Frost Nixon--A verbal duel as much fun as a boxing match

I recently watched the movie Frost Nixon. If you google enough search results, you will find that the movie has indulged in in its own latitudes and the background through which Nixon came to the confession might not be exactly as shown. The phone call from Nixon definitely seems to be pure fiction. None the less, the movie makes for a riveting watch.This is why..

I am a movie buff and also love politics. Few politicians in last 50 years have received the kind of attention that Nixon received. He was considered efficient (his achievements in foreign policy as well as on domestic front would probably make him amongst the top 2 American presidents of the last 50 years). At the same time, he was considered extremely mean, revengeful and someone for whom politics was an everyday war. All of it came out in the Watergate scandals and more so, in his interviews with David Frost. The movie has some defining moments which if you watch it next, you should look out for:

a) One of the researchers, who has stridently anti-Nixon, while describing the final confession from Nixon describes how television as a medium just deconstructs you in the most vivid fashion. (Think about what Arnab Goswami's interview did to Rahul Gandhi...the television had reduced Rahul Gandhi to a picture of a hesitant politician struggling with the hustle of a general election, articulating what was mundane and ill at ease with the reality that he faced. No words or allegations about Rahul Gandhi could have proved the same and all of it just happened within 2 hours of the interview.)

b) At one place, Nixon says that Democrats got an opportunity and they stuck the knife in and made sure it hurt to the maximum. In the same breath, he has no qualms mentioning that if he was in their shoes, he would have done the same.

c) While Nixon has zero regard for Frost, to the point of disdain, the greeting would always be a warm "Mr. Frost" As the movie is coming to a close, Nixon probably gives a better perspective of what he thought of Frost with all his flamboyance and partying ways. Nixon thinks that Frost loves to be around people which should make him a better politician and Nixon with his love for the intellect & rigor would make a better journalist.

d) The description of the chief of staff (played by Kevin Bacon) of the first salvo in the interview (where Frost and team came prepared with the question to nail Nixon and the big winding nothing response they got from Nixon) is really good.

e) Finally, the waiting game that Frost plays, and I am not sure if he planned it this way, till the time Nixon gave him an opportunity makes for a fascinating viewing. 

Why I Have Had Enough of Obama

I was the biggest cheer leader of the current president when he was still a big underdog against a goliath called Hillary Clinton. Despite all odds, he won in Iowa and it was fantastic. Then he lost in New Hampshire against all that polls had to say and the fun had just begun. Then over the next 5 months of hard slog where Hillary tried to do everything to get herself in, he held on quite beautifully. Once the nomination happened, McCain was always going to be easy pickings.

Like a lot of other people, I had high hopes with Obama's presidency. 11 months into it, I am convinced, like so many others, I got infatuated with Obama bandwagon more because I was sick of Bush's and GOP's stupidity then any transformation that Obama would usher. I think problem lies also with my head. Like so many young folks who are leftist in the heart and rightist in the head, you seem to fall over for someone like Obama pretty easily. While the world has drooled over Obama's speeches, like the one in Cairo, I cannot avoid seeing it all from the prism of results. I don't think there should be any other yardstick. Obama has let Russia loose, bent over to the Chinese, let Netanyahu get away with building more settlements, goofed up big time on healthcare, hosted a dumb head beer party to strengthen race relations...list goes on and on. Now the Afghan war which in Obama's words was the "war of necessity" doesn't seem to be the necessity anymore. Suddenly, there are good and bad Taliban. Mr. Obama, I have 4 words for you: Get Your Act Together. Fuck all niceties and style because remember this; one of the most effective American presidents of last 50 years was also the most boring one. And the most exciting of them all took America to Vietnam and screwed up in Bay of Pigs!!!. Let go off your indecision, pick one thing at a time, and fix things up. You have enough political capital as of now...it won't be there tomorrow because there might be more Nobels on your way to make you the biggest laughing stock of the modern world.

Kennedy Slain On Dallas Street!!!

This headline in Dallas Morning News of November 23, 1963 says it all. I am in Dallas for a customer conference and was staying at the Adolphus at the Main Street. Not far from there is the 6th floor of the then Texas School Book Depository Building on Elm Street where, allegedly, Less Oswald killed the president with a rifle shot in his head. This floor has been converted into a museum with videos from Kennedy's speeches and everything surrounding the assassination. The place is sombre as well as elating for the work presented. The most chilling part is to look out of the window down the Elm Street going into the highway and imagine what happened there on that fateful day. I find out in some of the literature in the museum that Kennedy actually had received a lot of threats from Texas for his pro-civil rights position and his numbers had fallen dramatically in this state which was Democratic at that time. Preparing for his reelection in 1964, he was out trying his best to be as close as possible to the people( and hence an open car)...and that was his undoing.

