tax and to print money, and have recovered from high debt-to-GDP ratios in the past.

The denial continues as we speak. For instance, most bits on punditry on popular media talk about how the housing market has now surely "bottomed out", the very same assessment that has been made for the past 3 years...

Why entitlements make no sense

2011-05-04T20:21:00.000-07:00

Click image to enlarge.(Link)

I have no love to spare for warmongers...

2011-05-02T20:29:00.000-07:00

....but funny is funny.

There are no human rights abuses when you are at 30,000 feet

2011-05-01T10:31:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between suicide-bombing innocents in a bus for a purported cause, and blowing up innocents in an air attack, also for a purported cause?

A NATO assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi in Tripoli is said to have killed one of his sons (who had little involvement with his father's regime) and three grandchildren. For all we know, the news may be fabricated, but only underscores the fact that 'targeted' NATO bombing in Libya is likely to have killed innocents.

This is not to defend Gaddafi, but to point out the moral hazard involved with foreigners' intervention in a quarrel that is not theirs to fight.

* * *

In other news, US Senator John McCain lambasted the Chief Warmonger for "taking a backseat role in Libya". He wants America to lead NATO's war on Libya, not just be a part of it.

Two weeks ago, McCain was in rebel-controlled Libya himself, whence he argued for greater material support to the rebels. Said he:

"Same thing we did in Afghanistan...weapons delivery can be facilitated."

Of course, delivering weapons is second nature to the federal government of the United States.

Ever since the Libyan revolution started, there has been an argument that the violent but relatively secular Gaddafi regime will be replaced by a more Islamist one. McCain turned this argument on its head:

"If there is a stalemate (in Libya), it could open the doors to radical Islamic fundamentalism..."

True that. Except that it is likely to happen even if the rebels come to power. Just like the fall of Saddam Hussein opened the doors of Iraq to religious extremists (Psst, here is a secret - Mr. McCain egged on that regime change as enthusiastically as in Libya).

It is hard to say who the more attention-hungry performer is: McCain or Donald Trump.

See, you go to war for me, and I clown for you.

The economist rappers are back

2011-04-28T22:34:00.000-07:00

Sequel to this.

"One data point and you're jumping for joy.
The last time I checked, wars only destroy"

What, me sacrifice?

2011-04-22T21:25:00.000-07:00

A Washington Post-ABC News poll asked Americans what they thought of a few solutions to reduce the national debt. It stands that:

Only 30% supported cutting Medicaid;
Only 21% supported cutting Medicare;
Only 42% supported cutting military spending;
But, 72% supported raising taxes on richer Americans.

As The Freeman succinctly puts it, these people want no cuts in services, they just want to "let someone else pay".

Taxes that kill

2011-04-19T20:51:00.000-07:00

The Warmonger's Lair (i.e., the White House) recently released a nifty tool that allows American taxpayers to see exactly what their taxes are spent for. Check it out here. Punch $100 as a sample amount and see where the money goes.

The biggest drain on the taxpayer, at 26.30%, is "National Defense". Let us hear it again: The United States, an entity with friendly nations to the north and south and oceans on the east and west, spends a quarter of its tax earnings on "defense".

When you put American "defense" spending in the context of taxes, it seems unfathomable why the so-called anti-tax Republicans and Tea Partiers would not have anything to say about it. Indeed, when Obama rebuked so-called fiscal conservative Paul Ryan, he was on the money:

"This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for."

Presently, Ryan is leading the charge against Obama on cutting federal spending, but defense is not on his radar. Indeed, if the anti-tax lobby wants my respect, it needs to own up to its dirty past during the Bush years and treat "defense" for what it is.

America is fighting three wars today, only one of which would vaguely fulfill the definition of a just war. Former Warmonger-in-Chief Dwight Eisenhower warned in 1960 of the military-industrial complex:"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
The said citizenry, drugged by the opium of power, happens to be fast asleep.

When civil society fails

2011-04-10T17:11:00.001-07:00

Who keeps the collective conscience of a society/nation?

In theologically or politically centralized societies, the answer may be 'government', but not so in open, democratic ones. There the answer is more likely to be 'civil society'. In democratic structures, civil society is the funnel that narrows down innumerable personal sensibilities into a practical number of society-wide moral choices which often shape public policy.

(For the sake of this discussion, civil society is any instance where more than one humans cooperate to think, discuss, or act on something of public consequence; e.g., friends, family, neighborhood associations, religious groups, political parties, TV, newspapers, bloggers etc. It can be any organization but one with police powers; i.e.,the government.)

In an ideal democracy, civil society should be the testing and debating grounds for any potential changes in public policy instituted by governments. A couple of examples of this from the United States which demonstrate how civil society has actively and for long debated gaps in public policy not fully addressed by either arm of the government: gay rights and smoking. In neither of these issues has the judiciary or legislature done enough to conclusively set a direction but in both cases, civil society has set the tone for the discussion. These can be taken to be signs of a healthy democracy.

But negative-minded as we are, let us focus on two instances where civil society has lagged behind the government or behind circumstances.

1. The collapse of the housing market and subsequent financial disaster

Both civil society and government were caught with their pants down when this hit. Civil society's reaction has been to find convenient scape goats like "Wall Street fat cats" and "greedy mortgage lenders". But the fact is that Wall Street and the mortgage industry were only fulfilling an insatiable hunger for cheap money and easy lending on part of the public. Zig Ziglar said once:

You can have everything in life you want, if you will just help other people get what they want.

Helping others is precisely what those allegedly rotten scoundrels were doing. The drug junkie should share the blame with the street-corner crack dealer.

Then, and even now, civil society has failed to see anything wrong with the mindset of those "innocent" everyday Americans who wanted more house, more car, more everything than they could fairly afford. On the contrary, as the overspending orgy or the past decade was receding, civil society was worried that prudent behavior by individuals would hurt the economy.

2. Entitlement reform

It is well known that the US' government finances are likely screwed in the long run because of looming liability of future entitlements - Social Security and Medicare. Even as elected representatives have long tossed around the issue like a hot potato for electoral reasons, civil society has pretended the problem does not exist. As the Tea Party (which, admittedly, is one element of civil society) pushes legislators to start acting towards entitlement reform, it is clear that any resulting reform will be in spite, not because, of civil society at large.

Civil society debates should give rise to legislation, not the other way round. When the latter happens, and when it happens in profoundly important areas like the above, all is not right with democracy.

A good old bhais club

2011-04-06T22:21:00.000-07:00

The Galleon case has been fascinating to track over the past year or so, not least because of the ethnicities involved. It is now being played out in the courtroom. Galleon Management, a multi billion hedge fund headed by Raj Rajaratnam, was accused by the Securities & Exchange Commission of widespread and repeated inside trading. Here is a cheat sheet:

Source: New York Times

Glossary:

Raj Rajaratnam: Chief target of allegation that he collected insider information to make profits off it

Anil Kumar: Senior Partner, McKinsey; admitted to passing on confidential information to Rajaratnam

Rajiv Goel: Intel executive; admitted to passing on information from inside Intel to Rajaratnam

Rajat Gupta: Ex-Director, Goldman Sachs; accused of passing on information about a pending Berkshire Hathaway purchase of GS stock and other tidbits

Rajaratnam has been standing trial since the past few weeks and much muck is flying. Take this excerpt from a wiretapped conversation between Rajaratnam and Gupta:

Wiretap

More meaningful conversations are available for your listening pleasure here. (Warning: Rajaratnam accuses the U.S. of illegally collecting these wiretaps, so listen at the risk of making yourself an accessory.)

