Sensible Immigration Reform

In today's dysfunctional American political landscape, it's no surprise that any chance of achieving meaningful immigration reform by the 112th Congress has been scuttled. In an era in which most Republican voters question President Obama's place of birth, there is no hope for that party to create coherent policy around such a contentious issue. Let's not mince words here. "Birthers" and their leaders are racists and xenophobes, plain and simple. They're direct descendants of the KKK without the white hoods, hiding instead behind "trumped up" charges that the White House is being occupied illegally. It is raw emotion that drives these people, not the law. The debate taking place is so far disconnected from reality that I fear another decade may pass before real action is taken.

Half-baked immigration policy drags the United States down faster than any other. It has a domino effect on all other policies. Everyone in Washington these days is talking about budget deficits, the national debt, low GDP growth, and the solvency of our Medicare and Social Security systems. We all know that the baby boomers are beginning to retire, and the ratio of working, taxpaying people to retired people is shrinking drastically. The consequences for the economy are dire, the talking heads proclaim loudly. Meanwhile, other countries with their youthful working citizenry threaten to overtake us economically.

The answer to all these problems is the same simple, benevolent force that has kept America afloat throughout the last few centuries: immigration. America has consistently remained a magnet for industrious individuals from every corner of the globe. We are in dire need of an infusion of new blood. Don't take my word for it; ask any multinational CEO. We need to let more people into the United States from around the world, opening up our borders dramatically. Meanwhile, we must provide amnesty to the illegal immigrants who are already here, for regardless of what we do, they are going to be here anyway. It is simple supply and demand, just as with the drug wars being fought in American cities all the way down to the outer reaches of Latin America. We have only ourselves to blame for craving it. American businessmen are more than happy to hire cheap labor regardless of their immigration status in order to squeeze additional profit.

There are legitimate concerns with illegal immigrants. They can strain resources at the federal and local level such as schooling, healthcare, and law enforcement. Criminal gangs made up of foreigners have sprung up around the nation. Most importantly of all, we are a nation of laws, and the law is broken each time somebody jumps over the border without authorization by the United States federal government. I agree with this point of view. This is why we need to change the laws on the books- and put together a sensible immigration policy once and for all to make us more viable in the global marketplace.

Most indicators show that a majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal are hard-working, willing to do the hard farm labor that locals aren't, generate sales and income taxes, and are leading technological and scientific innovation in the United States at an inordinate ratio. Think of where Silicon Valley, our great universities, or any of the premier medical institutes or labs would be today without recent immigrants. Just ask any of them. They simply wouldn't exist today, likely overtaken long ago by foreign competition. Immigration has allowed us to become, and stay an exceptional country.

The racists and xenophobes may always fear the Mexican labor that is landscaping their yards and cooking their meals at the fine French restaurant. Yet for many of these people, those immigrants will probably be responsible for their adult diapers and all other bills at the nursing home in the not-too-distant future- if they are lucky enough to receive the government assistance that keeps them alive, thanks to immigrants keeping our social safety net solvent.

Do enough Americans have the common sense to allow us to change course in time? There is nothing more patriotic than looking out for our nation's long-term health, even at the cost of short-term challenges.

Fond Freshman Memories

All of us are shaped by the social experiences we've had as part of groups or organizations: schools, colleges, workplaces, clubs, teams,etc.

I've been fortunate to belong to some great organizations: universities, athletic teams, societies, government agencies, publications, and others where I've learned a lot and formed lasting relationships. Most of it that's worth mentioning, you'd find on my resume. But resumes are generally dull. They're lists that don't tell much of a story.

Whenever I look back, there is always one organizational experience out of dozens that stands out in my mind as my favorite from over 16 years ago: the Hickman High School tennis team. I've never really delved into why I have these unwaveringly sunny memories of this time, but as an older, more experienced student of organizations and management I've come to some realizations that are fairly interesting. The reasons, which are many, are telling in a psychological sense. I'd be surprised if some of you don't identify.

In the spring of 1994, I was a ninth grader who played on the junior varsity tennis squad for Hickman High School in Columbia, Missouri. But I attended West Junior High School, which is some miles down the road. West Junior was grades 7-9 while Hickman was grades 10-12. Ninth grade athletes with talent and potential from West Junior were allowed to play JV or varsity sports at Hickman with the older students if they made it through tryouts.

In reality I made it through the cut-throat tryouts, when about 25 tennis players were whittled down to 16, more due to potential than talent. The coach told me so, and I was actually bottom-feeding at number 15 on the depth chart, where the top 8 were varsity and lower 8 were JV. A good friend of mine got cut because I took a set off him 6-4 after having being down 4-1 in tryouts, and we were never that friendly again. An 11th grade kid who was much better than me, and as a 16 year-old had a car and drove me to tryouts, was cut too because he was expected to have less playing years.