There are a couple of things which are interesting to note about Kennedy's presidency. He clearly evoked very strong responses from the young who enrolled in droves in the newly created Peace Corps.Another achievement was a road map he created for a lot of civil liberties for black people which came to fruition once LBJ came to power. The committment to land on moon was another example of his visionary capabilities. He also enunciated a very positive vision for America along with strongly standing up to the threat of communism. Probably, his biggest moment of glory in terms of foreign policy was the successful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis....not to forget that speech in Berlin which ended with Kennedy proclaiming Ich bin ein Berliner( I am a Berliner).

Having said that, foreign policy was one area where, I contend, Kennedy administration also committed massive blunders. Bay of pigs, escalation of commitment in Vietnam and erection of the Berlin Wall- all happened while Kennedy was at the helm. Interestingly, most successful foreign policy since 2nd World War was probably run under Richard Nixon who is considered the most uninspiring of all the US presidents in last 50 years( Did I forget Jimmy Carter???).

Anyways, it was quite a moment at the place where all this happened and it is still soaking in. To be so close to what was a sort of myth for a very long time with the video of Kennedy hit and the slow slumber into Jacqueline's arms and then her climbing up the rear of the car in her pink dress...everything happened right there...right where my eyes were.

I actually bought news paper prints from the souvenir shop of two editions of Dallas Morning News for November 23( with the headline: Kennedy Slain On Dallas Street) and one for November 26(35th President Finds His Peace On Slope In Arlington Cemetery), 1963 and they are just chilling. Imagine Texas in 1963, walking into a house to find a copy of these newspapers lying on the coffee table!!!

I Think We Can All Use Some Sustenance...

Congress Struggles To Come Up With Cool Name For Anti-Drug Initiative

If anyone ever wondered how the tax payer dollars are spent, then look at this clip from a congressional committee discussion at Capitol Hill. By the way, the congressman from Connecticut does get tired of bulls$%7ting and seconds the motion put forward by congresswoman from New Mexico to go for lunch....and how does he second it? By saying, "I think we can all use some sustenance"!!!!

The Red Blue Divide..

I finally finished reading a book after a long long time. The book is called What's the matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank. American politics has fascinated me for a long time for the fact that in some ways, this country seems to have the most evolved electoral system. I know ,I know some of you are already scoffing at me...telling me to remember Florida in 2000...well, in some ways, what I am going to write based on what I gathered from this book does explain some of the divisiveness of that time as well.

So lets dive into it...if you like politics because of the associated intrigue and what might seem like irrational behavior on the part of voting population, then this book is a fine read. It looks into the evolution of Kansas from a predominantly Democratic state to a state that voted 80% Republican in 2004 presidential elections. The book also looks at one fundamental question: Why do rich folks like in Los Angeles overwhelmingly vote Democratic( despite knowing that Dems would raise taxes for the rich) and why poor folks in loads of red states vote Republican(despite knowing that spending cushion that they specially require is going to disappear under GOP rule). Answer is simple and if you look at, for example, Fox News and folks like Hannity and O'Reilly, you would know what the writer is talking about. First thing to understand is that people vote for people with whom they think they share their values rather than for people who stand for their economic interests. So values seems to override economic interests. Kansas was an experiment state for conservative movement in terms of low taxes for rich combined with social issues like evolution,abortion & sanctity of life( read Stem Cell research), gay rights and gun control( By the way, it is interesting that I read about Kansas because there are good chances that current Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius might be the running mate of Barack in the general election).

So in discourse after discourse, you will see how the discussion is hardly ever on economic issues. Democrats learnt it the hard way when Al Gore went on Larry King before the election in 2000 and promised tougher gun laws..come election time in November, and he lost every state in the south including his home state of Tennessee. Democrats pretty much have reconciled to not talking about gun control too explicitly these days but other big confrontational social issues still remain. Democrats want to keep Roe v. Wade, Republicans want to get rid of it. Democrats are for right to abort, stem cell research and gay union and Republicans are not. In fact, I am sure that recent ruling in California Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage would definitely stir up people on the right and might actually end up hurting otherwise buoyant Democrats' chances in November.

So bottom line, when you are trying to understand where all these folks from right and left are coming from, look at social issues and not economic ones. You will see that a lot of noise would start making sense. The fact that vast parts of America ( specially old economy states like Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia etc.) are all hurting economically but still support less government is really not because they want less government but it is because of value issues...you know how many people in America do not believe in evolution? Take a guess...full 51%!!!!