It has been said that Gupta, Kumar and Rajaratnam met at Wharton; Gupta and Kumar both went to IIT Delhi.

Those are some big shoes for Asok to fill.

Amnesiac, or evil?

2011-04-03T10:14:00.000-07:00

Over the past few years, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan soured, one often heard the refrain from "anti-war" Americans: "How did we ever get suckered into this war?". Anti-war is in quotes because it now seems that any kind of commentary against the war was little more than "red-eye peaceniking", i.e., a partisan peace stance motivated by the fact that it was the other side of the aisle running the war.

As the United States went to war against Libya, it was disheartening to see the complete lack of public debate about whether militaristic intervention was appropriate. The discussions hovered around how. Last week, the Warmonger-in-Chief addressed the people to explain why the Libyan war was necessary. Post-speech, I expected at least some fundamental opposition to going to war, but there was none. Instead, there was was a rush to defend and apologize for the Chief, or to argue the war should be conducted differently. Here is a sampling of commentary from major opinion-setters around the nation:

Los Angeles Times

In his speech Monday, Obama addressed thorny questions (about the war) with cogency and clarity...

New York Times

President Obama made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies...

Washington Post

..a policy that curtails American involvement at the expense of failing to resolve Libya's crisis may only lead to greater costs and dangers.

The Weekly Standard

I found it reassuring (that) the President was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing and didn't shrink from defending the use of force....

If, among the cacophony criticizing Bush's wars during his tenure, there were any voices fundamentally opposed to war, they are silent now. Even libertarian talking heads, who usually took a non-partisan anti-war stand on Iraq/Afghanistan, are mostly quiet this time.

It seems the American conscience is blinded by the awesome radiance of its own military might. A collective sensibility so numbed by power, it feels no need to exercise its morality. To borrow from Thurgood Marshall:

"Power, not reason, is the new currency of decision-making."

Uncle Tom's legacy

2011-03-30T20:45:00.000-07:00

Jalen Rose, former NBA player and ESPN analyst, has had the racial pot stirred in recent days with his comments in The Fab Five, a documentary about the famous '91-'92 Michigan basketball team. In the film, he criticizes Duke University and its propensity to recruit only black athletes of a certain socio-economic background - presumably those from well-to-do, educated families and not those from inner cities. He framed his criticism, however, in words condescending to the blacks recruited by Duke:

"I hated Duke. And I hated everything I felt Duke stood for. Schools like Duke didn't recruit players like me. I felt like they only recruited black players that were Uncle Toms."

The term Uncle Tom, borrowed from the lead character of Uncle Tom's Cabin, is used condescendingly for blacks, mostly by blacks, to indicate submissiveness to the ways of the white mainstream. A sharp reaction to Rose came from the Washington Post's Jason Reid:

"(Jalen Rose) seems to hold firm to his flawed belief that the experience of some African Americans are "more black" than those of others. The premise, misguided as it is, asserts that academic achievement, professional accomplishment and affluence somehow reduces or eliminates a person's blackness."

On that subject, not long ago, I was amused to stumble upon a rather obscure and unexpected references to the UncleTom-ness of Booker T. Washington, a rather well-known black educator and leading light of Tuskegee. This is from Their Eyes Were Watching God, a 1937 novel set in black culture of the American south in the early 1900s; two (black) women are talking about Washington:

"All he ever done was cut de monkey for white folks. So they pomped him up. He didn't do nothin' but hold us back - talkin' 'bout work when de race ain't never done nothin' else. He wuz uh white folks' nigger."

Of course, the the character of Uncle Tom is timeless, colorless, and placeless. I have privately wondered on occasion if Mohandas Gandhi had some shades of Uncle Tom, having initially gotten the idea from the way UCLA professor Stanley Wolpert pomped up Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Gandhi's mentor, in Tilak and Gokhale: Revolution and Reform in the Making of Modern India. To Wolpert, and to many other Western observers (for example, these), Gokhale and Gandhi stood for desirable reform, while Tilak represented a meaningless revolution.

In that context, if I was to vote for Uncle Tom #1 in today's world, it would be a no-brainer: Mahmoud Abbas.

A leg, on the safe side

2011-03-23T22:18:00.000-07:00

The United States is at war with Libya. The Warmonger-in-Chief is confident that it will be a feather-touch one. Said he:

"I have absolutely no doubt that we will be able to transfer control of this operation to an international coalition."

Look who is talking about war like it was a video game. Like thrusting the joystick in a younger sibling's hands before running to take a dump.

* * * * *

Yesterday, a US fighter plane crashed near Benghazi due to mechanical failure. The two pilots ejected and parachuted to the ground safely. Now, remember that Benghazi is US-friendly territory.

Between the time that the pilots reached the ground and a rescue helicopter picked them up, two 500-pound bombs were dropped from other planes around the downed fliers' position "as precaution". While the rescue party was on the ground to pick up the pilots, they opened fire on locals, injuring six.

Channel 4's reporter on the ground reports that a small boy expects to have his leg amputated due to a bullet wound.

Oh that fog of war!

The West deserves only so much criticism

2011-03-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

March 12: The League of Arab States requests the U.N Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

March 17: The Security Council approves a no-fly zone over Libya and authorizes "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

March 19: Enforcement of the no-fly zone begins. French warplanes fly over Libyan skies, and American and British warships fire missiles into Libya.

March 20: The Arab League condemns the foreign military actions in Libya. General Secretary Amr Moussa says: "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone."

Let NPR go the Fannie way

2011-03-14T21:58:00.001-07:00

I belong to the camp that believes that taxpayer-supported and government-directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a big role in creating the moral hazards that led to irresponsible lending and borrowing in the housing market, ultimately contributing to exacerbating the financial crisis of the late 2000s. Therefore, I welcome the Obama administration's initiative aimed at stripping federal backing of these entities, and reducing the federal role in housing mortgages.

As much as the Friends-of-Fannie-Freddie may wail, the end of these banks as we know them will not stop Americans from taking out housing loans. It will not stop Americans from buying and selling houses.

As little as the federal government's patronage of housing finance is desirable, its patronage of public radio is lesser so. Perhaps at some point in the past, there might have been an argument for taxpayer support of radio; today there isn't. In the aftermath of the sting scandal, the federal government must withdraw its support of NPR.

Make no mistake, I am a faithful follower and supporter of NPR and its local affiliate (even though I wince when its decidedly liberal interviewers/pundits ask soft questions to liberal interviewees, and lay out traps for conservative ones). But this is no sacrifice on my part - Fannie's death will not signal the end of the housing market and the end of federal funding does not mean the death of NPR.

* * * *

Random tidbit: Some NPR hosts sound so terribly snobbish and hoity-toity, I imagine them talking with a garlic clove stuffed up one of their nostrils. Now, there is no scientific or anecdotal evidence that such a culinary placement causes snobbishness; but the mental image somehow makes sense. If you ever listen to Renee, especially when she interviews, remember to use my visual aid.

