JOBS, JOBS, JOBS

How do we create jobs?

One of the most frustrating aspects of American politics today is the lack of relevant, mature

debate on how to move the nation forward in a time of multiple crises at home and abroad.

Both political parties are rarely prepared to discuss reality free from vitriolic rhetoric these

days. The sad result is historic dysfunction. This is especially true when it comes to the

question of how to create jobs. The only thing that politicians agree about is that it’s the most

important issue facing the nation. Yet there seems to be a gloomy consensus: there are few

tools left in the tool shed that we can agree to use in order to create jobs.

Too many Republicans and their backers think that taking an axe to all government programs

except the army, deregulating industry, all the while lowering all taxes are the end-all solutions

for economic woe.

Meanwhile most Democrats believe we can spend our way out of everything. What have

our biggest recent expenditures achieved? TARP and the Fed bailed out our ailing banks with

trillions of dollars, rewarding bad behavior and allowing lenders to hoard cash and disburse

record bonuses instead of loosening credit, all while underpaying their taxes. Record profits

are being made thanks to financial products nobody understands and which not only don’t help

society, but actively harm it.

The stimulus funds have been spent slowly, inefficiently, and with poor oversight, giving a good

idea a bad name. The trillions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved uncertain results

at best, damaging the credibility of both political parties along the way. Our foreign aid is

mismanaged and poorly audited. Contrary to partisan ideology, the problem isn’t spending

itself, but HOW government spends those precious dollars. The government isn’t “broke.” We

should also rid ourselves of the notion that government isn’t capable of spending well.

So we know why the doom and gloom. Is it possible to create jobs in a capitalist society led by

an irresponsible government? Of course it is. I implore President Obama and his Republican

challengers to draft policy on the following five simple, common-sense principles, which unlike

everything else in Washington are not driven by partisan ideology. These do not constitute

party platforms; they are an American platform. I want to hear how any of the candidates will

help accomplish the following, or else their arguments against them.

1) Hearken Back to what Made America Great. How did America come to be the world’s

leading superpower? I believe the best answer is that our businesses of all sizes existed

primarily to produce high quality stuff that people needed or wanted to buy. This was

accomplished through constant innovation, excellent customer service, and hard work.

American business has lamentably drifted away from such high-minded attributes in favor of

short-term profit.

The government can’t just legislate excellence or honesty into existence; however, it can

certainly stop rewarding the deadbeats who don’t conform to this paradigm. No more bailouts

and handouts for banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers who don’t

bother to build a better mousetrap. Let them earn their dollar the hard way, or else fall. If

corporate leaders defraud the public as they’ve been doing time and time again, put the

perpetrators in jail where they belong. We need to bring back the culture of being the best

because we make the best in an environment of honesty. The jobs will follow.

Every single government contract at the federal, state, county, and city level should pass a rigid

standard: does our society really need this right now? Let the bureaucrats and politicians slug

it out- but ONLY on the basis of this question. If it’s a repair for one of the many busy interstate

bridges that are crumbling apart, that would be a yes. For a bridge to nowhere or other types

of brazen pork, the answer would be a no. There are plenty of worthy infrastructure projects

in desperate need of funds. We must not tolerate projects that fall prey to incompetence,

fulfill a very narrow special interest, or are over budget, especially at the Pentagon, which has

turned boondoggles into a cottage industry. Somewhere in America, I guarantee you there is a

company that can perform the job. Fire the one who can’t.

2) Help our businesses connect with foreign customers and suppliers. America’s jobs depend

on the ability of business to perform, and lead, in a more globalized marketplace. Most

companies, from giant multinationals all the way down to small businesses are realizing that

their future desperately hinges on the ability to connect with consumers in foreign countries in

addition to the usual American customers. Americans have maxed out their credit, tightened

their belts, and will probably never spend at rates like they did over the last few decades ever

again. Rightly so. Accept it. Growth in consumer spending right now mostly lies overseas and

this is an unprecedented opportunity for Americans too. Every day thousands of new families

are entering the middle class and moving into cities for the first time from South America to

Africa to Asia, ready to buy all manner of stuff. But most American businesses are unprepared

to jump into this new and exciting fray. We need for companies to create goods and services

that there is a demand for, and which they can do better than overseas competitors, rather

than pursuing the same old methods- such as trying to revive the types of manufacturing

that other nations do better and more cheaply than us. We need to make electric cars, not

gasoline cars. There are those who say the government can’t influence this process. I disagree

vehemently.

We must revamp the U.S. education system for the 21st century, and this is something only

the government can do, in partnership with private educational institutions and industries. In

a nutshell, that means that our students must take mandatory trips abroad, and learn foreign

languages and culture beginning at a younger age (elementary school, my dear Watson)

continuing year after year, on through college. Additionally, we need to double down on math,

science and technology training, where American students are woefully lacking in relation

to their counterparts of all ages. School standards need to be reconfigured toward the new

realities of a shrinking, high-tech, multi-polar world. Teachers will have to be trained and

outfitted to provide what’s needed, especially in computing power.

