Disallow Open (Season On) Primaries

Bernie Sanders wants all Democratic primaries to be open because he benefited from them. They are not fairer than closed primaries as he claims. It's just the opposite - they can allow avid opponents of the Democratic party to hijack their primaries by voting for the weakest candidate.

This may well be the reason that Bernie could win just one closed primary in Oregon. All his other victories only came from open or semi open primary states, or those holding caucuses. It can also explain Hillary's surprise loss in Michigan where polls showed her leading Bernie by double digits. Michigan as an open primary state could have enough of its Hillary hating Republicans (many calling themselves Independents) voting for Bernie as an easier to beat general election candidate.

Caucuses favor Bernie with his smaller but more passionate following for an entirely different reason. Caucuses suppress voter turnout because they make voting harder. They disallow early voting, have restrictive times for assembly, and take hours to complete instead of simply pulling a lever or marking choices on a sheet. They also lack secret balloting, creating peer pressure among the timid to go along with the vociferous "feel the Bern" supporters. As widely acknowledged in the media, if all caucuses had instead been primaries, Hillary would have won the nomination by even wider margins.

So Bernie is silent on converting Democratic state caucuses (that suppress voter participation much more than alleged by closed primaries) into primaries, even open ones. His hypocrisy here is matched by his about face on the role of  Superdelegates from whom he now seeks the Democratic nomination despite Hillary convincingly winning the popular vote.

Bernie justified his changed demand on the ground that he fared better than Hillary in some polls in a hypothetical general election match up with Republican opponents, including Donald Trump. Such polls have a similar flaw as the open primary elections - participants can deliberately mislead and distort results.

They can do this if they want to tarnish a strong candidate that they dislike. For example, Republicans who are polled can say truthfully that they will choose Trump over Hillary, but then lie on the next question, declaring they will vote for Bernie over Trump. This way they know that Bernie will look better than Hillary in the poll match ups, and weaken her standing. Bernie supporters can truthfully answer that they'd choose Bernie over Trump, but lie and say they'd choose Trump over Hillary just to make Bernie look better than her. Even a small minority of polled respondents engaging in this gamesmanship can easily skew the results, as seems to have happened.

You may wonder why all this is not brought up in media discussions and coverage, if manipulation in open primaries and polls is actually happening. While it is possible that some in the media and polling organizations are simply oblivious, I suspect most keep quiet because publicizing the fact can lead to even greater abuse. That is because many people who hadn't thought about it can then jump in and also engage in this behavior. Plus, it would cast more doubts on the authenticity and reliability of the polls and decreased interest in them would lose audiences, adversely affecting the media and the polling organizations.

Coming back to the design of presidential primaries, why would Bernie who is very unlikely to again contest as a Presidential candidate push for open primaries? I suspect because of how he'd like to be remembered and preserve the sense of outrage among his followers. His preferred narrative would be that he would have done much better had there been open primaries with better scope of voter participation. And that the present corrupt system in a way cheated him of his nomination. That's nonsense of course as he probably knows, but hey, his self importance can trump (pun intended) the facts.

Finally, the design of the primary elections is largely a matter for the individual states and not directly connected to the Democratic Convention, so he's barking up the wrong tree. I do think the state primaries system for Presidential elections should be reformed, through efforts directed at the right (state) quarters, but in a way contrary to what Bernie demands. There should be no caucuses and no open primaries anywhere, only closed primaries so long as voters are allowed two or three months ahead of an election to declare their party choice.

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.

Pay More And Get (Much) More

The latest Congressional lawmakers caught in ethical and financial wrongdoing are Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican (now ex) Rep. Aaron Schock. And sure, I feel anger and disgust. Only most of it is directed at the simpleminded public and an imbecilic media influencing it to keep our elected leaders ill paid and vulnerable to petty temptations.

Americans by and large accept our capitalist system where CEOs and other top officers of large companies are paid millions or tens of millions of dollars in salary. In the same way our annual federal budget of over $3.5 trillion is collectively controlled by a 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, or over $6 billion apiece. That's above the revenue threshold of $5 billion for a Fortune 500 company. Yet they're paid only $174,000 each with no raises since 2009.