Choice of one is denial of others

2011-03-13T08:34:00.000-07:00

In Jim Crow's Children: The Broken Promise of the Brown Decision, Peter Irons rolls out an expansive history of the fifty years preceding the famous Brown vs. Board of Education Topeka decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the one which ruled that segregating students by color was unconstitutional.

In those fifty years, presiding judges and legal parties on either side danced around the question of whether or not segregation is constitutional, instead dealing with peripheral issues like whether separate schools still provided equal opportunities, and whether segregation had detrimental impacts on black students' psyche. Brown vs. Topeka finally tackled the issue of constitutionality head-on, and overturned segregation on the basis of it violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

Curiously, a case with a similar pattern of dancing-around-the-main-issue arose in the High Court of Gujarat. A gentleman by the name of Rajesh Solanki filed suit that the offering of Hindu-style prayers at the ground-breaking ceremony of a state building is non-secular, and thus unconstitutional.

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the case, and went a step further and accused the petitioner of perjury and inflicted a penalty of Rs. 20,000 on him. The entire text of the statement is worth reading here. Besides the fact that the ruling has historic consequences, it is notable because it drips with an attitude not befitting the Court.

In justification of the ruling, the Court presented an interpretation of secularism from an earlier ruling that "secularism is not anti God", therefore the state's invocation of divine blessing on a building project is still secular. It is amusing that the the Court freely uses concepts from the Vedas, a text that is arguably at the heart of Hinduism, to support its position.

The ruling is likely to be overturned at some point in the coming years or decades, as much for its creative reliance on religious texts, as for its faulty logic. We shall see.

The Johns of War

2011-03-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

Over the past few days, several prominent American politicians have lobbied for a no-fly zone to be enforced over Libya. In response, here is White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley:

"Lots of people throw around phrases of 'no-fly zone' and they talk about it as though it's just a game, a video game or something."

The answer is so appropriate, no further commentary is necessary here. But hey, there is never a bad time to recite the Warmonger Roll Call (abridged):

John "Hoar of War" Kerry: "[We should] prepare a no-fly zone in conjunction with our allies, not implement it." (Right. I am going to put a glob of toothpaste on my toothbrush and patiently stand in front of the wash basin, not brush.)

John "War Shrill" McCain: "This would send a signal to Gadhafi that President [Obama] is serious when he says we need for Gadhafi to go."

Ladies and gentlemen, if you have ever wonder why ~ 100,000 people were needlessly killed in Iraq, remember it was because of people like these.

Sources: Kerry photo McCain photo

Journalistic objectivity

2011-03-06T10:55:00.001-08:00

At what point does a news report cross the line and become an opinion piece? Consider this news article from the Guardian:

Libya Loyalists Celebrate Muammar Gaddafi's Phoney Triumphs

Journalistic objectivity

2011-03-06T10:55:00.000-08:00

At what point does a news report cross the line and become an opinion piece? Consider this news article from the Guardian:

Libya Loyalists Celebrate Muammar Gaddafi's Phoney Triumphs

I owe him

2011-03-03T20:49:00.000-08:00

Greatbong writes of his cozy relationship with his Amar Chitra Kathas, and the passing away of Anant Pai. Like the Greatbong and millions others, I too grew up with Amar Chitra Katha and Tinkle, Pai's creations. Peace be to the Uncle.

Freedom wins

2011-03-03T20:03:00.000-08:00

No, no, Gaddafi is still in power; this has to do with freedom of speech in America.

A few months back, I had mentioned the Westboro case that the Supreme Court was hearing then. The suit was filed by the father of a deceased U.S. Marine against members of the anti-homosexual Westboro church for intruding on his privacy by demonstrating at the son's funeral.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in favor of Westboro, on grounds that the First Amendment shields the demonstrators from the lawsuit. As much as the church's actions are despicable, the court's ruling is reassuring. One interesting assertion forming the basis of the opinion is that whether agreeable or not, the issue the church was demonstrating about was of public concern.

"The content of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters. The placards highlighted issues of public import—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the Nation, homosexuality in the military....and Westboro conveyed its views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public audience as possible."

Thus establishing that the demonstration was on a public issue, the rest was simple. Drawing from precedent, the court said:

"Speech on public issues occupies the 'highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values' and is entitled to special protection."

Then, the fact that the Marine's father was emotional hurt by the protest becomes immaterial:

"The context of the speech—its connection with Matthew Snyder’s funeral—cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech."

Even as the Chief Warmonger is positioning his toys vis-a-vis Libya, all Americans should celebrate the victory of freedom of speech at home.

Read the full opinion here. The summary on the first four pages is truly worth your time.

Golden words

2011-03-01T21:38:00.000-08:00

I consider myself a conservative when it comes to fiscal public policy, and usually gobble up most fiscal prescriptions made by the likes of Ron Paul, Sauvik Chakraverti and Peter Schiff . Yet, one element of the conservative school of thought that has always stuck me as illogical has been the role of gold.

According to their line of reasoning, government-issued money today is a travesty since it is not backed by real wealth. So far, so good. But this usually leads to a conclusion that gold should again play a role in how central banks issue money; in other words, all money should be backed by gold, where the real value lies. That is where the I fall off the bus.

Warren Gibson attempts to address some questions about the value of gold in this article in The Freeman. He makes a good start with the following line, which echoes my sentiment towards gold as a symbol of economic strength:

Actually, nothing has intrinsic value.

He does not follow through with that bold statement though. How gold has any more intrinsic value than, say, a clay brick, is not clear. Does the coupling of rarity and remarkable physical properties alone mean value?

Class

2011-02-28T20:54:00.001-08:00

What happens when poor black families move from inner cities move to become neighbors with richer ones?

This very interesting article from the AP illustrates one such case from the Detroit suburb of Southfield. Says Southfield's police chief Thomas, himself black:

I've got people of color who don't want people of color to move into (Southfield). It's not a black-white thing. There is a black-black thing. My six-figure blacks are very concerned about multiple-family, economically depressed people moving into rental homes and apartments, bringing in their bad behaviors."

Wonder if this situation is similar to that preceding white flight, in class/economic if not racial terms?

Fellow-Malthusians, feel free to scream

2011-02-23T07:06:00.001-08:00

Maeklong Railway Market in Bangkok.

Civil rights movement: 50 years thence

2011-02-20T22:16:00.000-08:00

American Radioworks recently released a voice documentary called State of Siege: Mississippi Whites and the Civil Rights Movement which chronicles the resistance put up by the state and people of Mississippi to the end of segregation.

Very listenable. Read transcript here or stream here.

One startling bit of information one gathers is that while most private white schools then created to circumvent racial integration eventually closed down or started admitting students from other races, some of these "white academies" still exist.

Photo credit [Link]

Bear of ignorance

2011-02-14T20:59:00.000-08:00

A logical bear would not hug this dude. About 66% of the world's electricity comes from coal-fired plants. The Nissan Leaf pictured here is more likely than not to be powered by coal, and coal combustion is the single biggest source of carbon dioxide pollution which is understood to contribute to global warming .

My objective is not to rail against electric cars; it is to rail against cars. Indeed, if this were a truly thinking bear, s/he would hug someone who takes the bus/train to work.

The personal car is the second-most dubious of man's creations (religion taking the first spot, of course). It does not make good sense to eat soup using a shovel. It does not make any sense to carry around a bed sheet as a handkerchief. Why then does a car make sense as a method of personal transport? Why is it sensible to carry around 2,500 kgs of metal to take a person weighing 80 kgs from point A to point B? Why does it make sense to fuel 100-plus horsepowers when much less would do?

