Good Times After High Crimes

The two murderous lifers who escaped from a maximum security upstate New York prison have expended massive resources towards their recapture. But even if this hadn't happened taxpayers spend up to $60,000 per high risk prisoner per year. Our sense of justice not to speak of our physical and economic well being would have been better served if these two had been executed for their crimes long ago. And since their guilt was never in doubt there was no chance of imposing the ultimate penalty on an innocent.

As of now 19 states have no capital punishment and it is very sparingly used in the rest. We are very easy on our most violent criminals in other ways as well. The worst offenders can lead pretty nice lives, have regular sex (one even impregnated four guards) and get good healthcare. I wrote about "Crime and (Low) Punishment" back in May 2007 and "Arming and Coddling Our Criminals" in July 2012.

According to Gallup Americans favor the death penalty 63% to 33% and yet more and more states are abolishing it. The reason elected political leaders are collectively going against popular will has something to do with the packaged set of political choices that voters face. I like the Democratic platform favoring choice on abortions, universal healthcare, legalizing marijuana, easing up on victim-less crimes like drug use and prostitution, environmental conservation, gay rights, gun control and more public spending on infrastructure and R&D. Yet the Democratic package comes with things a majority including me don't like: favoring strong unions that extract wages and benefits far above free market levels; ethnic quotas over meritocracy in the name of diversity and affirmative action; litigious malpractice and tort system; and yes, coddling vicious and violent criminals.

The same can be said on the flip side for Republicans. The primaries process makes it worse, since the more extreme elements have a bigger role in choosing and influencing candidates in each party than in the general election. Look what happened to the moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 - his forced rightward shift in the primaries made him unwinnable in the general election. To his credit Obama in the 2008 primaries came across as more liberal than he actually turned out to be, helping him topple Hillary. This time the centrist candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush have a much better shot at winning their primaries, especially if partisan voters place more emphasis on who is winnable in the  general election.

But I digress. Is there a way to have popular preferences better reflected in laws and their implementation on the ground? I'd like more issues like capital punishment, gun control, legalizing marijuana and assisted suicide decided at the state level through referendums. This way voter intent is less likely to be hijacked by minority views bundled into each party's platform.

Sensible Security Vs. Paranoid Privacy

I've viewed the ACLU as a mixed blessing at best, as some of their laudable defense of civil liberties and social equality has been offset by needlessly obstructive litigation.  In the second category I'd include their lawsuit against the government's "phone spying program" that aims to prevent or detect terrorism.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) collects meta data (place and time of calls, and to whom) and likely records a lot of calls made overseas as well.  It is not clear from news reports if their analysts can mine that data and access recorded conversations without a court order.  Even if they can, I'm fine with it so long as there are stringent penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosure of such information, e.g., to expose extra-marital affairs or other embarrassing but non-criminal acts.

In a dangerous and uncertain time when there are inevitably those living within the US who'd like to do us harm I'd much rather choose security over some loss of privacy.  That includes measures like widespread video surveillance in public places, a national ID card, a national gun registry, some degree of profiling as I wrote in August 2009, and yes, electronic eavesdropping.  Tom Friedman in his June 11 Times column voices a lot of my thoughts except that I'd not so "reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining" but strongly endorse it.  In the same spirit I consider Bradley Manning who sent a trove of secret State cables to Wikileaks and NSA leaker Edward Snowden (if the US ever gets him) to be deserving of stiff jail terms. 

Many Americans agree with me, though poll results over the past couple of weeks vary depending on whom you ask and how you frame the questions.  According to USA Today on June 18, most Americans support prosecuting Snowden who is sought by the US and is for now in Russia.  There's an age divide, with the younger generation much more supportive of Snowden's leaks, which I attribute to their naivete.  After all, this is the demographic that helped Obama top a more capable and qualified Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary. (Sorry, past and present Obama fans, I couldn't resist this dig.)

Curiously, I see some mainstream media reports referring to Snowden and even Manning as "whistle blowers" which is a term for exposing illegality or wrongdoing.  That is not the case here, as they've instead leaked secret but legal acts or communications, so the the term "whistle blower" shouldn't be debased by applying it to them.

About the other security measures I reeled off above, to my mind privacy for privacy's sake is overrated, especially when it tips the scales heavily in favor of criminals.  Why not introduce a national ID?  Accompanied by biometric markers it would be much harder to fake and could significantly impede identity theft.  It could also make life for the truly innocent and harmless more convenient, as in airport security screening.

Why not have everyone's DNA and fingerprints in a national registry along with criminal information, so long as access to it is graduated and available to the authority only to the extent justified?  For example, police officers making a traffic stop could access if there are any outstanding arrest warrants for anyone they pull over, but not prior convictions that could prejudice them.  This type of comprehensive registry would enormously expedite and ensure detection and apprehending of the guilty if their DNA or fingerprints are found at the crime scene.  For the same reason we should indeed have not just a national gun registry but also to the extent feasible the ballistic records of every weapon to make criminal forensics more effective.

Privacy is another term for concealment, and I can see why we'd want things like our bedroom behavior, non-criminal fetishes or even some misdemeanor offenses to be inaccessible to the public at large.  But that's very different from information we're talking about here, which can seriously impede crime, terrorism and other really bad stuff.  Modern technology makes it possible for us to not just store vast amounts of useful information about people but also to selectively restrict access to it.

Of course, data hacking and cyber security failures can expose secret information but that happens anyway in other settings like email and other records, and lapses can be mitigated with extra care.  After all, our banks, the Pentagon and the CIA do not avoid collecting and storing confidential information in electronic format just 'cause this can possibly be hacked. The same logic should apply to keeping relevant and useful information about all Americans in a common, well secured database.

So while the ACLU and libertarians keep crusading against NSA "excesses" like warehousing electronic communications and centralized databases  I view most of these as sensible measures to make us safer.

Playing Rajat Gupta

 I've followed developments and written earlier about Rajat Gupta in March 2011,  in May 2012, and in July 2012.  The essence of my views has been:
a) Rajat's alleged insider tip-offs are out of character with the person I had come to know.
b) His heavy contributions to society and humanity far outweigh his alleged transgressions.
c) His insider leaks if true also pale in comparison to the misdeeds of typical hedge fund managers and other Wall Street players who are never caught or whose dishonest acts aren't technically crimes.
d) Even if he revealed secrets they could have been pried or deduced through wily questions by Rajaratnam.  Our Indian culture and ethos can make it seem impolite and difficult to completely clam up when a friend asks a direct question about a confidential matter.

 More light has been shed on the last point in a May 17 article in the New York Times that has pieced together the story of how he was manipulated by hedge fund titan (and crook) Rajaratnam.  This piece is well researched and dispassionate, providing insights into how Rajat could have landed in the mess that he's in.
Even the trial Judge Rakoff at the time of sentencing acknowledged that Rajat is "undoubtedly a good man".  In an interview (Fortune, Jan 24, '13) he stated without going into the specifics that he takes a defendants good deeds into account in his judgements.

[An aside: Though I think highly of judge Rakoff a point where I'd take issue with him as a financial purist is in his characterizing Rajat's tip-offs as “the functional equivalent of stabbing Goldman in the back.”  Actually, insider "buy" trades do not damage the firm whose shares are traded.  They instead discriminate against outside prospective buyers who are preceded by the inside trader and lose some of the fair chance to be "lucky" before share prices rise.  Of course that still makes insider trading wrong and it is rightly outlawed as it affects the integrity of the markets.]

Rajat continues to maintain he's not guilty as he appeals his conviction and sentencing, and  I continue to root for him.  Back to the Times article it speculates that an unfortunate Rajat was played by a "boorish" Rajaratnam and it reads somewhat like a Shakespearean tragedy.  As the future unfolds I'd like Rajat to have a happier ending.

Aftermath Of Two More Shootings

In my last post I mentioned the July 27 mass shooting in an Aurora, CO movie theater as the latest example of the toll taken by lax US gun laws.  Since then there have been two more shootings that grabbed headlines with thankfully decreasing number of casualties.  Amidst these tragedies I'll talk for a change about some positive aspects, including those that touched us personally.