This does not even count the millions of dollars they have to raise to fight elections - every 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators. Unless they are very wealthy and prepared to use their own money they have to fund their campaigns by turning to deep pocketed donors who rarely give anything for free. And once lawmakers of modest means are taking help in cash or kind for their campaigns it's a small extra step accepting this for personal gain or pleasure.

Sen. Menendez' lengthy list of alleged transgressions sound relatively minor to me. He has a rich ophthalmologist friend of 20 years named Dr. Salomon Melgen who contributed over the years a total of $750,000 to various campaign funds helping Mr. Menendez. The Senator also used perks like private jet travel, hotel and villa stays paid for by Dr. Melgen. Mr. Menendez for his part pushed for favorable treatment of Dr. Melgen's cases involving billing disputes with CMS (Medicare), grant of visas to foreign girlfriends of Dr. Melgen on three occasions, and trying to further Dr. Melgen's financial interests by dissuading donations of monitoring equipment to ports by the Customs and Border Patrol.

Political leaders and officials frequently try to help or further the interests of their constituents, friends and relatives. My colleagues and I regularly fielded such calls when I was in the Indian government. Some matters were purely discretionary, i.e., the decision could have gone either way on merits. It is for the concerned agencies to decide whether to accommodate such requests or refuse because they clearly violate some rules or principles. Grant of a U.S. visa for example (as I know from the experiences of hundreds of Indians) often hinges on the whims of the consular officer who happens to be interviewing the applicant. So a Senator weighing in on behalf of a close friend's girlfriend(s) isn't a big deal.

Rep. Schock's excesses are more trivial still, though his donors claim they were swindled by his "campaign full of corruption and lies about his integrity." He splurged taxpayer or campaign funds on doing up his office like in Downton Abbey, some duty free shopping, a couple of non-official trips by private jet, and taking his staff / interns for a New York trip and a Katy Perry concert. The cumulative excess tab was well under $200,000, and there was no "bribe multiplier." By that I mean that taxpayer or donor loss is no higher than Mr. Schock's benefit, unlike in bribes where the loss to government (or briber's gain) is far higher than the payoff to the public official. (That's the whole point of paying a bribe - getting back much more than your "investment.")

These lapses by the two lawmakers are microscopic as compared to failure of all in Congress on the truly big issues. Take healthcare expenses, which nationally run to $3 trillion annually with almost half in public funds. This is about $9,000 per capita, over twice as much as in peer developed countries, and yet Americans on average get less care and suffer worse outcomes.  We can bring down our prices to West Europe levels without compromising quality through straightforward steps I outlined back in March 2011. We don't because lawmakers instead heed and protect the health insurer, provider and affiliated lobbies. This costs us $1.5 trillion extra, or a sellout of nearly $3 billion annually per Congress member. Another example: low tax rates for hedge fund managers (who overall don't produce anything useful, and typically through their seldom detected shenanigans like insider trading, hurt ordinary investors.)

I see three takeaways. First, let us mainly judge our lawmakers and leaders on how they promote and protect our national interests on which we spend billions and trillions of dollars, and cut them some slack on travel and office expenses. Second, let us be enlightened enough to pay them salaries and allowances commensurate with their responsibilities that have at least partial parity with those in the private sector. This will make them less vulnerable to petty corruption and not so easily bought out for small favors. (That's why you rarely see CEOs of S&P 500 companies engage in petty corruption, not because of their superior morality.) And third, let us have true campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections so that our lawmakers need to depend less on special interests.

About the last it is heartening that Hillary Clinton after announcing her 2016 Presidential bid spelled out campaign finance reform as one of the four main tenets of her campaign. It will be great if President Obama (who as outgoing President will be seen as having no axe to grind) strongly pitches for much higher salaries for Congress members, federal and state heads, as they're all underpaid. Even Republican lawmakers and Governors who oppose Mr. Obama will appreciate this as their espousing this themselves is seen and derided in the shallow media as being self-serving. And I'd certainly like to see the new President champion this, perhaps as an adjunct to campaign finance reform.