If you said "safety" or "speed" in response to my rhetorical questions, you certainly have a point. However, the meeting point between pragmatism and purpose has rarely settled so much on the side of purpose, as it has in the case of the personal car. Leaf-owners or not, there are no hugs for us, really.

End of an era?

2011-02-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

If I was a patriotic Israeli, I would be anxious. The financial might of the country's biggest patron - the United States - is waning; its political and military might is likely to follow suit. Three of Israel's neighboring countries, where the U.S. enthusiastically promoted democracy, elected governments that are unfriendly, if not hostile, to Israel.

At what point will it become unfeasible, politically and financially, for the United States to continue its unconditional support for Israel? When push comes to shove, how hard will Israel's promoters in Washington shove?

For American legislators across the political spectrum, whose campaigns are boosted by Israel-backers, questioning their country's support of Israel is not only unfashionable, it is suicidal.

Maybe that is not completely true. Senator Rand Paul (yes, the same one who, during his campaign, created a ruckus by saying that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act) positioned money flowing to Israel in the context of America's fiscal position:"I want to be known as a friend of Israel, but not with money you don’t have. We can’t just borrow from our kids’ future and give it to countries, even if they are our friends.”
It is semi-amusing to read the logic of the outcry over Paul's comments - if dogma can be called logic. Most opponents of his stance make a case for continuing aid simply because that is what has been traditionally done, or repeat the banal argument that propping up Israel promotes peace and America's interests in the Middle East. There is no evidence of the latter; on the contrary, America's illogical support of Israel has severely weakened its interests in the Middle East and the world.

A non-existential dilemma

2011-02-03T20:30:00.000-08:00

A big fight is looming in the U.S. Congress as the county approaches its debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion. The easy solution, advocated mostly by Democrats, is that Congress simply raise the ceiling yet again (it has been raised about 70 times in the past 50 years). The harder, mostly Republican, one is to not raise it, instead cut governmental services to keep borrowing under the limit.

Austan Goolsbee, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, cautions against the Republican suggestion that it would lead the U.S. to default on its debt and damage its good faith and credit.

That argument is pure nonsense. It is like sticking an eraser in each nostril and run around screaming "I can't breathe!". A couple of counter-arguments:

First, place those interest-collectors first in line at pay-off time. That is what millions of financially overstretched, profligate Americans (was there a redundant word among the last two?) do fortnight after fortnight; pay off their most urgent debts first.

Second, as far as the good faith and credit goes, is simple - TINA. "TINA" is a concept explained to me long ago by friends who went to IRMA. It stands for There Is No Alternative. If, according to Mr Goolsbee's logic, foreign investors and nations slow down on buying American bonds, what will they buy? The Renminbi? I doubt it. In spite of its faults, America still provides the world an exceptional level of predictability and comfort in its robust legal, political, capitalist, and innovation systems. The very fact that America is having a lively and consequential discussion about its debt ceiling speaks a comforting lot about its political pedigree.

The irony of it is, as long as America's potential lenders have no plausible alternative, America will not have a TINA-moment that will force it to make a difficult decision.

Not to say the Republicans' stand is praiseworthy. Their proposal to manage with budget cuts across the board except on defense spending is cynical and self-serving. If the ceiling-retainers were to have some credibility in this writer's eyes, they should propose hefty defense cuts. Most ceiling-retainers are self-styled stewards of the Constitution; really, what part of the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to operate military bases in, say, Japan?

Where are the women?

2011-01-31T21:36:00.000-08:00

While following the Egypt protests, one thing I have been struck by is the apparent absence of women among the protesting masses. In the approximately 50-100 photos/videos of Egyptian crowds I have seen, there has not been even a single woman in sight. By contrast, the Tunisian and Iranian protests had a woman for approximately every 5-10 images.

In fact, one of the enduring symbols of the Iranian protests (at least in Western circles) was the killing of a woman, Neda Agha-Soltan (even though, interestingly, she was not a protester, just a bystander).

Granted, my location is remote, sample size small, and statistical approach shady. But surely, the relative difference surely says something, no?

* * * *

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, while commenting on the Egypt situation took a jab at Iran:

"I want the Egyptian people to have a chance to....democracy. Not faux democracy, like the elections we saw in Iran..."

This was just plain nasty and unwarranted. For all its flaws (including that of having a whimsical religious leader playing the part of the constitution), Iran has a democracy of sorts which has elected the likes of the progressive Mohammed Khatami in the past.To equate Iran's rigged election with Egypt's lack of democracy is in no way reasonable.

Perhaps it would have been more fitting for Ms Clinton to have compared one of the United States' client state, Egypt, with another, Saudi Arabia, which also has no democracy to speak of.

* * * *

One wonders, how long will this moral-high-road charade of supporting "democracy" by so-called liberal Western democracies continue? The Palestinians' democratically elected government of Hamas was never recognized by them; instead they have clubbed with the Palestinian Authority to thoroughly void the Hamas government's authority through economic and military sanctions. The democratically elected but Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government is barely off the starting block but is being roundly pooh-poohed by these paragons of democracy.

All democracies are equal, but some democracies are more equal than others, right?

* * * *

By toppling the more-or-less secular Saddam regime, the US unwittingly paved the path for a government that is decidedly Islamic in nature and supported by an openly militant Islamic cleric. As far as US interests (read Israel) are concerned, it only goes downhill from here. Is the same happening in Egypt, albeit without any material US support? What if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power?

Parents in law

2011-01-30T18:34:00.000-08:00

The Chinese legislature is considering a draft bill which calls for more emotional care of the elderly. The bill, if enacted, will amend the existing Law on the Protection of Rights and Interests of the Aged and will require that elderly parents be visited regularly by their children. It is expected to prevent physical and emotional isolation of the elderly.

I can come up with many arguments as to why this law is not fair, on the basis of some truisms about individual liberties. Yet, all societies obligate parents to support their offspring until they are children and I am more inclined than not to think that taking care of the elderly is the logical flip side of the coin.

Further, societies with social welfare programs spend significant sums of money after the elderly. Perhaps there is a economic argument too, for these kinds of laws.

* * *

On the subject, India enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act in 2007. The law obligates children and legal heirs who have attained majority to provide for their elderly relatives.

***

While still on the subject, check out this traditional Chinese song 常回家看看 (Go see your parents frequently). This rendition is by Gong Yue.

Perhaps the inspiration for the proposed law. A translation is here.

So, what caused America's economic woes?

2011-01-26T20:11:00.000-08:00

Like the blind men and the allegorical elephant, every person who cares to think about this question has a different theory, there being half a dozen to dozen dominant aggregate theories. This week's issue of Economist speculates on a couple of relatively less-paraded ones (here and here). Not that these are new ideas, but I promptly took note because they seem to resonate with my own notions of the elephant:

1. Price of oil

My friend D and I often commiserate with each other and jointly wonder/seethe at the energy profligacy of our fellow men. When oil touched $120 a barrel back in 2008, I remember spending a summer afternoon exchanging our ignorance on what damage such prices would do in an economy so dependent on cheap energy.