Right off the bat I got an inflated sense of my 14 year-old self. Man, I'm gonna take the bus with the very few West Junior kids who get to leave school early (everyone would see me) to make it to sports practice at the high school in time. The high school where I might be going the following year. Where everyone was older and cooler. Where the girls were hotter. Where people drove cars, had jobs, and their own money. All of which was new to me. And exciting. I was gonna be a player at that level when I walked those halls, at the junior high school as well as the high school.

Things only got better from that initial euphoria, which helped salve the pain from being cut from the basketball team the previous winter, something I had wanted more badly. As Indian kids growing up across America and their parents know, chances are you're not going to be a great basketball or football player due to your size. But we could be dominant at tennis to get that jock fix in addition to high SAT scores. Sure enough there were several other Indian kids on the tennis team too- one of whom was a habitual cheater who called every ball out when you played him.

What I liked the most by far, and the reason I am writing about it today, is that the two hours of practice every afternoon and the matches against other schools were bar none the most fun, yet grueling experience I'd had in my life till then and probably since. Nearly everyone on the team was better than me. Every stroke, every serve, every volley and every drill I had to put in 110% to stay afloat. And I relished it. I learned like crazy from the other guys, each with their different style, and a great coach. My learning curve was steep because I had barely played before. I was made fun of quite a lot, as the youngest and nearly worst player, but that motivated me. It forced me to be clever socially, and step up on the court to gain respect. And every single day that season, I was getting stronger and better.

During drills, I got to practice with and watch everyone from top to bottom. Occasionally I'd do well enough to hit a few strokes against the varsity guys, getting crushed but nonetheless learning and getting better. I had to play out of my mind just to rally against the guys a few slots above me.

And I looked up to those guys like nothing else. It was awesome getting car rides with the music blasting, or taking long bus trips to rural areas of the state, learning everything about what high school would be like and goofing around. And I was part of a team with a sense of camaraderie and purpose I'd never seen before. I was having a (tennis) ball.

And we were pretty damn good. Both JV and Varsity teams went undefeated through the season, and barely had to break a sweat to do so. We romped over any school because at every position, singles and doubles we were just better. Our top few players were ranked at the state level. The varsity won the state playoffs without too much trouble that year. We hardly even bothered asking each other about winning or losing. It was just sequences of numbers: instead of stating the set score, "Oh yeah I won 6-3, 6-2" we just said "3 and 2." More often than not we just heard "donuts," meaning 6-0, 6-0, or "bagels" to make fun of our coach, who was a health food nut who'd get on anyone's case for uttering the word "cola." Earning donuts and bagels became our reason for being to impress our teammates because winning wasn't really in question. We traveled around Missouri and demoralized people. And as the bottom feeder fluctuating between #13 and #15, I was generally better than the other team's scrubs were. At one point I remember our JV team taking on another school's varsity and spanking them.

This success was probably a combination of coincidence, when the school just happened to have a particular stellar crop of talent, and strong coaching. There was also a culture that developed, as anyone who's been a part of a legacy of sports champions at any level would understand. Those of us on the team were cocky, and though in most schools being a tennis player probably isn't the same as being a star quarterback, we still walked around with a gangster swagger. Tennis players, being few and far between at that age, also had a mystique. It's part of the reason why we could win so easily. I must have worn my tennis uniform to school 3-4 days a week.

I really liked this particular position of being near the bottom of a truly excellent team. I didn't want practices or matches or team bus trips to ever end. I wanted to just be around these guys all the time- there was nothing else I wanted to do with myself more than that, besides traveling to India in the summer. My position worked well for me and my world view, and as the season went on it became clear my upside was being noticed. The coach and some of the best players were openly guessing that one day, perhaps Junior or Senior year, I would be the #1 singles player at Hickman. Even so, I was still getting pinned down and mooned on bus rides by the Seniors.

Another factor is that it was an escape from the academic grind which our parents kept asking us about, while at the same time condoned by our parents because it was a healthy activity that could also help kids get into college and stay out of trouble. It was one of the few things that we really wanted to do for fun, and the rest of the community- from teachers to neighbors to parents to the local media- encouraged us in it. It was like I could be a rebel without really rebelling.

The next three years of high school, in sharp contrast, I lived in Ohio and was a middling #1 player/Captain for a horrendous team that almost never won. For three years I had nobody at my level to practice with each day, disinterested and mediocre coaches, and much worse weather to play in. I remember tennis in Missouri always being under sunny conditions, and the three seasons in Ohio were always cold, raining gray and windy. While partly true, my mind's eye probably exaggerates dramatically. I can hardly remember my 3 years as the undisputed leader of my high school team, even though I earned an individual winning record and various accolades. It wasn't that much fun because the team wasn't winning. Tennis was still a big part of my identity, but in a wounded sort of way. I got into other things. And nothing else since 9th grade has compared.

