Hypocrisy and Immigration go together

First off, let me congratulate the Governor of Arizona for a bold immigration bill. More about that later. And, before I get into it let me tell you where I stand - I believe illegal immigrants are illegals and a nation has the right to manage who moves in.

Now, to the specifics. The Arizona law is bold but I am not sure it will solve the problem. It does polarize the populace and bring more visibility to the issue. Maybe, that is what the governor wanted. Or, maybe it was just signaling to the people who tend to support that party just like the Healthcare "reform" that the federal government passed. Contrary to what has been reported, I don't think the law is racist. In fact, the law does not talk anything about race or color. But, as a recent Newsweek report said "Your baby is racist", we are all racist. So, the folks who are going to implement the law are going to do so with their own prejudices. So, its implementation might be. I wonder how many white people will be stopped. I wish they would stop the white illegal immigrants. Interestingly, the illegal immigrants that I have come across in Chicago have all been whites.

I wonder what those who feel that stopping people and asking them for ID is an infringement on this liberties and is racist feel about people asked to provide ID, present themselves for "random" security checks to board a flight. Ah, you are ok with that because your life depends on that. I have been subject to these random checks - about 6 out of 8 times I flew out of Detroit back in 2002. This is when my boarding pass had "CORPORATE" stamped on it. You want security; you have to give up some of the "liberties." This is an imperfect world.

For the folks from the Church and other religious institutions that have taken the case of illegal immigrants I wonder what your stance would be if Mexico had been an Islamic state and the guys crossing over are the ones with beards. I think I know the answer.

And, finally for the folks who repeatedly point out that the nation was built on immigrants, so illegal immigrants are ok why keep quotes on legal immigration then? Let’s do away with the border security, INS etc... we will save lot of money. The US has changed a lot and so has the world. The US now feels the need to manage the immigration process that means both legal and illegal.

I love to watch how the seats on the CTA "L" fillip. You see people's preferences for color. The seats next to African American males generally tend to go last. Over the last few years I have seen a better uptake on the seats next to Indians - coincides with India's emerging economic muscle. I think there is a statistically significant bias/preference to certain type of seat partners. I bet none of the people on the train will identify themselves as racist just like my former colleagues who quite often confused me for the other brown guy in the office (we were an office of 30 people with 2 brown guys).

I feel sorry for the illegal immigrants - their economic plight forces them to take risks. I wish any immigration reform treats companies and people who employ (and, exploit) illegal immigrants with strict fines. And, I think "Winner takes all" economic treaties do not work. There needs to be economic incentives that make sure that they have a reason to remain in their nation.

Got a raise... while unemployed

I finally got a raise... my first raise in 2+ years. It came through the unemployment insurance check courtesy the Federal Additional Compensation Program. There in lies the irony. Ever since I started working for a startup in the fall of 2006 I had not gotten a raise. In fall of 2007 I was told that they were putting a formal evaluation and pay cycle scheduled to go into effect in Feb 2008 and all adjustments would happen then. Come Feb 2008 I was told that the company has not met its goals so while they would like to give me a raise they can't. There was no official communication. My manager kept the discussion about it alive till June of 2008. Then, I realized that this was never going to happen.

Race and religion...comparing India to the US

It is often said that the United States has a very clear separation between state and religion, and it has made great strides in overcoming racial inequality. And, often the comment about India is that it is mired by caste and religion. But, what does this mean to an average person in both places.

Take for example the US election of 2008. It has been said by more than a few that having an African American candidate shows the strides US has made in overcoming racial inequality. Some have even gone on to say that having an African American as the president would mean racial inequality is a thing of the past. But, is it truly so. Every day I take the public transport (the "El") to work. I often observe how the seats get filled on the "El." It is a study of people's prejudices. Invariably, seats next to African Americans are the last to be taken. I bet statistical analysis of the sample will show that this is not a random phenomenon.

In India, we have had at least one "untouchable" President but even I would not say that everyone in India is treated equal. However, I do know that rarely will people avoid certain seats on the public transport because of the caste of the other person. This is because often there is no way to determine the caste of the other person from their physical attributes.

So, you have a group of people in the US who on a day to-day basis see and feel some form of prejudice against them even when they are not directly interacting with the other party (and, see less or no prejudice when they are interacting directly with the other party). And, in India, you have groups of people who may not see any prejudice until they are directly interacting with the other party.

Now, you may argue that I am mixing race and caste. I think that is just arguing over the use of right words. I guess what I am trying to say is people everywhere feel at ease with people who look and act like them.