So how much is a fair salary? I'd point to "clean" Singapore's example where top officials and administrators are paid in the seven figures, and their prime minister is the highest paid worldwide. Illustratively, a large and rich country like U.S.A. can pay its President $5 million annually, Congress members $2 million, about the same for state governors, adjusted for state size, and significant raises for most states' legislators. They should also be paid very decent pensions, while being barred from holding future "influence" jobs such as of lobbyists where they interact with former colleagues and staffers. All this may cost an extra $4 billion or so annually but think of how it will improve the stewardship of our $4 trillion federal budget, and similarly of state funds.

Myopic thinking fanned by an asinine media that is behind the poor pay of our public leaders is not just a problem in U.S.A.  Back in an Aug. 2007 post I had reacted to chain emails sent by otherwise educated and intelligent friends about how overpaid Indian Members of Parliament are swallowing up our national resources. Then in May 2009 I wrote on the misplaced outrage at some pathetically small expenses by British Members of Parliament.

So no, we're not alone in our thinking. But I just hope Americans can like Singapore be more progressive and enlightened in paying our public representatives better, and reaping the rewards in the form of much better and cleaner governance.

We're All Fair And Balanced In Our Own Eyes

Non-Republicans laugh at the Fox News Channel's describing itself as "Fair & Balanced" and this slogan is the butt of endless Jon Stewart digs on The Daily Show.  But its hardcore audience laps up  the Fox News fare as gospel truth (an appropriately applicable term for this viewer demographic) and sees no irony.

Most of the world including many Muslims regard the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as destructive and fanatical operatives that are a blight to civilized society.  Yet these militants think of themselves as soldier-saints of Allah setting out to right society. 

Israeli rightwing nationalists feel it's entirely justified and reasonable for them to expand Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.  And Iranian hardliners feel the same way about denying Israel's right to exist.

We all tend to see our own viewpoint as being right and those deviating from it - even if it's an overwhelming majority - as being wrong.  In her 2008 "Buried Prejudice: the Bigot in Your Brain" in Scientific American, Siri Carpenter describes how reported facts are filtered by our biases that are often shored up by self-interest.  "We are pre-disposed to ascribe superior characteristics to the groups to which we belong, and to exaggerate differences between our own groups and outsiders."  She goes on to quote studies showing that "many of our implicit associations about social groups form before we are old enough to consider them rationally... full fledged implicit racial bias emerges by age six - and never retreats."  This may also apply to religious bias.

This brings me again to my ongoing discussions about Muslims, with relatives and friends in India who are highly intelligent, fair minded and decent, even if we've different perspectives.  Some exchanges have been triggered by blog posts and popular forwarded emails I get from them.  They talk about secular politicians pandering to Indian Muslims, the destructive role of Islam and its meager contributions to humanity (measured by Nobel Prizes awarded to Muslims), etc.  Some others in my circle have been privately reacting to my June 27 post "Treating Our Indian Muslims Right".  Three examples below illustrate my disagreements with them:

a) An email doing the rounds glorifies Nathuram Godse, the Hindu assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, reproducing his supposed speech at his trial where he talks of Gandhi working against Hindus and favoring Muslims.  Those who forward it generally preface it with a disclaimer like "I don't agree with what Godse did or all he says, but he does have a point."  I personally am repelled at the killer of Gandhi, a disgrace to their Hindu community, sought to be partially rehabilitated through half rationalizations in this manner.  You'll find this Godse speech and reenactments all over on Google and on YouTube.  In viewer comments, Hindu zealots hailing Godse's murder of Gandhi outnumber those who deplore this by ten to one or worse.  At least this shows that bigotry abounds in all religions, and "pacifist" and "all-embracing" Hinduism isn't different in this aspect.

b) Some of my friends and relatives proclaim that "secular" in India means being "pro-Muslim" and reverse discriminating against Hindus in order to garner Muslim votes en bloc. A friend in his blog uses the phrase "secular fundamentalists" to describe secular politicians. He says that "secular" in their dictionary means being contemptuous of their own (Hindu) religion and being obsessed with that of another minority, the Muslims.  I pointed out that the Muslim vote bank (14.5% of the population) is much smaller than the Hindu vote bank (80% of population) that would be put off by such a bias.  The friend countered that Hindus are too fragmented and turn out in smaller percentages, so wooing Muslims this way still makes sense to these politicians. 

