The Heretic's Corner

Seeking Osama bin Laden

2011-03-13T20:00:00.000-07:00

In just under 6 months, we are going to mark the 10-year anniversary of a pretty big terrorist attack on USA - known by its numeric moniker - 9/11. Because everyone would be writing about it, this post is trying to beat the crowds.

Back in 2001, most Americans got mad at the terrorists and their brethren. We demanded that their lair be attacked and the terrorists be annihilated. So, we launched a "War on Terror". Our first mission was to find Osama bin Laden, a one-time "friend" of America who had gone renegade and was the mastermind behind 9/11. Somehow this "War on Terror" morphed into "Seek WMD in Iraq" to "Topple Saddam Hussein because he cast an evil eye on W's dad" to "Bring democracy to Iraq by appointing a charlatan as PM" to "We cannot leave now - the helipad on the Embassy's roof is not yet finished".

Meanwhile Osama is busy hiding in some cave. Almost 10 years later we have no clue where he is. Not only he is not in the news, he has been forgotten in the land that he terrorized 10 years back. Today, we are terrorized by bankers and the whole credit crisis (was it brought on by the "Shop till you drop" method of providing support for our troops?).

So, dear readers, if you have a clue where we can find Osama, please send a letter to:

Manager, United States of America

1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Washington DC

Marijuana Control - Capitalism v. Communism

2010-10-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

It is now official. Californians would have the opportunity to decriminalize marijuana this November by voting for Proposition 19. I am glad for the opportunity. Why? Well, let me count the ways...

We Americans have a prohibition against marijuana aka weed aka ganja. People believe that it is such a harmful substance that mere controls over it (such as minimum age for use) is not enough. It must be permanently banished from our society. Well, try as we might, it has not disappeared. Despite Billions spent on catching the buyers, sellers, smokers and growers and throwing them in jail, we have not made a dent in the popularity or use of weed. Us taxpayers pay for the jails as well.

In one of my entries, I talked about the underpinnings of capitalism - prices and how they act as signals in the overall system. Do you know why Columbus sailed to the New World? He was trying to get to India where the spices were insanely cheap compared to Europe (think 10,000 times cheaper). Now let us see how different societies handle a scarce resource. Of course, in a capitalist system, the price keeps going up till demand drops to the supply available. Under commandist systems, rationing is often used. If there are 1,000 people in a town and the town has only 1,000 gallons of gasoline, allow everyone to purchase only 1 gallon. Sounds fair but is it?

What would happen is that officially the price of gasoline would remain the same but, informally, the price would skyrocket. People who love to race their hotrods would secretively buy the gasoline from the homebodies. Meanwhile, because the price has not increased in the official market, there is no incentive for anyone to create an alternative to gasoline!

So, what is it we should be doing? Well, for one, we should be looking at our experiences with another prohibition - the one against alcohol - that we had between 1920 and 1933. Thanks to the illegalization, retail value of alcohol shot through the roof and a bunch of gangsters became filthy rich overnight. They not only smuggled whiskey from Canada, they also corrupted our society - paying off police, custom agents, tax officials, district attorneys, judges and any other official they came in contact with - and infected our institutions in ways that took years to recover from. How could they get away with bribing such people? Well, the cost of making alcohol and its retail value were so very disparate that the profits were through the roof. It was easy to bribe people with 100 or 1000 times their salary.

But did the alcohol consumption go down? Well, not really. The rich had their loopholes and sources. The poor had moonshine. The middle class bore the brunt of shootouts. Who won? The gangsters!

We have a similar situation with marijuana. There are drug cartels murdering each other and innocent bystanders and killing police officers just to make sure that they control the drug business. The biggest chink in their armor is legalization - exactly what Prop 19 is going to do.

So, PLEASE go and vote and vote for Prop 19. This is a rare opportunity to right a stupid mistake made more than 2 generations back that we all are paying for ever since.

What is Capitalism

2010-06-26T20:00:00.000-07:00

The newspapers and magazines are full of dreadful news about the economy. Budget crises are causing pain in many parts of the world. Many people are out of work and they are confused and angry about how this mess came about. Some have even gone ahead and declared the current financial crisis as the first step towards the death of capitalism.

So, what is Capitalism? Well, sometimes it is easier to describe something in terms of what it is not. So, let me tell you about the opposite of Capitalism - Commandism.

Commandism says that the people at the top know best. They should be the ones deciding for everyone what should be produced, how to produce it and in what quantities to consume it. How many acres to devote to corn production, what kinds of grapes to grow, how much should be eaten fresh, how many phones, colors of cloth etc. This philosophy underpinned the command-driven economy of Soviet Union, China under Mao and India under the Nehru-Gandhi family. So, what is so wrong about Commandism? Well, for one, there is no one so smart, so prescient, that all these decisions would be flawless. That is not so bad. The worse part is - how would the person on the top know which decision turned out to be a blunder and needs to be fixed? How do the people make sure that the decision making improves over time?

That is where Capitalism has a unique and distinct advantage. Capitalism isn't so much about private property and class tensions and exploitation of labor and resources as it is about pricing. Pricing is the ultimate survey, the ultimate opinion poll, the ultimate discriminator. Capitalism works because people can and do vote with their wallet. If the price of wheat goes up, people would be motivated to change their diets to eat less wheat. Goods tend to flow from low-price areas to high-price areas. Prices, in essence, become signals.

If eggs become popular, their price will go up. This, in turn, would cause certain motivated people to get into the egg business and thus increase the supply (forcing the price down). Others might be motivated invent materials that would help in the egg business, such as egg cartons. Yet others might be interested in promoting other sources of protein which may reduce the demand for eggs. As you can see, none of these actions required any input from the top. There is no "egg czar" to ensure the supply of eggs.

Of course, this also exposes the limits of capitalism. When setting a price, a vendor only looks at costs to itself - not the entire society. For example, if a coal mine is immune from health costs, it can simply ignore that cost. A mine that reduces health risks gets no financial benefit. Similarly, a fishing company doesn't need to fish sustainably if there is no financial benefit to do so. Benefits that cannot be expressed in financial transactions also get the short end of the stick. If the potential financial benefit of an endeavor is too low, or the risk is too large, it too would end up on the bottom of the pile.

The take-home lesson is that while capitalism does have its benefits (and there are many), it also has its limitations. Thinking that capitalism can somehow solve all our problems is a pipe-dream. But thinking that capitalism can somehow die is downright insane. It implies that all human ingenuity and drive and creativity has come to an end. If that is so, it would be best if we cease to exist.

The 3-cent solution

2010-05-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

I love listening to NPR (National Public Radio) while driving. Actually, I love listening to NPR no matter where I am. I like "All Things Considered", "Fresh Air", "Car Talk" and many other programs. I think it is the finest station on the dial.

On the other hand, the fundraiser programming drives me up the wall. I hate, hate, hate it. I don't know if the local NPR stations (mine is KQED) have hit on an insidious formula to drive people to donate but it grates me to no end. Every time their pledge drive starts, I hope and pray that it would be over quickly. But of course, it takes far too long. I try to skip to some generic music station but then I manage to miss KQED's programming as well. So, I asked myself - Can the NPR stations raise funds without this fundraising mess?

Well, two things happened. First, I heard on NPR that more than 90% of NPR listeners did not give any money. The second was a really unlikely source - an article on the economics of iPhone applications. By building a simple application that sells for say $1 or $5, the developer is able to get a larger audience and thus is able to make far more total revenue than if the application was priced at say $100.

So, here is what I came up with. One of the reasons that an overwhelming majority of NPR listeners do not contribute is because they can't (or won't) fork over $100 or $350 that the stations keep talking about. And that is the wrong price point to advocate. My idea is very simple - simply send $10 as a "Happy Birthday" gift to your local NPR station on your own birthday. Don't wait for those grating fundraising appeals. Don't wait for any letters. Just write out a check for $10 and mail it in. This works out to 3 cents a day! Get everyone you know to do it. Hopefully we can all listen to NPR uninterrupted by these fundraising appeals...

Happy Birthday Harvey Milk

2010-05-22T21:00:00.000-07:00

Today Harvey Milk would have turned 80. That is, if he hadn't been assassinated way back in 1978. Last year, California finally managed to create a Harvey Milk Day, the first of which is today.

I first heard of Harvey Milk in late 80s at my alma mater (University of Iowa). Many of my friends thought of him as an inspiration to do good. But I didn't realize just how positive a man he was till many years later when I read more about him and understood just how viciously gay people were persecuted in United States. He managed to convince a very large group of gay people to out themselves to fight the Briggs Initiative, at a time when hardly anyone did so voluntarily.

I wonder what would have happened if Milk had been around when the AIDS epidemic started. Would he have spearheaded a push to legalize gay marriage? Would he have managed to convince the American public that gays are not a threat to society - rather their persecution and discrimination against them is...

But these are just philosophical questions today.

Happy Birthday Mr. Milk!

Postcard from Europe #4: Where did the Wall go?

2010-04-18T16:00:00.000-07:00

Another of my posts about the time I was running all over Europe on weekends...

But first, the background. It was a fall day in 1989 in Iowa City, home to my alma mater, The University of Iowa. I hadn't had time to read any news in about a week so after dinner, I went to the TV Room to see what was happening. I remember switching on the TV and Garrick Utley's face appeared, saying "... believe it or not, ... the Berlin Wall is coming down."

What? Surely this must be a joke! Berlin Wall was right up there with the Great Wall of China and Eiffel Tower! One does not go about in daily life knocking down one of the global constants!

Anyways, a few years later I was working in Frankfurt and one weekend I decided to go to Schwerin, the capital of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the state that encompasses the entire northern tier of the ex-East Germany. It is a picturesque city surrounded by a state that feels like Minnesota - lots of lakes, rivers, stiff wind blowing from the north and very sparsely populated.

When I got there, I found that the people of Schwerin were busy trying to undo 40+ years of neglect under Communist rule. They were busy fixing roads, sidewalks, train stations and the like. If you did not keep an eye firmly fixed to the ground, there was a good chance you would run into a protective barrier (this is Germany after all).

That evening I had an even bigger surprise in store. At the youth hostel, I met a couple from ex-East Germany. We ended up playing Trivial Pursuit - German language edition. One of the questions was "In Berlin, U1 [subway] line runs between which two stations?"*

You would expect that this question would be straightforward to answer. However, this question took the most time during the entire evening! First the guy wanted to know when the game was printed. That is when I came to know that U1 line existed before the division of Berlin and each side had their own version of U1 line and a unification of the Berlin subway system was underway. There was quite a bit of arguing around which stations were on U1. Here was a couple who had lived in Berlin as students and had used the subway system to go everywhere and they got really busy recounting all the stations they had used and which ones had tricky exits and they recounted the stores that they had patronized that no longer existed.

That is when I realized how completely the Wall had fallen. In a little over 3 years, this young couple had started to forget their own daily lives to the point that they were forgetting the brands of various daily staples!

Many years later, I saw Good Bye Lenin! As I laughed with the movie, I deeply wished that I had that couple sitting next to me. They would have laughed with me but I feel that they would have had a good cry too...

* I am writing this from memories almost 2 decades old. I am quite confident that there are some errors in my memories...

The ultimate map room

2009-04-11T08:00:00.000-07:00

Maps have fascinated me all my life. As a child, I pored over the family atlas all the time. But what fascinated me even more were the few pages of historical maps - appended almost as an afterthought to the atlas. They primarily showed Europe at various points in history and how United States grew through purchase, conquests and claims. I think there was even a map outlining major battles during the Civil War. It was a window into history that beguiled me.

I rarely met any kindred spirits while growing up but when I travelled around Europe, I realized that I had ample company amongst dukes and earls and kings. Many of their palaces have map rooms - perhaps to keep track of their extensive landholdings as well as those of their rivals. Palazzo Ducale in Venice has an amazing map room which sports 2 humongous globes as well, all of which I admired and at moments imagined had been restored just for my pleasure.

In today's technological age, it has become trivial to find good current maps. Thanks to Mapquest, Yahoo Maps, Google Maps and others, you can not only see the world map, you can zoom in and out and spot individual streets and ask for directions and even get a satellite view. Google Earth lets you delve into even greater detail. I have managed to trace down the exact alleyways that I used to walk when I worked in Connecticut! But now I wish for a new dimension - the dimension of time.

Imagine, just imagine, if you could call up the map of New York City from any time. See how the fields in Manhattan island give way to houses and high rise buildings. Or call up a map of Switzerland and see as new train tracks are laid out and new cantons keep joining the Swiss confederation. Or see how New Delhi goes from this elegant and sparse new capital for the crown jewel of the British Empire to this bustling gargantuan metropolis in just 70-odd years...

There would be so much to learn from such a map room. We could track how people moved about, how empires have risen and fallen, how kingdoms have expanded in unexpected ways. We could also see the morphing of various countries and get a handle on various boundary disputes that plague the world. We could also see how names of places have changed -Bombay, Londonium, New Amsterdam and Peking becoming Mumbai, London, New York and Beijing. Imagine the history of the world coming alive as we scan across the globe...

Wouldn't it be wonderful?

Postcard from Europe #3: The Clinton Dividend

2009-04-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

Another post from the time in the early 90s when I was working in Germany and traveling on weekends...