The government must do a better job of encouraging free trade by removing all tariffs and

subsidies at home, and demanding that other nations we trade with do the same. There is no

reason to subsidize the energy and agriculture sectors and artificially affect the markets, giving

our trading partners an excuse to do the same. In the short run this may lead to pain, but it

will be better for the private sector in the long run. Part and parcel of this is fiercely protecting

the intellectual property of Americans as well as foreigners. In fact, I would take some of the

money funneled to defense and budget it specifically to protect intellectual property- it is in

fact a matter of national security.

Government officials of every level must reconsider their own roles. They must think globally

from now on, asking how their agency can thrive in an environment of interchange with other

nations for mutual benefit. That could be looking into products or suppliers in other nations,

studying what counterparts in other locations are doing on environmental issues, or simply

collecting new ideas through social networking.

3) Open up the borders This may seem counter-intuitive. Won’t immigrants take away jobs

from corn-fed, homegrown Americans? Generally, they will not. Immigrants tend to find

jobs that most Americans won’t do (picking grapes for 12 hours in 105 degree weather) or

can’t do (writing code in Silicon Valley). They are often the top students or strivers from their

homeland. Brands like Microsoft, Google, GM, GE, and even the NBA are in desperate need

of replenishing talent every year, and often the only places to find it are abroad. University

departments and laboratories across the nation would collapse without immigration. These

immigrants in turn help innovate, pay their taxes, and spend their incomes at the mall. Some

of them become national heroes, such as Dirk Nowitzki. Of course a minority of immigrants

do engage in criminal activity- and those individuals should rightly be subject to prison or

deportation.

Let more immigrants in. Offer a path to amnesty for the undocumented, law-abiding people

who are already here. Help them help America stay ahead rather than helping another country.

Our diversity and openness are more than a strength- we are desperately going to need them

to survive- especially as the baby boomers are beginning to retire en masse, and the ratio of

taxpayers to retirees will go up drastically in the near future. We can have strong national

defense hand in hand with more open immigration policies.

4) Speaking of national defense It’s time to read the tea leaves. The days of traditional warfare

are over. What does that mean? Instead of buying big tanks, cargo planes, and aircraft carriers

we need to pivot toward the new world we live in. The wars of the future will be fought, won,

and lost on asymmetrical battlefields. Yes, “cyber warfare” and counterterrorism are the new

front lines. Rather than building large standing armies of muscular jarheads and filling the

seas with big fleets of warships, we need legions of geeks and linguists sitting in computer labs

who know how to expand and protect our critical infrastructure and dismantle that of others.

We need more detectives and spies versed in the ways of high technology, who can infiltrate

terror cells and nuclear plants, or guide unmanned aircraft. The operation to track down and

kill Osama bin Laden was more “Law and Order” than “Saving Private Ryan”: good old law

enforcement, with years of investigative work backed by in essence, a glorified SWAT team

going in and out in 45 minutes. The war of the future is not invading countries full-on from

the beach-head, that failed neocon solution to every threat, but instead having the ability to

protect our interests everywhere using all tools at our disposal, including diplomacy and force

with pinpoint precision. That means more special forces, more technology, and less large

standing armies.

Russia and China invest in asymmetrical warfare, and so do the terrorists, anonymous hackers,

and private businesses. In your lifetime and mine, no nation will likely have the ability to fight

the United States head on in a traditional theater of war. But that won’t help if a terrorist finds

a way to sneak a dirty bomb into town or if Chinese hackers manage to shut down our national

power grid, which we almost managed to do without any help in 2003. The asymmetrical

warfare employment prospects in both the private and public sector will provide a triple bonus:

a proliferation of high-paying jobs, the types of technical training and expertise America needs,

and measurable national security achieved. It’s time for America to bring our troops home,

get them trained to be ahead of this game, and stay ahead. This is a good segue into the final

principle.

5) Quality, not quantity Often overlooked in the job creation discussion is that not all

jobs are the same. We are terminally fixated on the numbers: 9.1% unemployment! 8.9%

unemployment! The number of people receiving unemployment checks month on month went

up! We forget that it’s not only jobs we need, but good jobs. If unemployment was at 3%

because the rate of fast food consumption in America suddenly doubled, and most frustrated

jobseekers succumbed to become minimum-wage burger flippers, I would argue this isn’t ideal.

We need jobs in the areas where there will be growth in the future and where America has

a fighting chance to carve out a competitive advantage. Green technology, biotechnology,

nanotechnology, social media, and other high-tech fields are going to result in tons of new

consumer demand (and jobs) around the world, and America is losing the race in each case.

For example, China’s government is investing $200 billion in high-speed rail while American

conservatives mock the concept and the Obama administration struggled to allocate a paltry $8

billion in funding. Foreign companies are likely to be the new champions of this field, and for

American companies to even play the game they will have to resettle in Asia. It is a sad state of

affairs. This is an example of the sort of industry that the government can safely spend toward

boosting up - because it is unambiguously beneficial to society on so many levels.