Well, UP is India's most populous state where the Muzaffarnagar Hindu-Muslim riots recently occurred. I see from UP 2012 election results that the winning Samajwadi Party got 34% of the votes, and secular BSP and Congress got 24% and 12% respectively.  In other words the secular parties combined had about 70% of the vote, and given that Muslims comprise 18% of UP's population, the other 52% of their supporters have to be primarily Hindus. You'd hardly expect such support from Hindus for a party that discriminated against them. In any case it's much easier to cast lots with a dominant majority and stronger side.  While corruption, inefficiency and infighting may justifiably sink them, we should at least credit secular parties with  fair-mindedness and courage for trying to level the field for minorities.

c) An otherwise saintly elder relative in India echoed a sentiment in our circle when he said, "If you see Muslims on TV they are so aggressive (while seeking rights and denouncing oppression).  Can Hindus raise their voice in Pakistan and other Muslim countries?"  I on the contrary expect Muslims to freely express their justified indignation at being targeted in riots on account of their religion.  Moreover, I'd hate to see Muslims in India treated the way less tolerant countries treat their minorities, including Hindus.  That's what makes India's secularism and inclusiveness so much better than the ethos in those other countries.

Of course, being "truly" fair and balanced should be just one of the major factors for voters everywhere, including Indians.  Given the widespread corruption, stifling bureaucracy and ineptness that permeates the present Congress government in India, I'd agree with its detractors that it should be replaced.  The clear frontrunner to lead a new Indian government is Narendra Modi of the BJP, the Hindu-centric opposition party.  Modi has developed a solid record and reputation as an able and incorruptible administrator as Chief Minister of Gujarat State which has made remarkable progress in his 12 year tenure. Widespread accusations of his involvement in the deadly 2002 anti-Muslim riots have never been proved and he has protested his innocence and made numerous overtures and reassurances to Muslims recently.  So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and cautiously favor his election, especially if other alternatives like the well regarded Nitish Kumar of Bihar are not nationally viable. But unlike Modi's BJP supporters, my choice would be based purely on economic and administrative grounds, and in spite of, not because of his RSS / Hindutva roots.








 

Affirmative Action In Miss America Contest

I have mixed reactions to Nina Davuluri becoming Miss America on Sep. 15.  While someone of Indian origin has won, my first thought on seeing the news footage was "Really? Is this the best that USA (or the Indian community for that matter) can offer?"  I wonder what proportion of Americans and Indians feel this way.  A poll on this would be interesting. In each of the Indian marriages I've recently attended in India and the US there were some female guests I'd regard as having a better presence than Nina.

It looks like the contest has evolved away from what I expect.  Given that it's highly visual, I thought having stunning looks that would turn heads should be table stakes for all contestants.  That means scoring close to a 10 when men rate them in appearance on a 1 to 10 scale for, say, whom they'd like stranded with them on an island.  Sure, the winner should have a lot more - charm, poise, intelligence, talent, etc. But these attributes should complement, not substitute for physical oomph.   I'd score Nina as a 7, may be even an 8, but that still falls short.  We're talking of Miss Totally Outstanding here, not Miss Quite Above Average. 

Beauty of course lies in the eye of the beholder.  You'd then want judges whose choices reflect mass appeal but that isn't happening here.  It may be overly politically correct judges who want to signal some social message with their decision.  That's unfortunate and the reason I have long stopped watching these pageants, national or international.  Fair judging should pick winners regardless of their ethnicity, color or creed, not because of it in a misplaced push to deliberately inject diversity.  By all means choose a Chinese American as Miss America in the next year or two, but only if judges truly assess her to be the best, and not driven by any inclination to represent this group.  And do give those poor statuesque, blond and blue eyed girls a chance even if they don't have any serious disability.

This system can be corrected to reflect mainstream sentiment by replacing the celebrity judges with a large representative group of men who vote by secret ballot. And for the Q&A please, no questions on charged political and socially divisive issues like an attack on Syria or gay marriage where the listeners' prejudices can color how they evaluate answers.  Well, they regrettably did have these types of questions in Miss America for the top five finalists and four of them got through with (about equally) good answers.