16 years back, I was in Bordeaux for a weekend. I was in the mood for some local food. The lady who ran the Youth Hostel knew that my French was limited to "Parle vous Anglais?" so she said "I know this place but..."

Well, I ended up going there, a tiny, tiny place that was filled with regulars. The only one who knew English was the waitress, Marie, whose entire length and breadth of High School English was tested when I asked her to explain what was on the fixed-price menu. She ended up dragging me into the kitchen and showing me the actual vegetables and meats and furiously scribbling down the words as I told her the names in English. Throughout a delectable 6 course meal, the regulars and I had an odd conversation - single words traded back and forth to appreciate and enjoy the food and the wine we were served.

When the meal ended and Marie had a little bit more time, the questions came in more complete form and the conversation turned to the Bill Clinton. You see, just 3 weeks before, Bill Clinton was elected the President of United States. He had really piqued the interests of these folks in Bordeaux. They felt they understood him. They were also quite confused how he could be elected with only 43% of the votes.

That started a whole new conversation on electoral college and the curious way that America held its elections. In the end, when I got up to pay, the owner of the place gave me a hefty 15 Franc discount on 50FF meal and didn't charge for all the wine I drank - because I was so patient with the questions. I call that discount my "Clinton Dividend". I yearn for another such dividend...

Open Letter to California Supreme Court

2009-03-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

Well, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8 last year with 52% of the votes. Many felt heartbroken while others, including me, vented that the conservatives were up to their old dirty tricks again. Anyways, the issue is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, which just last year had ruled that the constitution of the state precluded barring same-sex couples from getting married.

I figured that I should weigh in on the subject and give the justices something to chew on. And here it is.

Dear Judges of the California Supreme Court,

I am a fellow citizen of California and I would like to give you a hand in deciding the knotty problem facing you - the resolution of Proposition 8. Yes, I know that it is a messy situation and I also know that I am no lawyer. I am just a poor farm boy from Iowa and all I have is horse sense.

First of all, let us look at Proposition 8 itself. It essentially says that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state of California. There is a problem right there. Imagine if we had a similar law on the books saying that only people of the same race could marry each other. (Hint: We used to have that). Or that only US citizens could marry each other (no non-citizens thank you). Or that only coreligionists could marry each other. What happens when fundamentalist Hindus get involved and they want to ban inter-caste marriages? Does it not sound absurd that the state of California is inserting itself in the matters of the heart?

Second, let us look at the argument put forth by Kenneth Starr - that the citizenary is sovreign and while the citizens may approve dumb propositions, the court cannot ignore the will of the people. Yes, ultimately, the citizens are supreme. I have made that assertion and I stand by it. But can just 52% of them change the constitution? Here in California, we cannot even pass a 0.0001% tax on lollipops without a 2/3rds majority! Yes, the citizenary is sovreign but to assert that 50% + 1 votes is laughable at best - especially when it comes to changing the constitution, the supreme law of the state.

Finally, let us look at the difference between amending the California constitution and revising it. The proponents of Proposition 8 say that it is an amendment, a minimal change that only changes the restrictions on who can get married. But there is a larger principal involved. What Proposition 8 does is change the very nature of our constitution. Proposition 8 says that the government must treat certain people in a fundamentally different manner - not because of any criminal activity or bad behavior but because of who they are. That is a major revision in just about anyone's eyes.

Proposition 8 sets up a dangerous precedent and can easily undermine the core of the spirit of California - Live and let live. We have been an incubator of dreams, of ideas and of passion. Teenagers around the world dream of California. We are a diverse state - home to people of all lineages and thoughts. Enshrining discrimination in the very core of our legal framework cannot be good for us.

Can you stand up for common decency and fight this scourge?

Flip-flop of time

2009-03-10T20:00:00.000-07:00

Last Sunday morning I adjusted many clocks - in the stove, in the microwave oven, on the kitchen wall, on the bedroom dresser, in the programmable thermostat and in the car. No, there was no power failure which threw all the clocks off. No, there was no mysterious magnetic storm. No aliens landed in my backyard. The reason was that earlier that day, at 2am precisely, we switched to Daylight Savings Time. So, the twice-yearly ritual of fixing all the clocks took place. There is even a mnemonic to make sure people get it right "Spring forward, Fall back".

On Monday, I drove to work and after parking my car, I had a strong urge to take a nap before going into the office. Every day this week I have had trouble waking up with the alarm clock even though I have been getting enough sleep. What gives?

Well, this one-hour change is a mini jet lag. And it takes a while for the body to synchronize back to the wall clock. During this time, people feel less energetic, less coordinated and are more susceptible to accidents - at home, in the office and on the road.

So, why do we go through this time change if there is such a downside? Well, years ago - back when most people worked on the same schedule, such time changes saved us daylight time in the evening and hence reduced energy consumption. But those days are long over now. We have factories and offices that are open 24-hours a day. Many people work flexible schedules. Many of us interact with people living in other countries. This time-shift business only adds to confusion when you are trying to figure out what time it is on the other side of the globe. And let us not forget what messes get created when various computer systems either fail to account for the time changes or fail to keep up with ever-changing laws in various countries.

Face it people, there was a point in time when daylight saving and the subsequent fiddling with time made sense. But it doesn't any more. This flip-flop in time only causes more headaches. Like many ideas whose time has come and gone, we must retire this concept and go back to fixed time. Perhaps we can put a proposition on the California ballot. Who is with me?

End of the one-child policy

2009-02-27T08:00:00.000-08:00

In late 1970s, China embarked on the one-child policy - forcibly limiting couples to one child - in a desperate effort to curb population growth. China's booming population was a runaway train and the government could foresee the upcoming misery and chaos if something wasn't done. That something was the new policy. Of course, there were exceptions to the rule - for rural farmers, ethnic minorities, parents of disabled children and, in some cases, where the first child was a girl (after all, it is the sons that carry on the family name everywhere).

This year marks the 30th anniversary of that policy. Those original singular children have been having their own children for a while. China is no longer the poverty-stricken country of the 70s. It has, through rapid industrialization and transformation into a manufacturing juggernaut, managed to improve its lot tremendously. Prosperity, at least the financial kind, is everywhere. Yet the policy endures.

But today, there are strains on the horizon. The demand for sons has not dropped as the government had hoped and so there is an acute shortage of young women for the men to marry. Also, long term macro-economic forces are at work. As the population shrinks, the Chinese economic clout may get blunted. But there is a bigger worry - especially for the communist party that continues to have a monopoly on the political life in China.

Recently, there have been two tragedies that have shaken the Chinese population. The first was an earthquake in Sichuan which destroyed a lot of buildings and other infrastructure but it had a special affinity for shoddily built schools. Tens of thousands of school-going children died. The second was man made - mixing melamine with milk powder which has led to tens of thousands of children to hospitals and a handful of deaths. Both of these tragedies have disproportionately struck children and often the parents are old enough that having another child is difficult.

This has led to widespread anger amongst the parents. In Sichuan, parents refused to back down from demands that the people involved in the shoddy construction of schools be brought to justice. The government acted more swiftly regarding the melamine scandal and many involved are behind bars. But this has exposed a weakness in the communist party's grip. When an only child is harmed due to negligence of the government, the parents can no longer be restrained by the fear of what may happen to them.

Thus I believe that the Chinese government would end the one-child policy to defuse a potentially difficult situation down the road when another tragedy exposes the limits of the government's powers. The question now is - are the Chinese, burnt by the global turmoil, willing to risk having another child?

1984 - A bad memory

2009-02-13T20:00:00.000-08:00

I saw a movie last night - Amu. The movie starts off light-heartedly before delving into the social unrest and murder (some would say massacre) that took place in wake of Indira Gandhi's assasination. Now, most movies on social unrest, while interesting and impactful and engaging, do not suck me in as much as this movie because the events happened a long time back.

But this happened in front of my own eyes! I was in high school and living in New Delhi and... Well, the torrent of memories flash before my eyes...

I remember 31 Oct 1984 as if it happened yesterday. Like any ordinary day, I went to school and came back home about 3pm by public bus. BBC had already announced that Indira Gandhi was dead though the Indian media was deferring to the government which simply said that doctors were working on her. I remember having my late lunch when my dad came home unexpectedly and he was so worked up! He dragged me and my mom to the roof and we could see smoke billowing on the horizon from many fires in every direction. We lived in Defence Colony (a residential area originally intended for retired military personnel) at the time and during the next 15 days it felt that we were on a military base. There were uniformed and armed soldiers on every corner!

We were lucky. There were no riots or mayhem in our little bubble. But just 100 feet outside of Defence Colony, shops were burned and people murdered - all because they happened to be Sikh, the same religion as the murderers of Indira Gandhi.

Life came back to normal pretty soon. Schools reopened and the debris from the riots swept away and the buses worked again. But the people who incited the riots, those who wore the police uniforms and did not lift a finger to protect the people from the mobs and the political leaders who were complicit have basically escaped. One of the accused, Kamal Nath, even serves in the cabinet of the first Sikh prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh!

On the surface things look good but I wonder what is festering beneath the placid surface of the Indian society. Is this normalcy or simply a prelude to a bigger disaster which would unfold at the next opportunity?

The scar near my shoulder

2009-01-31T08:00:00.000-08:00

The other day I watched a talk given by Larry Brilliant at TED. The talk is from back in 2006 in which he talks about preventing future epidemics and then also talks about smallpox and how he helped rid India of smallpox, working there in the early 70s. When he showed pictures of people with the smallpox blisters, it triggered a memory...

While Larry was helping WHO fight smallpox, I was in first grade in India and our entire school was vaccinated against smallpox in one day. The doctor set up his station in a long corridor and we all queued up, rolling up our sleeves and getting vaccinated on the upper forearm near the shoulder. I have always been afraid of needles and was physically trying to bolt from the queue. My teacher, Shashi Dhamija, intercepted me and showed me a similar picture of someone suffering from smallpox and convinced me that getting vaccinated is not such a bad idea. As a result, I too have the scar (an irregular circle) that I had seen on the upper arms of my parents, my aunts and uncles and my cousins. Not quite a merit badge, it is a reminder that we have been enlisted as soldiers in the fight against smallpox.

The other day I was listening to NPR (National Public Radio) and there was a lengthy article about children in USA who are not getting immunized against measles, mumps, chickenpox and the rest. And these are not children of poor parents who either cannot afford the vaccinations or do not grasp the utility of such vaccinations. These are children of well-educated, well-off people who think that vaccines are either dangerous and cause various diseases/illnesses/syndromes such as autism or that these diseases are caused by the vaccines themselves!

I felt angry at these parents because I feel that they are risking their children's health, both short- and long-term, and they are also risking the health of the population in general (by diluting the herd immunity). I am not saying that vaccines do not carry risks or errors are not made or that certain vaccines are losing their potency. But thinking that vaccines simply do not work and it is all a conspiracy perpetuated by a vast cabal of doctors, researchers and vaccine makers is, well, asinine.

It took an army of doctors, nurses and social workers to go door to door all over the globe, educating people regarding the benefits of vaccination and immunizing people and teaching them about the symptoms to eradicate smallpox. It was a momentous feat - tackling a disease that used to kill millions and corralling the last remnants of the virus to a few freezers in a handful of labs. With the right vaccines and the right infrastructure, we can reduce many diseases to the same fate as smallpox, locked in a freezer. But it requires volunteers - to join the ranks of the immunized - which seem to be in short supply these days. And to add insult to injury, it is not just the ill-educated who are shirking. Please, get the word out. Go out and get vaccinated!

TCO - How to think like a Capitalist

2008-12-27T08:00:00.000-08:00

There you are standing in the computer store trying to decide between two printers, A and B. Both have the same features, same warranties, same manufacturer and can be expected to last 5 years. The difference? A costs $50 and B $100 and B costs about 1 cent per page to print while A costs 5 cents a page (special paper). Which one should you buy?

Well, you could do "eeny meeny miney moe" or you could employ a capitalist tool called "Total Cost of Ownership" or TCO. This is a good measure of true cost. For example, you print about 10 pages a week or roughly 500 pages a year. So, over the lifetime of the printers, you would be printing 2500 pages. So, A would cost you $50 + 2500 x 5 cents or $175 while B would set you back $100 + 2500 x 1 cent or $125. I guess the cheaper printer would come out more expensive! Of course, if all you do is print one page a week or roughly 250 pages over the 5 year period, the TCO would be $62.50 and $102.50 respectively.

The above example is, of course, extremely simplistic. In real life, you may be comparing completely different technologies or different services with different guarantees etc. You may not even be able to predict your own behavior! But, if you compute TCO consistently, you can get a good feel for the costs and perhaps it would force you to figure out exactly how much you are going to use your new purchase.

So, big deal! Why is it so important? Well, TCO is a tool that we should employ in our daily lives but we don't. For example, many of us do not realize how much that must-have sweater really costs when you carry a balance on your credit card. Similarly, when we buy an inexpensive jacket that lasts just a year or two, we may end up paying a lot more in the long run than buying an expensive but durable jacket.

Another time we should employ TCO is when we are buying a car. We often pay far more attention to the price than to the costs of regular maintenance, fuel, insurance and what the vehicle would fetch when we want to replace it with a newer car. You will find that the initial cost of the car (the purchase price) gets swamped by these"extras". Similarly, when you renting or buying a residence, try to figure the costs of heating and cooling. You will find that a well-insulated house is worth some extra dollars.