The Aug. 5 shooting by a white supremacist that claimed 6 Sikh lives in their Milwaukee temple also brought out the good and noble aspects of life and social values in America.  Over 40 people are murdered on average in the US every day, yet the media gave this wide, sympathetic and extended coverage because the crime targeted a specific minority community.   Politicians and leaders of all stripes including Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan and First Lady Michele Obama made it a point to personally visit and console the afflicted community.  President Obama even ordered flags to be flown at half mast to mourn the victims.

Despite some obvious and recurrent cracks in ethnic and religious harmony in India I've been proud of the general secular traditions and systems in the country of my birth.  After coming to the US I've seen that the overall acceptance, tolerance and politeness towards minorities here is of an even higher order.  Some of my Indian friends and relatives perceive racism and profiling that I mentioned on Aug. 10, 2009, a little of which is inevitable since everyone can't be perfect.  Still, it's probably less in the US than anywhere else in the world, and largely offset by sustained outreach to minorities.

After the Sikh temple shootings I got emails of concern and support from half a dozen friends in the US and Canada who know I'm from this community though my wife is Hindu.  While all these friends happened to be Asian (a Chinese and the rest Hindus, one of whom is married to a remarkable Muslim woman) I believe their decades of living here have infused them with additional sensitivity.  Most asked if our family was okay and hoped that we hadn't lost anyone close to us.  Logically speaking they shouldn't have worried.  I know about a couple of hundred Sikhs in the US among the estimated 200,000 to 500,000 living here so the chance of my knowing any of the victims is 1 in 200.  Still, it's their thoughts and sentiments that count.

The other and latest shooting on Aug. 24 outside the Empire State Building involved a single murder followed by police firing in which the gunman was killed and nine bystanders injured.  It was big news mainly because it took place near a national landmark in broad daylight in Manhattan. 

Our daughter Rubina works about a mile away at the Wall Street Journal and has recently taken up a new assignment dealing with social media.  Last Friday she too was sucked into the rapid fact gathering and dissemination as the news broke.  She was also interviewed on camera for the first time to give an insider's perspective of how information is gathered, verified and shared using the new tools of social media.  In a fast paced day she had an hour to prepare before her debut appearance.  She can be seen in this 5 minute clip, and did a good job. 
 

Arming And Coddling Our Criminals

Democrats and Republicans both provide comfort and help to our violent offenders. 

The Democrats (actually the Liberals who closely identify with them) have made jail terms shorter and more pleasant for felons.  They've had the death penalty abolished in 17 states and Washington, D.C., and cheered its erosion in the remaining 33.  The 12 killed and 58 injured by James Holmes in a Colorado movie theater have created headlines and the guilt or deliberate intent of the shooter is never in doubt.  Yet an insanity defense is almost certain and it will be many years if ever before this guy gets the ultimate punishment.  Something he would have dodged with certainty if he had chosen the "right" state - one of those 17 merciful ones - to stage his crimes.

Still, violent criminals everywhere should be heartened by the overall statistics.  There are about 14,000 murders committed in the US every year, and only about 43 of the guilty are eventually executed.  So the odds are very good that killers even if they're caught will spend their lives in prisons with decent food, stay, entertainment and health benefits, thanks to liberals' efforts and court directives by progressive judges.  Not to mention the opportunity to bask in media publicity and star in shows like "Lockup Raw."

About two thirds of our murders are committed with use of firearms.  And this is where the NRA backed Republicans are key to ensuring that our criminals are well supplied.  Some precautions like background checks are rendered meaningless when you can avoid them in gun shows.  But as remarkable is letting assault weapons like AK 47s or hand guns with high round magazines be owned for self-protection under the 2nd Amendment.  There have been ample studies like this one of Feb. 2010 in News Medical about how guns in homes do far more harm than good to the owners themselves, leave alone other victims.  Mere facts can't compete of course with the NRA's "Founding Fathers" rhetoric. If it was valid 200 years ago (when slavery and subservience of women was also the norm) many Americans think that alone is a good enough reason to continue such practices. 

There were several media laments about how Obama uttered platitudes but did nothing substantial after the Colorado massacre to force gun control.  But this close to elections I don't blame him.  A large chunk of independents or undecideds can be turned off by such a measure, and those who favor it may be upset, but they'll never switch to Romney.  And conversely, the same may hold though to a much smaller extent for Romney to stick to the NRA playbook. 

After the elections there should be a serious overhaul.  In September 2009 I suggested key changes to our criminal justice system, though these may shock Liberals as well as those on the hard right.  An articulate and astute President supported by some key Congressional leaders with similar qualities from both parties could make this happen.  They can win broad acceptance and acclaim from the "non-fringe" populace, and find alternative sources of campaign funding and support to replace some they'll lose from their extreme base.  See how many of these proposed changes you agree with.

On Rajat After The Verdict

A month ago on June 15 a jury found Rajat Gupta guilty of insider trading.  He faces sentencing with substantial jail time in October, although he will appeal and his lawyer said "This is only Round 1."  His best case scenario is overturning of the verdict on appeal, followed by retrial with a more favorable outcome - a harrowing process that will last years.

Headlines like the one in WSJ said "Insider Case Lands Big Catch" but this is misleading. It implies snaring someone who played a huge part in, or was at the root of insider trading.  Instead, Rajat's "bigness" lies in his fame and prominence in contributions to business and philanthropy, or the respect and esteem he was held in prior to being charged in this insider case. Any wrongful gains as a result of his alleged insider tip-offs adding up to a few million dollars to his friends (none to him personally) are dwarfed by his positive contributions to society, business and philanthropy.  Those could easily run into tens of billions of dollars, if quantifiable in monetary terms, quite apart from the way he profoundly touched people in personal contact with him.

Assuming he's guilty as charged (a jury's findings don't necessarily make it so) what caused him to act that way?  Even the prosecution said it wasn't for greed or "quick profits but rather a lifestyle where inside tips are the currency of friendships and elite business relationships." The Financial Times on June 19 and the WSJ on June 18 offer insights on how the Indian culture and way of helping friends could have affected Rajat's perceptions about passing on inside information.  While it is illegal just like in the US, "insider trading is widespread in India, and often not considered a serious crime."

Anant Rangaswami in his June 16 article "Rajat is no criminal, he's just an Indian" in FirstPost says, "... in India, many of us are bemused by the accusations and the conviction. A man goes to jail because he shared information with a friend? By that yardstick, half of India would be in jail.  Knowing people in power and to benefit from the knowledge and contacts that they possess is the ladder to success that Indians have recognised centuries ago.  It’s an ethos and a culture – and it’s deep-rooted...That’s the first step to insider information, to an unfair advantage.  But that’s what India is all about – having the contacts and taking advantage of the contacts to give one an edge...The moment everybody does it, we forget that, in the first place, what is being done IS wrong. And when everybody does it for decades and centuries, it’s so much a part of us, part of the way we behave and interact." 

But the US is very different with very tough laws against leaking of and trading on non-public information, right?  Well, no. It just depends on who is doing the leaking and the trading, and on the type of information.  Rampant legalized corruption existed right through till April 4, 2012 when under media glare and public pressure the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was finally passed.  Till then Congressional leaders and their staffers could freely trade on stocks even if they knew these would be drastically affected by their pending or forthcoming legislation that wasn't public knowledge.  And even this law has deliberate loopholes that would let a truck through.

For instance, Ron DeLegge in ETFguide on April 12 writes: "When a hedge fund or an influence peddling individual wants inside information, they can still buy it – by paying members of Congress or other high level officials for something called "political intelligence." This rogue but still legal practice of gathering information from lawmakers and Hill aides is regularly used by Wall Street to steer money into profitable investments. It's nothing more than legalized cheating, because he with the most money and political influence wins.  CASE STUDY: Former US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson sold political intelligence when he tipped off hedge funds about Fannie Mae's rescue in 2008 while he was serving as the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Paulson's hedge funds pals made billions in illicit profits. That type of unethical conduct is still legal under the "new and improved" STOCK Act. ... Here's another gaping omission: The STOCK Act still allows elected officials to own stock in industries they can affect with their political power." 

On the non-government side another Paulson, hedge fund manager John ("JP") Paulson, packaged the worst mortgage backed securities he could find into the "Abacus" fund and bet heavily against them.  He then colluded with Goldman Sachs to dupe its own clients into buying these funds, causing them heavy losses.  "JP" as the counter party made $1 billion from this and got clean away with it. And a July 15, '12 NYT story describes how hedge funds and big investors widely use as yet non-public analyst inputs to gain improper trading advantages.