These experiences never really leave you. Winning never stopped being fun and addictive. I've never lost that unique combination of swagger and cockiness blended with a dose of humility and eagerness to pick things up that I don't know from other people. My desire to be liked by everyone and prove myself were reinforced by those days too. I've developed a strong liking for being around people who are a few years older than me, which has formed the base of my social circle for many years. And I've completely lost interest in being #1 for its own sake which is what most hip-hop stars seem to rap about these days. I like to think that power would not go to my head. I'd rather be part of a successful organization that kicks ass and does good stuff, rather than being at the top of it and achieving individual success while watching it fail. I wish Wall Street operated this way.

Funny enough, I'm not even in touch with anyone from that magical tennis spring of '94 these days. Maybe I'll hunt some of these folks down on the web. I'm quite sure that none of them would remember things the way that I do if they even remember the team (or me) at all- another of life's conundrums. To some of the better players, tennis was probably another chore.

Wikileaks: A Crossroads of Contradictions

With the recent document dump by the website Wikileaks.org, 25,000 State Department cables that had been previously classified were released into the public domain in one fell swoop. As with most controversial political issues of the day, pundits and public leaders around the world came out by the thousands to comment on this unprecedented event. The latest episode came on the heals of the previous big Wikileaks story: the release of thousands of secret documents regarding the conduct of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a military video of a tragic killing in an Iraqi neighborhood by American troops from an Apache helicopter. As with the embassy cables, the war diaries run the gamut from the mundane, which is mostly the case, to quite serious and disturbing. I recommend for all of you to read the fascinating New Yorker account of how this came to pass.

The Wikileaks exposures of sensitive government documents that were not meant for public consumption represent societal conundrums that are yet to be judged in either a court of law, or of public opinion. Is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange a hero, a whistle blower, a criminal, or a terrorist? Is he a force for good or evil? He has been called all of these things. And in an exceedingly rare case of a person entering the world stage in so dramatic and important a way, he cannot be pigeonholed as any one of these. This would be a gross and unjust oversimplification. For Mr. Assange, ladies and gentlemen, is all of these things at once- defying definitions and straining our moral assumptions.

Whatever the outcome of all this, and whatever your opinion of it might be, Wikileaks has helped alter the course of human history by catalyzing a form of rogue journalism that is impossible for governments to prevent or stop. For a change we have someone throwing caution to the wind instead of erring on the side of caution.

Technology has made it possible to run your website piecemeal on servers all over the world in countries with varying laws about censorship and cyber security. Once Wikileaks documents are published on the web, they cannot be easily taken down, and will never disappear from the public eye once documents have gone viral. The documents are already out there, and the backups of the backups have backups. Finances and operations are decentralized and run by shadowy members around the globe. What's been done can never be undone. This is the largest shift from how secrets were stolen before- a tape, a person, a room, a computer, a camera, or a notebook with sensitive information can be stolen or destroyed even if there are multiples. Document dumps onto the web cannot.

So what now? The future of the website or the copycat movement it will spawn are hard to fathom. We can only conjecture on what has already happened. It's time for the good, the bad, and the... highly entertaining.

No Page-Turner. After skimming the site and reading numerous accounts of the supposedly juiciest tidbits that Wikileaks has published, I was disappointed by the lack of truly interesting documents. Far from earth-shattering, most exposed documents describe routine matters and few surprises. So diplomats send cables about Libya's dictator traveling around with a "voluptuous blonde" nurse, or Putin likes to get drunk with Berlusconi? Less interesting than a single page of any Nelson DeMille novel. I was actually pleased to see that diplomats played hardball when trying to convince foreign countries to accept Guantanamo detainees- offering aid here and a meeting with Obama there. That's awesome- that's what they're supposed to be doing, it's what we pay them for! Reading any given cable to the extent it's worth it, is less a surprise than an affirmation that many at State were pushing US interests hard. Good.

Public Service?. Government agencies got a horrific wakeup call that was desperately needed- and of little surprise to most astute observers. For this reason, and the fact that little if anything truly dangerous leaked out yet, Americans should be highly grateful to Wikileaks. If the US Army or the State Department could allow disgruntled runts to simply waltz out of the office with thousands of sensitive documents capable of causing such an international stir, security measures are woefully lacking. There are far too many people with high-level clearances, too many sensitive documents floating around, and too little control of the flow of information we are told is so goddam critical to national security. If this stuff was so critical, it should have been guarded far more jealously. The current situation is unacceptable. President Obama should call an immediate review of US government agencies' information security practices. Governors and Mayors across the nation need to do the same. This isn't just for the Pentagon or State; other agencies one wouldn't usually expect to need worry about such as the Department of Agriculture, Social Security Administration, or the state DMV all harbor documents we wouldn't want in the wrong hands and certainly not out in public.