What about other parts of the contest?  Nina's Bollywood fusion dance item in the talent show was impressive but I didn't find it exceptional.  I've seen similar standards of performance by non-professionals and semi-professionals at larger Indian festivals.  The ballet number by Miss California and River Dance by "our" Miss Connecticut look at least as good to me.  And Miss Kansas who got the most online votes and wasn't allowed under the rules to display her marksmanship and archery prowess did a good job in her second choice of singing.

Other than reactions in the media, Twitter or blogosphere are there ways to assess if pageant winners are well chosen?  I can think of a hypothetical measure as well as a one based on subsequent history as under:

• The contest winner should pass a "stand out" test.  That is, if you placed her among a fairly large group of randomly chosen American girls of similar age, onlookers who are told Miss America is among them should be easily able to pick her out.  Most shouldn't be going "Where? Where?" or guess it's someone else as I think would happen with Nina.  Though to be fair to her many of her fellow contestants could also have been lost in a crowd.  This can be due to the criteria of evaluation being skewed so much away from looks at all levels of competition - local, state, national and even international.  That's why there can be similar surprises and unexpected outcomes even in the Miss Universe and Miss World contests.

• The test of history - what these winners achieve down the line.  By this measure the likes of Vanessa Williams (first African American crowned Miss America 1984), Gretchen Carlson (Miss America 1989), Aishwarya Rai (Miss World 1994), Sushmita Sen (Miss Universe 1994), Priyanka Chopra (Miss World 2000), Lara Dutta (Miss Universe 2002) were great choices. So were also-rans Diane Sawyer, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sharon Stone, Halle Berry and yes, Oprah Winfrey. 

So on the positive side if Nina has notable achievements hereafter, even if it takes decades, I'll eat my words and apologize for any mean things I've said.  And regardless of anything else I'm happy for her and congratulate her - she parlayed all she had to win beyond most Americans' (and my) expectations. 

And while I carp about this de facto affirmative action permeating various aspects of our life it at least speaks to the amazing open mindedness of Americans.  I've been struck by the wide acceptance and appreciation of other cultures by most of them, and the Miss America 2014 results reflect this.



 

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.

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.

We Are Gullible And Easily Manipulated

The title of this post is my understanding in plain words of the essence of behavioral economics, particularly as applied to politics and public discourse.  A series of studies have validated this view that people often don't realize what's (fairly obviously) in their best interest and hence undermine it.

It explains for example, why more Americans disapprove rather than approve of the 2009 health reforms (inadequate and marred by compromise as they were) that overall better their lot.  Or how so many Americans fall for Tea Party tax ideals that basically favor the top 1% at the expense of the 95% (even if not all the 99%.)

Now The Economist in its March 24, 2012 article "Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think" describes how forces for public good can use behavioral economics to manipulate people back to collectively bettering their lot. The article informs how the two authors of "Nudge" are helping governments and socio-political campaigns. Cass Sunstein, has been recruited by Barack Obama to the White House. Richard Thaler has been advising policymakers in several countries including Denmark, France and, above all, Britain, where David Cameron has established a Behavioural Insights Team, nicknamed the Nudge Unit.

Prof. Richard Thaler has since my University of Chicago days in the 1990s been engaged in a vigorous and running though largely good-natured debate with his "efficient markets" colleagues.  The latter who dominated our University's financial ideas say that investors as a whole make completely rational decisions based on their self-interest. Can there be irrational investors who pay more or sell securities for less than what they're worth according to publicly available information?  Sure.  But according to efficient markets theory there are enough rational counter parties to benefit from their stupidity to drive the prices back to the "correct" level.

The University to its credit brought in Thaler and others to enrich its diversity of economic ideas instead of stacking its faculty ranks with just its renowned efficient market theorists.  Thaler's thinking has increasingly gained traction in academic, financial, social and political circles.

Behavioral economics is of course a double edged sword and special interests have been using it to dupe people into supporting their causes even at the expense of the general populace.  Now genuine reformers in politics and government can harness the concepts to swing the pendulum back towards gaining popular approval for the best public interests.

India's Anti-Terrorism Medicine Is Worse Than The Disease

It looks like terrorists merely have to start disrupting life for Indians and the authorities will finish the job for them. The damage done by them is too often magnified by the official response. I see more of this in my present visit to India and have been greeted with these instances since arriving here a few days back:

• My Indian prepaid cell phone didn't work. My service had been blocked because my carrier is required to re-verify and obtain documentation of proof of address and identity plus a new picture of the owner after a while (6 months? A year? Two years? The frequency isn't clear.)  