Anyways, keep TCO in mind the next time you are shopping for anything or even deciding whether to drive your own car or a rental on a road trip. The results just might shock you...

Postcard from Europe #2

2008-10-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

Long time back I was once traveling from Germany to Greece by train and ferry and I met a bunch of American college students who were going my way. We traded stories and tips on places to stay and things to do. We changed trains in Milan and had some time to kill. One of the fellow travelers looked up a sheet of paper from her backpack and got really excited. "There is a McDonald's right outside the station! We don't have to go far!".

Huh?

Well, as it turns out, the beautiful Milano Centrale was right across the street from a McDonald's. But weren't we coming from the land of McDonald's? We could always have a happy meal back home. But, the Golden Arches beckoned my fellow Americans and despite my pleas to look elsewhere, they went off for cheeseburger and coke. I browsed through a few shops and soon had my hands on panini and gelato. We gathered up in the park right outside McDonald's where we compared notes.

I hate to gloat (well, maybe just a little bit...) but I think I came out far ahead in our quest for good food. My fellow travellers discovered to their horror that they had just spent a rather large amount of money (Italian Lire were confusing) on the food that they thought would be fairly inexpensive while I not only came out cheaper, but my food was not "icky" or "weird".

The lesson was not forgotten by them when we disembarked from our next train in Brindisi and found a small trattoria just a few blocks off the beaten path where the food was good, portions were large and the price was very very sweet.

But why is all this important? Well, back in 2000, the American people (s)elected a guy that they would feel comfortable drinking beer with. And less than 8 years later, we are in deep trouble. Now, we have two candidates - John McCain who, despite his "maverick" moniker, is in lockstep with the outgoing guy on most issues and Barak Obama who seems to be a step in a new direction. Now, there are many Americans who feel that Obama is an untested choice and thus feel that they should stick with a familiar face. Well, my good friends, this is not the time to grope for the familiar. The scrutiny of Obama over the last two years has revealed a guy who is a decent choice. No, he cannot fix all the problems faced by our country right away. But at least he has a good head on his shoulders and a team of advisors that anyone should be proud of.

As my fellow travellers learned, reaching for the familiar doesn't always get you the best deal. You do want a good deal, don't you?

Colin Powell speaks... But did he say enough?

2008-10-23T20:00:00.000-07:00

I don't have to tell you that the biggest political news over the weekend was Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama for the presidency of USA. Rightly or wrongly, Colin Powell is considered an influential person in American politics. He was the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the first Black) under Papa Bush, Secretary of State (the first Black) under Baby Bush and he is associated with the selling of the current Iraq War at the UN.

Colin Powell made quite a spirited effort to denounce the "Obama is Muslim" strategy of McCain/Palin ticket by saying "So what if? There is an American soldier who is buried in Arlington National Cemetary who died fighting for US in Iraq and he was Muslim." But is this really news to him?

The Republican Party and the Bushes have been using this strategy for years. There was the "Cadillac-driving Black Welfare Queen" during Reagan's campaign and Willie Horton during Papa Bush's campaign. In 2002, the Republicans questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland, a guy who lost both his legs in the Vietnam War. Baby Bush and his surrogates used similar tactics to question Purple Hearts awarded to John Kerry during his military service in the Vietnam War.

Has Mr. Powell truly changed his mind? Or is he a Johnny-come-lately just so that he can say that he supported Obama? Has he realized that the Republican party has treated him as a prop (much like they have used Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas)?

If Colin Powell really has had a change of heart, he should do the honorable thing between now and November 4 -- Vigorously campaign for the Obama/Biden ticket by pointing out that John McCain and Sarah Palin are not good for our country. They would rather demonize their opponent than support good ideas that improve our country. And Mr. Powell needs to reiterate that the Iraq War, enthusiastically supported by John McCain, was a folly of the first order. His ex-boss got it completely wrong and there is no other way to look at it.

But the question remains, would he? I guess just a couple of weeks would make it crystal clear...

Protect "Traditional Marriage"?

2008-10-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

Year: 1939. Location: Varanasi, India.

A young man had his heart set on marrying this young woman. They were both single and had known each other for a long time (they were in school together). But there was one hitch. He was of Agrawal sub-caste while she was of Mahuri sub-caste. When the other Agrawals in Varanasi heard about the intentions of this young man, they warned him. They told him that what he was doing was against God's will and if he did do it, he would be excommunicated...

Year: 1958 Location: Virginia, USA

Another young man had his heart set on marrying this young woman. He was White, she was "Colored". And in Virginia in those days, anti-miscegination laws were in effect and such a union was a no-no. Well, they ended up getting married which landed them in hot water with the law and they had to move out of the state as a penalty. Well, they still had family and friends in Virginia and so ultimately, they sued the state...

Year: 2006 Location: California, USA

Two lesbian women have been a couple (in their hearts and in the eyes of their friends) for the last 53 years. They are growing old and frail and want to make it official. But while Califonia's constitution seems to support the women in their quest, the laws require that a marriage recognized by the state have a man and a woman. So they took their pleas to the California Supreme Court...

I think you have a clear idea where I am going with this. People fall in love and want to get married and live the married life. They are not asking for favors such as free housing or a car or even compelling people (other than their friends) to attend the wedding. They are looking for that piece of paper that makes it all official. They don't want to sneak around and lie that they are not a couple. They want to climb the rooftops and yell "Yes, we are a couple". They want the right to hold hands in public and to hold each other.

The first story has a happy ending. The couple not only got married but also had 6 kids, the first of which was my father. Yes, they were excommunicated but they managed to survive and thrive.

The second story also has a happy ending. Richard and Mildred Loving were able to convince the US Supreme Court to overturn the Virginia laws (and laws in 15 other states) regarding inter-racial marriages.

The third story has a happy ending as well. In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to get married. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon celebrated by getting married in San Francisco with the mayor officiating.

But the third happy ending has a dark epilogue. There is a constitutional amendment on the ballot (Proposition 8) that would slam the door shut on same-sex couples. But they have a seductive slogan - They are trying to protect "traditional marriage".

I wonder how my grandparents' lives would have turned out if they had succumbed to the pressure exerted by the "traditional marriage" folks. Don't you?

Please say NO on Proposition 8.

It's a small world...

2008-09-30T08:00:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, I made Ghee (aka Clarified Butter). Now, before you marvel at my cooking abilities, please note that making Ghee is a fairly simple exercise. It consists primarily of two steps:

A. Buy unsalted butter.

B. Cook the butter at low heat till all the moisture is cooked off, leaving just the fat behind.

But wait, there is actually another step. You see, butter consists primarily of three things - fat, water and a small amount of protein. If you try step B in turbo mode, the protein burns and gives the Ghee a smell and taste you would not relish (Trust me, I have done it). Many people just throw the protein residue away and enjoy the rest. But, back when I was a kid, my mom introduced me to this delicacy (called Mehran in Hindi) and I have enjoyed it ever since.

So, there I am, in my kitchen, keeping an eye on the pot with the butter and making sure nothing sticks to the bottom when I am reminded of a conversation from way back...

Back when I was living in Germany, I went to see the Meissen porcelain factory one weekend and as always, Monday was the day I updated my colleagues on my weekend travels. When I mentioned that I had "Meissen Wedding Soup", Wolfgang Uhlig piped up "Do you know the critical ingredient for it?" Well, I didn't so Wolfgang continued "You see, when you cook butter, you get this fried mass that is made only near Meissen..." Of course, I knew exactly what he was talking about and when I mentioned that I have eaten it all my life, he could not believe it! He thought that it was something so unique to the area around Meissen that he had never met anyone who could even figure out how it was made or had a name for it. And there I was, a guy raised in India, who had not only eaten it and had seen it being made, I even knew a word for it!

So, back to the present. Here I am, making Ghee and Mehran in Silicon Valley and instead of being reminded of India or of my mom's cooking, I am reminded of a conversation I had with a German guy... The world is indeed a small place. Don't you think so?

Tyranny of wire-hangers

2008-09-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

I get my shirts laundered at a local laundry where they wash, starch and iron my shirts and put them on wire hangers. I love the feel of starched shirts. That crisp look and feel of the fabric is almost intoxicating. But there is a slight snag in the whole process.

You see, I grew up in India. And hangers came at a premium. I had a bunch of wire hangers that were either bought in the market there or were hand-me-downs from my uncle in USA. I never thought of throwing them out (unless they were horribly bent out of shape). So now, I never feel comfortable throwing out perfectly good wire hangers that I get with my shirts from the laundry.

Think about it. Some guy working in the mines in Chile brings out copper ore which gets smelted into copper and then blended to form ingots that then get extruded into wires which are then transformed into wire hangers and there is a lot of heating and cooling and transporting going on at the same time. To take the shirts home from the laundry and then simply toss the hanger in the trash is, well, an insult to the people who were involved in the whole process.

Yes, I know, we are living in the throw-away society. There are a lot of things that we use exactly once before throwing it away. Pasta jars, soda cans, boxes made of cardboard, foam, clear plastic and what not get dumped in our garbage can every day. Some of these are now making it to the recycle bin but it is still too little. But there is a solution.

When you go to Italy and buy a bottle of spring water, you will find that that very bottle has carried water to many consumers over its life. People pay a deposit for the bottle which they get back when they return the empty bottle to the store. It saves the company a lot of money, keeps the bottle out of the trash and saves energy that would be consumed if the bottle were crushed and remade. Similarly, when you are in Iowa, you pay 5 cents for every can you buy which you get back when you return the empties to the store. That is one of the major reasons why the Iowa roadside has a lot less littering than the surrounding states where there is no can deposit scheme.

So, I propose that laundries be required to charge a deposit for their hangers (say a dime or even a quarter) which they give back when the customers return the hangers. This may even lead to laundries using more durable hangars that they can use many times over. I would like it, wouldn't you?

Dick Cheney was right

2008-02-22T08:50:00.000-08:00

Back in 2001, when California was reeling from electricity shortages (later found to be artificially created by Enron), Dick Cheney (the vice-president of USA) made a comment:

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy"

Many people, including me, were aghast that at a time of severe electricity crunch, the VP would not encourage people to reduce their consumption! The single largest economy within USA was being damaged by the electricity shortages and something had to be done and Dick Cheney, rather than leading the charge, was saying that conservation was not good enough. Well, when Californians dropped their electricity consumption by 12%, I felt vindicated. We had shown the oil-oriented bad guys that we could conserve!

7 years later, I would like to, in public, change my mind. Yes, you read it right. I am going to reparse the phrase above and come up with a whole new interpretation of what Dick Cheney was saying (or at least trying to).

Dick Cheney is a capitalist at heart. While he sees a small segment of society changing its habits solely to save the environment (my view: 10 - 20%), he doesn't see the larger society doing more to conserve unless there is something in it for them. Why do people switch from incandescent bulbs (the Thomas Edison kind) to the compact fluorescent ones that are the rage today? To save X tons of carbon dioxide? No! To prevent global warming? No! To save money on the monthly electricity bill.

This behavior can be seen all over the place. When people decide to use more energy efficient lights, carpool to work or replace single-pane windows with double-pane windows, they might be thinking about the environment but what propels them to actually take action is money. We are, after all, a capitalist society. Doing good for others is a good motivator but doing good for oneself is even better.

So, how should our society behave when it comes to energy consumption and environmental protection? While Dick Cheney may not admit it (due to political realities), I think that he feels that most efficient and effective way to reduce energy consumption without damaging the economy is to place an explicit tax on energy and channel the generated revenue towards rewarding energy-efficient behavior.

Why? Why not simply ban poor mileage cars and force people to install double-pane windows and turn down the thermostat in winter? Well, for one thing, such heavy-handed approaches do not work. Even when they do, the efficacy is not as good as a market-based approach would.

Take the case of sulfur oxide emissions. For years, the federal government tried to force coal-fired plants to install scrubbers (essentially giant gas cleaners) to reduce sulfur oxide emissions that was causing acid rain. All the plant owners balked at the requirement and applied immense pressure on the US government from implementing such a requirement. Finally, a cap-and-trade setup was created and guess what? All of a sudden, an entire industry sprung up around reducing sulfur oxide emissions cheaply.

Similarly, it is politically impossible to push for higher fuel efficiencies for cars. But look at the market. As gasoline has gone from $1/gallon to $3/gallon, the demand for higher efficiency cars has shot up. Imagine if the federal government instituted a $1/gallon tax that was funneled into better and cheaper public transportation. All of a sudden, taking the bus or train or tram would become that much more attractive to the general public. People would seek out carpool matching services. Traffic on the roads would ease and with it local pollution. Our economy would reward energy-efficiency more than it does now and so innovations in the field of improving energy-efficiency (be it for cars, homes, manufacturing processes etc.) would get an economic jump-start.

I am not saying that such a tax can (or should) be imposed overnight but imagine a 20 cent increase every year for 5 years. Dick Cheney would like that...

Book Review: The Omnivore's Dilemma

2008-02-15T09:30:00.000-08:00

Omnivore's Dilemma has been on my radar for quite some time. I am a foodie and therefore, the moment I heard about it, it landed on my (perpetually unread) to-read list of books. But even after I read (and enjoyed) articles and columns by Michael Pollan, I was hesitant to read it. For one, I am (mostly) an omnivore and I feel that far too many books on food involve giving meat eaters a guilt trip. I don't need that. And twice I have realized that someone who is really good at writing columns and articles doesn't always end up writing good books.