The Danger Zone. This brings us to why Wikileaks is potentially a big threat. It demonstrates how a small group of determined individuals seeking to perform chaos can probably manage to do some serious harm, using a small network of inside informants and tech savvy hackers in key places. They could release documents that could get people killed if terrorists or foreign governments got a hold of them. This in itself should worry us. Although there is something fair and even democratic in the end product being seen by website visitors- government documents in their original form for one to judge for himself or herself, something traditional journalism does not give us- Wikileaks self-selects what documents get released and when. The site decides on the sources to use, and they are not made public. However socially responsible their goals may be, and however noble a goal it is to investigate how taxpayer money is really being spent, it is dangerous to wield this power to decide who and what makes the cut. You cannot shine a light from a dark place over a long period of time. It carries the type of potential for abuse of power that Wikileaks is supposed to be against.

Should it be Shut? There is much talk of shutting down the site, arresting its principals, and making an example of them. Clearly a number of U.S. laws have been broken regarding release of classified information. However, Assange and most of his team are not U.S. citizens, and in fact many of them are not known. The information was leaked from the inside of government first, and in the case of State it's not clear which runt(s) were responsible. While the Wikileaks team could be considered accomplices to the initial crimes of stealing, the unique nature of what the website has done so far will never be stopped. In fact, imprisoning Assange could make him a sort of martyr, which could be exactly what he wants in order to accelerate the movement exponentially.

Spreading Democracy? Although the American media is largely missing this point, closed and corrupt governments such as those in China, Russia, North Korea, Burma, and Iran are much less concerned with what US diplomats are saying about them than what Wikileaks could say about them. In this sense, Wikileaks has done Western governments and people the most important service of all. Autocrats trying to keep things close to the vest are probably pretty worried right now.

At its best, Wikileaks could expose things to the global public that journalists, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement cannot or are unable to. It could even help bring down or alter regimes more easily than a superpower can. If it stays open, I hope Wikileaks does so. And if a byproduct of this is some more accountability at home, then so be it. Those who follow the rules generally have less to worry about.

Your 2010 Midterm Election Primer

The general election campaign of 2010 is coming to a rolling boil. At stake is who will control the next Congress- Democrats as they have since 2006, or Republicans angling to seize it again with the tea party winds at their backs?

The consequences are pretty serious. A Republican takeover guarantees at least two years of utter Washington gridlock on domestic policy, and bitter battles over funding the legislative mandates achieved by Democrats in 2009 and 2010: health insurance reform, Wall Street reform, and other initiatives. Under these circumstances it is practically guaranteed that major legislation will languish, as neither party will have the numbers to push their agenda, and the President's veto pen will be waiting for any bills of import that Republicans might manage to push through.

For what it's worth, I've been confident of the outcome since last spring, as the energy and fervor are clearly on one side. Republicans will take back the House, Democrats will hang on to the Senate, and both chambers will thus have slim margins for the next two years. The perfect recipe for a wave of gridlock.

Here have been the big themes of the election year. The overall message to take away is this: America's grand experiment in democratic governance is far from concluded. In many ways, we are regressing.

Money Dominates Without Pretense. Politics was always dominated by money but until recently there were legal limits on corporate spending on campaigns. The landmark 5-4 Supreme Court decision of January removed these limits, and immediately we are witnessing the birth of a new era in politics: where money is shamelessly thrown around with great secrecy, and very little control. FEC oversight is now a running beltway joke. Candidates from both parties may benefit in the first election season of this new era, but democracy is the ultimate loser. Rich corporations and individuals, whose interests are usually far from what's best for the public, are consolidating control of the government by attempting to elect politicians who would deregulate safety measures, environmental protections, financial controls, insurance rules, and other laws meant to protect common citizens. Unfortunately, most people don't understand this. That's because rich corporate titans, and I can't think of a better example than the Koch brothers, prefer to lurk in the shadows and let their money do the talking. Cold, hard cash is how the tea party movement was co-opted long ago by Republican money interests such as financiers and corporations, as I'd written before, while most of the mainstream media was obsessing over whether it was the tea partiers taking over the Republican party. In this case, the tail does not wag the dog.

Wither the post-racial era? Another worrying theme has been the dramatic return of bigotry to American politics. We have seen a wave of anger being channeled against blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics in general by mainstream politicians and candidates, some of whom may end up in Congress come January. I was wrong in 2008, when I thought the election of Barack Obama would help usher in a new post-racial era when Americans would not be judged by their skin color or religion. Instead, Republican candidates have tapped into a groundswell of mistrust and fear of the "other" that I believe has been brought on partly by Barack Obama's very occupation of the White House - a black man that many honestly believe is Muslim and foreign-born. He has frightened and emboldened the bigots emerging from the fringes, and white politicians have been eager to show their understanding of this crowd- for their votes. Don't take my word for it. Rachel Maddow has documented this phenomenon brilliantly. Republicans such as Newt Gingrich have eagerly stoked the fire (unfathomably, presidential wannabe Gingrich parroted madman Dinesh D'Souza's bizarre theory that Obama's agenda is based on his absentee Kenyan father's anti-colonialist views from the era of Mau Mau rebellion).