My Problem With Hillary...

In recent times, I have found myself at loggerheads with people who support Hillary Clinton. I also think that, in some ways, it is wrong that she evokes such strong negative opinions in me. I like to stay balanced in my perspective about things in general but in this case, this doesn't seem to hold true. I am still trying to figure out why this is the case but in the meantime, I would try and present the reasons I have been able to find out till now. I am a Obama supporter and some of it might sound like the campaign talking points..so bear with me:

1) Hillary, for a long time and even today, portrays a picture of entitlement, an almost baffled look at people's inability to understand her rightful right to the post of presidency. This entitlement seems to come from the fact that she is Bill Clinton's wife and more importantly, went through all the trauma during Clinton's impeachment all the time standing through the humiliation thrown at the family. I strongly resent anything that people claim as their own based on anything else except hard work.

2) She comes across as too calculative...almost maniacal in everything she does. What further compounds the problem is that she has a lot of difficulty hiding this calculative nature....one day she is nice, next day she is shouting and third day, she is sobbing!!! I am one of those people who thinks that she should have divorced Bill after the affair broke out, and by the way this was not the first time Bubba did this...think about Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jone et.al., and by not divorcing him, she set a bad example for everyone around. I think the calculation must have been that she stood to gain more by the sympathy of a woman mistreated by her husband and still standing up to everything that came their way.

3) Third reason is her husband and the general tenor of her campaign. In terms of pure numbers, it seems obvious that she has lost purely for strategic mistakes rather than because Barack has been flawless. When she decided, for whatever reason and no wonder: sense of entitlement and over confidence must have played into it, to not compete in 11 contests in February, you know that not many people she surrounded herself with had the guts to tell the lady the truth....and we will look back and evaluate the role of everyone around her at that time....people like Patti Solis Doyle, Mark Penn etc. Again it plays into the common narrative you hear about big people and the sycophancy they feed upon. So it is not whether why she is sticking around even after there is no chance of winning. Its about not having the grace to accept reality. Anything and everything goes to get elected...change rules to count Michigan and Florida, tell the world that caucuses do not matter and then states that have voted for Barack will not help Democrats win the general election. Last time I checked, even I will win California, New York and Massachusetts if I was the Democratic nominee.
I had been a huge fan of Bill Clinton for a very very long time...especially for his extraordinary speaking style as well as the fine work he has done around the world post presidency. What was completely baffling was the role he took up in Hillary's campaign... Some people really can't forget those good old days of peddling in power and care little for the legacy they are leaving behind. Bill Clinton has spoken previously about his appreciation for Karl Rove tactics in 2000 and 2004 elections and it seems that he decided that the best way to fight was by bloodying everyone around. Sadly, it didn't work this time and Clintons are not ready to accept what the reality is. Last time I checked out, the only other place around the world where you can find a parallel for this is Zimbabwe and Clintons have some fine company in the defiant Robert Mugabe!!!

4) And then the Bosnia incident...and how smoothly she lied about landing up in sniper fire....and then rather than acknowledging her lie, deciding to tell the world that " She Misspoke"!!. You know what Hillary, people in my country, India, bear this crap all their life with politicians like Mayavati, Laloo Prasad, Mulayam Singh and all...but that country has more than 40% illiterate people and they have so little money that they drive their bicycle 30 miles to a get one meal promised in a campaign rally. America is slightly different and you really cannot hope that people will ignore this kind of nonsense easily.


So as you can see, except for the fourth reason, the first three reasons I mention have to do with my perceptions based on what I have largely observed on television and electronic media. I have a lot of friends who point out this flaw in my argument and I do agree that I might be wrong. But then, isn't a good leader, and we all know how desperately America needs one right now!!!, about inspiring people, showing a sense of character and making people believe that they are capable of doing better than what they deem is possible? And really, does anyone really think Hillary can do that?

For The Clintons, You Are Either With Us Or Against Us

I know a lot of you would say that this is something that Dubya said in the aftermath of 9/11 and it is unfair to say the same for the Clintons. None the less, if you watch the drama that this couple has pulled over benign and easily disguised Americans, its not difficult to see why nothing would change if Hillary is elected. I hate to sound someone who is completely consumed by Hillary bashing but seriously, these two people have tormented me in these fine times when I found a life partner.