In this paper, James Hamilton of the University of California proposes through a study of historical energy prices and economic downturns that indeed, high oil prices may have been one of the culprits:

"The correlation between oil shocks and economic recessions appears to be too strong to be just a coincidence. If consumers try to maintain their real purchases of energy in the face of rising prices, their saving or spending on other goods must fall commensurately."

Crude has been inching up steady for a past few months and flirting with the 90s now. One wonders...

2. The US' promotion of easy homeownership

In his book Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, Raghuram Rajan at the University of Chicago suggests that in America, the political response to rising inequality was to make credit easily available to prop up the living standards of those at the bottom.

"Easy credit has been used as a palliative throughout history by governments that are unable to address the deeper anxieties of the middle class. Politicians, however, want to couch the objective in more uplifting and persuasive terms.....in the United States, the expansion of homeownership was the defensible linchpin for expanding credit and consumption."

Interestingly, Peter Wallison, one of the members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, has released a dissent opinion which places the blame for the financial crisis squarely at the feet of the US government's housing policies.

* * * * *

On the subjection of self-deceiving public policy, saw the documentary I.O.U.S.A the other day. It is a well-made, roundly depressing piece of work. The film has a clip of Gerald Ford's 1975 State of the Union speech when he announced "...I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good...". I was fantasizing that Obama would give an equally blunt message in his speech yesterday. Of course he didn't. Hope obstructed realism.

Messing with a sacred cow

2011-01-22T00:04:00.000-08:00

This interesting article from McClatchy compares the Canadian housing market and lending policies with those in America. Not a single bank in Canada failed during the financial crisis, and less than one percent of all mortgages are under threat of default. Things are very, very different in the U.S.

The articles looks at a number of things the Canadians did to not screw up. The most significant thing that caught my eye was the fact that Canada offers no tax write-offs for interest paid on house mortgage payments unlike America where homeowners enjoy the deductions provided by the federal government ostensibly to promote home ownership. However:

..even without a mortgage-interest deduction, Canada's percentage of home ownership at 68.4 percent is comparable to U.S. home ownership rates.

I have always found the interest write-off to be unfair and ass-backwards. Unfortunately, it is too popular with the voter bases of both parties, which makes is somewhat of a untouchable subject and unlikely to go away easily.

But then, there is much noise from House Republicans now in a majority about sweeping changes to make the government smaller and simplifying the tax code. Well, the interest write-off is a perfect example of social engineering, something Republicans would not like to be seeing doing. Very good reason to tackle it. Deficit hawks should also take note.

Conscience of convenience

2011-01-19T19:46:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama entertained Chinese president Hu Jintao today. Among other things, Obama politely admonished China for its "human rights" record:

"History shows that societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful and the world is more just when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being..."

One can't help exclaim: What cheek!

The United States of America is presently waging at least one clearly illegal war. President Obama's men routinely shoot and bomb Afghanis, Iraqis, and North Africans on their own soil for doing nothing more than what Americans themselves do - choose violence to advance their own philosophical or economic goals (however disagreeable they may be). The number of civilian deaths from the aimless Iraq war is almost 100,000 if not more. The American armament industry thrives on wars waged abroad.

While the civility with which America treats its own citizens is indeed remarkable, it shows no regard whatsoever for rights of human beings elsewhere, except in self-serving circumstances. Really, what moral audacity to call someone else's human rights record in doubt!

Warmonger-in-chief meets lesser evil (photo credit: IBT)

A fresh whiff of onion breath

2011-01-16T22:52:00.000-08:00

There are tons of proponents of the free market (including this blogger) who will advocate that most regulations are unnecessary. Incidentally, it so happens that more often than not, market deregulation seems to benefit the rich.

Avinash offers the same argument, but turns the results upside down. Why ban onion exports, he argues, when the apparent beneficiaries are going to be farmers, the ones who always bear the brunt when prices go down?

Short but interesting read here.

Two exceptions

2011-01-06T20:12:00.000-08:00

Of the difference between travel writers and travelling writers: the former write of the experience, of the joys and sorrows, of travelling as an end in itself. The place they travel to is of no more importance than the phenomenon of their presence there. Travelling writers, on the other hand, will write about the place they are in.

Travel writers are generally harmless. Like an aimless gust of wind sweeping over a pile of turd or an open-air barbecue, they only carry ephemeral impressions. They have short memories and are, in turn, forgettable.

Not so with travelling writers; be skeptical of their opinions. These will stay in a place long enough to pick up the 'authoritative' badge, then offer a pedestrian report burnished with that very badge. Travelling commentators supposedly have an edge over native ones because they write about things with an external perspective that the latter do not have. The problem is, perspective is of no use without good sight, and unfortunately most travelling writers fail to properly see things before rushing to put them in perspective.

Dissing travelling writers is not what this post is about; I have recently been taken by surprise by a couple of delightfully insightful accounts of India coming from drive-by observers. These are what this post is about:

1. A Village in a Million is an excellent account of Shahabpur in Uttar Pradesh by Economist correspondent James Astill.

"Demeaning, divisive, dismissable", my friends in the There-Are-No-Two-Indias camp will sneer. Perhaps so. But notable just for the richness of vision and detail of observation. Little, unimportant details like why it makes sense to walk along the middle of the street in Shahabpur to why Jokho Lal may be the last of his calling.

2. India Calling: The New 'Land Of Opportunity'? by American writer Anand Giridharadas is interesting for the author's sharp vision, and equally so for the intelligent placement of observations within an American perspective.

Both worth a read.

They don't do it no more

2011-01-02T23:22:00.000-08:00

Came across this rather interesting video of how a leather football is manufactured:

I enjoyed watching the details, but thought something was strange about it. Took me a while to put my finger on it: the people engaged in the repetitive, humdrum tasks were not Vietnamese, not Bangladeshis, but Americans.

Think of the stereotype of an American worker: she fights wars, invents, sues, buys, sells, teaches, nurses, packages loans, and struts around like Jerry in the first 15 minutes of Jerry Maguire. What you don't see her doing is making stuff with her own hands.

OK, that was a little facetious, but not entirely make-believe. American manufacturing has been declining steeply in the past 50 years. It has gone from accounting for 53 percent of the economy in 1965 to 9 percent in 2004. In the same period, agricultural work was increasingly being performed by foreign migrant workers. Borrowing and spending has replaced production as the chief economic activity of this nation.

Much is said about the collapse in house prices and the financial meltdown, as if these caused the economic malaise. But these are mere symptoms. Indeed, the biggest untold story of the current economic narrative is the demise of American production.

I am taking bets on whether Wilson will still be manufacturing footballs using American labor 5 years hence...

The NRA stands up for Latinos

2010-12-30T21:09:00.000-08:00

Well, not exactly. But it is one way of looking at this:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is planning to increase regulation of gun sales in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California with the objective of stemming the outward flow of powerful rifles which play a big part in drug-related violence in Mexico. Gun dealers in these states will be required to report any customers who buy more than one semi-automatic weapon within five days.

Now, the gun-lobby views any kind of regulation on rights of gun-ownership or purchase as bordering on state tyranny, so their opposition was predictable. The National Rifle Association's Chris Cox argued:

"This is nothing more than a political policy that seems to be based more on Mexico blaming the US for its problems. To focus the efforts on law abiding gun owners is not a serious approach. It won't do anything to disrupt a multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise."