The first 24-hour political party news channel. See above, unprecedented control by corporations. One in particular, Fox News, represents the first time in American history that a political party has had its own 24-hour news channel. It's the world's best propaganda machine. Fox has emerged more emboldened than before. It used to at least have pretense of being "fair and balanced," but no longer. It has recently unabashedly declared itself an official Republican mouthpiece. By hiring active Republican operatives such as Sarah Palin and Karl Rove onto its payroll (who are themselves running PACs with huge financial influence on this election), while donating millions to Republican campaigns this election season, News Corporation has inserted itself as a participant in politics instead of a reporter of it. Fox co-founded and single-handedly nurtured the tea party movement with endless one-sided positive coverage. Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and friends keep the bigots riled up with their constant attacks on Muslims and other talking points handed down from the Republican party- the lines between the two entities have been blurred completely. It is an admirably run operation, a shining example of the successful fusion of politics and profit. And a monumental threat to democracy. I am fascinated to see how this story will play out.

Democrats Play to Not Lose It's curious how the Democratic party could be performing so badly politically. While it's quite damaging for unemployment to hover between 9-10%, perhaps irreparably so in a midterm election where the enthusiasm gap for liberals is a given, the long list of results coming out of the Democrat-controlled Washington in the last two years is astounding. Taxes were cut for 95% of Americans, the auto industry is on the road to recovery, numerous jobs were created, health insurance reform was passed, college loans are cheaper, new Wall Street and credit card regulations are on the books, we are finally pulling the US military out of Iraq, and not a single terrorist attack from abroad has been committed successfully. Quite the opposite, we are killing bad guys at a breakneck pace these days. And yet two weeks out, Democrats across the nation are running from their own party's record as if fleeing from a fire.

A great deal of thinking on this matter has revealed the root cause of the Dem woes. They haven't managed the messaging, and by extension, the Republicans have. Do most people know that their taxes were lowered? That Obama has kept us safer from attack than Bush did? That Wall Street bailouts and the stimulus are two different things, and the former was a George W. Bush legacy authored by the Republican Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson? No, they don't. Republicans have successfully conflated Obama with all that is wrong with the country. It worked. And it's a bitter political lesson to be learned for the Democrats, especially the ones getting booted out of power.

Dumb is the New Black Since when is it so cool to be a fool running for office? I believe that George W. Bush ushered in the era of the likable everyman, but I thought the ensuing crises would remind people of the future why not to let that happen again. The future is here, and they're back with a vengeance, led by Queen Bee Sarah Palin, who dismisses criticism in the media of her nonsensical statements and uneducated policy positions on the "liberal East Coast elites." I am now a firm believer that a well-informed politician is a good thing. Please tell that to the people who intend to vote for dolts like Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller, Carl Paladino, or dozens of others. I understand the backlash against the intellectual, professorial types embodied by our president, but this is really going too far.

Is India Ready to Sit at the Big Boys' Table?

Many Indians and NRIs around the world like to talk about India and how great it is. There is much discussion of how rapidly the nation is developing, how Indian figures are rising to prominence in business, science, or entertainment, how it's one of the few nuclear powers on the global stage. In fact, many proud folks truly believe that India is Mahaan - great, even the greatest place on the planet. I've seen this sentiment stated time and again in endless email forwards.

In many ways, India is indeed ascendant. It has also been by far the world's largest democracy for years running. However India is not, politically speaking, a great power. Nor has it ever been one throughout history, except in the days of yore with myth and legend such as in the Mahabharat, pictured above, which described an epic war in Kurukshetra where practically every country in the world fought on one side or the other because the feuding armies were so critical to the global power structure.

Earning great power status requires punching your weight, with acts worthy of this exalted label. With a population of 1.3 billion, India must fight in a higher weight class than it's now in. The best way to start this process is to prepare a serious bid for that most exclusive of clubs in the international system: the United Nations Security Council. The Big Boys' Table at this time has only 5 permanent seats, for the US, UK, China, Russia, and France. Until then, India clearly will not have arrived.

A path now seems to be opening up. Last week we heard reports that the Obama administration would support India's permanent entry into the UNSC, in return for India's cooperation with Pakistan to fully resolve the festering Kashmir issue once and for all. This followed close on the heels of India announcing a major policy shift toward Kashmir, with an emphasis on redressing citizens' concerns, releasing jailed youth, and injecting money to improve the economy. Simultaneously, Pakistan has made strong overtures toward having talks with India for a peaceful resolution in Kashmir, including at the UN General Assembly.