As I have noted in a lot of other entries in this blog, I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton before he picked up a hatchet and started going around knocking people out. You either have to be with the Clintons or you are either naive, too romantic, too unrealistic or plan Judas like. How could you deny Hillary the right she has earned with all the experience while she was first lady dodging bullets in Bosnia and doing tons of other difficult things? How dare you decide to be against us? No wonder, when Bill Richardson decided to ditch the wife of his old boss, all hell broke lose!!

So when you think what would be happen if Hillary gets elected, you just have to see the rampage in the last 8 years. You just need to have one vote more than 50%, have a channel like Fox and throw sleaze at your opponents....create a distorted reality and keep telling..You are with us or against us.

The Subtle Art Of Lying

My inspiration,Hillary, is at it again...weaving and spinning her way out of creating and destroying things at the same time. Latest incident comes out of her benign reminder about how courageous she has been into foreign lands representing America's interests. So the supposed incident involves Hillary travelling to Tuzla,Bosnia as first lady to take part in some ceremony in 1996. She claims that there was threat of sniper fire and when she landed in C17 helicopter, all took evasive action and ran for cover. That truly is a hallmark of a courageous person and truly deserves accolades. It also shows the first hand experience of diplomacy in tight situations that she brings to the table.

Now this is the interesting part:
1) Her claims cannot be true for one simple reason. Chelsea was accompanying her on that trip and she wasn't even an adult at that time. Do you think any mother would expose her daughter to such danger for a photo-op?

2) And then today, the news broke out that everything Hillary said was a complete lie. There was no threat of sniper fire and she never had to take cover. So what does Hillary do? She comes out and says that she MISSPOKE!!! Imagine narrating a complete story about a war zone...your defining moment in foreign policy..and then saying you misspoke. But thats where the mark of a true leader comes in. If you are going to be leader of the free world, you should be able to lie with a straight face with the world looking at you and condemn the other person for not being able to lie with your own dexterity.

I love you Hillary. I truly love you. You prove that bad leaders do not exist only in India & Pakistan and other politically corrupt nations. They are right here in the oldest democracy,albeit, in a sophisticated garb.

Democrats Fall In Love And Republicans Fall In Line!!!

Republican Party proved again why it is called The Grand Old Party(GOP). Nomination of John McCain for the Republican ticket for this fall's presidential election proves a long standing trend...and what is the trend? Broadly speaking, Republicans fall in line for their grand old statesman. All Republican presidents except the current one in recent decades have one thing in common.Nixon, Reagan, George Bush Sr. and now John McCain(if he is elected in November) all lost their nomination bid the first time and then came good the next time around. Nixon lost to Kennedy, Reagan to Gerald Ford,George Bush Sr. to Reagan, and John McCain to the current president. And then when they ran the next time, the party was ready to reward them for their patience and perseverance.

On the Democratic side, I guess I don't need to explain why rather than falling in line, they fall in love. As opposed to McCain who still has a lot of selling to do to people on the right, Democratic Party loves its two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.And interestingly, none of the Democratic president in last 50 years lost a nomination first and then came back to win the second time. Its almost as if once you lose, the party moves on to find its next standard bearer...one with whom they can fall in love again!!!

Legalizing Drugs,William Buckley And Making Pragmatism Sexy Again

The father figure of conservatism in America, William Buckley recently died at the age of 82. Interestingly, I got to know about him only at the news of his death. Since then, I found myself watching his videos on youtube and reading articles.

There are a couple of finer points about Buckley that I want to observe before we move on to the purpose of this post. He was a great debater with a very wry sense of humor and wrote enormous number of books and articles published in National Review and otherwise. For him a conservative seeks to be grounded in reality, in things that work rather than how things ought to be. This meant minimal government and a level headed,albeit strong, foreign policy. He opposed the recent surge in Iraq when the conservative movement across America cheered for it.

The irony of the conservative movement is reflected by the departure from the original thought that the movement experiences in present day America. Today, conservatism stands for a bullish foreign policy and more government with respect to enforcement(reflected in the support that acts like Patriot Act have got). Probably, 9/11 changed a lot of America in a profound way but by the very definition of conservatism, it should be possible to find solutions grounded in reality with minimal engagement from the government.