Well, chance plays such an important role in our lives. My book club picked this book and so I was propelled to read it. And oh, what a joy! Michael Pollan has such a fluid style of writing that before I knew it, the book was finished. And the descriptions! I felt that I was walking in Pollan's shoes as he toured the corn farm in Iowa and the Polyface Farms in Virginia and when he went mushroom hunting in the Sierras. Wow!

But what was he talking about? Well, Pollan he has an indirect manner of getting his point across. Rather than put a list of points that he wants to convey, he takes a subliminal approach. He wants you to not just read the book as an "interesting" tome, he wants you to change your life. Rather than making you think while reading the book, he plants seeds in your head - a whole garden's worth from technology, law, history, anthropology, economics, politics, environment... - which germinate after you are done reading.

My personal take on what is the at the very core of the book is the exploration of the difference between Industrial Food and Artisanal Food. While labels such as organic, farm-raised, all-natural, free-range etc. are useful, the author wants you to go beyond labels and really think about what and how you are eating. He wants you to realize that not all food is alike - food raised or grown in a factory setting is very different from those from a traditional farm. They are different in nutritional aspects, food-borne illnesses, food safety and yes, impact on our environment.

Reading this book has made me think about food a lot more than ever before. I think I can easily blame Michael for my cooking spree these days. So, go ahead and read the book. And then post the results of your cooking experiments here...

Immigration, assimilation and identification

2008-02-08T11:20:00.000-08:00

Background: I am of Asian Indian origin and if you looked at me, you would place my genetics from the plains area stretching from Tehran to Dhaka.

So, I am on the BART, when a man of similar origin (i.e. similar skin tone, facial features and hair) as me approaches me and asks: "Where are you coming from?"

I figured he was trying to figure out where the train was coming from and said "Oakland".

"Oh, where did you move from?"
"Iowa."

(In exasperated tone) "No, are you Indian or Pakistani?"

That question triggered a memory from more than a decade back. I was at a gas station in New Jersey and an older man (maybe in his 50s) of similar origin as me came up to me and asked the same question "Are you Indian or Pakistani?" Without hesitation, I said "I am an American." His reaction surprised me to the core. His eyes lit up like a kid in a candy store, his lips swelled into a smile and he grabbed my hand, shook it and said "Finally! You know, I have been waiting for this answer for 20 years!" Then he added, somewhat cryptically "You can't love one girl while married to another."

So, back in the present, I said "I am an American." I was not trying to be facetious or overly smart. I am an American. I live here in the USA, pay my taxes here, have an American passport, vote in the elections, own a house (well, at least a fraction of it) and I feel that I am a part of the American experience. When I think of the American public, I use the pronoun "We," not "Them".

Somehow, my answer was not the one my fellow BART rider was looking for. He moved away, shaking his head and muttering something to the effect of how idiots don't know their heritage.

I think I answered the question very honestly. The question comes down to who I am. My parents are Indian (well, my father is no more), they live in India and feel a part of the Indian society. My sister and her husband are Indians and they live and work and pay taxes in India. I, on the other hand, am not an Indian. I feel emotionally close to my extended family no matter where in the world they live. But for me to say that I am an Indian is false advertising, not only towards others but towards myself.

I am not in USA temporarily, working on a project or visiting on vacation. I am here, as an integral part of this society. Why should I say otherwise???

Capitalism, Efficiency and the Environment

2008-01-30T11:40:00.000-08:00

Many years ago, I "interned" at a sugar factory in India. The factory was owned by Uncle V, my dad's college friend. For some reason, I wanted to go see this factory and ended up spending a fortnight there, looking through the plant layout drawings, goofing off in the maintenance shed and learning the difference between various kinds of gears, lathes and such. I am sure Uncle V was confused as to why I wanted to spend my time this way (I was 13) but luckily he didn't question my thinking. This is what I learned.

Uncle V inherited this factory from his father in the early 1960s. It was the era of "License Raj", when the Indian government kept all the "dirty capitalists" on a tight leash. The prevailing thinking was that small-scale capitalism was okay, it was the large-scale capitalism that would destroy the society. Therefore, many aspects of any factory were tightly controlled by the government including vacation time, salary structure, production capacity and such.

At that time, the incoming sugarcane was crushed, then run through a water shower and crushed again, the juice was split into molasses and sugar syrup and the sugar was crystallized with heat from a coal-fired boiler. The sugar was shipped to the distributors and the molasses was shipped to rum makers and the factory made a nice tidy profit. All of the production was sold, the selling price was controlled by the Indian government and there wasn't really any competition. Most people would have enjoyed the status quo. But Uncle V was not content. He was an engineer at heart and he pushed the people at the factory to make improvements, hoping to increase production or reduce costs.

The very first improvement was to install a third crusher, thus increasing the juice yield. More importantly, the bagasse (the fibrous cane part of the sugarcane) became easier to burn due to less sugar and moisture left behind. Earlier bagasse was simply discarded as waste but now, it started being used for firing the boiler. This made operating the factory cheaper because the coal needs went down dramatically. Another improvement was the installation of a heat exchanger. This is a wonderful piece of machinery that reduces energy needs by pre-heating the incoming water with the heat from the outgoing waste hot gases.

Now, with the new heat exchanger installed, the process improved so much that bagasse started to pile up! Rather than simply throwing it away (as it used to be done earlier), someone figured that it could be put to better use. In the end, the bagasse was used to make cardboard, setting up a small sister factory next door.

The fact to remember out of all this is that Uncle V was not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He didn't have any pro-environment protesters at his doorstep demanding that he reduce his coal usage. I am sure that in those days he hadn't even heard of global warming. He did all this to improve the profitability of his factory. He did it to save money.

Today, many commentators and politicians are portraying green technology as a zero-sum game. They think that becoming more green can only mean more costs. However, this is not true. Everything a factory consumes costs money and it is financially smart to use the inputs more efficiently.

Last I heard, Uncle V was trying out a bonus program that gave sugarcane growers more for their crop if the sugar content in the sugarcane was high. I am sure this would create a whole set of incentives for the growers that would help Uncle V improve the efficiency of his sugar plant...

Postcard from Europe

2008-01-17T16:50:00.000-08:00

Back in geography class in school I learned that Italians spoke Italian, the Spaniards Spanish, the French French and the Germans German. The Dutch spoke Dutch and the Danes Danish. Each country was a homogeneous place where the people were "naturally" of a single culture and that is why Europe had fractured into the shapes and sizes as it had, each piece taking with it its own linguistic, cultural and ethnic heritage.

But two countries made me wonder - Austria (why isn't it part of Germany) and Switzerland (why do people there speak so many different languages).

A few years later, when I was actually living and working in Germany and traveling like a madman, I discovered that my teacher had lied!

Well, not exactly. She had merely glossed over many of the more inconvenient details. You see, despite what people might say, European countries are actually an accident of history. Just in the 20th century, European borders have shifted around dramatically and if you take into account the movements of peoples and rise and fall of states and empires in the last 2000 years, you would come up with a dramatic and utterly confusing story.

Let us start with Germany, sitting smack dab in the middle of the continent. It was not even a country till 1871 when Otto von Bismarck realized that he needed to create a unified state under Prussian control in order to project power over the neighbors. But the state that was created is very different from the re-unified Germany as it exists today. Alsace and Lorraine are in France, a little slice is over in Belgium, another slice in Denmark and large lands are in Poland and Russia.

Italy was created partly due to the hard work of Garibaldi and his redshirts from a mass of kingdoms and principalities. After World War I, a piece of Austria (called Sued Tirol) was lopped off and tacked onto Italy where it is called Trentino-Alto Adige. There are many such adjustments all over the European map. Perhaps the most blatant of them all is Poland, which has been created, destroyed, sliced, shaped and fussed over with by all the major and most of the minor players. If you compare the maps of Poland before and after World War II, you would think that someone put it on a flat-bed truck and drove it westwards!

So, where am I going with all this? Well, it is quite common to assume that the national boundaries haven't shifted and that each country is basically an indivisible unit of ethnic cohesion. The only exceptions being the "artificial" countries such as Yugoslavia and USSR which have exploded once the strongmen ruling them died or countries that have been shaped by immigration such as USA and Canada. But that is not the case. You can go anywhere in the world and find that most boundaries have been drawn by political and military realities at various times.

Rather than yearning for ethnic, linguistic and cultural uniformity, we should realize that such entities have never existed and never will...

A new president at the World Bank

2007-05-24T10:45:00.000-07:00

By now, the Paul Wolfowitz saga is all over the news. He has resigned from the Presidency of World Bank over either his own ethical lapses (if you listen to his critics) or because the entrenched bureaucracy hated this anti-corruption crusader (if you listen to his supporters). Either way, his last day is 30 June 2007.

So now, 2 years after nominating Wolfowitz to the job, Bush has another stab at nominating someone to that position. Traditionally, the US President nominates an American for the job. However, the Board of Governors still has to approve the nomination and US does not have enough votes to simply ram the nomination through.

Bush and World Bank are both at crossroads. Bush has 20 months left in office and his time in the White House is now deeply intertwined with the Iraqi mess. He, just as everyone else, wants to leave something positive behind. World Bank, created as a conduit to help western Europe get back on its feet after WW2, is also looking for a mission for the future. During the Cold War, its monies and energies were largely frittered away in unsound projects that helped dictators more than anyone else. As a result, many critics are calling for a world without World Bank.

To break from the past, the two major goals of World Bank these days are fighting poverty and fighting corruption. These two scourges are devastating many poorer countries, hindering their growth and, to make matters worse, fueling large-scale illegal immigration to many richer countries which are unprepared or unwilling to take them. Bush can help on all these fronts and help US reduce illegal immigration by picking the right person to direct the energies and the treasury of World Bank to fight these two problems. Of course, the impact of this policy shall not be evident in the short term but it can create a lasting legacy that George W. Bush can be rightly proud of. Now the question is who to nominate.

Bush has had a troubled 2007 so far. His appointments seem to be ideologues who do not have a good grasp of their responsibilities. The Alberto Gonzales affair has primed many people to automatically suspect any nominee for the World Bank job. In such a hostile climate, Bush does not have a lot of room to maneuver. If his nominee is seen as unacceptable (again, many are already espousing such a position, even before anyone has been announced), there is a good chance that this American-on-top tradition may come to a quick end. While I may be a dyed-in-wool liberal, I also feel that a single misstep should not kill a tradition. So, I hope Bush confounds his critics by doing something audacious. I have a few suggestions.

First, Bush could go with tradition and pick an American but from the other side of the political spectrum. Pick someone who has experience as a leader, had an easy time with international agencies and who can see the long-term positive impact on US and the world by fighting poverty and corruption. After all, this is not an academic position. World Bank needs to become more focused on its goals and deliver some results. Richard Holbrooke comes to mind as do Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

Or, Bush could modify the tradition - Choose a non-American. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is resigning from his current job on 27 June, so he would be available. Jose Maria Aznar, the ex-prime minister of Spain, has impeccable conservative credentials. If he is keen to tackle poverty and corruption, he can help the Spanish government and people by reducing the influx of desperate illegal immigrants into Spain. Of course, Bush could try to convince Nelson Mandela but he is likely to say no. Shashi Tharoor, the loser in the race for UN Secretary General a few months back, could be a wild and crazy but useful pick. An even more wild pick would be Bono, who has been campaigning for more help to poorer countries.

Whomsoever Bush chooses, he has to ensure that this person would be an effective leader in the multilateral environment of World Bank. A "My way or the highway" person would not only cause a bigger mess and interfere with Bush's legacy, it may provide the right ammo for those who are unhappy with American leadership lately. In today's world of fragmented alliances, it is very important to find someone who can rally the troops at World Bank and focus on the objective at hand.

Having said all this, I am afraid that the Bush advisers would steer him towards a "normal" approach that has all the hallmarks of mediocrity. But this is not the time to be timid. Safe and bland choices do not a statesman make...

Cinemas in the Netflix age

2007-04-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

I am sure everyone knows about Netflix, the company that has made a roaring business out of mailing movie DVDs on a subscription basis. For most Americans who do not have a 70,000 title movie rental store nearby (most of us), it is amazing to find just about any movie one would like to see. But getting the DVD in your hand is just the first part of the solution. The movie makers don't imagine viewers watching their movies on a 30-inch screen, with bright lights or the sun washing out some of the more subtle colors, finger ready on the Fast-Forward or Pause to accommodate the phone, the neighbors, the kids and the door-to-door solicitors.

I remember watching Dances with Wolves at a cinema. I could not only appreciate the wide expanses of the frontier lands, I could also feel the weather, the snow, the winds and the sunsets that can create new philosophers. When I saw Omar Mukhtar: Lion of the Desert at the cinema, the sand and dust choked me and the sun burnt my face. But then again, they are action movies. But what floored me was when I saw Casablanca on the big screen (at Stanford Theatre) after seeing it on the small screen. There is hardly any action, no sweeping vistas, heck there isn't any color either! But, it was amazing.

I think I know why. In a movie theater, you are immersed in the experience. You have to pay attention. No remote to replay a scene, no phones to distract you, no expectations of interruptions, just you and your fellow moviegoers. This immersion is what is missing from the home theater experience.