US and Indian officials are playing coy now, a requisite charade in order to plausibly deny international speculation about a potential quid pro quo agreement. But all this rapid flurry of activity is no coincidence. President Obama is visiting India in November, and it would be surprising if the Security Council question is not near the top of the agenda.

The deal is an excellent proposition for several reasons. India has coveted the Security Council seat, and the status that comes with it, for a decade now. It would help India provide a counterbalance to other powers in the neighborhood, most of all China, the leader of emerging Asia. It is also appropriate that India resolve the Kashmir dispute as a prerequisite; India won't ever be considered a great power if it hasn't resolved a petty disputed territory question after 60 years of trying including several bloody wars and decades of struggle against insurgency. India's national security also cannot be held hostage in perpetuity by a far smaller and poorer neighbor (Pakistan)while aspiring to call itself a great country. Although it is just one of several territorial disputes India faces, Kashmir is the largest and most volatile. Complete with human rights abuses, senseless violence, and massive hindrances to commerce and development, Kashmir's security situation is a festering embarrassment India's government cannot afford to sustain.

The United States of course has an interest in seeing a Kashmir resolution. Now more than ever, it is clear that Obama's exit strategy in Afghanistan relies heavily on Pakistan's cooperation in bringing the war to a close next year. If Pakistan's government and security forces are continuously distracted by Kashmir, and by extension India, it will come at the expense of the Afghanistan adventure. Without a disputed Kashmir, it is far less likely that India and Pakistan would ever fight a war again for the foreseeable future; cross-border terrorist incidents would likely fall off completely as well. Troops could be pulled off the Line of Control (LoC) and deployed elsewhere. Additionally, as the Kashmiri militancy dies off in a peaceful environment, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their networks will lose many allies and a global recruitment tool. Even Osama Bin Laden himself quoted abuses in Kashmir as a justification for the 9/11 attacks.

The solution should not be that hard to achieve. Agree to draw a hard line along the LoC, giving one side to Pakistan and the other to India; it's practically a de facto border anyway, with the armies of both nations straddling either side. Follow up by allowing the region's citizens to decide for themselves which side they would like to settle in, and keep the border porous for social and economic reasons.

Becoming a great power of course means much more than just resolving a petty territorial dispute and sitting at a table. It requires becoming a more responsible part of the global conversations about the economy, keeping the peace, alleviating poverty, sharing outer space, and protecting the environment. India is inching closer to being ready for this, and the United States as the world's only superpower still has the ability to become India's patron to help make it happen.

2010 is potentially shaping up to be a watershed year in South Asian affairs. An opportunity is presenting for India to help seal a lasting regional peace while rising in prominence in the world for the first time, all the while strengthening ties to Uncle Sam. The question is, will India finally rise to the occasion and take a seat at the Big Boys' table? Or will it find a way to squander this unprecedented chance?

With Friends Like These...

One of the defining characteristics of the Obama presidency will be the shameful irresponsibility from critical partners that his administration has had to work with both at home and abroad during a time of great duress. One does not even have to be a supporter of Obama, or America for that matter, to appreciate this reality objectively. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

The number of serious problems facing the nation today is staggering in comparison to much of America's history- a flailing economy, a mortgage crisis and stock market crash which wiped out 20% of the nation's wealth, two costly and bloody foreign wars each over 7 years old, and an unprecedented environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to name a few. Partnership isn't an option in this mess; it is an absolute necessity. Democrats have no choice but to reach out to Republicans, government to the private sector, America to foreign nations. The hand has been extended in each case by an open Obama administration. Here is what we have seen in return:

The Party of No. While there are a few impressive figures left in the Republican Party who are getting constructive things done, such as Chris Christie of New Jersey or Dick Lugar of Indiana, most nationally prominent Republican politicians are simply blocking everything the Democrats are trying to do while blaming the administration for all the ills in our country. Many defeatist figures, such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michael Steele have little to no real involvement in the nation's affairs outside of preening themselves for the media, putting their own naked ambitions on display while denouncing everything anyone else is trying to do. Those who actually do have a policy portfolio in our democracy, such as John Boehner and Eric Kantor, blindly and reflexively object to virtually every law and presidential nominee brought in front of them. Critical government posts are vacant for months or years? Oh well, it just makes the Democrats look pathetic for their inability to govern. Major legislation languishing on the table? At least they made a stand against Obama and nearly succeeded in "breaking" him. The dearth of good governance ideas, meanwhile, is legendary. Only expect this situation to get much worse if Republicans make gains in November 2010, validating the strategy in their minds. It is easier to summarily dump on others than try to do the hard work of compromising in the trenches during a historically difficult time.