In sum the ethos in India as well as in US financial circles may have shaped the actions of an otherwise upright Rajat whose goodness and modesty I saw and mentioned in my March 29, '11 post.  He may not have considered it that big a deal to share scraps of yet-to-be-public information with a friend, especially if he was not personally benefiting from this.  Of course he must now be regretting if he did it, and is paying a terrible price.

Interestingly, my May 12, '12 post analogy about even Mother Teresa being prosecuted in our justice system if she committed a robbery was repeated almost verbatim by Judge Rakoff in court 5 days later.  He may have seen my post, or simply thought of the same analogy.  Either way he also hopefully considers a person's history of good deeds and overall conduct, though irrelevant in the charging and jury trial stage, to be a key factor when it comes to sentencing. 

Rajat is almost the diametric opposite of a face for financial greed and misdeed.   Unsavory Wall Street titans often give a portion of their ill-gotten wealth to charity or philanthropy to burnish their image, salve their conscience or feed their egos while lavishing the rest of it on themselves.  Rajat in contrast has used his talents and energies for doing good that outweighs the value of alleged illegal favors to friends by a thousandfold.  As for any personal gains he made none and ironically was instead stiffed out of $10 million by Rajaratnam who quietly withdrew his own investment from his ailing Voyager fund without informing Rajat. 

Some of the more sympathetic media coverage has highlighted Rajat's contributions and philanthropy in the abstract sense.  Yet just as much it's the personal goodwill and concern for those around him that has rallied friends to his side, including the 300 plus who signed an open letter at a website set up to support him.  I've interacted with him just about a dozen times, and yet he made a profound impression.  To see why, consider for example my first meeting with him and his ever warm and kindly wife Anita. (They may not even recall any of this as I understand that this was quite typical of their behavior.)

It was early 1991 and my family had just joined me from Shimla, India a few months after I joined my Ph.D. program at the University of Chicago.  The saintly Mr. P.K. Mattoo, retired Chief Secretary of Himachal state and my ex-boss whom I loved and respected had sent a little gift packet through my wife Anita to be given to his niece Anita Gupta.  All we knew through Mr. Mattoo was that his niece had married a fellow IIT student named Rajat "who after completing his MBA in the US had settled into a nice job in Chicago."

 I called Anita Gupta and learned they lived in the northern suburb of Winnetka on the opposite side of Chicago from our Hyde Park campus.  We combined dropping off their packet with a Sunday evening drive to pick up Indian groceries and dine in Chicago's Indian sector of Devon Street that was much closer to their home.  Keen to spare them any hassles (as we were strangers merely carrying an uncle's gift) I said to Anita Gupta, "We'll just have eaten so no food or drinks for us. We'll hand over the package, say hi and be on our way home. We'll be a little late - will about 8 to 8:30pm be okay?"

"Agreed, and that's perfectly fine," Anita Gupta assured.

We were late reaching Devon driving in traffic on unfamiliar roads (this was before the GPS and cell phone era) and further bogged down in shopping amid the crowds.  I reached Anita Gupta from a pay phone and asked if arriving as late as 9:30pm was okay as we'd been held up.  She again said it wasn't any problem.  "Remember, no food or drink for us," I reminded, "and we won't stop at this unearthly hour." "Okay, Baba," she said, "but just come in for a minute."

Using maps and directions we actually reached the Gupta home after 9:45pm.  The large estates and stately homes in the area set it apart from our typical neighborhoods.  Anita and Rajat with their three daughters behind them (their fourth was just a few months old) welcomed us at the door of  their mansion-like home.  After handing Mr. Mattoo's packet at that late hour on a Sunday we were ready to leave but Anita and Rajat urged us to come inside.

We were surprised when they led us to a large dining table set with four placements and a nice dinner.  They had guessed (correctly, despite my fibs on phone) that we may not have eaten properly at Devon.  "We've kept a little food for you," said Rajat softly, sounding almost apologetic for having ignored my request not to serve us anything.

Our kids had had a long day and our older daughter Sheena wanted to lie down right away.  Anita Gupta made soothing noises and their eldest daughter Geetanjali cheerfully led the way to her room where Sheena hit the bed and promptly fell asleep.

Then Anita Gupta and Rajat who had already eaten sat with us at the dining table as Rubina, Anita and I tucked into the food.  By the time we were done, both the Anitas were chatting like good friends as they cleared the table and put the dishes away.  The Gupta daughters were remarkably sweet and unspoilt considering their family's obvious wealth.  After dinner the elder three took Rubina away for play and kept her happily occupied.

Rajat and I went to the living room to be joined later by the two Anitas.  Rajat was as good a listener as he was gracious and time passed quickly.  I looked around and solemnly proclaimed that his company must be paying him really well to have a home like this.  The Guptas laughed and Rajat explained what he did.  That's the first time I had heard of McKinsey and it sparked my interest in management consulting.  He didn't let on about his stature at McKinsey.  Nor (so as not to rush us and I only learned of this by chance) that he had to leave for work at 6:15am the next morning.

When we finally collected our kids to leave the Guptas came out to see us off.  They weren't at all fazed at the sight of our battered old Honda Accord hatchback sitting incongruously in their driveway, and Rajat opened its door to help me settle the children in the rear seat. They solicitously gave us directions to I-94S for the drive home and we were on our way.  It was past 11pm.

 

More On Rajat Before The Trial

To me, ideal justice should reward or punish a person in proportion to the net of all the good and bad deeds done over a lifetime.  In this "Judgement Day" sense society is enormously indebted to Rajat Gupta about whom I last wrote in March 2011.  The world is a better place because of his work at McKinsey and after, including with the Gates Foundation, the American India Foundation, and in his helping set up ISB, the best business school in India.  And this is in addition to his grace, generosity and goodwill towards those who came into personal contact with him.

Rajat allegedly leaked board meeting information that led to insider trading gains of up to a few million dollars cumulatively to his friend Rajaratnam, though none to Rajat personally.  Even if true this sum is dwarfed by Rajat's services to humanity that (if you can put a monetary value on them) are worth billions - or tens of billions - of dollars. 

Of course, our man made system of justice is of necessity a lot more limited, with no offsetting credits for unrelated acts. Even Mother Teresa would have been prosecuted if she had committed a robbery.  For proven offenses penalties are at most mitigated when the judge at the time of sentencing considers a defendant's good deeds.  All I'm saying is that I continue wishing the best for Rajat, and regardless of the outcome of his trial starting on May 21 he remains in my books an admirable and thoroughly decent human being.

Others who have interacted closely with Rajat seem to feel the same way.  FriendsofRajat.com is a website established by friend and former McKinsey colleague Atul Kanaghat where folks of varying prominence have rallied to support Rajat. It contains several fervent testimonials and positive accounts from those who know him well.  Many people who are eager to cultivate relationships with celebrities abandon them just as quickly when they come under a cloud. Rajat in contrast having steadfast friends speaks well of both.

And then as his friends maintain, the allegations against Rajat may simply be untrue.  They are out of character with the person I know.  Rajat's defense team is expected to stress that (a) there is no direct evidence of Rajat's wrongdoing, (b) the timing of his calls to Rajaratnam does not mean that he leaked confidential information since he had many other matters to discuss, and (c) Rajat had just lost his entire $10M investment in Rajaratnam's funds which had strained their relationship so he'd hardly want to go out of his way to help Rajaratnam.

There are other developments.  AP reported on April 19 that prosecutors acknowledged Goldman employee(s) (not Rajat) also fed Rajaratnam inside information.  A May 3 article in the WSJ also described how Goldman's stock had been rising for several minutes even before Rajat called Rajaratnam and the latter made his "inside" trade, meaning that someone else had already leaked this information.  

Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati with whom I've co-written health care articles also has a sympathetic perspective as reported in the media about an Indian propensity to over-share that could cause problems. He said:

“You go to a meeting and you hear something which technically could be considered insider information and you go to your friend and you say ‘Arrey you know what happened?’  And he doesn’t realize - and that is Rajat’s bad judgment - that this guy is a crook. I think this is what may have happened. It is the product of Indian culture...  I think most people will see Rajat as somewhat of a victim. The fact that he has been doing a lot of good things for India and the Indian American community is going to stand in his favor. There will be cynicism among some people, but the vast majority will see him as a good man, who got caught on the wrong side of the street.”