So, here is an idea. Any entrepreneurs out there who feel like implementing it are more than welcome to it. Heck, you don't even need to credit me for it. I give it to the public domain. Moviegoing by subscription. Just like you make a list of movies to see in the request queue at Netflix and its competing services, you make a list and when there is enough interest, the movie theater gets hold of the movie and shows it. A perfect marriage of the old world and the new. Just imagine, watching Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen. Actually, if you start such a service, my first vote would be for Lawrence. I have seen it on the small screen a few times. I just want to see it in its full splendor.

Victory in Iraq

2007-03-26T15:10:00.000-07:00

Well, our soldiers have now spent four years in Iraq. That is longer than we spent during World War II. And while fighting rages on in Iraq, debate continues on the home front. There are many who think we should call it quits in Iraq and bring all the soldiers home. There is even a website bringthemhomenow.org, detailing all the various pitfalls that American soldiers are facing in Iraq.

Then there are those who feel that American soldiers should not be recalled and allowed to win the war. They call the first group various names and accuse them of not supporting the troops.

Now, I may be just an ole farm boy from Iowa but let us look at some facts. More specifically, let us look at facts that would help us determine where we are now.

President Bush said that he was sending the troops over to discover, secure and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). The troops dug through everything and could not find any. Mission SUCCESS.
Bush said that he was sending the troops over to topple Saddam Hussein because he had killed Iraqi citizens by gassing them and was an overall bad guy. Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed and he went into hiding from where our soldiers captured him alive. Mission SUCCESS.
Bush said that he was sending the troops over to bring democracy to Iraq. Iraq has had quite a few elections, a new constitution has been drafted and promulgated and many of the structures of democracy have been put in place. Mission SUCCESS.
Bush said that he was sending the troops to build a just society. Saddam Hussein and some others close to him were tried in court and sentenced to death and hanged. Mission SUCCESS.

That makes four successes out of four reasons why we invaded Iraq. 100% success. That is amazing. The mission statement had four things in it and all four things got accomplished. So what are we waiting for? Mr Bush, our soldiers have done all you asked them to do four years ago. The entire list has been checked. Why wouldn't you declare victory, Mr Bush?

The US constitution says a lot about who can declare war and who is in charge of our troops but is not very clear about who has the power to declare victory. Maybe, if all the states, cities and people around the country started declaring victory, Mr. Bush just might listen...

Why religious right needs to embrace gay marriage

2007-02-25T22:00:00.000-08:00

As we all know, members of the religious right are up in arms about same-sex marriage, pushing most states to amended their constitutions to explicitly forbid the recognition of same-sex marriages. Massachusetts is the only state to buck the trend and recognize same-sex marriages. Many on the right call same-sex marriages as an abomination, a crime against God, a crime against nature and a fundamentally Wrong Idea. Heck, there is even a catchy phrase "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Yet, I feel that the time has come for the religious right to not just tolerate same-sex marriages but even embrace them. Why?

Well, let us go back in history and see what marriages were like 2000 years ago. The poor did not have much and most of them perhaps did not even go through any proper ceremony to get married. The rich and powerful, on the other hand, saw marriages as an instrument to solidify and further their position in society. Kings and princes married wisely, hoping to inherit some lands through their wives. Merchants married off their daughters to potential business partners. In many cultures, marriages were decided long before the bride or the groom could entertain any contrarian thoughts. Love did not figure in the equation. The couple getting married were just pawns in the chess game played by their families.

But as the society has evolved, love has come to play a role in marriages. People are now expected to fall for someone, not simply paired up in a business transaction. That has led to inter-religion as well as inter-racial marriages (perhaps the most famous being between Mr. and Mrs. Loving).

So, what does this have to do with same-sex marriages? Well, the other trend that keeps a lot of priests and other religious leaders up at night is that many young people are foregoing marriage altogether. They have seen love go out of many a marriage and the aftershocks of a divorce scare them. So, people are living together, having children, maintaining a life as close to being married as possible but there is no marriage. If this trend takes hold, who would get married? The 10% who are truly religious? That would lead to another problem...

You see, the federal, state and local governments give many privileges (roughly 1,100!) to married couples that they don't give to unmarried couples, most famous being the ability to inherit from a spouse without paying any inheritance tax (and more importantly, automatically). So, as people start skipping the marriage part, they are going to find themselves in various legal limbos when they want to make medical decisions or trying to enroll their children in school. And so these unmarrieds are going to start demanding the same rights as married couples...

Do you see where I am going? By denying the same-sex couples these "married rights", the religious right is making it more likely that some of these "married rights" shall end up being granted to cohabiting couples as well. The people on the right should try to nip this problem in the bud by ending their opposition to gay marriage to make sure that marriage as an institution (and as a grantor of various rights and privileges) survives. After all, the gays are trying to follow the same process that everyone else has for many generations (be a kid, study hard, grow up, get married, have kids, help them grow up, enjoy grandkids...). Sure, some churches may face a schism much like the one faced by Episcopalians today, but things do work out in the end. After all, slavery, interracial marriages and civil rights have led to schisms in the past...

Help commuters, help everyone

2007-01-14T12:10:00.000-08:00

Let us talk about public transportation - subways, trams, buses, local trains, ferries etc. For most part, public transport is a capital intensive setup. The tracks have to be planned and laid out, the rolling stock acquired, a depot to store the rolling stock at night and to repair and maintain it, a schedule to build and advertise etc. By the time a tram or even a bus line (where no new tracks need to be laid) is in operation, it may have taken 2 or 3 years of planning, acquiring and hiring, not to mention advertising. That is why, today in USA, there are very few new lines and each and every one of them require a heavy investment from the federal government (the only one with enough money). As a result, most people drive and cause massive congestion during rush hours.

So? Well, I have a proposal that would please five groups: drivers, public transport riders, environmentalists, employers and taxpayers. You don't believe it? Let me explain:

Decades back, the US government decided to allow people to deduct mortgage interest from their income for the purpose of computing income taxes. The resulting discount has encouraged home buying to such an extent that home ownership has gone from 20% to 70% since the 1940s. True, the governments are losing a lot of tax revenue but it has had a lot of positive impact as well.

Recently, the US government has extended this deductibility to Health Savings Accounts. The thinking was that if people had some tax-free money tucked away to pay for health care, they would not wait for a catastrophe before seeking medical help. And because HSA money is going to come from wages, it helps the working people and it helps the employers (because they don't have to pay the Social Security and Medicaid taxes on the money going to HSA).

So, I propose that there be a similar Commuter Savings Account (CSA). People be allowed to put up to $5,000 each year pre-tax into their CSA from their wages. The CSA money can only be used for buying tickets from public transportation systems in USA. There would be no restrictions on who can use the tickets. This would give people a big discount on public transportation tickets and hopefully spur greater public transportation adoption. This would lead to more people taking the subway or bus to work (thus reducing the need for parking spots at the office) and reducing the number of cars clogging up the roads. This would also lead to reduction in pollution and the best impact of all - It would lead to less wear and tear on the roads and less repairs. The taxpayers would save more on road infrastructure costs than they would lose in the lost tax revenue.

Oh and I forgot. More people would arrive at the office without road-rage. I am sure you would like that...

Fasting on Christmas

2006-12-30T10:11:00.000-08:00

Well, today is Christmas. It is a joyous occasion, filled with good food, company of friends and relatives, gifts and all the good things in life. Us Americans are going to perhaps overdo it, buying more toys than we can afford and eating more than is good for us. So, I am going to propose a fast.

Now, you may call me a killjoy but hear me out first. I am not proposing a starvation diet. I am suggesting that we give up one food that we like. This is not a new or novel concept. Many cultures around the world have this notion. People may give up eating mangoes or sweets or milk for a period of time as a penance for pleasures enjoyed in years past or as a part of a pilgrimage. For some, it is a religious experience and adhering to it continues that experience.

What food should we give up? Well, as long as we are giving something up (even if for just a few days), we should give up something unhealthy. I would like to propose Corn Syrup and its alter-ego High Fructose Corn Syrup. Many of you might be wondering what the heck corn syrup is and how to give up something you don't eat. Well, next time you are in the grocery store, read the ingredients list of your favorite packaged foods and you would be surprised how much corn syrup you are eating. It is in ketchup, sausages, bread, pasta sauce, vanilla extract, ice cream and just about everything else. As a matter of fact, about 90% of the foods in a grocery store have corn syrup in them!

But I am not trying to be a killjoy. I hate corn syrup. It doesn't add flavor (actually, it takes away), adds unneeded calories and many scientists think that it may even be a contributing factor to the recent increase in obesity. But I also realize that zero-tolerance towards corn syrup would make our lives very hard. So, here is a compromise:

Give up things that have corn syrup listed in the first 3 ingredients. It would force you to eat better foods and more flavorful too.

Who knows, maybe by next Christmas, you would be ready to give up corn syrup completely...

Necessity of voting

2006-10-21T09:03:00.000-07:00

In the last 200 years, the world has undergone many changes. One of the more fundamental ones is the change in structure of the governments worldwide. There was a time when almost all governments derived their power from the "divine right" of the king or queen to rule over the masses. This meant that God had given the right to govern to the local monarch, who in turn had given the authority to the various government office holders. Today, most countries enjoy democracy. So, what does democracy mean?

The way I see it, democracy turns the old world order on its head. Rather than the king or queen having the divine right to rule, the masses have the divine right to choose the rulers. So, in contrast to the kings, the Presidents get their right to rule from the people and not from some God. In essence, all of the machinery of governance is owned by, operated for the benefit of, and with the consent of the general public. But how do you find out what the people want and need?

That is where we run into problems. While people vote for their representatives at all levels of government (members of parliament and mayors and members of city, state and national government), they also want some direct say. This leads to referendums and other such "direct" actions. But even then, the needs/wants of the general population may be elusive. That is because the entire population does not go and vote (You Australians are perhaps the only exception).

Now, it is very easy to condemn such "avoiders" and say things such as "People have died so that you could have the right to vote". But see things from the non-voters' perspective as well - They see no reason to vote when their vote does not lead to a better outcome. All it does is add to the frustration of this life. And who wants more aggravation? Not me!

But there is another perspective. It is going to take some time to go through so please bear with me...

Thomas Jefferson, a really sharp guy, said "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate". This is a very important distinction. Since we were kids, we have learnt how to optimize. We learn which routes are shorter. Which stores have better candy. What is easier to ask for from parents. Another thing we have learned is how to focus our energies on tactics that yield the best reward. For example, if your parents would never negotiate on spinach, why waste your time whining about spinach when you can eagerly eat your spinach and ask to be excused from broccoli (which you hate even more)? Similarly, when you are selling girl scout cookies, hit the houses where you are confident for a sale and if your quota is done, you don't need to go to the low-yield households!

Politicians are devoted to similar optimizations today. They know that 50% of the electorate is going to show up and vote. Also, there are only 2 parties (Republicans and Democrats) who have enough money and machinery to have a realistic chance at winning just about any election at any level. So, in order to win an election, a candidate needs to ensure that 51% of those who show up vote for him/her. In order to do that, 25% of the public must be exhorted to ensure that they are registered to vote and show up to the polling booth on election day and vote for their guy. Guess what? Most candidates pick a topic that most of the public is not even aware of, paint their opposition as minions of the devil and rile up their group/gang/ghetto to go and vote in their favor! The big "silent majority" that is struggling to build a nice life is completely and purposefully alienated so that they don't come and spoil the system.

Well, it is about time the "silent majority" asserted itself. Why? Well, while you were sleeping, the extremists on both sides have hijacked your country and banned civil discourse and compromise. We have politicians who strut around like peacocks and behave worse than the French kings and we all know what happened to them! I am not saying that you are going to see a sea change if you vote this November. But once the politicians realize that 70%, 80% or even 90% of the public is showing up at the polls, they would have to cater not only to their cohort, they would have to keep this silent majority happy too.

Of course, some of you are going to say "Both Democrats and Republicans have ignored me, why should I vote for either of them". Well, then don't! If you are in California, chances are that Libertarians and Greens both have candidates for every office. Other states may or may not be as tolerant to deviant views. Vote for them. Maybe that would scare the Republicans and Democrats.

About time this business as usual came to an end...

Why General Motors cannot sell me a car

2006-10-16T19:31:00.000-07:00

Many of us have been hearing how the rising employee costs are hurting General Motors and preventing them from becoming competitive in the marketplace. Many talk about the lavish pensions and healthcare guarantees that the UAW (United Auto Workers) has managed to blackmail GM into. Every now and then, various self-appointed pundits (like myself) talk about GM ditching their pension plans.

But let us look at reality for a moment. GM has created most of its problems itself. There was the EV1 disaster when GM, despite loud protests by its own customers, refused to let people continue to drive the EV1 that they had come to love. As recently as 2005, GM pooh-poohed the utility of hybrid cars, letting Toyota become the thought leader. Then there is the whole SUV mania. Despite rising gasoline costs, GM has continued to focus on gas-guzzling behemoths.

I am a car owner and driver. From my previous post, you would come to know that I have an 18-year old Toyota MR2. I love this car. It gives good gas mileage and is a nice peppy car. But I also need to replace it as it ages and gets louder. Recently, I heard about Saturn Sky, a new 2-seater model from GM. I decided to check out its specifications and compare.