Yet, the decision to oppose the regulation was probably not an easy one for the NRA. The organization is as conservative as they come, and "law-abiding gun owner" is probably not the same as "Latino gun owner", in its eyes. Moreover, the four states affected by the proposed regulations are also the ones with the highest Latino populations in the nation. Indeed, had the NRA not opposed the regulations, this blogger would probably have cried racism, hypocrisy, double-standards, or something of that sort.

The parallels between this regulation and the divisive Arizona immigration law are interesting. Both laws are ostensibly meant to aid law enforcement, but have strong racial aspects just because of the location of where they are being enacted. I won't be surprised if ACLU also throws itself into this fray!

Irrational melancholy

2010-12-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

The so-called Great Recession was led, arguably, by the collapse of a highly overheated housing market which in turn was egged on by low interest rates and lightly-regulated banking practices. The tumbling economy was reflected by the stock markets; the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell from its October 2007 peak of around 14,000 points to almost 6,500 points at its nadir in March 2009.

There is good reason to believe that had the Fed controlled the post-2001 low-interest-rate orgy sooner, or if the orgy had not happened in the first place, housing markets and the economy by consequence would have stayed stabler.

Yet, stock markets tumbled worldwide when China increased the benchmark lending rates last week to stabilize growth and let the steaming economy cool off a bit. Well, hello, free markets! There are many who castigate the stock market for the woes it brings upon itself and the world via its short-term thinking; they couldn't be more right in this case.

Race in football

2010-12-23T01:14:00.000-08:00

This year's BCS National Championship game, which matches the two best-ranked college football teams, will have University of Oregon playing against Auburn University. What is remarkable is that both these teams will have black men - Jeremiah Masoli and Cam Newton - as their starting quarterbacks. While black athletes dominate virtually every other position in the game (except another - see below), quarterbacking remains the white man's domain.

Newton also won the 2010 Heisman Trophy - the most-coveted honor for a college football athlete. Neither is this Heisman the first won by a black quarterback, nor is the BCS match-up between two black quarterbacks a first; yet one wonders if this signals a trend.

* * *

Similar to quarterbacking, there is a small but not-statistically-insignificant number of black coaches in college and professional football. Some of the numbers in the NFL can arguably be attributed to the Rooney Rule which the league enforces on its teams since 2003 which requires teams to interview minority candidates when filling senior coaching positions.

Generally speaking, some affirmative actions can be classed as necessary evils. Others may be unnecessary. But the Rooney Rule is neither - it is plain bizarre.

* * *

The one football position where black athletes don't seem even dimly poised to make a breakthrough in is that of the kicker. The lack of black kickers in college or professional football is quite inexplicable. As of today, none of the 32 NFL teams has any.

* * *

Off-topic: This one promises to be a rather stray observation, but what is it with kickers having East European-sounding names? Here is a sampling: Janikowski (Raiders), Gostowski (New England), Czech (Pittsburgh), and Hauschka (Denver).

Barking up the wrong tree

2010-12-13T12:41:00.000-08:00

Whichever way the tax debate goes, it is clear that the one objective that is on all sides' agenda, and which is likely to be met, is that of putting some extra cash in middle-class Americans' pockets. The underlying assumption and expectation is that they will go out and spend that cash, thereby stimulating the economy.

However, unless these patriot-consumers buy from a very slim range of goods that are made in America, it is likely that their purchases will end up creating new jobs somewhere else in the world - in spite of high retail markups (see Note 1). Further, the deficit in the state's budget as a result of the tax cut will be filled by borrowing from foreign lenders.

Somehow, these actions are supposed to be good for the American economy.

I spoke to a partner of an architectural firm recently about his outlook for business next year. He didn't see any construction activity picking up locally, but mentioned that their design projects in China are keeping them afloat. "The Chinese are still building", said he. Why not, when they have American policy-makers on their side?

---

Note 1: Recovery hawks are quick to point out uptrends in retail sector jobs. Celebrating retail jobs for the lack of any other strong indicators is like saying "We have no money for groceries. But thats OK, because the kids have now gotten used to the taste of cardboard.".

One man's hero...

2010-12-09T21:30:00.000-08:00

NPR ran a story today comparing China's restriction on Liu Xiabo's attendance at the Nobel ceremony to the Nazis restricting peace activist Carl von Ossietzk from doing the same in 1936. Besides the obvious comparison between China and Nazi Germany, the narrator uses the phrase "growing German militarism" as if underlining the fear rising in the West about China's growing militarism (the Economist titled its lead editorial in the Dec 4 issue The Dangers of a Rising China).

The story goes on to report that one of Carl von Ossietzk's acts which impressed the Nobel committee and pissed off the German government was that he ran an expose of Germany re-arming its air force in violation of the post-WW1 treaty. He was sentenced to prison for "giving away state secrets".

The timing of this comparison could not have been better. As we speak, someone else who gave away state secrets is being persecuted/prosecuted (take your pick). Wikileaks has been forced off the air, its funding has been throttled, and Julian Assange is under arrest on a possibly valid charge but facing a bleak future nevertheless. It is hard not to compare Assange to von Ossietsk and Liu (terms like 'non-violent activist', 'government critic', 'whistleblower', ~~'rapist'~~ come to mind), but NPR's high-minded editors missed it. Apparently, criticism of the government and non-violent activism to expose its actions are admirable qualities only when directed elsewhere.

NPR may miss the obvious; the Nobel committee may miss it too; but guess who will not.

* * *

China has called the selection of Liu for the Nobel Peace prize an attempt by democratic nations to humiliate the country. While rejecting the everyone-against-me playground conspiracy theory, I agree with China on the humiliation bit, but insist that fewer words describe the idea behind the Nobel for Liu: ऊँगली.

Drivers of knowledge

2010-12-04T22:29:00.000-08:00

I usually don't use taxis when traveling, instead favoring public transit because of the overwhelming sense of place that it provides (of course, in many places in America, rental cars have to do for lack of a choice). However, in a certain Midwestern town that I frequent for work, I do find myself riding taxis a lot for one reason or the other.

As with any successful conversation with a stranger in a new place, chats with taxi drivers are often very interesting and informative. But, in this particular town, I have always been struck with how extraordinarily knowledgeable the drivers have been.

On one occasion, the driver gave me a field geology lesson as we drove through rolling hills and cornfields to my destination; pointing out different formations and sharing interesting agricultural facts he had learnt as a part-time farmer. On yet another (this time sharing the taxi with 2 stranger co-passengers - it was the only cab available at 1'o clock in the morning), the discussion veered towards the economy and property prices and the driver proceeded to rattle economic statistics for the county and gave us a schpeel about what the region was not doing right in terms of attracting industrial enterprises.

During my last trip there, I was driven by a woman who had graduated from college, trained as a teacher, spent a few years teaching at a Native American reservation in the Southwest, returned to the Midwest when she got "homesick to her bones", and took up taxi driving because of the flexible hours it offered. Our conversation ranged from the home construction methods to the Palestine-Israel issue.

Pretty impressive (to my sappy genteel sensibilities, at least).

* * *

The last Midwest trip coincided with the opening of the deer hunting season. I have some strong views about hunting (if I write a post on that subject, it will be called Manly Pussies) yet cannot be but amused at the scale of excitement among Midwesterners about this annual ritual. Hunting is serious business, or it is made out to be, in any case. The ado is something to be seen to be believed.