Hamid Karzai. The reason why the United States effort is languishing mightily in Afghanistan is because we do not have a reliable friend to lean on. It's that simple. The US armed forces have largely achieved the military objectives, but the ultimate solution is political. Karzai is a train wreck of a partner to have on our side: power-tripping, blatantly corrupt, a documented rigger of elections, an incompetent manager, possibly mentally unstable, and certainly insubordinate to America. Karzai is even secretly forming back-room deals with the very Taliban insurgents we are supposed to be fighting. He owes his very existence in power to massive amounts of American blood and treasure, yet he is proving a completely ungrateful wretch. Morally bankrupt as he is, we have no alternative in Afghanistan except the Taliban Mullahs with their shahria law and governance by terror. Karzai is probably the lesser of two evils. We could have pulled out of the country by now with a competent local government working alongside us to build up the military, police, courts, and other institutions of civil society. Sadly, this was not meant to be.

Two-Face Incarnate. Even worse may be the treatment America gets from its supposed ally, Pakistan. Since 9/11 America has given this nation billions upon billions in aid, and helped broker a deal between erstwhile enemies Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and General Pervez Musharraf to coexist peacefully and even run an election together. Instead, Bhutto was mysteriously assassinated upon her return from exile, and the government not only failed to protect her in life, her cold-blooded murder investigation was covered up by officials in death. Now with her corrupt widower in power, the recent "Wikileaks" brought to light something most observers have known for years: that insurgents including Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are openly supported by Pakistani military intelligence. This is the same military establishment that accepted $15 billion in US aid since 2001. In effect, Pakistan is using the very aid dollars America gave them to fight the insurgents to instead kill American soldiers in Afghanistan through their terrorist proxies. What a brilliantly wicked thing to do, and get away with.

General Insubordination. General Stanley McChrystal, widely thought to be a good strategist and a fine soldier, was appointed by Obama to help clean up the mess in Afghanistan. McChrystal had one fatal flaw: a total lack of respect and even disdain for the chain of command. On multiple occasions he was insubordinate, and the recent Rolling Stone article exposing the depth of this disdain for civilian control over the military was unforgivable. He was summarily fired by Obama, but we have not witnessed such open antics by a four-star wartime general in many decades. We can hope that Petraeus will bring professionalism back to the corps as we struggle on in Afghanistan.

Beyond Pathetic. BP not only caused the worst oil spill in US history, they then lied about it shamelessly for weeks on end. The company lied about the amount of oil gushing out, tried to cover up the extent of damage to the gulf waters and coastline, and were slow to help roll out solutions. The administration has worked to ensure that BP will pay out for the damage, but the company has resisted mightily all along the way, shirking on its legal duty whenever possible. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I have yet to meet someone who honestly believes that BP did all that was within its power to contain the spill.

Wall Street. The bailout happened. Debate will continue for years whether TARP actually helped us avert a bigger disaster or not. What has been made clear since 2008 is that although the banks happily took $800 billion of the government's money during the tough times they were largely responsible for creating, they had no intention of helping kick-start the economy in return. While most of the country suffered, bank executives continued to pay themselves insane bonuses even while their companies hoarded capital, and credit largely was not loosened as TARP intended. Goldman and Citibank alumni including the TARP architect, Hank Paulson were tasked with pretending to oversee their old pals. Wall street continues to have an outsize influence on the economy, with no pretense of social responsibility or of adding real value to society with honest and transparent labor and products.

We have clearly gotten away from what made America a great nation. We have lost the way in both the private sector and in government. Somehow, someway Obama and his JV team of Democrats are muddling along, steering the nation through the dense fog alone. Obama is far from perfect but that is a poor excuse for the lack of sincere help he is getting along the way.

Not My Cup of Tea: A Bipolar Tea Party Tasting

The tea party has emerged as a force to be reckoned with in American politics since 2009. What this means for the 2010 midterm elections and beyond is not entirely clear yet due to the organic nature of this movement, but a path is beginning to take shape.

On the one hand, I am a big fan of what the tea party movement stands for. I admire the grassroots passion for politics. It's sorely lacking amongst the American citizenry. The right to protest against the government when its actions seem unjust is sacred to those of us who value freedom of assembly, speech and expression. Many government policies make no sense. Members of the movement are following the example of the original Boston Tea Party, the very colonial heroes who threw crates of British tea leaves into Boston Harbor in 1773 and in so doing, began brewing the Revolutionary War which created the America we now live in. Members of the modern tea party undoubtedly represent a large groundswell of national sentiment, representing up to 20% of Americans if polls are to be believed.