When it comes to religion, both India and the US are secular states. Yet, their approach to secularism is quite different and the results have been quite different (Just compare the number of religion related clashes/ incidents). Are the results different because of the approach? I don't know. I would argue that the people in the US practice a good number of religions/ beliefs. It may not be the same as in India but in terms of percentages they might be in the same league.

For a nation, that professes separation of state and religion US is obsessed with religion. The candidate's religion/ beliefs are a key part of their candidature. Barrack Obama has gone to great lengths to prove that he is a Christian (and hide his middle name - Hussein). The only religious holiday in the country is Christmas and you will see the state spending lot of money to decorate the city and buildings for this holiday. Compare this with India where there have been Muslim presidents, Christian Chief Ministers (Governors), the state has holidays for pretty much every possible religion (I call India - Bumper Holiday Nation) and the state does not spend money decorating buildings for any religious holiday.

So, what makes Africans still move to the US in search of opportunities even when African Americans make noise about the inequality and US has a lot less race/caste and religion related incidents than India? I think the law, the rules and their implementation is a clear and consistent in the US. So, while not everyone agrees with it, it has enough "buy-in." As for religion, in the US, for the most part, the state does not involve itself with religion even if its subjects feel strongly about their beliefs. In India, the state is involved in religion trying to "balance" the differences in numbers. And, when there is not enough to go around for everyone, state's effort to "balance" based on race/caste and/or religion results in everyone feeling that they have been cheated out of fair deal.

Durbin's "windfall profit tax" is a lot of hot air

Senior Senator Dick Durbin of IL has proposed something called a "windfall profit tax" to cap the profits of oil companies and help ease the burden on the public reeling under the pressure of high gas prices. Now, what constitutes as "windfall profit"? Who will define that? And, why restrict it to just oil companies? Why not apply this to all companies? It would be interesting to see how this will apply to software companies after all the incremental cost of a software product is close to zero.

Why can't the good senator and his likes think of things that make sense and are within their control like improving the public transportation infrastructure (rather than giving free rides to senior citizens and the homeless) or increasing the fuel efficiency requirements on vehicles. Heck, all those require time, effort and will not have the same effect on the public as "windfall profit tax". We all need someone to be the "bad guy" and it is easy to paint the oil companies (and, in other occasions, the Chinese companies) as the "bad guys."

I guess it is guys like Senator Durbin who make sure that Chicago's legacy as "the windy city" lives on. Got to love him for that.

Mugabe rival 'clear' winner but who won Florida in 2000 is unclear - US

BBC NEWS | Africa | Mugabe rival 'clear' winner - US

Jendayi Frazer must be some kind of super human to know how Zimbabwe voted. Independent Zimbabwean monitors who were on the ground say Mr Tsvangirai gained 49% of the vote - just short of the threshold for outright victory - but more than President Mugabe. My guess is Zimbabweans know better. It is amazing the level of meddling US and UK do in the affairs of other nations.

I was heartened to see the Indian external affairs ministry give the US a fitting reply when they tried to advise India on topics for discussion during the upcoming visit of President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Hypocrisy on Olympic scale

Suddenly the whole world seems to have woken up and is angry about China's human rights record. They are now hell bent on making noises before the Olympics. The last time I checked, the site of the 2008 Olympics was decided way back in 2001. So, where were all these people, government and agencies back then? It is not like China has changed. If anything China has stood its ground. In the last six years the western firms have made good money putting up the infrastructure for the Olympics. So, why now? Couldn't their conscience lie dormant for a little more?

US speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to complain about Chinese actions in Tibet while on a visit to India even though the Indian government which hosts the Tibetan government in exile decided not to make noise. I wonder how the US would react if a visiting Indian head of state decides to praise Cuban healthcare system?

If the world was really upset about Chinese occupation of Tibet or the lack of democracy then China should not have been offered the 2008 Olympics. We all want the cheap stuff from Chinese sweat shops. Why worry about someone else's freedom and liberty? BTW, are the "Free Tibet" t-shirts and stickers made in China?

Earth Hour in India ?

Today at 8pm Central Chicago is supposed to go dark for about an hour. The whole "Earth Hour" concept is gimmicky but gimmicks catch attention and something is better than nothing. I checked the Earth Hour website to see if any of our desi cities were participating in it - None. Then, I realized that they are the pioneers in the concept but they never branded it - they just called it load shedding/ maintenance outage ;) Someday they too will call it "earth hour(s)" or "earth day(s)".