Irrational exhuberance

2010-11-11T12:37:00.000-08:00

After the US Federal Reserve announced QE2 (i.e., its intention to print more money), equity markets around the world jumped with hope. This optimistic reception has me baffled.

Since the past few months, there has been a lot of hand-wringing about corporations having loads of money, but not the confidence to hire or spend. I googled "sitting on cash" and the result offers a good idea of this phenomenon. There also seems to be evidence that households are cutting back on spending the money they already have, thanks to the feeling of insecurity. Home sales are still falling in spite of record-low interest rates.

It appears the American economy has the cash, but not the confidence. How is pumping more money going to help?

On the side: I also googled "cash rich", and came across this snippet. Country singer John Rich and his wife had a son earlier this year. They named him Cash. Cash Rich.

Arundhati and sedition - the legal angle

2010-10-27T23:38:00.000-07:00

Read this short but well-researched article on precedents for the use of Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code and its applicability to Arundhati Roy. It is rare to come across such objective analyses in the mainstream media, especially while the dust over a matter has not yet settled. In the middle of the emotional hysteria, who has the time to ask what the law says?

While you are on the story, also check out the reader comments on the same story. Note the number of calls for her head in spite of there not being adequate legal basis for it, and the references to how democratic will should trump laws. I am not about to start statisticizing on the basis of reader comments, of all things, but nonetheless the large-scale disregard for the due process of law is noteworthy.

Thursday morning LOL

2010-10-21T09:26:00.000-07:00

Via Hari Jagannath Balasubramanian:

The part I empathize most with Hayek is when he pulls open a drawer in the hotel room and finds the Keynes book. If one stays in a motel/hotel in the US, one can't miss the Bible tactically placed in the bed-side drawer (thanks to Gideons International). Keynesianism and religion both seem to be in a tight race as to which one is the more backward-minded dogma.

God gave you style and gave you grace

2010-10-18T19:47:00.000-07:00

I like it when agents of the government are advised of the limits of their power in a nice way. Reminds me of Gandhi.

Post title credit: God Put A Smile Upon Your Face by Coldplay

Ignobel

2010-10-13T18:14:00.000-07:00

Every time you find out something that you realize should have been obvious, you grow a bit older.

For instance, in my early years I used to think that India's independence was a highly dramatic affair. I would imagine British ships hastily sailing away on the midnight of 14th August, with their formerly colonized throwing rocks, or worse, at them from the docks. It took me a long time to figure out that while independence was still a watershed event for India, it was a rather drawn-out political process like any other; that the process was aided and sometimes choreographed by the British themselves; that British officials stayed as advisers long after independence day.

Don't laugh, but till Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for doing virtually nothing, I actually thought the prize meant something absolute. Now don't get me wrong; I am not saying the prize is totally a charade, but before Obama I never realized that it was a platform to promote political/social goals as much as anything else. They should call it 'Nobel Attempts at Self-Fulfilling Prophecies'.

This year's Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo heightens my cynicism (and makes me older?). It is a cynical, naughty award.

Listen to Sauvik Chakreverti, one of the commentators I avidly follow, but who sometimes comes across as, oh how do i put it, a nut:

I have been watching this prize for many years now, and seeing it go to complete clowns and dangerous demagogues - Paul Krugman being the best example.

Heh.

Freedom is a double-edged sword - 2

2010-10-06T18:51:00.000-07:00

The US Supreme Court is presently hearing a case which promises to leave a long-lasting impression on the interpretation of the First Amendment, and the future of the right to free speech.

The case has been brought by Albert Snyder, father of a US Marine killed in Iraq, against the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church for invading his privacy by holding an anti-gay, anti-military protest at his son's funeral.

The Westboro Baptist Church is notorious for conducting their acerbic demonstrations at a number of private and public gatherings like funerals, church meetings, and sports events, and Snyder is not the first or last person they have hurt.

Personally, I think having a private funeral disturbed by a political protest would be painful, and my sympathies are with Snyder.

However, the fact that the demonstration caused emotional distress to Snyder is no reason why the court should rule in his favor. Remember that in this case, the facts are not in questions, the interpretation of the law is. Whether the church members' conduct caused pain to Snyder is not in doubt; the question is whether holding them guilty would undermine First Amendment rights.

If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of Snyder, it will set up a precedent whereby any form of non-violent expression which threatens to hurt other people's feelings will be open game for litigation. This has frightful shades of laws such as IPC 295A which makes it a crime to "outrage the religious feelings of (others)", the law the empowered the Indian government to ban Satanic Verses (and has led to a number of frivolous lawsuits such as the the Ravi Shastri one).

As one of the Supreme Court justice remarked today, local laws creating content-neutral zones around funerals are a better response to a situation like this than a personal-injury lawsuit. I agree.

* * * *

While rooting for a decision against Snyder in this case, I wouldn't like to come across as being dogmatic about First Amendment rights. In past cases, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed that First Amendment rights are not absolute, and I do acknowledge that (read more about exclusions here).

* * * *

The justices seem to be having fun. Below is an excerpt from a discussion from the transcript of today's oral arguments on this case:

Justice Alito: Well, it's an elderly person. She's really probably not in -- in a position to punch this person in the nose.

Justice Scalia: And she's a Quaker, too.

(Laughter.)

Incidentally, the topic of discussion here was exclusions to free speech rights.

"Demographic dividend"...

2010-10-05T21:44:00.000-07:00

...seems to be one of the biggest scams in today's economic thought. Possibly a very destructive one.

If I was inclined towards conspiracy theories, I would suggest that advocates/supporters of the notion of demographic dividend (like this and this) are part of a sinister plot against populous societies.

Let them marry

2010-10-01T12:21:00.000-07:00

"Man, wives attract police attention" - this headline caught my attention. The story is about the Brown family in Lehi, Utah, which is featured on the reality show Sister Wives on TLC. The family includes four women, a man who all women consider their spouse, and their sixteen children.

The reason the show drew the police's attention to these gentlefolks is because polygamy is illegal in Utah, like everywhere else in the nation. The family belongs to the Mormon Church; the church officially disavowed polygamy in 1904, but fundamentalists still practice it.

After their fierce support of Prop 8, I didn't think I would find myself defending Mormon beliefs (mainstream or otherwise), but here I am:

Just like gay marriage and prostitution, polygamy is an arrangement between consenting adults - I see no reason why the government should get into private lives of citizens.

Of course, I still hold on to my old argument that as much as the government doesn't have a right to bar polygamy or gay unions, it has no right to endorse any kind of marriage. The first thing that society needs to do to right the historical wrongs against homosexuals and polygamists is to eliminate official recognition of all marriages, and re-define familial unions simply as domestic partnerships - of two or more individuals (see previous arguments against state recognition of marriage here, here, and here).

Law enforcement disgrace

2010-09-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

If there is 'storming a bus', is there such a thing as 'painfully seeping into one'? If so, the Philippine hostage...uhh..."rescue" below would qualify for it.

This is from last month, when a disgruntled former Manila police officer took over the bus to win back his job.

Stephen Colbert's testimony to Congress...

2010-09-27T12:22:00.001-07:00

"...was an embarassment (to himself)", according to Majority Leader Hoyer, and I cannot agree more.