Knowing what I do about Rajat and wanting to see justice served in a more holistic sense, I hope he gets through his crisis and regains universal acclaim for his achievements and innate decency.

Right Wing Judges Have Their Uses

I've generally taken a dim view of the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court, especially since their partisan 2000 ruling against Al Gore that stopped the Florida vote recount and made GWB President.  There's been the (so far unrealized) fear that they'd overturn Roe v. Wade to give abortion foes an upper hand. In January 2010 they aided special interests and electoral corruption by removing restrictions on corporations from spending freely on supporting or opposing candidates.  Going forward when it ultimately comes to them they may undo the 2010 health care reforms by (among other things) striking down the vital mandate for everyone to get insurance coverage.

But this same conservative wing also plays a key role in curbing class action lawsuits, expanding interpretation of anti-discrimination laws, and left wing activism that unfairly burdens our businesses and the economy.

On June 20 the Supreme Court threw out the largest class action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart with the conservative wing also making it difficult to file such class actions in the future.  This is welcome as such cases are generally a boon for trial lawyers while imposing huge costs on businesses that are hard put to defend against a wide variety of claims, many of them frivolous.  Businesses pass on such costs to Americans in the form of higher prices, and this also makes the US a less desirable place to hire workers or operate in.  So in this way the conservative judges have helped not just businesses but also the economy and American consumers by reducing unnecessary litigation. 

In this same case the conservative majority did businesses another favor by indirectly rejecting "proof by quota" as I call it.  This is an argument by trial lawyers and bodies like the EEOC that the simple fact of lower average pay or under-representation of ethnic groups or gender is proof of discrimination.  For example, if women in Wal-Mart on average earn less than men, or their proportion in management positions is much below 50% then this alone proves Wal-Mart's discriminatory conduct.  It ignores (or shifts the burden to defendants to prove) other possible reasons like women working less hard or for fewer hours due to their family commitments, or interrupting careers to raise children.  Or having fewer applicants with the required skills or willingness to work long, non-standard hours.  The conservative judges required proof of some employer conduct or instructions that's common to all discrimination claims to allow them to be clubbed and litigated.

The Supreme Court can restrict "proof by quota" even more explicitly, particularly by public agencies like the EEOC whose actions can hobble businesses even if their orders are eventually overturned on appeal.  I like the role of our right leaning judges in at least three other areas:

• Curbing pro-union partisanship and bias.  On April 22 I've talked of excesses by unions and the undesirable NLRB steps to try forcing Boeing to shift its 787 plane assembly from South Carolina to expensive, heavily unionized Washington.  Employers should be free to factor in labor relations and costs as well as labor disruptions to assess profits and viability, without the NLRB calling their resultant plant location an anti-union retaliation.  Even if it ultimately loses in a conservative Supreme Court (assuming the case goes that far) the NLRB's litigation is creating enough headaches for Boeing in the intervening period.  It would be a lot worse if a liberal Supreme Court actually sided with the NLRB.
• Countering the excesses of anti-discrimination laws.  As mentioned above, affirmative action can easily slip into quota based appointments and promotions that undermine a meritocracy and cause reverse discrimination.  Back on April 8, 2009 I mentioned the offshoot of anti-age discrimination leading to barring employers (with a few exceptions) from having a mandatory retirement age, no matter how high.  I've already talked about why I consider these developments unfortunate from an economic and jobs viewpoint, and would like to see conservative judges bring the balance back even if our politicians won't.  Liberal judges through their judicial activism on the other hand may perpetuate or even extend such misplaced anti-discrimination measures. 
• Being tough on crime.  Crime shouldn't pay, and "justice" should imply proportional consequences for major offenders.  On Sep. 3, 2009 I had espoused justice for violent and serious criminals to be weighted more towards deterrence, restitution and even retribution, instead of rehabilitation and reform.  When public resources are severely strained we see some courts forcing authorities to ease overcrowding, provide proper health care, spend more on inmates, or else to release them.  Conditions within prisons seem to be better than those for many outside of it.  Conservative judges are more in tune with the majority of Americans who prefer "true" justice to a coddling of criminals.

So there's at least a silver lining to these "right-minded" gentlemen of the court.

Justice Or Lynching Of DSK?

Anita's frail and gentle 80 year old uncle living by himself in Pune (India) is deathly afraid of changing his maid who has been giving him grief.  He cites many accounts of maids falsely alleging sexual assault by (even elderly) male employers when there were disputes or in revenge for perceived grievances.  He also quoted news of a rising trend of women in ones and twos hitching rides with unsuspecting male motorists and then demanding cash and valuables failing which they'd raise an alarm about attempted molestation.

Many years ago during my own IAS training, Mr. M.K. Kaw, one of our illustrious senior officials cautioned: "If you have a woman in your office make sure there's a third person around."  I took that advice to heart and repeated it to others, including a mid level forest official many years later when I was inquiring into a sexual harassment complaint against him by one of his female employees.  He was lucky to be cleared because of inconsistencies in her statements and evidence of her involvement with his enemies in influential circles.

It's the same in the US.  For example rape accusations were made up and vigorously pursued against three Duke lacrosse players in 2006.  And some may recall the media circus around the 1991 rape trial and acquittal of JFK's nephew, William Kennedy Smith.

We hear much about how difficult it can be for a rape victim to press charges, and how the proceedings questioning her and going into her own background can hurt her twice.  That needs to be balanced with the way improper handling can severely and irreversibly damage the falsely accused even if he is eventually cleared.

I have long had issues with the US justice system per my Sept. 3, '09 post, which coddles convicted criminals while paying lip service to presumption of innocence and needlessly humiliating the accused.  This brings me to the sexual assault charges against IMF (ex-)chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) who's hardly a sympathetic figure. He's widely known to be a womanizer and philanderer, though he may be in an open marriage - his wife has gone to great lengths to bail him out and to support him.  More disturbing is his supposedly consensual affair three years ago with a subordinate and former IMF economist that could involve sexual harassment. While DSK got off then with a reprimand I agree with the view that this made him unsuitable to head the IMF.

But considering just the current allegations there's little doubt that the accusing hotel maid performed a sex act on him - the DNA evidence confirms this and the defense has not denied it.  The key question is whether he forced himself on her or was the act consensual. Polls show a little over half the Americans believe the former while a majority of the French believe the latter (and that DSK was set up by his opponents as he was likely to become the next French President.)

I am with the French and skeptical of the sexual assault allegations.  Here's why:

•  DSK is a 5'7" flabby, pasty 62 year old who looks like he'd be bested by a younger woman in a physical struggle, leave alone being able to corner, subdue and force himself upon her.  And remain aroused through all this. 
• Young women have teeth. DSK had no weapons to cow the maid into complying with oral sex.  She could have interrupted proceedings while inflicting serious damage by biting down hard.  Wouldn't DSK be aware of this risk and be deterred by it?
• DSK has a reputation for seduction, but this is very different from a rapist physically forcing himself on a woman. DSK is rich enough to pay for sex which is what I suspect was the deal that day (or so he thought.)  If so, he still has a problem telling the truth and facing criminal consequences of abetting prostitution.  I favor decriminalizing the world's oldest profession as long as it does not involve minors, coercion or trafficking, but that's not how the law stands in New York.
• The police cite DSK's previous conduct including hitting on other staff and inviting two receptionists to his room the previous evening for a drink as supporting "proof" of his criminal state of mind.  But the implications can be just the opposite.  If the staff shared their experience with others, it would be widely known that he was seeking out women, and give his enemies a good way to set him up.
• The maid should not have had this room on her cleaning list because  DSK was supposed to check out that day.  Hotels have routine systems in place that flag rooms for cleaning only after the guest has left.  So did the hotel make a mistake, or was she not supposed to enter in the first place?  Another curious coincidence is that she was not supposed to be working on that floor, but volunteered to do so in place of an absent colleague.
• The maid further seems to have ignored protocol by not knocking loudly and repeatedly before entering the suite.  By her account she then went deep enough into the suite before noticing it was occupied as to be prevented from leaving when DSK emerged naked from the bathroom.  