Lets explore an interesting issue...drug legalization. I am pasting a youtube video which is part 1 of a series of 3 videos you can find on the site. In this 1996 interview with Richard Heffner, Buckley contends that drugs should be legalized. This position today is considered to be the position of liberal Hollywood type of self destructive hippies!!! Buckley contended for legalization based on the economics of enforcement and if the estimated 125 billion dollars spent on enforcement at that time could be better spent somewhere else. He goes on to contend that despite a declared war on drugs, it was time to pull away like American did in pulling away from Vietnam and pulling away from prohibition. Now keep in mind, a conservative seeks to be grounded in reality. And the reality is that enforcements has created a black market and smugglers who can profit out a drug which cost much less in a pharmacy store. Since drugs are prohibited, they create a gap between supply and demand. The reality is also that it is not really difficult to get marijuana or cocaine if you have the money to pay for it.He also contends, with numbers, that as many as 95% of the people who did try drugs ended up not becoming addicts and there seems to be no reason to believe that legalization would push this percentage or number of addicts. If that be the case, why not legalize, spend some money on rehabilitation program for addicts and spend the remaining lot on constructive programs.

American prison population is an example of excessive enforcement. It takes more money to house a prisoner in jail then to fund 4 years of college education for an average American!!! And there are examples where you could argue for prohibition, if you support prohibition on drugs, on adultery and alcohol as well. The only reason it is not done is the excessive cost of needless enforcement. As Buckley said about adultery:" What would you do? Go and open up every motel room to see what is going on behind closed doors?".

My Birthright!!!

This primary season is becoming fascinating day by day. One thing that fascinates me is the complete bafflement which Clintons seem to express at Hillary's inability to connect with the voting public. Its almost as if they are being denied their birth right. First it would be the husband, then the wife and when both are ready to go probably the daughter would carry on the great Clinton name.
Coming from India and the disgust that Gandhi family still evokes in me, this whole drama doesn't look very alien to me. Cross over into Pakistan and you see the Bhutto drama. The woman had a will which said that her husband should take over the party in case anything happened to her. What wonderful way to express your trust in democracy for which you supposedly sacrificed your life!!! Thank you for taking out whatever sympathy I felt for your loss of life.

Coming back to the Clintons, I think they are either supremely naive or just hopelessly arrogant. The comeback kid of yesterday, Bill Clinton, is saying things of such colossal nonsense that sometimes you end up wondering what you just heard was something that came out of Bill's mouth. I have heard Clinton numerous times on TV and had the opportunity to hear him in person once. I had immense respect for his ability to articulate really difficult concepts and rally people behind a good cause. All that is gone with the wind. What you see now are a pair of old whining arrogant couple who would stoop to any level to get Hillary in White House. She started crying yesterday because people won't understand how much personal it is for her to become president!!! I have only one thing to say. I am happy that I am in America and I don't have to go through the same old ugly stinking disgust that would have unfolded in India and Pakistan. This is America Baby...This is America...Crying and Whining and Shouting won't stick here!!!

Greg Gutfeld's Hilarious Explanation Of The Choice Between Obama and Hillary

I don't watch Red Eye on Fox that often but today I stumbled upon this hilarious Greg-a-Logue about the choice between Hillary and Obama. Read On:

"While watching the debates, I figured out why Obama is so popular and Hillary isn't.Obama looks pretty and we love him and Hillary looks constipated and you hate her. In a nutshell, Obama is a stripper and Hillary is your wife. Think about it. When you go to a strip club, you see the performer's best and only the attributes...you see her curves, and her implants. You don't see her meth habit, her biker ex-boyfriend, the box of severed ears that she keeps in her closet. But with your wife, you see the good and the bad...the very bad and this is why men sometimes prefer strippers to their wives. But once you leave your wife and date a stripper, you quickly find out that she is far worse than your wife. Your wife doesn't eat her own hair for example.If the elections were held now, Obama would win which is essentially like marrying a stripper after spending a weekend with her in Vegas doing lines off her butt. But unlike that entirely made up scenario which definitely didn't happen to me in 1992 when I was living in my car, a quickie election can't be annulled. Tie the knot with Obama, as shapely as she is, you're stuck with him for at least four years and that's why I recommend ditching both and voting for me."

Finding A New Kissinger: Fareed Zakaria for Secretary Of State in Obama Administration

If you haven't heard about Fareed Zakaria till now, let me introduce you to an absolute genius. This guy was born in Bombay to a former Indian parliamentarian Rafiq Zakaria. He came to US in 1982, did his studies at Yale and then a PHD from Harvard under Samuel Huntington( long time Harvard scholar and author of two wonderful books: Clash of Civilization and Who Are We)

Fareed hosts a show called Foreign Exchange these days. Prior to that, he was editor of Newsweek and wrote a great book called Future of Freedom. He has been part of numerous policy think tanks and is considered a centrist on foreign policy issues. On 12th September 2001, he wrote an article in Newsweek called " Why They Hate Us?" where he carefully laid out America's engagement in the Middle East and how things came to such an impasse that a radical Sunni movement managed to attack America at its heart. This article made him an instant rock star in foreign policy circles.