The other day, a friend asked why I don't like stand-up comedy and I had to explain how I don't have much of a stomach for watching other people embarrass themselves; I wince easily, and all but a few classy stand-up acts (them too, not all the time) are nothing but a few instances of laughter interspersed with long periods of wincing.

I tried watching Colbert's testimony and wasn't able to go beyond the first 90 seconds.

Why we fight

2010-09-22T18:06:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the US Senate failed to pass a defense bill which included, among other things, the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy in the military. Before the bill was shut down, Arizona Senator John McCain said in criticism of Democrats who are in favor of repealing DADT:

"...to use a bill that has to do with defending our national security interest when we're in two wars to pursue a social agenda...is reprehensible."

There seems to be something wrong with that statement. The arguments that McCain's fellow hawks have offered in support of America's present and past wars include the spread of liberty and democracy, preserving the American-way-of-life and othersuch social values. If this rhetoric was to be believed, it follows that America fights wars for the promotion of social agendas. Why, then, is Mr McCain complaining?

Interstate influence

2010-09-20T21:18:00.000-07:00

Consider the following:

In 2008, California voters passed Prop 8, which restricted the state's recognition of marriage to that between a man and a woman. 40% of donations that funded the campaign for the proposition came from out of state.

In the recently concluded Republican primaries in Alaska, incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski was unexpectedly nudged out by an upstart, ~~Cristine O'Donnell~~Joe Miller. An often cited force behind the upset is The Tea Party Express, a California based conservative group which supported ~~O'Donnell~~Miller.

In the current campaign in California for Prop 23, which aims to freeze the state's efforts to curb global warming, a key player supporting the campaign is Valero, a Texas-based oil company. It has already poured $4 million into the fight.

What is common in these stories is the influence of out of state players on matters that concern the state. This seems highly inappropriate, but is perfectly constitutional and legal (per current interpretation). Political donations are considered 'free speech' and are thus protected by the First Amendment.

This was mostly recently illustrated by the highly consequential judgment by the Supreme Court that corporate donations to political campaigns may not be restricted by law. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority:

If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

One thinks, sooner or later, American polity would have to re-address this issue from the point of view of influence from outside on electoral affairs within a political jurisdiction (perhaps it has already tried; this writer is too lazy to do his due diligence).

Edit: A kind-hearted but caustic-tongued friend points out I got my politicians wrong. My bad, correction made above. How can anyone get Alaska and Delaware mixed up?

Tax incentives

2010-09-19T16:32:00.000-07:00

= Social engineering

Republicans are usually quick to brand this or that as 'socialist'; it is hard to imagine how selective tax cuts/breaks that they so love so much are anything but that.

But, for a change, in the current debate on extending the Bush tax cuts, they have it right. Between the two evils, a secular tax cut is preferable to a selective one.

Un-pimped via judiciary

2010-09-13T21:47:00.000-07:00

Consider the tragic case of Renu Agarwal, a 39 year old woman who was killed in a road accident in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, which has given rise to some interesting questions about the law, judicial activism, and the role of women in society.

Upon Renu's death, her insurance company offered to pay her family a sum of money far less than what it would have for a person in full-time employment (she was a housewife). Arun, her husband, sued for higher compensation in vain, then appealed to a lower court and finally to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did agree with Arun and ordered the insurance company to pay up a larger sum that the Court found appropriate.

It wasn't the judgment itself but rather the observations made by the Court about inequities in the law that caught national attention. It noted that the current Motor Vehicle Act does not recognize the service, and the economic value thereof, rendered by those who manage households without holding a formal job. The Court went on to observe that this bias extended to classifications adopted in the national census, wherein housewives are "categorized as non-workers and equated with beggars, prostitutes and prisoners who, according to Census, are not engaged in economically productive work".

A couple of aspects of this story struck me:

Firstly, it comes across as extremely media-savvy of the judges to have used the comparison with prostitutes to illustrate the bias against housewives in the Census. The Court could simply have observed that "The Census' categorization of housewives is unfair"; instead it noted that "The Census equates housewives with prostitutes". The former would have been relegated to dusty reams of case law; the latter hit front pages and will probably fuel a political will towards modifications to the law and the Census methodology.

Judicial activism in India has been on the rise since some time now, which can be good or bad depending on how you look at it (without any sarcasm, I personally recognize the "executive judiciary" as the fourth arm of government). On the other hand the impact of mass-media on Indian polity is now more powerful than ever before in history; it is only appropriate that the judiciary too learns how to manipulate the media.

Secondly, on its way to correcting one perception, it seems the Court itself completely failed on another. Which is because it seems to abet the general perception that the work performed by prostitutes is economically non-productive. Does non-authorization of a transaction by the government make it non-productive? Legality is one thing; recognition is another - a service is provided in exchange for money; seems like perfectly fair trade to me (I don't wish to gloss over the fact that some or many prostitutes enter the profession under duress; but that fact contributes or takes away nothing from this argument).

I don't wish to rap the Court on this; one cannot get everything right in one go, and perhaps it is not time yet. In fact, I am convinced that when prostitution does eventually start moving towards legalization, it will not be motivated by the legislature but owing to a big push from either a champion in the executive (e.g. what A Ramadoss did for legalizing homosexuality) or an activist judiciary.

Burn before reading

2010-09-11T16:58:00.000-07:00

9/11 has nearly passed without the Quran-burning by Rev. Terry Jones, but it made for some great spectacle while he was still planning it. Among the number of distinguished voices that tried to dissuade him were those of President Obama and Senator McCain.

Obama:

I want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform. . . . Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda.

McCain:

Pastor Jones' threats to burn the Koran will put American service men/women in danger - for their sake please don't do it!

Note that both gentlemen have invoked the safety of US' occupying forces as an argument against the burning. Isn't there something patently wrong with weighing the wisdom of an act based on the consequences, rather than its inherent morality?

Not to mention that the argument rests on a fat bed of irony. As of March 31, 2010, there were 1.4 million active duty US military personnel posted abroad. These deployments are a cause of major resentment among unfriendly populations, indeed one that has been used very effectively in anti-American propaganda for decades now. Really, how worse can the Quran-burning make it?

Along a different line, a fiercely pacifist friend commented that using safety of troops as an argument against free speech is going down a slippery slope. The same logic can be used to muffle anti-war demonstrations - that the display of lack of political support at home for wars encourages enemies abroad. One cannot disagree.

***

That said, this episode has been a great unintended exposition of America's commitment to free speech (and reassuringly so). Throughout, there has been little or no talk of preventing the act by force. The president beseeching the fellow to change his mind is one thing; him sending federal agents over to Gainesville is another.

Eloquence on a truck

2010-06-29T20:23:00.000-07:00

Spotted on June 26, 2010

***

While on the subject, this year's gubernatorial race in California promises to have plenty of talk about welfare. The Republican nominee, Meg Whitman, has been positioning herself as a welfare reformer, bemoaning the increasingly welfare-state-like status of California (hear this ad).

This attack is part of her larger push to reduce governmental spending by cutting entitlements; an approach that has earned her the enmity of many unions - the California Nurses Association has dubbed her Queen Meg (with reference to her personal wealth and demonstrated capability of buying elections).

***

During the primary race for his presidential nomination in 1976, former US president Ronald Reagan popularized the term welfare queen by making oft references to a woman in Chicago who milked the government's support program to live a lavish lifestyle.

What is it with welfare and queens?