Getting everyone to reduce their energy consumption on a daily basis is hard esp. when we cannot let go of our laptops, broadband connections, flat screen tvs, cellphones and iPods. I left the cars and SUVs here because while they get the rap for global warming the biggest culprit is electricity (See Vinod Kholsa's presentation). Would you unplug your flat screen tv because it contributes to global warming or would you rather watch planet earth on it in high-def?

Bear Stearns ...why can't "market" bear and grin?

I am a bit (actually, more than a bit) amused by the Bearns Stearns issue and bailout. Here is the deal - if Bears Stearns is a failed company then so be it. Why should the tax payers bear the risk and JP Morgan walkaway with a great steal all in the name of national interests. Did Bear Stearns or other firms ask for government or tax payer permission before they gave away the nice bonuses? To be fair I don't think they even requested to be saved. JP Morgan and Wall Street suit types are funny - Bear Stearns deal was "fair" at $2 and then a few days later it was "fair" at $10. What is fair is to let Bear be - see if it can survive. If it dies, it was meant to be - greed did it in.

So, why does the government care now. And, is n't this and every other solution for the current crisis tackling the symptoms without addressing the root cause. I have seen a lot of this in India - usually for public sector (government owned) companies. There the reason was very clear - politicians need to win elections, to do so they need votes and these public sector undertaking represented nice large vote banks. While they may have also justified their actions as "protecting national interests" they never preached capitalism.

Right and Wrong about Wright and Rezko

Last Friday as I was returning from the airport I heard on the news that Presidential candidate Obama had condemned the comments made by Rev. Wright and apologized for errors in judgment in his dealings with Tony Rezko.

The funny thing is I never heard the Tony Rezko issue mentioned again in the media. Here is a case where the candidate who says, "Being right is more important than being prepared" (Is a "right" liberal any better than a "right" conservative? We have one claiming victory in Iraq) saying his real estate dealings with Rezko was not straight and that his campaign had got a lot more money through Rezko than originally claimed. I guess nobody cares about such trivial matters.

Instead, everyone jumped on speeches made by Rev. Wright about 5 to 7 years back. And, gave the Illinois senator a nice photo op and speaking engagement that left lot of the media pundits teary eyed. What is the big deal about what Rev. Wright said? He was expressing his opinion. And, everyone is entitled to one. He was not instigating violence or other subversive methods. He is entitled to his view on 9/11 (and, he was not blaming the victims as Chris Matthews said. He was blaming the government). He is right about Hillary not knowing what it is to be black (he used the N word) in America. Similarly, Obama has no clue what it is to be a woman in America. Both of them have no clue what it is to be a brown skin in America. If you believe in "God Bless... <>" why not "God damn ...<>"

Senator Obama has no control over what someone else says. But, he has control over his actions and dealings with folks like Rezko. Obama may not represent "same old Washington politics" but why do I get this feeling that he represents "same old Chicago politics." I am not sure which one is worse.

P.S: Geraldine Ferraro is a brave woman for not backing down. And, she may have a point here. Reminds me of the Oscars a few years back when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won. Do not get me wrong, both are great actors but the way the media created the buzz and called it made me wonder if they were getting the prize for their effort or if someone had decided that this is the year.

What can "brown" do for you?

I work for a small two year old company - about 60-70 people. When I joined there were fewer than 20 people and I was the first hire of desi origin. Last year I hired another guy of desi origin (a Pakistani guy). Together we are the IT department for the company.

It is amazing how often folks refer to us or call us by the other person's name. And, it is not like our names sound similar, start with the same alphabet or that we look similar. There are a few repeat offenders. It has gotten to a point where we use the UPS line on them - "What can brown do for you?." I guess to them we are two brown guys for the most part.

Rooting for normalcy

I like many others was dead against US military action against Iraq. It just was not right whether the reason was WMD or bringing democracy to the region. There was very little evidence supporting the first reason. As for democracy, I believe it may not work in some places and when people are ready for it they will clamor for it. Implementing democracy by military action is quite stupid.

After the military action there was a time when I kept tally of civilians (or, should I call it what Madeleine Albright called - collateral damage) and military personnel killed. After a while, I started feeling sorry for both. The military because I bet they never expected to be fighting this war. The civilians because back in Saddam’s days, they may not have had democracy but they knew who the enemy were. As long as they kept their mouth shut and a low profile, they had a job and life. Give me liberty or give me death sounds great but life triumphs liberty. As long as there is life, there is hope.