What makes him special is this: In an Obama administration, Fareed could be a great guy to do things which some of the recent administrations have completely failed in. Lets put this in perspective because Fareed becoming Secretary of State would be quite something. Imagine someone who is a non-American and a Muslim becoming American Secretary of State? This basic fact about Fareed and his great qualifications can make him a great ambassador where America has had the most trouble. He has also been a long time proponent of Kissinger style pragmatic diplomacy in which there are no permanent friends and enemies....someone who is more of a believer in Teddy Roosevelt style Real Politik as compared to Wilsonian ideals.

America needs a new engagement in Middle East, in Iran, in Africa and in the wider world. Fareed can have a great symbolic and substantive presence putting our broken foreign policy in place.

Obama's Imperatives:Laying Out A New Deal

Now that everyone is jumping on Obama bandwagon, I have something to say about one weakness that he has: his supposed lack of experience and his clear vision for what he will do at least with respect to foreign policy. It sounds too close to everyone else on the Democratic side despite the myriad different positions one can craft considering the complex modern world. Here is my prescription to the situation. The premise of this prescription lies in two goals: 1) Any foreign policy layout should work at restoring & enhancing America's leadership in the free world 2) It should be pragmatic to reflect the day to day needs of American people. So here it goes:

1) America should open up a new front, not necessarily only militarily, on the African subcontinent. If there is any country on the planet today that can deliver order and well being to this left behind child, then it is America. Recent violence in Kenya is a great example and despite how much I like Obama, I cannot ignore the fact that he hasn't made a single statement about the tribal violence that has happened there. We all know about Sudan and Darfur. Somalia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Congo---institutions in all these countries would immensely benefit from America's involvement. And numbers show that people in these countries are not anti America as a lot of people around the world are. If America can communicate in unequivocal terms that it would support in every way possible(including militarily), efforts by African Union on stopping genocide, reconciliation and fair elections, then it would really do a world of good both for America and Africa. Africa can give back America the legitimacy it has lost in recent years and America can deliver order to this really difficult place. Barack being of Kenyan origin can specially use it to his advantage.

2) America should engage with Iran with a long term objective of making this Shia state its ally. It still baffles me why America did not engage Iran after the help they gave in the Afghan war. Till the time current president Ahmadinejhad is in place, it might not be an overt effort but once he is out in the next elections, it might be the time to pull off the kind of opening that Kissinger managed in China. This effort has multiple reasons: 1) Prolonged stability in Iraq requires complete support for Iran. 2) Iran on US's side takes out Hezbollah from the Israel-Palestinian equation 3) Iran has not produced any terrorist in what has been a primarily Sunni movement 4) It can really push countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to do more domestically with respect to moving towards democracy. 5) Iran has a lot of oil.
Again, fresh president in Barack would be in a much better position to take up this initiative than the incumbent one. Too much water has flown under the bridge between the current regimes in both Washington and Tehran but Barack would be in a great position to move us away from this colossal policy failure.

3) Finally, America should launch a project for finding an alternative to oil on the lines of Manhattan Project or sending an American on the moon. The project should have a time mandate, complete freedom of capital and human resources and more importantly, unequivocal support of the President. With the world moving east with India and China catching up with America, the fact still remains that no country has the kind of resources that America can mobilize for such a project. And if America can really deliver a breakthrough in this space, that means a completely new industry with new jobs, revenues from all over the world and no more slush money to rogue regimes...and most importantly, proof that America still cares about this planet!!!

To Chris Mathews' Surprise, Jon Stewart Doesn't play (Hard)Ball

Yesterday, Chris Mathews was on Daily Show to promote his book: "Life Is A Campaign" and boy, he must have been fuming after the interview. Chris has been on Daily Show before and is very appreciative of the positions Jon Stewart has taken in recent years. That really does not mean that Jon will return the favor. Jon has shown his disdain for knee jerk debate shows in the past and Chris Mathews happens to host one on MSNBC. I am not sure Jon did it out of purpose but somehow Chris Mathews and his book got trashed.

I have read reviews about this book and I have heard it has some interesting stories about American politicians. Chris, these reviews said, makes the point that you have to treat everything in life like a campaign of a politician and you can learn from how politicians survive.