The police and prosecutors aware of all this should have been cautious in their approach.  I'd imagine they at least had the maid take a polygraph (lie detector) test to satisfy themselves even though it's inadmissible in court.

We saw the police parading DSK in handcuffs in media glare in a humiliating "perp walk" that is banned in Europe and even by a Supreme Court order in a developing country like India.  Worse, the initial judge Melissa Jackson abused her discretion in denying DSK bail because he is a flight risk.  Is her action stemming from sheer stupidity or pomposity combined with an ego kick at bringing down an international leader and reveling in media attention?

What age are she and the police living in?  With DSK wearing an electronic ankle monitor, under police guard and surveillance, and his passport seized, how did they find the prospect of DSK pulling a Houdini and escaping realistic?  I think this judge is a disgrace and unfit to hold office.  A superior court eventually granted DSK bail with home confinement but I wish there was a system in place for immediate appeal or review of the first judge's decision so DSK wasn't sent to Riker's Island jail in the first place.

Even if DSK is acquitted of sexual assault (and I'd lay the odds on that despite a lot of noise to the contrary) the damage is already done.  He's already had to resign from the IMF and a future presidential bid looks dead.

The solace we can take is that in his case two wrongs may have made a right.  His romp with his subordinate in the IMF in 2008 should have cost him his IMF job, but didn't, and the latest allegations should not have severely damaged him until they were proved, but did.

Union Bashing - Good Or Bad?

How do I perceive unions, particularly public employee unions?

My childhood memories are of the already slow and congested life in Calcutta (now Kolkata) coming to a halt during general strikes called "bandhs" that occurred all too often.  On the good days workers would take time off after their lunch break to stage demonstrations in support of "worker rights" that meant more pay, less work, and more additions to already bloated payrolls.

We then moved to the scenic hill station of Darjeeling (of tea fame) with little union activity where I spent my middle and high school years.  But union activity and strikes were much in fashion when I entered college at the University of Delhi.  Most colleges in our 110,000 strong University used to be closed for a couple of weeks a year due to strikes by students and non-teaching staff (called "karamcharies".)

The University karamcharies earned about 50% more than their counterparts in the private sector.  Our college education was publicly funded and nearly free and few of us were aware of what exactly were the demands of the striking students.  To most it seemed a way to avoid classes and inject a little excitement by clashing with authorities.  Our own St. Stephen's College with 1000+ students was one of the very few (of the nearly 100 colleges and departments comprising the University) that refused to take part in any strikes.  So police would be posted outside our gates to guard against trouble by outside strikers who resented our non-involvement.

Years later after joining the IAS I was on the other side, with my fair share of handling public union negotiations, agitations and strikes.  One of my later stints was as Municipal Commissioner (city manager) of Shimla city that had one of the most militant public unions.  They would strike or disrupt services about twice a year in spite of the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) that made these jail-able offenses.  That's because ESMA was never invoked, or action under it was rapidly withdrawn as a precondition for any settlement.  Of our 1100 employees, we had over 600 sanitation workers as part of previous concessions to the union though we needed no more than 400.  Their pay and benefits were double of those in the private sector.

Early in my Shimla MC tenure the union went on strike and their staff threw buckets of human feces in my office in appreciation of my engaging temporary replacements to keep the city going.  It took me and my team almost a year to draw up contingency plans and train home guards to distribute water and run other facilities in case of future stoppages.  In a subsequent strike, I used these preparations to maintain services, deployed armed police to guard our strategic installations against sabotage and invoked ESMA to penalize strikers and restore normalcy. It was the first time this had happened in the (then) 120 year history of Shimla, and put a stop to labor troubles for the next three years.

 By then I had come to the "capitalist" US and expected things to be very different here, but there are commonalities.  Political leaders here also tend to make deals with public unions to smooth their own tenure even while giving away long term benefits that devastate budgets down the road.  Then there are the illegal strikes disrupting essential services that are barred by US laws (also all too often failed to be invoked by the authorities).  For example the New York transit strike of 2005 disrupted life for millions and violated the Taylor Law (similar to ESMA) but the violators received a mere slap on the wrist.  Then there are the airline pilots unions who get around strike bans by staging mass sick-outs.  Employees avoiding duty by falsely claiming to be sick can be fired, and the management can easily require medical testing by an independent board in such circumstances, yet this abuse is taken in stride.

Even in the broader philosophical context one can question the value and social contributions of unions.  Collective bargaining had a big and useful role to play in the old days when a few large and powerful employers could collude to keep wages and benefits artificially low.  Or when a race to the bottom (in costs) could cause unsafe conditions or extreme hardship in the absence of public safety laws.

But most or all of this is now inapplicable since mechanisms are in place for protecting workers through anti-trust laws, OSHA, the Minimum Wage Act and the like.  It is these laws that ensured a five day work week, stopped child labor and promoted worker safety much more than the unions, contrary to claims by film maker Michael Moore on Stephen Colbert on his March 29 show, or by union leader Richard Trumka in a WSJ Op-Ed on March 4.

Almost by definition so long as there is no employer collusion or monopoly, union activity is an attempt to secure wages and benefits over and above the free market level.  In the latter the workers are free to go (or be wooed away) to where they get the best compensation for their services, according to their perceived worth.  Instead, collective bargaining can look a lot like collective blackmail, as when workers at the GM plant making engine transmissions threaten or go on strike bringing most production to a halt.  No wonder US manufacturers want to diversify production globally to make them less vulnerable, and it's not just to go to where labor costs are lowest. 

So yes, I'm not a fan of unions nor view them as net contributors to public welfare, as their raising of US labor costs has contributed at least partially to the current level of unemployment.  There are some pro-union laws and practices that beg for change.  For example, see how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is trying to force Boeing to locate its Dreamliner assembly plant in heavily unionized Washington State, instead of in South Carolina.  In 2008 Boeing workers in Washington went on a 58 day strike that cost Boeing $1.8 billion.  So Boeing management understandably wanted to instal new plants in less unionized and more business friendly locations.  The NLRB interpreted this as illegal retaliation against union activity.  The WSJ in its April 21 Opinion pages rightly deplores NLRB's sandbagging of Boeing and calls for a change in such a system.

And what of Republican efforts to restrict bargaining by public unions on matters other than their salaries, or do away with compulsory contributions by workers to their union funds?  In principle I find little wrong with that.  We already know that politicians are not mindful of future liabilities that their concessions to unions can impose on future administrations.  That's a big reason why our states and local governments are in budgetary crises.  As far as union contributions go, why should workers be forced to contribute if they don't want to?  That's the situation in the "right to work" states in the South that employers find more attractive, and such forced contributions did not commonly exist even in more socialist countries like India.

On the other hand I'm perfectly fine with the unions launching concerted drives to mobilize public opinion against Republican union busters, and trying to recall elected representatives as they are doing in Wisconsin.  Besides, Governor Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans in Wisconsin have been quite weaselly in their actions.  For instance, they have specifically exempted police and firefighter unions from the new restrictions, apparently because these union members traditionally lean Republican.  These uniformed personnel that are vital to maintaining security and safety should be specifically barred from union activity, as they are, even in India, let alone favored with special exemptions.

Indiana and Ohio states under Republican leadership have also moved to curb the scope of collective bargaining by public employees.  But they have sought a more uniform implementation without picking any favorites, so their actions are fairer and a better blueprint for change than those of Walker & Co. in Wisconsin.

Aftermath Of Friend's Murder

Last week I received a call from someone who requested anonymity, and I'll call him Charlie.  He had seen my post of April 18, 2008 about the murder of my childhood friend Aasha Chhabra and her husband Brij in Troy, Michigan.  He wanted to update me with news about their killers so as to afford closure to the family.  (We haven't got in touch with the Thadani's young daughter, their only child, though.)

The murders had been arranged by Narayan Thadani who had betrayed Aasha's complete trust in him by selling her landed property in India and stealing the proceeds of over $2 million.  He was about to lose it all in a court case and hired two men from El Salvadore for the killings.  Narayan pleaded guilty and he as well as the two hit men all received life terms in prison in October 2010 while another accomplice got 30 years after turning state's evidence.