Guess what? This 2007 car cannot match my 1988 car! The fuel efficiency is worse, the turning radius is more (imagine that for a sports car) and almost everything else comes out behind the 1988 MR2. Now imagine if you were in USSR and your 1965 Lada worked better than the 1985 Lada. What would you say? I bet you would say "Well, that is the way it is." But luckily for us, we are not in USSR. We are in the very cradle of capitalism. We are in the most competitive automobile market. And if GM cannot compete with a car that came out 19 years ago, they might as well pack up their stuff and call it quits.

My prediction is that before too long the federal government would try to give GM a subsidy. When that happens, remember that this is the same company that once said "No true blue American would ever buy a Japanese car". And make sure your elected representatives don't steal your tax money to prop up a defunct car company.

Happy driving...

Open letter to President George W Bush

2006-09-05T23:17:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr Bush,
Let me start by saying that I never voted for you. In 2000, I rooted for Gore and dutifully voted for him. In 2004, I felt that John Kerry was an idiot but nonetheless held my nose and voted for him. Yet, I am writing this letter to help rather than hurt you. You see, I cannot afford to pray for your failure because my country cannot afford another 2+ years of disasters.

There are basically 3 areas that I want to talk to you about.

1. Terrorism
Terror has been used by many factions for many centuries. But the terrorist activities succeed only when the fear seeps into the general populace. That is why when Britain was fighting Germany almost alone in 1940 and London was being bombed by the Blitz, the British did not let fear overrule their sanity and, in the end, they came out ahead. It is high time that we stopped getting spooked by our own shadows and bring some sort of normalcy to our lives.

2. Middle East
At the end of the day, every person on this planet wants the same things - food in the belly, clothes on the back, roof over the head and a bright future for the next generation. When our actions or those of our allies cause these basic goals to be stolen from the general public, they tend to get angry at us. And why shouldn't they? After all, we are a large target and we seem to have some really unsavory "friends" in the Middle East. To compound our problems further, while we are stuck in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are rattling our sabers at Iran. Perhaps we need to take a step back and understand that we cannot simply march into other people's countries and demand that they do things the way we want them to do.

3. Economy
No matter how well you do abroad, our economy needs some TLC as well. Our economy is both hot and cold simultaneously. On one hand, the number of millionaires is going up while on the other hand there is a dearth of jobs for the young people in this country. Schools and colleges that were once almost free are now charging an arm and a leg! There is a lot of uncertainty about the future and then our government is busy slashing taxes on everyone except those that earn through the sweat of their brow!
Mr Bush, your party claims that it and not the "other party" is the true friend of the working people. But the working people are less interested in stem cells, abortion and gun control laws and more interested in putting food on the table and giving their kids a better life. In your zeal to chase terrorists in the Middle East please don't forget that the American public hired you as the CEO of USA and the American growth and prosperity is critical to how you would be remembered. I hope that your name is not considered a synonym for Herbert Hoover.

With warm regards...

Guide to the Indian caste system

2006-09-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

Whenever you use the word "caste", people only think of the Indian society. True, India is quite (in)famous for its caste system but it is not the only part of the world where people are judged simply by their birth. But, due to many having asked me how the caste system works, this article is devoted to the Indian system...

The Indian caste system has four major castes which, in decreasing order of importance, are: Brahmin (priests), Kshatriya (warriors), Vaishya (business people) and Shudra (workers). Within each caste are sub-castes and within that are sub-sub-castes. For example, Agrawals are a sub-caste of Vaishyas and are further subdivided into Beesa and Dassa. Each sub-sub-caste is an insular world when it comes to marriage and strong family connections. Each caste has a protected job that only the members of that caste are allowed to do. If a person of cobbler caste wants to get into farming, both the cobbler and farmer groups would get extremely unhappy with him. In the old days, serious infractions could cause you to be kicked out of your caste. This, for those who weren't independently wealthy, was a death sentence. They not only couldn't join in the various social events, they could lose their only livelihood!

You can think of the Indian caste system as an extended version of the European guild system. As long as you stayed within the boundaries sketched out by tradition, you would be fine. You could even prosper as long as you knew "your place" in the society. This is not too different from the way Blacks were treated in USA after emancipation. For example, a millionaire weaver could be a lord in his group and lord over the lower castes but when interacting with the higher castes, he better show the proper humility or else he could be considered "too uppity" and find himself on the wrong side of some very powerful people.

Through most of history, each sub-sub-caste has lived in a microcosm of their own. Therefore, not only do they have limited connection to other castes in ordinary lives, they continuously reinforce the boundaries of the caste system. Even today, it is easy to spot people of different castes by their names and often by their choice of words in normal conversation and their style of pronunciation. You can think of My Fair Lady and the dialect-reinforced caste system of England.

However, things are changing in India. In large cities, caste matters less every day. Many people are realizing that they can defy the caste system without any consequences. I would like to think that some of my ancestors (especially Sri Prakasa and Bhagwan Das) had a hand in undermining the power of the conservatives. But the caste system is still a reality for the majority in India and even for a large segment of Americans of Indian origin! It is disheartening to see how people are still so enamored with their particular caste.

And then there is the political side to this all. Many governments, in an attempt to apportion the resources in an "equitable" manner, have steered India away from a caste-less society by making various opportunities available on the basis of caste. But that is discussion for another day...

Modest proposal for immigration reform

2006-07-10T22:35:00.000-07:00

Immigration is on everyone's mind. Some support it, others believe that the immigration taps should be closed off because the United States are getting full. Still others say that as US is a nation of immigrants, stopping the inflow goes against the very nature of our country.

While most agree that illegal immigration should be stopped (violation of laws, high incidence of death, support of underground economy etc.), what should the overarching goal of immigration policy be is not at all clear. Amongst immigration supporters, there is dissonance over whether poor, illiterate but hard-working Hispanics be allowed or not. Should the immigrants be chosen by national origin, technical skills, money to invest or some other process?

I would like to offer a new approach. I propose that taxpayers be the deciders. The process would be really simple. Every year, when taxpayers file their tax returns, the IRS shall issue an "Immigration Coupon" to every adult tax filer who is a US citizen and pays net income taxes. Every person who applies for immigration would have to submit a certain number of these coupons. People receiving these coupons can either use it for a close friend, gift it to some charity or a university, sell to the highest bidder or simply destroy it, thus preventing its use.

This would mean that instead of influencing the government to change the criterion for picking immigrants, the public would be responsible for their own coupons and everyone can have their own policy on what to do about immigrants.

Could be fun...

Yearnings of an MR2 owner

2006-05-25T08:22:00.000-07:00

I drive a Toyota MR2, a genuine Mark I built in 1988. I got it in 1994 with 30,000 miles on it and since then I have added another 107,000 miles. The car is a beauty. It is small, low to the ground, light in weight and an overmatched engine that delivers 145 horses (108 kW). It has a pair of cute pop-up headlights and exactly 2 seats, one for the driver and one for the passenger. I love my car. It is fun to drive, easy to park (okay, not easy to locate because it is lower, slimmer and shorter than just about anything else) and it gives great gas mileage (30 miles to the US gallon or 12.75 km/l or 7.84 litres per 100 km).

But, after 18 years of constant use (and a little misuse), it needs to be replaced. No, not right away but soon. I have been on the lookout for a new car for some time. My requirements are simple -- a two seater, simple, not too many frills, with an extra oomph for the engine and easy on the gas. But it seems that Toyota overdid themselves all those years ago and there still isn't anything that can be considered an heir to the MR2. I am hoping to find something that gives 40 - 50mpg, has about 140hp and weighs less than 2500 pounds.

In 1998, gasoline was about $1.20 per gallon, now it is roughly $3.30 per gallon. So, you would think that the American public would be clamouring for such a vehicle. But, it seems that everyone is looking for a "house on wheels". These SUVs on the road are basically small houses! You can watch movies, play video games, have 20 cupholders to keep your coffee, seats that adjust in myriad ways, heating and cooling to go from Alaska in January to Death Valley in June and an engine powerful enough to tow two horses, a boat and a mobile home!

Please, Toyota, give me a car that is thrifty to buy, thrifty to operate and has a pep to it. Oh and please make it a two-seater so that I can pretend that I am still single...

Immigration

2006-05-11T19:00:00.000-07:00

Immigration

Human history is a history of movement. Our ancestors migrated out of Africa, establishing themselves on 6 of the 7 continents. Our ancestors and their cousins conquered almost all available lands on Earth, from the frigid Arctic to boiling Sahara and everything inbetween.

Why did humans spread? Well, I am sure some did it out of sheer adventure but for most it was a matter of opportunity. Back when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, the seasonal migration of "food on hooves" - deer, antelopes, mammoths, gnus etc as well as availability of fruits, nuts, mushrooms, berries and other edible leaves and roots drove the seasonal migration. But as these peoples discovered other food sources or means of comfort or just better places to live, they followed other migration paths. When natural resources shrank in supply, humans were forced to migrate in search of these resources. Discovery of unmolested, unutilized lands surely caused new waves of migration.

Even after all but Antarctica was inhabited, migration continued. Within Europe, many tribes moved from place to place seeking better opportunities in terms of food, shelter, political power and protection from real and imagined enemies. Speakers of proto-Indo-European language spread out from the Caspian sea, pushing against and merging with many other populations including the Basque. Migration has been an important aspect of our history right to the present day. There is a continuous movement of people from villages to cities, from country to country, chasing opportunities or escaping dead-ends. During times of prosperity, a city or country attracts migrants from other places while during times of poverty, it supplies immigrants to other loci of prosperity.

Within my own ancestory, in the last 10 generations, people have moved from city to city trying to exploit the opportunities presented or have stayed in the city of their birth hoping to take advantage of the social and political networks.

So, why such a high immigration rate to USA? Well, through most of American history, the government has felt the need to attract immigrants. And the events unfolding in Europe provided large numbers of people trying to escape persecution, war, famine, disease or sheer lack of opportunity. I would personally put the share of the last reason upwards of 99%. Another set of immigrants were the slaves from Africa who were brought to improve the economic yield of various endevours such as farming. In the mid- to late-1800s, a third set of immigrants arrived on the scene - Chinese workers willing to work hard on construction of railroad. From the response to the third set, it is obvious that the US govt and a majority of the public saw the US as a European society, not as a global melting pot.

In the 1960s, the govt changed direction once again and started admitting large numbers of people from everywhere. One of the major groups who took advantage of this new policy were skilled professionals, especially engineers, doctors and nurses, from Asia. The US economy had been galloping at a high rate and there was an acute need for such people. Ofcourse, the immigrants usually do not come alone. They come with spouses and children and soon want to reunite with their parents and siblings. There is demand for other elements from their culture which leads to immigration of priests, musicians, chefs and other such people.

US, because of its sizeable population from every country, province and city in the world, makes it easier to immigrate. Britain, being the largest colonial power, sowed the seeds of English language in many countries. Knowledge of English language further eases immigration to USA. The biggest factor though is the worldwide marketing. The American economy, though mature, is still growing at a good pace. This means that American companies need more skilled professionals than what is available at home. Therefore, we try to attract such people from across the globe. But if you are a skilled professional in say India or Brazil where the economy is growing faster still, why would you want to leave everything and come to USA? Because, as the marketers would tell you, you have freedom and money and opportunity and all your dreams would come true. This messsage has permeated the globe so well that to someone looking to make a fresh start, USA is at the top of a very short list of potential destinations.

In contrast, today there are many people in USA who believe that immigration needs to be drastically curtailed. Yes, it is possible but remember, it is not going to be easy. The last 100 years have seen a massive influx of people to USA and they have contributed heavily towards the economic growth of this country. We have also attracted a large amount of capital and thus this symbiotic relationship between talent, capital and enterpreneurship has propelled USA to be an economic superpower. If the immigration of skilled people is curtailed, what would happen to the capital inflows? Perhaps some other country (or group of countries) would become the new economic magnet and the talent and capital would flow there instead.

Others believe that it is only illegal migration that is bad and should be ratcheted down. Towards this goal, the US government is spending a fortune in stopping the flow of "illegals", primarily through the Mexico border. But I believe that this too is a failed idea. You cannot market the American Dream to the engineers in Egypt and doctors in Ghana without also marketing to the hardworking manual laborers in Mexico. Sure, we want to accept only the "creme de la creme" of the world but it is not so simple.

Why are we in such dire need of skilled workers? Well, one reason is that we, as a society, do not want to invest in education. We are telling our kids that if they want to be a doctor, either be lucky enough to have your parents pay for your decade-long education or graduate with $200,000 in debt. If we don't have enough doctors, we would import them from some other country where the state pays for the education and the doctor arrives here fully trained and debt-free!

The flip-side of the question is: Why do we need so many unskilled workers? Well, we are a fairly wasteful society. And at the same time, we are addicted to cheap prices. We don't want one pair of great shoes that would last a lifetime. We want 10 pairs of shoes and don't mind if they wear out in a year as long as they are really cheap. Therefore, there is a need for unskilled and semi-skilled workers and the budget to pay them is really small. The only group that is keen on getting such jobs is people who are in the country illegally and cannot be employed legally. If tomorrow, by some miracle, we grant legal status on everyone and ensure that there is not a single person in USA illegally, we can expect to see a dramatic rise in the costs of many labor-intensive tasks. While we may have our moral reservations about illegal immigration, we need to understand what we are going to do when cheap labor disappears.

What do you think?