Jon started the interview by saying “The book claims that people can use what politicians do in political campaigns to help their lives. ... That strikes me as fundamentally wrong.” Chris Mathews was still settling down and didn't know what was unravelling. And frankly, I was disconcerted. I haven't seen Jon trash people on his show like this and he has had some people whom he just does not like.
Exasperated,seeing everything go completely wrong in 2 minutes, Chris Mathews shouted:" You're trashing my book" and in the most nonchalant way, Jon replied " I'm not trashing your book, I'm trashing your philosophy of life". Ouch!! That must have hurt.

Chris must have come to Daily Show reasonably certain that he will get a bump from the loyal audience that laps up every book that Jon covers on his show. But this was some anti-climax. I am not sure about the background of this whole situation, what transpired between Jon and Chris that it happened this way but you could see that the situation became very awkward. By the end, even Jon knew that he was not fair to the person. So in today's show, he tried to make some amends but I doubt if it will help Chris' book. It is dead at least for the Daily Show audience( which happens to be a 1.8 million strong very well read crowd)

Nancy Grace Is Not In Tonight, She Is Out Raping Puppies!!

I hope you have all watched Nancy Grace on CNN. Jon Stewart did a piece on her on 11th April after Duke Lacrosse players were found 'Not Guilty'. He ripped her for pronouncing these players guilty before the verdict. She did not come on her own show the day the verdict came in and Jon had this explanation: "Nancy Grace Is Not In Tonight, She Is Out Raping Puppies"!!

Well, I have been a huge Jon Stewart fan and one thing I love about him is how he takes on the news channels. If you look at shows of anchors like Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteran, Geraldo Rivera etc. you will see why people hate news today. These people cannot even agree on facts. What you get is mindless debate on useless issues.And then there are people like Nancy Grace who run sort of investigative shows that are nothing but a way to deliver a verdict based on their own prejudices. She decided when the story broke out last year that Duke players were guilty of raping a woman they asked to come to a party. Throughout the year, she built up the crescendo and then when she was proved wrong, she didn't even have the guts to say sorry!!

So no wonder, Jon is angry and very angry and two things have contributed to the new ferocious nature of this anger. First, things keep getting worse and second, Jon now has Colbert to complement him. Now Stephen takes care of, sometimes, mindless comedy and Jon can stick to what he knows best...political satire. Recently McCain came on his show and Jon ripped him for saying that walking through Baghdad was like walking in an Indiana market. I think his anger against McCain was also because he has been supportive of McCain's straight talking in the past and it hurts him that he has decided to tow the president's line recently. And it hasn't served him well. So expect more frontal attacks. Alberto Gonzales seems to be the recent target and why shouldn't he be?

Miserly Republicans, Unprincipled Democrats?

I recently came across a fascinating study done by Shanto Iyengar,Professor of Communication and director of the Political Communication Lab at Stanford University. It talks about how Republicans and Democrats donate. This data was collected through an online study and the exact methodology was not shared in the article published in Washington Post. What has been disclosed about the methodology is the following:
"To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study."

It would be interesting to dive into the real numbers and see if there is some statistical play going on here.

So following are the key findings of the study:

1) Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

2) Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine. But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority.

I consider myself a centrist with firmly Republican( like Fiscal policy) on some issues and Democrat( on climate change) on others. And I really haven't encountered the race question till now so it would be interesting to hear point of views and specific insights someone might want to share.

America's Hijacking By The Gun Lobby

The massacre yesterday at Virginia Tech has shaken everyone. Whatever be the reasons for the rage of the killer, the fact is that he ended 32 lives. This country seriously needs to think about why Cho Seung-Hi had those guns and how did he end up getting them that easily?

I am sick of the fact that no one is talking about the real issue here: what kind of gun control laws should be there in America? You switch on news channels and you would see no debate on gun control, just some cursory mention. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, none have a single piece about gun control.

The basis of the argument in favor of gun control is the Second Amendment of the US constitution which states the following:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
For all the people who lobby for guns, this amendment is the basis of their argument. What follows after that is a litany of lying and deceit. What follows is the classical example of how lobbies and special groups own America today.

I believe that no democracy is safe without the controls it exerts on itself. Free will and pure liberty to do whatever you want to can never be accommodated completely in a democratic society. What democracy can do is to provide maximum liberty possible within the constraint that someone else's freedoms are not trampled when you exercise your freedoms. The right to bear a gun goes against this fundamental premise. If the person walking next to me has a gun, he has the ability to inflict maximum damage on me and I have the right to be protected by the laws against this capability.

While the Virginia incident is still fresh, Georgia's senate was discussing a proposal relaxing the gun laws in the state. The proposal called for the following two measures:

1) Allow motorists to store handguns anywhere in their cars, instead of keeping them in plain sight, a glove compartment or front-seat console, as required under current law.