On the other hand, the tea party disappoints. The movement is fundamentally lacking in practical ideas beyond claiming populist victimhood during a historically bad recession. Being anti-government, anti-tax, anti-Obama, or anti-socialist in a country where socialism is marginalized does not constitute an intelligent belief system. It's one thing to shout slogans such as "Don't tread on me" or "no taxation without representation" if they had any bearing on reality. However, the stimulus bill and health insurance reform do not quite qualify. In fact, when a real-life debate about taxation without representation for Washington, DC residents played out in April and was derailed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), tea partiers were nowhere to be found. This leads us to believe that it isn't principle which drives the tea party movement, but something else.

Bitter to the Taste Tea partiers are easy to spot. They are defined by overwhelming bitterness, and some are willing to take to the streets or march on Capitol Hill to show their anger and even hate. This is not a new phenomenon. During the Bush administration massive crowds gathered across the country and around the world to decry US policy, especially in relation to the invasion of Iraq that was seen as an unnecessary, unjust, and dumb war. State Senator Barack Obama made an anti-war speech at just such a gathering. While largely ineffective in affecting war policy or moving Bush, the anti-war movement did eventually help the Democratic Party take back Congress in 2006, and formed the backbone of the coalition which helped elect Obama as President in 2008. It is unfathomable that Barack Obama could have become President so early in his political career if not for the Bush backlash. But what is it these days that riles up the tea partiers so?

Why the long face? A confluence of factors have come together to put wind in the tea party's sails. Tea partiers peddle the notion that things are very, very bad for the common American person. The sentiment is understandable, and in some ways they are right. We are still in the midst of a massive recession. Other nations are growing in stature while the American state seems stagnant, especially in comparison. US Government is spending like a drunken sailor, whether it's for healthcare, bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, or to support illegal immigrants. Most people still aren't better off. Unemployment is high, and good jobs are hard to come by. Civil liberties (guns and God) are being taken away by the government. America isn't the country that many tea partiers remember from the good old 1950's or 1960's. Meanwhile, the terrorists are out to kill us and we're not being defended from them. The party will go on as long as these problems, real or perceived, are in play.

Who are they? There's some disagreement about who is involved with the tea party movement. Liberals tend to write them off as mostly white and older, like the right-wing base of the Republican Party itself, the type of crabby people who resurface whenever Democrats return to power in Washington. Liberals also point to evidence that the rallies and websites are organized and funded by shadowy operatives of the Republican establishment, trying quietly to garner momentum for the coming elections while turning huge profits for themselves. Meanwhile conservatives have tried hard to portray the diversity of the tea party movement, pointing out the minority members at rallies whenever possible, taking pains to show the movement's independence and disaffection towards both parties, and occasionally attempting to shun the blatantly racist and vitriolic elements of the group. Liberals call them ignorant, while Republicans show polls demonstrating that tea party members are more highly educated than the average American.

In reality it's impossible for anyone to truly know the makeup of the tea party movement. It is less than two years old, and most of its members are people who lurk on websites and make anonymous statements. There are no official leaders, although several established conservative or libertarian politicians are working hard to curry favor with the movement out of ideological affinity or political opportunism.

Affecting the Outcome. It's common wisdom that in order to get elected, many conservative politicians will need to bow at the altar of the tea party, just as liberals in key battlegrounds must get the blessing of the local unions, or face the consequences. Establishment centrist Republicans including John McCain and Charlie Crist are so afraid of their right flank that they dramatically changed issue stances (McCain) or left the party outright (Crist). Most believe Scott Brown won a key Republican victory in January thanks to tea party support in the state where it all started 230 years ago. New politicians like Brown are expected to arrive in Washington beginning in 2010 on the shoulders of the tea party, including people such as Marco Rubio from Florida who may defeat Crist for a Senate seat. And it's no coincidence that 2012 presidential hopefuls like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are actively courting the tea party; they are aware that any chance of defeating Barack Obama will require the movement's help.

Until the Party Ends. The tea party movement is becoming a victim of its own contradictions. Its anti-government message will only resonate until it becomes clear that the economy is improving and the Obama government claims some of the credit. Most members may not be racist and ignorant of the facts, but plenty of them are, and the media loves to focus on the crazies who attend tea party rallies because it boosts ratings. There is passion and energy, but no adult leadership and no responsible platform. Reducing taxes is a great rallying cry, except that's exactly what has already happened for most Americans. Tea party support may appear essential nationally, but it has spectacularly failed to get candidates elected throughout the midwest and significantly, in NY-23 late last year. Finally, if the tea party truly is made up of civil libertarians, then will they also support other causes for civil liberties such as free choice on abortion, gay marriage, immigrant rights, gays openly serving in the military, and Miranda rights for suspected terrorists? I didn't think so.

The tea party may be a worthwhile hand-maiden for the Republican party in the short term, but it's likely that once a few tea party heroes are elected to office in Washington, the contradictions will cause the marriage to unravel. The question is whether the Republicans will read the tea leaves.