These five principles may be difficult to implement in the short run and will take immense

courage on the part of our leaders, courage that few have been willing to show. But they

are no-brainers when it comes to sustained job creation over the long term. There are some

changes that all leaders should be willing to embrace above all of the noise. Luckily for

America, one of our strengths as a nation has been the uncanny ability to course-correct when

the going gets tough. There is hope that we can do it again. America’s jobs problem is spiritual

in nature: we have become slow and scared in embracing the winds of change, whereas in the

past it was America who rode these winds the furthest, fastest.

Palin, Bachmann, and The Cult of Stupidity in US Politics

A most disturbing trend in America today is the growing celebration of stupidity by our political leaders. Its predictability as a phenomenon that mirrors American society at large does not make it any less devastating or dangerous.

This is best exemplified by two former beauty queens, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin who are both comically uninformed and fiercely proud of it. They revel in their lack of suitable education or original ideas, and get away with it thanks to above average looks, compelling stories of motherhood, and by frequently ducking under a Constitution-bound bible for cover. Their platforms are little more than tenuously interwoven platitudes on patriotism, the glorification of gun violence, cannibalizing government, and Christianity. Their views on each are narrowly defined to the point where exclusion and conflict are inevitable, only adding to their appeal for those who feel included, the ones who wish that their little club could be their whole country.

Neither is qualified to be a 21st century public school teacher, let alone presidential material even in the barren 2012 Republican wasteland. That their names are bandied about should frighten US citizens half to death. When Palin and Bachmann misquote history and have it pointed out to them, they immediately bat their eyelashes seductively and cry victimhood as followers pile on like sheep to defend their honor. For Palin and Bachmann live in an alternate reality where logic is irrelevant and facts are incidental at best on the journey to grow their personal brand.

This would be all fine and good if not for the sad commentary about the state of our nation. What does it say about us? These quaint publicity-mongering middle-aged ladies would be at worst, harmless and inconsequential strands of the American fabric if not for the millions of Americans who would passionately support them for higher office. The loud and annoying aunt down the street isn't usually a threat outside her home. But somehow we are as close as we've ever been to living in a universe where Palin, Bachmann, and others of their type are in charge. The problem of course is not that women are capable of achieving high office; far from it, that is a national strength. It is that some leverage their status as women to unjustly claim victimhood when challenged. They mislead their supporters, showing how little respect they have for the IQ of their own flocks.

Somehow in America it became cooler to be mediocre than intelligent, attractive than talented. This rings true from the Hollywood Hills to middle school classrooms straight into the halls of Washington power. It applies to both men and women and spares no political party. It should not be surprising that many politicians we elect to represent us are winners of popularity contests rather than readers of books. But if we lower the bar further by opening the White House doors to unashamed "C" students at the cost of "A" students, disaster will occur and we will deserve it completely.

The presidency is among the most complex, difficult, dangerous, stressful, and thankless jobs in the world. It is not appropriate for insecure, thin-skinned egomaniacs who "refudiate" instead of admitting mistakes or evolving philosophically. It puts one in charge of the most fearsome army and weapons ever known in the history of mankind. Palin and Bachmann view these as toys to play with in an earnest personal crusade to advance America and Jesus Christ without knowing much about who and what lie beyond the water's edge. This more than any other reason should give us pause. Knowledge, experience, and intelligence are in short supply in D.C. and needed more now than ever before. Palin and Bachmann have exhibited little interest in learning more about what they don't know or can't glean through prayer.

Their ostensible love for America, family, and God are admirable and closely aligned with my own deep personal sentiments. However, these traits simply do not qualify one to run for national office when coupled with an overarching lack of intellectual curiosity. We must ask our leaders to pass a higher test, especially in these historically stormy waters. There are forces at play that will almost certainly accelerate America's decline relative to other rising nations in the near future. Through outstanding leadership and courageous course corrections these forces can be halted or even reversed. However, it will take an "A" student to make this happen.

From all political stripes, some may protest conflating Palin and Bachmann. Yet these two are in fact engaged in the beginnings of a tea-soaked Beltway Barbie death match, vying for the same votes from the same base assuming both end up declaring for the presidency. Ramifications could endure well beyond 2012 as the real battle is for leadership of a medium-term fringe movement, win or lose in real-world government elections.

Others may claim neither has a chance to win the nomination or the general election, but this could be an underestimation of Americans' ability to make bad choices. Finally, stupidity and vituperation in politics are admittedly nothing new as we all know, and certainly pre-date poor Palin and Bachmann. Yet nobody has approached the unique, ignitable combination of clout and clueless-ness to date that these two have achieved in short spurts of spotlight.

July 4th weekend is not a bad time for national self-examination and introspection. After all our country's government is a reflection of us. That Americans watch reality television and pay attention to the lives of uneducated, mediocre and classless people such as Lindsey Lohan, Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton is bad enough. But if America were hypnotized long enough to elect one of them to the presidency, that would be far worse. By now it should be apparent that this is exactly the path we are on.

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?