2) Prevents employers from banning their workers from having guns in vehicles in the company parking lot.

The bill was postponed till the next session because of obvious outrage in the short run that it would have created but the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica thought "a bill like his would make it easier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in the case of attacks like the one in Virginia. I think now is the perfect time for it". Its not even ridiculous and its not as if people who were backing this bill are morons. These people are sinister criminals and they know what they are doing.

Many people think that Gore lost the 2000 election because of an appearance on Larry King show where he said that 9 mm Ruger and the .380 AMT semiautomatic handguns should be banned.Cho used one of these 9-millimeter Glock to slain students at Virginia Tech yesterday. Classical republican argument has been: "Guns don't kill people; people without love in their hearts kill people." but its not as if only Republicans are to blame. None of the Democrats, and definitely none of the presidential contenders, have come out since yesterday to talk of tougher gun control laws.

This country needs leadership and this country needs someone to break this nexus of the lobbyists and the government....otherwise its just a matter of time before the person in front of me or you would open fire....IT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME. If this is not scary, I am not sure what is.

Heckling The President

I had the opportunity to hear George Bush Sr. today at a speaker series here in Los Angeles. The former president focused about his upbringing and the influence his family had on him while he was growing up, especially his mother. He also talked about how the value system he inherited from his family helped him become a better person and a better leader.

When he started answering questions, someone from the crowd stood up and shouted" Why didn't you teach these values to your son". He listened to it peacefully and then got up saying " Where is my cane?"...awesome....absolutely awesome response. For someone at his age who just had dehydration in this Los Angeles heat yesterday,to have come and delivered a speech for an hour and then get heckled is unfair. Irrespective of what your allegiances are ( and I must say that I am not a huge fan of the current president), it still doesn't warrant a hit job. And when you do a hit job on an old man like this guy, don't you lose the right to feel bad about what Chris Wallace did to Clinton on Fox News Sunday?

There was more shouting but overall the former president displayed fine composure. The second aspect which one needs to remember is that George Bush Sr. was a much better president when it came to foreign policy. His foreign policy, contrary to the current administration's policies, was very much grounded in reality. He went into Iraq by first legitimizing the fight in the Arab world and then getting France on board. No wonder, even after Saddam shot Scuds into Israel, none of the Arab countries decided to quit the coalition. Today, he also talked about how he decided to avoid public show of glee over the fall of the Berlin Wall. Democrats pushed him to do that but he had no doubt that it would only strengthen hard line communists and tighten controls in satellite states of Eastern Europe.

Overall, a great talk & a great event and irrespective of what you think of the Bush family, George Bush Sr. is a great speaker and will go down as one of the more successful American presidents.

Wilsonian Dilemma!!

George Bush's desire to spread democracy in the Middle East is not new, at least from the perspective of American Presidents. The earliest evidence was Woodrow Wilson. Contrary to his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt who was more moulded into the Real Politik of Europe, Wilson was the first to talk about America being the beacon of democracy for people around the world. The words of American leaders and their diplomacy synchronised well to this philosophy till the end of the second world war. The morality behind this argument began to go away when it was accepted that democracy can wait till the fight with the bigger evil, Communism, was over. So, in the garb of fighting communism, regimes like those of King Fahd, Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Anwar Sadat & then Hosni Mubarak, Shah Hussein were all tolerated. If you were on the side of America, it did not matter that your people were not free. These regimes created a generation of individuals who longed for the freedom of America but also hated her for supporting the rulers who would never let them taste that freedom.

So let me state the reason to write this entry. I am absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. I also believe that being the most powerful nation, which is also a democracy, America has the right and an obligation to spread democracy around the world. I am also fine with the fact that you cannot deal with all the devils in the middle east all at once.

My problem is with the sheer lack of diplomacy on the part of this administration. Why is Iran not on the side of America? They were the ones who plugged in Taliban fighters on the side of Herat after the war started, they were the ones who handed over Al Qaeda fighters who were able to sneak in....what did they get in return? Being called Axis of Evil in the State of the Union Address by President Bush!!! What recklessness!! There was never a better chance to change Middle East fundamentally by aligning Iran( think how peaceful Iraq would have been if Iran was on US' side).

And then, besides diplomacy, the sheer audacity of lying again and again and again...it just neer seems to stop. We are not talking about Muammar Gaddafi lying!! We are talking about the President of the most powerful nation of the world lying...how does it feel to live in a world where the so called moral and millitary leader of the world is ruled by a bunch of lyers? And does it surprise anyone that no one compares George Bush to Woodrow Wilson despite the use of the exact same words?