Bullfight in Madrid

2006-05-04T20:11:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was in Madrid on vacation. Despite my reservations, I was cajoled into going to a bullfight. I have always maintained that bullfights are barbaric (though I am a carnivore...). Lacking any knowledge of Spanish (except for a few tourist words and phrases), I was lucky to receive a booklet (with our tickets) which explained the process of a bullfight in 5 languages. And my neighbors on both sides were unlucky to have a decent knowledge of English language...

After seeing the entire bullfight process (6 bullfights in total), I have reached a different conclusion - Bullfights are barbaric not because a bull gets killed but because the entire process is about slaughter. The bull doesn't stand a chance. Let me explain:

First, the torero (matador) enters the ring with 3 assistants. Then, the bull enters. He is very energetic and a dangerous 1100+ pound animal at this stage. The torero and his assistants make the bull run around the ring before a horseman on a fully padded horse shows up to lance the bull in the nape. Then, either the torero or his assistants stick 3 pairs of barbs in the bull's nape. These steps are not without danger but after being lanced, the bull strength is being sapped through blood loss. Then, the matador uses his cape to make the bull charge again and again till it is time to finish the game. The matador thrusts a sword into the same nape wound and usually, the bull falls a few seconds later. Then the bull is dragged off by a team of horses.

While many may feel that it is exciting (and certainly many do by the crowds at the bullring), I felt that it was just stylized slaughter. It would be much more fun to watch if the bull had a chance to live to fight another day. My vision goes something like this:

Skip the horseman. There is no challenge. Next, make the matador and his assistants stay within the central circle (often they would run out into narrow wooden slits made in the side walls to escape the charging bull). If they go out of the central circle, they are out of the game. Also, if they lose their cape (it happened twice when I watched), out they go. I believe these changes would make for a more exciting match. Yes, the match would also get more dangerous but then again, this is not a game for the cowards. The flow would definitely change but it would also be more relevant for the era we live in.

Just some food for thought...

The two nation theory

2006-04-11T08:29:00.000-07:00

Back in the early 1940s, when the cause of Indian independence was gaining strength, the "Two Nation Theory" was proposed. The premise of the theory was simple and succinct -- the Hindus and Muslims living in the then British India were always segregated communities and thus Muslim-majority enclaves must be formed if the otherwise minority is to survive the inevitable massacre at the hands of the Hindus.

The upshot of this theory and the Indian independence in 1947 was that the British India was split into 3 contiguous landmass - India, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The ensuing confusion, lawlessness and general chaos led to the death of 1 million (or more) in various riots as well as atrocities committed on the various refugee groups. Large amounts of property was summarily destroyed in an orgy of wanton destruction. Amongst the more gruesome activities, entire train-loads of refugees were massacred.

I am writing to show you how this theory was patently wrong then and how it is being undermined today.

Firstly, the Hindus and Muslims were not as segregated as the theory suggested. Most Muslims in India were not imports but converts. Many handicrafts in India were the exclusive province of one sub-sub-sub-caste confined to a small geographical location. When such groups decided to convert (at various times), that skill went over the Muslim side but the demand remained where it always did. For example, Varanasi is full of Muslim weavers who make very exquisite sarees that are traditionally worn by Hindu women. Many of the decorations for temples are Muslim-made as well. Muslim also had no problem borrowing money from Hindu moneylenders.

Another hotspot of Hindu-Muslim interaction is Muradabad where various brass, silver (and these days silverplated) items are made. Most of the artisans are Muslim but the consumption is universal. This city is responsible for exports worth $1 Billion a year!

These Hindu-Muslim links were not only economic in nature but also spiritual. Kabir was a famous spiritualist who rejected the Hindu-Muslim divide and till date has followers in both religions. But he is only one of many hundred spiritualists that are revered by followers of both religions. And while rare, Hindus and Muslims have married across the religion line as well with many Moghul kings (all Muslim) marrying Rajput princesses (all Hindus) in an attempt to shore up their kingdom.

While mass conversions (usually Hindu to Muslim) were common while various Muslim dynasties ruled over India and made Hindus pay more taxes, many families saw only some of the members convert to Islam. Such "split families" are common across India. So, the notion that there is no interaction and no common community of Hindus and Muslims comes under a cloud.

Even back in 1940s, it was obvious to many that the two-nation theory was nothing less than bunkum. Unfortunately, this theory grew legs so long and large that 1947 was etched into the brains of many refugees as they tried to move to either Pakistan or India. Surprisingly, at the end of the partition, there were more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Sri Prakasa related an interesting story that happened when he was the Indian High Commissioner (aka Ambassador) to Pakistan. Some Muslims appeared at his office demanding help to go back "home" to Varanasi (which is in India), Sri Prakasa's hometown. When he replied that Pakistan was their home after the partition, these men grew very agitated. The initial fiction of two-nation theory did not survive the bout with reality and these men realized that their lives were intertwined with Varanasi and not Lahore!

Within 20 years of partition, the residents of then East Pakistan felt supressed under the rule of West Pakistan and in 1971, they separated to form Bangladesh. They felt that while West Pakistan was also a Muslim-majority state, their Bengali culture was a bigger defining attribute than their religion!

Sadly, the three counties still suffer from grinding poverty in many parts. Yet their fears have led to massive investments in the military and wars. Parvez Musharraf, the current dictator of Pakistan, was a little boy at the time of partition and many of his family members were massacred as they moved from India to Pakistan. At that time itself, he pledged to become a member of the military and protect his family. Unfortunately, too many people are more interested in "protecting" than in realizing that such suspicion is not helping matters one bit. These three countries are tied together by history and geography. The sooner they realize that they need to co-operate to improve their own lots, the sooner this festering wound can start to heal.

American Healthcare

2006-03-30T19:08:00.000-08:00

American healthcare has lately been in the news quite often. Why? Well, for one, people are feeling the pinch of rising costs of healthcare. For those with insurance, co-pay and deductibles are going up while the insurance rates are also going up. Many employers are no longer provideing free health insurance, expecting the employees to pony up anywhere from 10% to 50% of the premium. For those without insurance, life is full of stress because of the amazingly high costs of medicines and doctor visits, not to mention surgical procedures. Employers too are feeling the heat from insurance companies as they attempt to trim costs, especially towards retiree healthcare.

Many Americans are coming up with clever methods to reduce their costs. Many in the northern states are visiting Canada for a weekend of fun and a bagful of medication for their chronic conditions, from diabetes supplies to heart pills. Many others are going on medical-tourism, getting elective and not-so-elective surgeries done in Poland, India, China, Thailand and Mexico. All these developments beg the question - Is our system broken?

Critics of the American system of healthcare often point out that Americans spend far more money than any other developed nation without the commensurate benefit in the form of higher life expectancy and better quality of health. Is it a fair statistic? As tempting as these statistics might be, I don't think that they are fair. Life expectancy is a complex measure derived from a lifetime of choices and decisions. We Americans lead, by and large, sedentary lives and are exposed to far more mental stresses than most other people. While medicine definitely has a role to play, life expectancy is more about lifestyle choices than medicine.

The supporters of our system of healthcare are quick to point out that Americans lead in innovations in medicine, surgery, therapy and if you were to be involved in a major accident, your survival is best in the US. All of this might be true but it still does not answer the fundamental question - Is our mechanism for healthcare delivery broken?

The American system has evolved over many decades, with many features and nuances that are unique to this country. The American psyche is quite allergic to government-run and government-mandated systems even though we interact with them on a daily, even hourly basis. Our electricity, gas, water, cable-TV, sewage, garbage collection and roads are all either supplied directly by the federal, state or local government or through government-sanctioned monopolies. The healthcare system also has a veneer of private enterprise even though many of the hospitals are funded by state or local governments and most hospitals are run with federal monies. In addition, many millions get health insurance from Medicare or Medicaid, both federal government programs.

My personal frustration with the healthcare system is the un-needed complexity and disincentives built into the system. For example, each health insurance company (and there are hundreds of them) has their own codes and forms for the doctor to fill out for reimbursement. Because of this lack of uniformity, errors in billing are common and require quite a bit of extra work on part of the doctors, nurses and ancillary staff. In addition, each health insurance plan has its own list of covered services which is another minefield that the medical staff, not to mention the patient, has to negotiate. The upshot is that payments take a long time, require many iterations of attention from the insurance company, the provider and the patient and in general waste a lot of productive hours, which get paid out of the higher medical costs.

The disincentives are even worse. Most insurance plans allocate a fixed amount of money for each patient to pay the providers for regular care. As the providers have an incentive to do the least amount of tests and spend the least amount of time and thus save money, the real loser is the patient and his/her health! Insurance companies pay large sums for treating diseases such as cancer but prevention takes a backseat. Many insurance plans don't even cover vaccinations!

What can we do to improve the situation?

Well, there are a lot of things that we can do. We can definitely try to compel the health insurance companies to get together and unify their codes and forms. This would reduce inadvertant billing errors which eat up a lot of time, effort, money and energy.

But, a bigger issue is, what is the society's response to the healthcare situation in the big picture? General Motors has been in the news lately for its very high healthcare costs that are helping it shrink. Toyota overtook GM as the world's largest automaker. Are the American companies and the American society going to go that way?

So, dear reader, ponder on the questions while I try to formulate how a single-payer system can be to our benefit.

Laws and loopholes

2006-03-23T19:04:00.000-08:00

Let me tell you a story. Long time back in India, there was a king who was a devout follower of Brahma (one of the original Gods in Hinduism, along with Vishnu and Shiva; rest are avatars of these three). The king once prayed to Brahma for such a long time that Brahma appeared in front of him and asked him what he wanted. The king said "I want to be immortal". Brahma said "Sorry, but that is not possible. Only Gods can be immortal. You are a human being. I can grant you long life but not immortality". Hearing this, the king though long and hard and said "Okay. I would like that neither man nor beast can kill me". Brahma said "Ok".
"I cannot be killed during the day or night."
"Ok."
"I cannot be killed indoors or outdoors."
"Ok."
"Neither on ground nor in the air." (As you can see, he was anticipating air travel)
"Ok."
"Neither by missile nor by melee weapon." (In Sanskrit, there are two words for weapons - astra and shastra - differentiated by whether they are held while in use, such as a dagger, or thrown to use, such as darts)
"Ok."

The king was happy. But soon, he became cruel and started abusing his populace. And given the boon of near-immortality, he was simply unbeatable. When things came to a boil, Vishnu decided that he had to do something (Vishnu's role in Hindu mythology is quite central. His job is to keep the world in order by periodically restoring the balance between good and evil).

So, Vishnu came on earth in the avatar of Narasimha, a man-lion hybrid (Nara = man + Simha/Singha = lion). He grabbed the king and went and sat in the courtyard and lay the king on his lap such that no part of the king was touching the ground and at dusk, ripped the king apart with his long fingernails. Thus the king was killed by neither man nor beast, neither indoors nor outdoors, neither on ground nor in the air, neither during the day nor during the night and finally neither by held nor thrown weapon.

So, as you can see, the king might have figured out a loophole to become immortal, but Vishnu figured out a loophole within that.

The take-home lesson that I see in this story is that the more complicated the law, the easier it is to find loopholes. Therefore, I would like to see laws written in simple language. Our tax laws are as clear as mud and often we see people take advantage of loopholes. Then there are other laws that are so complicated that people don't even know when they are violating them. We should make laws simple to read and understand.

Something to ponder...

5 major mistakes in software projects and how to avoid them

2006-03-18T22:57:00.000-08:00

1. Feature Creep
As any software project manager knows, customers cannot stop asking for more. At the same time, most customers don't think of software as "concrete" so they think that all changes are possible, unlike houses or machinery. Therefore, they don't think that the deadline needs to change when adding scope so it is imperative to communicate the cost of extra features, either in time or manpower. Of course, it is important not to confuse clarification of features (very useful) with new features.

2. Buzz in the trenches
It is human nature to be optimistic. People dwell on the positive more than on the negative. When facing a roadblock, it is common for leaders and managers to hope that everything would work out quickly and hence project only the rosiest of scenarios. It is fairly common for managers to assign a fixed number of hours to solving a roadblock when the source of the error hasn't been ascertained! But for the overall manager, this is usually a prelude to disaster. The overall manager must keep an eye and an ear on the people in the trenches to make sure that deep-seated problems are not being sugarcoated till it is too late.

3. Tools
Vendors will happily sell you tools that you never use. On the other hand, really good tools can dramatically improve the return on effort. Therefore, a good manager pays attention to the tools being used and helps in the adoption of tools that make a positive difference. Go for tools that you can play with and test out not with some toy scenarios but with the actual problems that you are facing. The best tools are those that get worked to death. Shelfware is your enemy, eating up your budget and your people's time.

4. Consultants
Consultants can be godsent in a lot of projects. Unfortunately, they are rarely used well. That is why consultants and contractors have such a bad reputation. Remember, the onus is on the client to make the best use of a consultant. There should be a clear start condition, a clear end condition and what exactly the consultant is expected to do. Measuring progress via daily updates, preferably in writing, helps clients ensure that the consultants are worth the money being spent on them. I have often seen contractors working for the same client for years and getting paid a lot more than the employees. Such environments can breed resentments of epic proportions. Also, often the client is left in a lurch when the contractor moves on to some other project. Therefore, knowledge transfer should not be an afterthought, it should be an ongoing process.