Charlie himself is an ex-convict who met Narayan in the Houston prison where he is now serving his sentence.  Charlie called Narayan an evil and scary person who while awaiting trial almost nonchalantly sought help from fellow inmates to hire a hit man to kill the FBI agent who was investigating his case.  Narayan apparently bore that agent a grudge and also thought the killing would remove a vital prosecution witness and help his court defense.  His fellow prisoners instead tipped off the authorities.  He was put in touch with an undercover FBI agent posing as a contract killer, and caught.

Charlie sent me the docket containing the charges for the murders of the Chhabras for which Narayan pleaded guilty, as well as for attempted murder of the FBI agent, which didn't really carry any additional downside as Narayan will spend the rest of his life behind bars anyway.

While it's good that Narayan and the three others got caught and punished, I'm still bothered by our justice system coddling perpetrators of such terrible crimes, as I opined in my September 3, 2009 post.  There is not even any lingering doubt about the guilt of all these men yet they don't get to pay the ultimate price.  The gentle and thoroughly decent Chhabras have been murdered, and their ruthless killers spend their lives in prison conditions that are better than that of much of humanity on the outside. 

Rehabilitation should of course play a role depending on the circumstances.  Charlie's own crimes were a lot less serious (why they mix prisoners whose degrees of offenses are so disparate is beyond me.)  He came across as a well spoken person who had turned his life around, and I wish him well.

The Rajat I Know

A rather sanctimonious mass email I've received is prompting this post.  Rajat Gupta, former head of McKinsey has been widely praised and admired though he is now in the news for passing material non-public information to Raj Rajaratnam (RR) of the Galleon hedge funds.

The email titled "How Much is Enough?" echoed some other chatter about how the wealthy and highly respected Rajat let greed get the better of him and ruin his reputation by abetting insider trading.

I feel compelled to balance the picture about Rajat whom we know personally since 1991 when I had just come to the US for PhD studies at the University of Chicago.  I knew nothing of McKinsey or what he did at that time, and we drove to his house simply to deliver a gift from India sent through us by one of my favorite ex-bosses in the IAS.  That was Mr. P.K. Mattoo, Chief Secretary of HP state till 1987,  and uncle of Anita Mattoo Gupta, Rajat's wife and a warm, wonderful person whom he met as a fellow student at IIT Delhi. 

I've rarely seen anyone more gracious, modest and personable than Rajat, in spite of his brilliance and success at McKinsey.  He was that way in all the subsequent times we met him, and Mr. Mattoo told me how Rajat was ever ready to sleep on the floor when he and family would visit and stay with them in India. In 1994 after Rajat became head of McKinsey, my friend Harsh from the University of Chicago who joined McKinsey told me about how he and other fresh recruits met Rajat at a welcoming party for them.  He said the recruits were blown away when Rajat came up to them individually, put out his hand and diffidently said, "Hi, I'm Rajat Gupta," before chatting with them.  "As if anyone in the gathering didn't know who he was," Harsh marveled, "And he was on the cover of many major magazines."

We saw Rajat and family after a gap of of over 10 years in June 2009 at a high school graduation party for the daughter of Sunil, Mr. P.K. Mattoo's son.  Rajat was as unassuming and cordial as ever, and introduced us to his daughter and her African American husband who had been warmly welcomed into the family.  We also learned about Rajat's hectic schedule, working for free with non-profits, including with the Gates Foundation (that he's now stepped down from) to help eradicate malaria.

While he certainly violated confidentiality as a Goldman Sachs director in his conversations with Raj Rajaratnam, he seems to have done it out of a misplaced sense of friendship, without profit to himself.  I saw SEC's most damning evidence against him, this 18 minute transcript of his call with RR.  The disclosure seems incidental to the main conversation, and as a result of RR pumping him for information.

The other striking incident cited is Rajat calling RR seconds after a Goldman board meeting where Warren Buffet's $5B investment was disclosed.  Minutes later RR placed bets on Goldman shares that netted Galleon $900,000.  To me, it's very out of character for Rajat to call someone just after receiving confidential information to tip them off for illicit gain.  Even a March 7 Times article referred to some curious aspects of the SEC's case against Rajat.

The kind of scenario I'd envision is that RR tracked scheduled board meetings and timed messages requesting a call back to Rajat accordingly.  After meetings are over the attendees typically get to their other activities, including returning calls, as Rajat did with RR.  Then in the course of other conversation that was ostensibly the purpose of RR's contact, he casually asked Rajat some leading questions about Goldman, and pounced on any resultant cues.  RR is obviously sharp as a whip, but his laid back style and humor interspersed with personal chats could disarm a friend into revealing more than he should.  Rajat's amiable and forthcoming nature could make him hesitate to clam up and pointblank refuse to answer RR's "incidental" questions.

In sum Rajat's approachability and helpfulness has apparently proved to be his undoing.  His lack of motive or ill intent seems to be why he hasn't been criminally prosecuted, though he's had to resign all his board positions and suffer ignominy. 

Sometimes bad judgment or carelessness can land very good people in trouble.  I'm sorry to see Rajat in this plight and hope he gets out of this okay.

Why a Mosque at Ground Zero?

The latest poll shows Americans nationwide think 70% to 25% that Muslims have the right to build a mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero, but oppose it 63% to 28% as inappropriate.  New Yorkers oppose it 51% to 41%.

The non-Muslim supporters of the proposal are upholding 1st Amendment rights and the proud US tradition of tolerance and respect for all religions.  They also think this profound gesture of inclusiveness will mitigate ill feelings towards the US.  It is remarkable to see NY Mayor Bloomberg, a Jew and till recently a Republican, buck public opinion as a high profile and vocal supporter, at the cost of a steep drop in his popularity.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is similarly facing heat from within his own Republican Party for implied support by cautioning against an overreaction.

I appreciate such principled stands and my respect for Mayor Bloomberg has gone up immensely.  I also think a lot better of Gov. Christie whom I had regarded as a poor choice by NJ voters to replace Democrat Jon Corzine.

Still, I hold a different view, in line with most Americans who have a gut feeling about this.  I am opposed to the present location of the mosque for the following reasons:

• Why here?  The site was deliberately chosen right next to Ground Zero.  The decision to locate the mosque here is not in spite of the tragedy at Ground Zero, but because of it. In other words, if there had been no 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, there would not have been any plans for the mosque right here.

• The stated intent behind building the mosque here is not believable.  The planners claim to want to foster better relations between others and Islam, and to help people have a better understanding of this faith.  How can they not have anticipated the adverse reaction?  They say they are surprised by it, and Imam Rauf claims had they known this would happen they wouldn't have proposed this.  Even assuming that is true, now that they do, they should look elsewhere.  Rauf a couple of days back said he opposes this as it would create a violent Muslim backlash round the world.  That reasoning again sounds false.  What's the religious significance of Ground Zero for Islam, that its proponents insist on building right here?

• Sensitivities to a mosque next door have a subtle aspect.  They go beyond the fact that the 9/11 attackers all happened to be Muslims.  It's that they committed this act in the name of Islam.  Of course the vast majority of Muslims found this to be reprehensible, but they will empathize and won't mind if the mosque is a located a few blocks further away. 

• Erecting a mosque here is unlikely to discourage terrorism, and could arguably work the opposite way.  Who said the jihadists and religious terrorists are perfectly reasonable, rational people?  The planners say the gesture of allowing a mosque here would weaken or win over radicals because the US would be seen as Islam-friendly.  That could certainly be the way many Islamists may see it.  But jihadist recruiters could also feed religious fanatics the line that the "sacrifices" of the 9/11 attackers led to this mosque being built, and more of such "pious" acts are needed to help spread Islam.

Where do we go from here?  Laws are imperfect, and the mosque planners seem to have taken advantage of this and US freedoms in an affront to the 9/11 victims and their families. The solution can be to fix or modify the laws as situations like this arise.

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission could have nipped the controversy in the bud if they had given landmark status to Ground Zero, instead of unanimously turning it down.  Then they could have done something like barring all new religious buildings within a half mile radius.  Perhaps a measure with similar consequences can now be passed by some other body.  This may be needed even though the planners and Rauf now show signs of backing away.  This is because other mischief mongers could take their place, if for no other reason than to yank peoples' chains, or because this issue attracts so much publicity.

Still, we should reassure Muslims of equal treatment of their religion and their needs.  To this end I saw this interesting proposal to even have a Muslim place of worship within a Ground Zero building.  The difference?  It will presumably be one of the several places of worship for people of different faiths, stressing respect and equality for all.  It will also be under the overall control of a centralized management not associated with any particular religion.