Now, when most of the original groups against war want the US troops to come back I feel the other way. US presence gives Iraq and the region a better chance for normalcy. There was an article in the Newsweek about how Americans are taught very early in life about cleaning up their mess - Iraq is our mess. I wonder if the folks who want the troops back now would feel the same way if things were going great in the US (economically) and /or in Iraq (politically). Going into Iraq in 2003 was wrong and leaving Iraq anytime soon will also be wrong.

A few weeks back I happened to listen to Parag Khanna, author of "The Second World" talk on Foreign Exchange (BTW, what is with desis/BBCDs/ABCDs and foreign affairs - Farred Zakaria followed by Daljit Dhaliwal?). He claims to be advising Barack Obama on foreign policy. According to him, splitting of Iraq is "inevitable." He said it with such nonchalance that it made me wonder how he would feel if his home country was attacked and broken into pieces. Of course, he like many others know that it is unlikely to happen. Afterall, there is a large ocean separating it from the rest of the land mass where the problems are. I am no expert in geopolitical stuff but if Iraq splits it is likely to involve at least Turkey and Iran in the mess. Afghanistan and Pakistan is already a mess. So, we will have instability in all countries between Israel and India. These two countries will probably see more terrorist incidents after all they do not have any buffer zone.

I had a few friends tell me - "Why bother about Iraq? After all, we did not give a damn about Rwanda. And, see Vietnam did well without us." Rwanda was not a mess that the US created. As for Vietnam war, it was a war of political ideology. Both, Vietnam and its backers were keen to prove that their way is better. So, there was a will to win even if it was to be an empty victory.

O' bam 'er (Oh! Bummer)

I find the whole Obama phenomenon funny. He may be smart and charismatic but if you think his lack of experience is not scary then think again.

For me the decision was made long back - afterall, I lived in India under Rajiv Gandhi - the same old change/ hope story that went sour. I remember an article describing Rajiv Gandhi's time - "He tried to change the system but the system changed him."

As for Obama, first came the story that the guy had not paid a few Harvard parking tickets till he announced his candidacy. I am sure he knew about the tickets and I bet his wife's promotion/ pay raise would have covered it. But, I guess he could get away without paying till the candidacy and he did. Then came his support for Todd Stoger whose only qualification was his last name. So much for change. It just showed how this "vote for change" will go. Then, the man who proudly proclaims his opposition to the Iraq war promised to bomb Pakistan if they would not go after the terrorists. Yeah, right.

Hope springs eternal but looking through rosy glasses does not change reality.

Oh.. what a bore... its Gore, yet again

For a guy who was cheated of election victory in 2000 and was incognito for a while (remember the beard) Al Gore is certainly making up. First it was the movie, then the oscars, then the Emmys and now the Nobel Peace prize... Oh, Please. The world need not feel sorry for him. He is the lucky one.

Imagine if he had been declared the winner in the 2000 elections. There would be a good number of people in the world who will hate him for no reason but for the fact that he is the President of United States. I don't think that he being the President would have stopped 9/11. His reaction to 9/11 might have been slightly different but I bet he would have bombed a few places, too. And, that would have pissed a few more people. He now has the eternal "what if..." that makes him look a lot better than he would have been (like JFK).

I think "An Inconvenient truth" is a good movie (not a great one) that should have done well without Al Gore (to me he was a distraction). I don't need Al Gore to tell me that earth is worth saving. And, while he might have elevated the interest and concern about global warming did it really merit the Nobel Peace prize? If yes, here is a list of a few other potential Nobel peace prize winners in the coming years
- George Cooney for Darfur
- Angela Jolie for numerous causes
- Madonna

The new india?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Sreesanth: The perils of aggression

From "Lucky and modest" in 1983 to "Lucky and immodest" in 2007. I guess that would sum up Indian cricket (and, India to a great extent) between 1983 and 2007.

Let us talk about Indian cricket, first. There was a time when these guys would go out in whites, play for 5 days and a lot of us wished they had some fighting spirit like... the Aussies or even the Pakistanis. But, we were all glad that they never indulged in dirty tricks like sledging which the Aussies did. "So, what if we lacked some fighting spirit we were not mean," went the general thinking. Now, to give Aussies the upper hand in on field behavior, now that is something unheard of.

Let us now talk of India in general. Let us see how we got to be one of the talked about stories, one of the BRIC nations. Narasimha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh probably would not have opened the economy if their hands had not been forced due to the foreign exchange reserves crunch. And, Narasimha Rao may not have been the Prime Minister hadn't Rajiv Gandhi been assasinated (And, had Rajiv Gandhi survived the campaign he would have lost the election).