5. Stability
A successful software project ends with the customer getting what (s)he needed and wanted. Usually, this requires frequent feedback from the customer, thus risking feature creep. However, it also means that the customer's expectations are grounded in reality. The single most important mechanism for eliciting feedback is to show the customer the software built so far. This is only possible if there is a stable and usable build from the recent past. But the collaborative nature of software development goes beyond just the customer. Developers, quality assurance people, technical writers and other such members of the team are also needed to provide feedback. If every build is usable, it is easier to provide feedback and improve the software. Thus, in my opinion, a daily stable build is necessary for project success.

I have been in software all my professional life so I don't know how much these pointers would help non-software people but you are welcome to it...

Difference between education and wisdom

2006-03-09T18:07:00.000-08:00

Here is a story that I heard long time back:

There once was a king who had a very able advisor. This advisor was well educated in all matters, both earthly and spiritual. The king relied heavily on the priest in running the kingdom. Once, the king noticed that the advisor was quite unhappy. The king asked him why. The advisor replied with a deep sigh "Dear Sir, my son is a very well educated man. He is an excellent student and has excelled me in all aspects of education. But he is an idiot and an utter fool."

The king was completely shocked! He couldn't imagine someone beating his advisor in all educational aspects and yet not be the smartest man on eath! So, he said to his advisor "Sir, you have been invaluable in the matters of my kingdom for many years. Perhaps your son is not as dumb as you are fearing. Why don't you tell him to meet me tomorrow and perhaps I can find him a good position in my administration." The advisor was happy to hear such a remark and promised that he would send his son the next day.

The next day, as the son was entering the throne room, the king removed a ring from his finger and hid it in his fist and said "What do I have in my fist?" The son was very well educated in the arts of prediction and said "It is round in shape". The king said "Yes".

"It is made of gold."
"Yes."

"It has a circular hole in the middle."
"Yes."

The advisor's son thought hard and said "Dear Sir, you have a millstone in your fist."

Sadly, the ranks of our "leaders" is full of "millstone-in-the-fist" wisdom...

5 Republican Myths

2006-03-02T11:31:00.000-08:00

1. Republicans are against taxes
Yes, it is true that Republicans like to cut taxes. It goes hand-in-hand with their theory that a smaller government is a better government. However, their targets for tax cuts are interesting. They are keener to cut taxes on multi-million dollar inheritances than on wages. Ordinary Americans, whose income is primarily derived from wages, do not benefit from cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends. Accounts that allow Americans to save money tax-free, such as 401(k) and Roth IRA have curious limits on them, such as phasing out Roth IRA contributions once you start making $100,000. Social Security taxes have gone from 4% in 1967 to 15% today. Just imagine, dividend income of millions is taxed at 15% but wage income of $80,000 is first taxed at 15.4% for Social Security and Medicare taxes and then taxed at income tax rates that can go upto 31%. Reality: Republican are against taxes only if they impact the rich.

2. Republicans are for states’ rights
For years, many Republicans have supported conservative initiatives in state legislatures as a strike for states’ rights. But when 9 states, including Arizona and California made medicinal use of marijuana legal, these same Republicans rushed to ensure that these changes in state statutes were ineffective. The current administration is looking for ways to penalize doctors who, in their considered opinion, find medicinal marijuana to be useful. John Ashcroft, the ex-Attorney General, battled Oregon over Oregon’s assisted suicide law that has been passed by the citizenry twice and once by the Oregon legislature. Reality: Republicans support states’ rights only if they are conservative.

3. Republicans are for smaller governments
Ronald Reagan, a president who was elected in 1980 under the banner of smaller government, left the presidency in 1989 with one more department, Department of Veteran Affairs, than when he arrived. Budgets had ballooned during his tenure and his successor, George Bush Sr., did not stem the tide. Now, George Bush Jr. has managed to create yet another department, Department of Homeland Security, and has increased the federal government payroll by literally hundreds of thousands of employees. The proposed 2007 budget comes in at a staggering $2.77 Trillion! Reality: Republicans like large governments just as everyone else.

4. Republicans have strong moral values
Let us see, Ronald Reagan was on his second wife (divorced from the first), Bob Dole is on his second wife (divorced from the first), Newt Gingrich is divorced from two wives, as is Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy is a convicted felon and Oliver North sold weapons to Iran. Bob Livingston had to resign his seat in the House of Representatives after it became clear that he had affairs for the last 33 years! Bill Bennett has run up gambling losses of $8 million. Dan Quayle got to serve in Indiana National Guard while less well-connected boys of his age died in Vietnam. Jack Abramoff scandal is ensnaring lots of Republicans. Today's news headlines talks about how mine safety has been abandoned by the Bush government while putting on the ole' somber poker face when miners have died in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Reality: Republicans are as fallible as the rest of us.

5. Republicans are fiscally responsible
When Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980, the annual budget deficit was $90 Billion and the debt ceiling (the total amount of money the federal government could borrow) was less than $1 Trillion. In the 12 years under Reagan and Bush Sr., deficits ballooned, reaching $300 Billion and the debt ceiling was raised again and again. Luckily, Clinton’s presidency saw not only a reduction in deficit but for the first time since the Eisenhower administration, the US government actually bought back the debt. But Bush Jr., after inheriting a budget surplus, has put us back in financial quagmire. Debt ceiling is now at $7 Trillion. Reality: Republicans are fiscally irresponsible.

These 5 myths have been bandied about again and again to beat up on the Democrats. Now, the Democrats are not any better than the Republicans but the holier-than-thou of the Republicans gets on my nerves...

How to keep family heirlooms

2006-02-25T19:31:00.000-08:00

My maternal grandfather's mother came from a very wealthy family. Her father was the "king" of Nashipur, basically a landowner with lots of land. When she got married to my great-grandfather, she came in a very ornate palanquin ornamented with, amongst other things, ivory accents. My grandfather was quite attached to that palanquin, perhaps due to the fact that both his parents passed away when he was a teenager. Anyways, many years down the road, a collector of Indian artifacts, Raja Dinkar Kelkar, found out that this palanquin was with my grandfather. Being a true collector, he pestered my grandfather to give him this palanquin so that he can put it in his museum. Mr. Kelkar felt that such a palanquin is part of Indian history and more people should be able to see it. My grandfather refused.

As a result, I have dim memories of that palanquin sitting in a corner of my grandfather's gigantic house. As it sat there over the years, termite got the better of it and some 30 years ago, it was sent to the trash-heap, never to be seen again.

Many years later, my mother told me about Mr. Kelkar and his trip to my grandfather and ever since, I have wondered what would have happened if that palanquin was sitting not in my grandfather's home but in Pune at the Kelkar museum. Perhaps I could appreciate its beauty and boast to my friends that my ancestors once owned and used this particular palanquin.

But it is not to be. Therefore, at times it is better to let go and still have access to the heirlooms than to mistreat them and lose them forever.

Just food for thought...

The American Dream

2006-02-17T13:16:00.000-08:00

The new world was discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492. At that time, most of the large old world societies were highly stratified. Caste system was prevalent in India, China, Europe and Middle East. The accident of one’s birth dictated the opportunities one would get, in terms of education, choice of jobs, physical mobility and social circles. People who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong stratum would usually have to reconcile to the limited choices, if any, they had.

For example, if you were born in Europe and wanted to be a weaver, you had to join the weaving guild in your area. You had to follow the rules and regulations of the guild and if the guild made Fridays a mandatory day off, you really had no choice but to take Fridays off. If the guild required that you only work with cotton, you only worked with cotton. Discovery of new materials or new techniques was very upsetting to the hierarchy. Similarly, your religion was also a discriminating factor. If you were a Catholic in Anglican England or a Huguenot in Catholic France, be prepared to be persecuted. Similarly if you were a Muslim or a Jew just about anywhere in Europe, you were a convenient scapegoat for the ruling classes.

The new world was also populated by people organized into large societies that had a caste system. But a unique situation occurred in what is now the east coast and Midwest of USA. The natives living there were either forced off their lands or were killed off by the European settlers or died out due to lack of resistance to European diseases. Thus, an opportunity presented itself where people escaping the rules in Europe could get a second chance on life.

Mind you, these opportunities did not present themselves equally to all people. The primary beneficiaries of this need for new people were people from England, France and Germany. They were either escaping religious persecution, such as the Quakers, or escaping economic depravation.

Back in Europe, the lords inhabiting the Frankish areas divided up the lands between all their sons. As a result, the sons had an incentive in staying on their father’s property. However, in England, the eldest son usually got everything or close to it. So, the latter sons may have the benefit of education and upbringing, but usually didn’t have anything in terms of property to live off of. The New World gave these men an excellent opportunity to put their education to good use.

As a result of these historical accidents, the New World became a land of opportunity, not just economic opportunity but also religious and social and other opportunities that did not have enough fertile grounds back in the old country. Immigrants coming from Europe saw America as the place where they could be free of artificial restraints and truly blossom. The enthusiasm was infectious and many took advantage of the unclaimed lands all over the place to create their own paradise. Many succeeded and many failed but this thought process was already getting codified as “The American Dream.”

Now, initially, these opportunities were only available to select few people. Discrimination and segregation were rife. However, because of the very nature of the colonies, people were far more willing to compromise than they would have in the old world. In the new world, people had to be much more self-reliant and independent than they could be in their hometowns. If you were trying to claim a piece of land out in the western parts of the colonies, you had to be a farmer, a blacksmith, a mason, a tailor and everything else all rolled into one. These people recognized the hard work of each other, even if they came from different lands and spoke different languages.

Some 300 years after Columbus, a new country emerged, breaking off from the English empire. This country, United States of America, was created by some very well educated yet self-reliant people, including Franklin, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson etc. In an attempt to do away with old methods of governance, they tried to give democracy a chance. In addition, they tried to codify the behavior of the government, in an attempt to prevent a repeat of despotic rule. These men, while firmly rooted in reality, were fairly idealistic. They put words like “All men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence while slavery was still prevalent. As one can see from the energy and zeal of these founding fathers, the American Dream was already a part of the consciousness.

As any observer could plainly see, equality of opportunity was still not a reality. Blacks were still slaves in most of the new country, the natives were still being persecuted and pushed off the lands that they had lived on all their lives, and the developing hierarchy was eager to put down any challengers. Yet, changes were afoot.

The first elections in the new country in 1788 invited White men who had immovable property, i.e. land, to vote. Within a generation, poorer White men were actively participating in the process. Abolitionists were gaining strength, seeking to do away with slavery. The ensuing civil war changed the character of this country again, when many volunteers from all over America and even Europe served both sides. The Irish, fleeing the potato famine back home, made this country their home and despite facing discrimination and other such obstacles, survived and prospered. Germans came in many streams as their homeland became the theatre of many wars.

The ongoing turmoil in Europe saw many more immigrants adding to the population and to the character of this country. As people realized that the old shackles of Europe no longer bound them, they blossomed into a new innovative, creative and hardworking force. Mind you, these were the same people but on new fertile soil. Yes, segregation was still the rule of the day but the dream, of being able to accomplish anything that you set your mind and heart to, was alive and well. It is this dream that propelled the Civil Rights marchers to undo the wrongs in this country. Martin Luther King Jr., in a stoke of genius, prefaced the biggest speech of his life with "I have a dream". And it is this dream that today causes people to think up innovative ways of alleviating world hunger, poverty and wars.

Over the years, United States has seen many more waves of immigrants, people fleeing various wars in Europe, communism in Asia, massacres in Africa and various groups of adventurers. The American society has become more tolerant in fits and starts. Yes, there have been some very ugly chapters to its name, from murderous exploitation of Blacks to internment of people of Japanese origin to McCarthy era witch-hunts of suspected Communists. But this same society has also abolished slavery, ended racial segregation and given women the right to vote and equality in the workplace.

Today, the American dream lives on in the hearts and minds of those who feel unfettered in their quest for success, whatever be their definition. It is this dream, the very foundation of the American experience, which truly defines this society. Over time, many immigrant groups, once shunned, have become an integral part of the mainstream. And this integration has not happened due to heroic events, it has happened due to the embracing of and recognition of the American Dream.

Now, one might say, this dream is as old as humanity itself and is thriving in all parts of the world. Yes, dreamers have always been an integral part of the human society, but as societies have evolved and codified, they have also fossilized, instinctively shunning changes. As for the latter, yes, societies have borrowed from each other and grown. Yet, one can see how unprepared many societies have been of change. For example, Britain reformed its higher education in the 1950s to give talented students from poorer classes a chance. However, many of these “deeply-accented” graduates found that their paths were limited not by their financial means or family backgrounds but by their accent. Therefore, many ended up immigrating to USA and contributing to its society. India is still in the throes of the caste system. Yet, both these societies are transforming themselves and embracing changes. There definitely are far more opportunities in China and India today than there were just a decade back. However, the instinctive embrace of innovation and adventure that exists in USA is seldom seen anywhere else. This drive to dream and to strive to fulfill the dream has been inculcated in this society to such an extent that every successful person feels compelled to pay homage to the dream. Every day, you see people who have created a company or become an accomplished artist or any other field of endeavor laud their dream and their struggle to achieve the dream.

That, in my opinion, is the essence of the American society. Sure, most people never strive to achieve their dream; many don’t even know what they want. But they all know that there is a dream somewhere with their name on it.