                                                                                                

The Silver Lining - Rising Above It All

A lot of Anita's folks including my parents-in-law live in Mumbai and Pune, so I pay special attention to developments there.

Two recent adverse events were the Shiv Sena agitation against popular Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan ("SRK") in Mumbai, and the German Bakery blast in Pune. These are of course vastly different in terms of severity and criminality. But the reaction they evoked (or lack of it) speaks well for Indians, who will hopefully keep this up.

SRK was right in criticizing the snub of Pakistani cricketers by the Indian Premier League, an antithesis of "ping pong diplomacy" where sports help improve country relations. In response the Shiv Sena which is seldom (if ever) up to any good tried to damage SRK by disrupting the screening of his latest film "My Name is Khan." They announced a "boycott", intimidated movie halls,tore off posters and threatened violence.

But the movie has done very well in Mumbai where it played to packed houses, and in the rest of the country. This notwithstanding its serious theme and lack of box office "masala" that typically lures the masses. Deliberate or not, it also carries a message, sensitizing viewers to some Muslim sentiments which should strengthen communal amity. While the major source of this movie's revenues is domestic, it has broken records in the Middle East and other Islamic markets, as well as in the rest of the world.

In contrast to the Shiv Sena's antics against SRK that are merely a nuisance, the German Bakery blast in Pune was an act of malicious terrorism claiming 17 innocent lives and injuring over 50 others. A little over a year ago I visited this place every other day for almost a month while Anita's parents were in Inlaks Hospital a few hundred yards away.

The victims couldn't have been further removed from any jihadist angst. The patrons of this modest eatery were typically carefree young people or foreigners of limited means seeking peace and solace in the nearby Osho Ashram. Like in the Mumbai Nov. 26, '08 carnage, what would have really played into the terrorists' hands would have been a backlash against India's Muslim community. The main purpose of these acts seems to be to disrupt the India-Pakistan renewed talks as well as to create a communal divide in India.

That has not happened, and the credit for that goes to Hindus and Muslims of India alike. This has also elicited praise in the Western media (like from Tom Friedman after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.) There's no guarantee for the future but every successive instance of collective restraint and a mature response to provocations augurs well for this country's greatness.

Of course it has not always been like this. After the 2002 Godhra violence and communal riots in Gujarat (with alleged state government lapses) the good times started in the time of Prime Minister Vajpayee. Though he headed a nationalistic and supposedly pro-Hindu government, he helped select the widely respected Muslim scientist Abdul Kalam as President of India.

Despite the inevitable hiccups and dissent, further developments have strengthened the climate of inclusiveness and tolerance. In his now famous November 2009 speech, Shashi Tharoor describes the 2004 appointment of Dr. Manmohan Singh to prime minister. Here was a Sikh chosen to lead a predominantly Hindu India, sworn in by a Muslim President, and all this made possible by an Italian woman Sonia Gandhi who headed the largest Indian political party. What could be more eloquent testimony than this?

Changing Our Criminal Justice System

I am unhappy with several aspects of our US criminal justice. But I'm on the left or the right depending on the practice in question. Broadly speaking, I'm with the left when it comes to presumption of innocence and treating those not yet convicted of crimes with dignity. And I'm with the right for more powers for investigating crimes, treatment of convicted offenders and lowering the taxpayer tab on prison inmates.

This is where I'd want a more liberal shift:

• Avoid handcuffing non-violent suspects before they obtain bail. Why did Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, or the two Bear Stearns fund managers have to be handcuffed and confined before appearing in court when (a) they seem highly unlikely to pose physical danger to the arresting officers, and (b) had ample advance notice of impending charges, so they could be allowed to do something about it? Being handcuffed would be very humiliating and an affront to our dignity for most of us - something that can't be undone even if we're subsequently cleared. Since 1980 the Indian Supreme Court has barred handcuffing of suspects who are not likely to be violent or dangerous. There is also a clear provision for anyone to approach the court and seek anticipatory bail to avoid needless humiliation and inconvenience. If a developing country like India can have these safeguards, why not the US?
• Have much stricter gun control. What age are we living in? The 2nd Amendment giving the right to bear arms is an anachronism, though this will be hard to repeal because of entrenched beliefs. It's almost inconceivable for someone coming from India (and I'm sure most developed countries) to see how easily any punk in the US can acquire a firearm. Even assault weapons can be bought, with the NRA and the loony gun-toting fringe vigorously defending this right in the name of self-protection. And there should be strict background checks and stringent penalties for disqualified applicants possessing illegal firearms. Thanks to guns the US has a much higher homicide rate than other first world countries. With shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Washington Beltway sniping, "going postal" and other workplace violence, perhaps the average American is now ready for more Europe style arms restrictions.
• Freely let DNA evidence and new techniques be used to revisit old cases of conviction to reassess guilt. Some of these convictions have been successfully challenged, DNA tests allowed and convictions reversed. But we know how jury verdicts can be so flawed and arbitrary - why assign a false sanctity to such verdicts and not allow DNA tests in all such cases?
• Decriminalize victimless crimes like acts between consenting adults, or using (as opposed to dealing with) drugs. What former NY Gov. Elliott Spitzer did in hiring a call girl may be bad for his family life, but shouldn't have been a crime.

Here's where I favor a marked shift to the right:

• Much stiffer penalties for criminals. True to our sense of fair play, justice should be retributive, not just reformative or a deterrent as liberals maintain. There's no reason to take capital punishment off the table for egregious murders so long as guilt is established beyond all lingering doubt (say with 99.99% certainty), not just reasonable doubt. There also shouldn't be a blanket minimum age or intelligence threshold for capital punishment. After all, a juvenile showing extreme cruelty or sadism while knowingly committing crimes is more, not less, likely to become an even bigger monster as he grows older.
• A tougher and lower cost jail environment. There's something wrong about criminals (especially hardened ones) sentenced to punishment spending their time watching TV, pumping iron, eating well and enjoying better medical care than many people outside the prison. Criminals should repay their debt to society through work and depending on the gravity of their offenses (think Dahmer, Bundy, the Beltway snipers, or the killers of my childhood friend Aasha) as a resource for medical testing and organ donation against payment to the state. These measures will at least lower the taxpayer burden, and if they act as some kind of a deterrent against crime, that's a bonus. (The Chinese till recently were harvesting and selling organs of executed prisoners. That disturbed many of us because we weren't sure if (a) those people had actually committed crimes deserving of the death penalty, and (b) if the profit from organ sales was itself an incentive for executing prisoners.)
• Close monitoring of inmates and strict punishments for offenses committed in jails. I've don't understand how prison rapes and inmate on inmate violence can still go undetected given our advances in technology. We can cheaply video monitor (and record) every cell, every square foot of prison space, and every movement by every inmate. Any offenses can be easily proved by playing back the recordings and inmates severely punished, preferably in a revenue positive fashion (see point above.) Guards who fail to act can also be identified and disciplined. This will also crimp in-prison gang activity and prevent the worst and most dangerous inmates from victimizing weaker ones.
• Further limiting or completely eliminating trials by jury. The US is one of the few countries where jury trials, which are highly wasteful with often arbitrary verdicts, are still widely prevalent. Other countries use just judges, whose verdicts can be appealed to superior judges and panels of judges. Given our multicultural society with ethnic divides and loyalties, jury trials are even more vulnerable to unfair outcomes, especially when the alleged crimes cross racial boundaries. Remember how O.J. Simpson was let off for double murder by a mostly black jury in 1994, and lost in the subsequent civil case decided by a mainly white jury (though this case admittedly required a lower burden of proof.)
• Requiring every US resident to submit a DNA sample and to carry a national ID card. Objections by the ACLU to maintain privacy have little merit, since safeguards can be imposed to ensure the information is used only to detect or prevent major crimes. Besides, consider the huge upside of such measures. Any DNA on a crime scene can be matched against a national database of the entire populace to solve crimes. Terrorism can be severely limited with a national ID, possibly combined with biometrics. The system can be carefully designed of course to protect most privacy, but this exercise to guard against "Big Brother" excesses should be very feasible.

There may be nuances, but a majority of Americans likely agree with my thinking. 

Is Some Profiling Okay?