The storied software services industry was chugging along for a good fifteen odd years (how many working in today's software services industry in India have heard of F. C. Kohli) until internet and VoIP (neither of which was developed in India or by Indians) came and reduced distances. Now, we have twenty somethings walking with a swagger and talking with an attitude. But, fundamentally nothing has changed - the cooking of resumes still happens. As a fellow indian remarked, "it used to be that we were unsure and unprofessional. now, we are sure and unprofessional."

Recently, a friend of mine wrote a book and sent press coverage of the launch. It was quite amusing to listen to the interviewer. She is doing an interview of the authors and makes no bones of the fact that she has not read the book beyond the back cover and nor does she care ("if you are into something intellectual, this is for you."). Clueless but confident... we are there America.

It is almost winter...

FOX Sports on MSN - NFL - Desperate Bears turn to Griese

My favorite Bears joke goes this way - "Bears are the only Chicago sports team who live up to their name. Come winter, they go into hibernation."

No wonder then, last year's performance had me worried. I thought all those talk about global warming is really true. Boy, am I glad that they are back in "form".

Here are a few other Bears jokes.

"What do you call a Bears match? Unbearable!"

"Who is the Bears Quarter Back?"  Wrecks Grossman or Rex (that was) gross man

With Rex gone we need Brain Griese's help for a few more jokes. Griese hands... anyone?

Freedom of speech or freedom to preach?

Why Ahmadinejad Loves New York - TIME

According to the author of this article, the Cheshire Cat smile worn by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is because he converted a not so interesting visit to an University to an international media event (Let us not fool ourselves, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to a farmhouse in Iowa is bound to be an international event). I think, the Cheshire Cat grin is possibly because he has exposed the truth about the professed supporters of "freedom of speech" to be nothing more than freedom to preach.

In the days leading up to the event Columbia tried to justify the invitation as "freedom of speech", "need to hear from the man himself". But, when the host opens the meeting with his judgements and opinions, you know that this is a deaf audience.

"Freedom of speech" alone does nothing without active listening to complement it. And, to listen well it is required that you do not judge until you have heard the other person and had a chance to give it a thought.

Illegal first... Immigrants next...

I guess May 1st which is celebrated as the International Workers' Day will soon become Illegal Immigrants Day in the US. Yesterday, like last year there was a huge rally in Chicago. The illegal immigrants claim that they are hardworking (which they are) and have right to the American dream (questionable). I heard reports that the law enforcement raid on a shopping mall in the Little village neighbourhood had mobilized the masses. So, why was there a raid? The law enforcement agencies wanted to shut down a fake id card operation that was also suspected to be involved in a few murders.

I guess what is lost on the people marching is the fact that they are illegal, have broken the law - the moment they crossed the border or overstayed the visa. The American dream is not just about building a better life but building it legally.

I don't think deporting illegal immigrants will solve the problem. They are here because they are able to find work - there are people to employ them. It is to some extent classic supply demand. It is these people who employ them who should be tragetted. They should pay for violating the law and exploiting people. If this does not happen no amount of deportation will help. There will be people back here illegally in no time. And, they will continue to be exploited by their employers.

And, those who play the race card are hitting below the belt. This is a law and order issue not a race issue. Same is true for the illegal immigrants in India from Bangladesh.

Chicago's olympic folly?!

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Olympics budget rises to £9.3bn

Yes, the mayor wants it - really badly. The politicians want it. So, do the business. Most people think it would be "cool". But, is it worth it? I don't think so. I am pretty certain that if Chicago gets it the people can expect their taxes to go up, construction to be pain for years, the temporary stadium to become permanent and the city to be in deep red for years.

So, why do these people who want the Olympics in Chicago want it? I think for the mayor it is to satisfy his ego afterall he runs Chicago pretty much the way Jayalalitha a.k.a "amma" (mother) or "puratchi thalaivi" (revolutionary leader) used to run Tamilnadu. For the politicians it is way to win elections - olympics will create construction and jobs related to that. For the business, construction is a great way to make money off the city and its people.

None of the recent Olympics effort have been anywhere close to the original budget. London is running at about 3 times its initial, Beijing is even higher (but they are closer to end line). So, if the city is expected to have $500million reserve on the original budget how much will it have to shell out if it actually lands it.

As far as I know none of the cities that have hosted the Olympics in recent times have made any money off it. Montreal recently paid off the last installment on the amount borrowed. Chicago is expected to make about $5billion, roughly 5 days worth of local economy if the budgetted numbers are going to be right.

I love Chicago and I hope the city does not get to host the Olympics.