I think much better of President Obama now though I'm not always his fan. I voted for him last November thanks in large part to the person to whom he owes a huge debt of gratitude. I'm referring of course to Sarah Palin. Her post-election antics and recent comments (e.g., "Obama death panels could decide if her parents and her baby, Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome, will live or die") confirm that voters like me chose well.

Following the Henry Gates arrest in his own home I had the same initial reaction about probably stupid police behavior as Obama articulated to his cost. So I sympathize with him and his need amidst the media circus to make amends through a beer fest. The Cambridge police union had a nerve asking for Obama's apology. How does a uniformed law and order force get to have a union anyway? In India such a practice is rightly banned. It is interesting to see the racial divide on who people think was at fault.

My views on this incident and the larger issue of profiling are unlikely to please either camp.

First, I think the policeman James Crowley acted improperly in arresting Gates and was much more at fault. When Gates said he lived in the house Crowley clearly should have realized how an African-American Gates would be upset about his perceived profiling by the police. Gates probably assumed that cops happening to pass by had stopped to challenge him simply because they saw a black man getting into this upscale house. All Crowley had to do was to civilly inform Gates that the police had received a 911 call about a possible break-in so they needed to verify identity. Instead, Crowley mechanically repeated orders in this just-do-as-I-say-since-I'm-a-cop manner that inflamed Gates who was probably unaware of why the police were there. Too bad Crowley's misconduct was rewarded with beer in the White House, though I completely understand Obama's recognizing political realities and defusing an unexpected firestorm.

At the same time I think that some forms of ethnic profiling can be reasonable, useful and appropriate if done right. At our University of Chicago campus which is surrounded by some rough neighborhoods, in almost all muggings, break-ins and other crimes the perpetrators were black. So our campus police on patrol would frequently watch for black youths without book bags to enquire as to where they were heading to ensure they were on bona fide business. Were they wrong to do so? The chance of the accosted youth being up to no good was very low, say, 1 in 200. But for non-blacks that probability would be more like 1 in 20,000. So what's a more efficient use of limited resources? The only thing is, the university police went out of their way to be polite, pleasant and apologetic once the subject of their attention was confirmed to be okay.

Take also the case of South Asians and Middle-Easterners, including myself, after the 9/11 attacks. I know many of my fellow-Indians and especially Muslims were livid when they were pulled aside for detailed searches at airports. I had much more than my fair share of such searches, but I thought differently. How can I blame the poor security personnel? From my looks I could easily be a Middle-Easterner, and even Anita says I can have an intimidating gaze. So even if the absolute probability is minuscule, I'm a 100 or 1000 times more likely to be a fanatical hijacker than your average homegrown American traveler.

During and after my full searches at airports I'd put screeners at ease and thank them for keeping us safe, and mostly got a lot of gratitude and goodwill in return. Some screeners would then confess to being stressed by the indignant reaction of many passengers pulled out for this special treatment. Subsequently, to achieve balance and perhaps political correctness I'd see random passengers including teenage girls being identified for additional searches. There's some merit to this approach, but using it to supplant (rather than supplement) the traditional way including profiling is likely to make us more vulnerable.

Gay and Diverse Celebration

Anita's young female relative graduated from high school last week, and Anita and I had a great time attending the festivities. At a private dinner in a New Haven restaurant we met a nice young couple - one the step-sister of our graduate and the other her woman spouse, along with their two year old daughter.

The cute toddler ran around, being minded and doted upon by her two moms (one the biological mother through sperm donation) as well as her grandpa, a cheerful and mild-mannered cardiologist. He and his wife introduced the female couple as their daughter and daughter-in-law.

Considering that it was a family affair with everyone related by blood or marriage, our group of 10 was remarkably diverse. Five distinct mother tongues - English, Gujerati, Hindi, Malayalam and Panjabi. A mix of four Indian ethnic groups and one Caucasian. Four different religions - Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. In answer to Rodney King's question two decades ago, yes, we can all get along beautifully.

The female couple talked of their quest, hope and anxieties about getting recognized as spouses. They first got married in San Francisco, then last month in Massachusetts and are now looking forward to legalization of same sex marriage in New York where they live. They sought marriages in multiple states because of uneven laws recognizing these, and the validity being subject to referendums and court challenges. One of them talked about the hurt she felt when her uncle (the cardiologist's brother) whom she was very close to didn't attend their wedding.

I've supported gay marriage in a "why-not-if-it-makes-people-happy" sense, brushing aside those religious objections as meaningless. But I didn't consider it very different from civil unions and was hence not too invested in the issue. Now having seen it up close and personal, I am much more sympathetic to the cause and hope it gains universal acceptance.

Laws Gone Wild - Banning Old Age

To me this is another of the flawed anti-discrimination laws leading to absurd consequences. I'm talking of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 and its subsequent amendments.

We hear much more about countering discrimination against minorities and women, and resultant affirmative action. Despite vigorous denials from its liberal advocates this often becomes a drive to fill quotas. Barack Obama last month quoted some gender disparities in pay and top executive positions to imply unequal treatment of women. Now if there is any real bias or violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" I'm all for vigorous corrective action. But just the numbers being thrown around do not establish this, and there are more benign explanations.

The fact that many working women opt for a better balance between work and family, and take some years off to raise children can explain their making 78 cents for every dollar that men make. Similarly, there may be very few women who are prepared to put in 14 hour workdays to have a shot at the corner office. That, rather than a glass ceiling, may largely be why only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. To use these statistics to equate salaries or senior executive elevations among the genders may very well be reverse discrimination against men.

Other countries like India have quota-based intake of disadvantaged groups (like caste-based reservations) into government or public sector jobs, or into many educational institutions. So similar US practices do not surprise me as much as the "protections" against age discrimination. In India I never questioned the logic of having a mandatory retirement age. It used to be 58 years for most government jobs, and was subsequently raised to 60 years. For a few, mainly high positions, it extends to 62 or 65 years. After that, retirees who are willing and able to work can seek employment as contractors or consultants, or even be re-employed in the public sector as special cases. Private companies are free to have or not have mandatory retirement policies.

These practices make a lot of sense. Employees are recognized for their years of useful service while accepting the effects of age, and are given a cordial send-off after reaching a threshold. They leave with their memories and morale intact, making way for younger, more vigorous successors. Employers are free to retain exceptional workers past that point. But the rank and file know and accept the retirement age as a natural conclusion of this stage of their careers. If they want to work more they'll see no shame or a blow to their self-image to seek lighter or different, less paying work that may be more suited to their present stage of life. Even usually more liberal Europe recognizes the right to set an age for forced retirement.

This was pretty much the case in the US as well, till the ADEA of 1967 was amended in a series of steps from 1978 till 1993 to bar mandatory retirement in most sectors. Remarkably, the biggest blow was struck in the sweeping restrictions of the 1986 amendment when a Republican (Ronald Reagan) was President. Ideology notwithstanding it's hard to resist signing legislation favoring a key voting bloc like seniors ahead of the next Presidential election (that was won by Bush Sr.)

Adverse consequences of the US ban on mandatory retirement (many of which I've seen at first hand) include:

• Older employees drawing the highest salaries have reason to stick it out as long as they can. Employers have to push them out for bad performance after documenting negative evaluations. Not only do the departing seniors feel humiliated at this ignominous end to their long career, but this can also hurt employees morale all around.
• Managers in these situations have to give negative evaluations and terminate employees which subjects them to needless stress. Incidents of workplace violence and other fears of retaliatory action make the managers' job even harder.
• Reducing "natural" turnover adversely affects the career prospects of promising younger employees, which can create friction among employees and again affect morale.
• Older employees who manage to coast or "get by" are not replaced for many years by better, cheaper and more energetic younger employees. This makes for suboptimal company performance that aggregates to a drag on the economy, making it less competitive.

Bad, populist laws like these are politically hard to resist and block. Worse, once they are passed they're almost impossible to undo. Anyone attempting to do so despite the merits is likely to be painted as "anti-senior " and risks political suicide. So despite the pressures it is still much better to stop such laws before they are enacted.

I hope lawmakers (particularly Democrats) draw this lesson while considering the proposed Employee Free Choice Act ("Card Check Law.") This awful law being pushed by unions and liberals would allow unions to be formed without needing workers to vote their preferences by secret ballot. But that's another story.