• Visitors from abroad simply cannot get cell phones in their name even if they have valid documents and proof of identity.  All carriers "officially" advised me to get it in the name of a local resident (I chose an uncle). The alternative is to pay international roaming fees that cost 50 to 100 times as much as an India based phone.  As if paying an extra few hundred dollars will deter actual terrorists.  The Nov. 26, 2008 Mumbai attackers used satellite phones anyway, and none of the steps taken prevents this.

• I went to draw some rupees from my bank account with paltry balances only to find my bank account was on hold pending submission of documents. The bank folks explained this was required under a new KYC (Know Your Customer) policy thrust upon them by the Reserve Bank of India.  And never mind I'd gone through this routine 11 months back with two branches - some fresh guidelines required me to produce copies of papers submitted two decades ago at the time of opening of the account. Plus, this process of "re-verification" is to be repeated every two years.

• This "KYC" ordeal is for all bank account holders, not just foreigners.  My 92 year old father-in-law in Pune suffered a protracted back and forth, having to produce fresh documents for his bank accounts that were opened and in regular use for over 30 years.  And Anita's 83 year old uncle is being pressed for "official" documentary evidence to prove his marriage to his wife of 50+ years to avoid a freeze of his decades old and continuously used joint account with her.  Most Indians don't obtain marriage licenses, at least didn't in the past. 

• A close friend in IBM (of Indian origin, now a US citizen) traveled to India on work, then left to attend a meeting in Malaysia.  He then had problems re-entering India because of the new policy barring re-entry of Indian visa holders within 60 days of leaving the country. The then Indian Foreign Minister of State Shashi Tharoor had rightly derided this policy by his own ministry through his much publicized tweet "26/11 killers had no visas."

Such new restrictions are ostensibly to curb and prevent terrorists from funding their activities and carrying out attacks on Indian soil.  But as Tharoor pointed out (much to the annoyance of his seniors, the Foreign and the Home Ministers) they'd hardly deter actual extremists while adding to the bureaucratic hell faced by ordinary Indians and foreign visitors.

Why does this happen?  Having been in the Indian government for over a decade I know how this can be as much a result of ulterior power grabbing as of bone-headed decision making.  In a milieu of widespread restrictions officials can relish their discretion to interpret, enforce or to relax burdensome rules. They can use their power to help those around them in exchange for gratitude or gratification, and become more relevant than in a freer, more smoothly functioning environment. Of course the problem can also be created or compounded by a bumbling administration that's under pressure to show that "strong" steps are being taken in response to militant attacks.

The trauma of the terrorist attacks probably prompted the leadership to seek the advice of its security apparatus for preventive measures.  The latter apparently didn't let this crisis go to waste, using it as an excuse to reintroduce "inspector raj" type controls that had been drastically loosened during Indian economic and administrative reforms of the 1990s.

I hope that smarter and more enlightened people at the top are aware of this dynamic and reverse such trends.  A tragic loss of a few hundred innocents at the hands of fanatics shouldn't bring on these strangely drastic yet ineffective measures that gum up the lives of a billion.

On Anna, Manmohan and Sonia

I rarely talk about Indian politics because (a) I'm not close enough to them, and (b) with their complexity it can become a never-ending discussion (even more so than in the US.)  But I was drawn into some exchanges recently.

It started out simply enough with college pal "OK" posting a simple query on my Facebook wall about Sonia Gandhi coming to the US for medical treatment.  Why not get treated in India, "OK" asked, if the hospitals there are so good as to attract Western medical travellers?

My response to him was picked up on by some other of my high school and college friends and devolved into a semi-serious back and forth of riffs and political jabs.  Most comments were not too sympathetic to Sonia and her circle, and seem interesting enough to share below:

The Hindu : News / National : Sonia undergoes successful surgery www.thehindu.com

Congress president Sonia Gandhi was on Friday recovering in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a US hospital where she underwent successful surgery for an undisclosed ailment.

Me: I'd guess on two good reasons (for coming to the US), (a) for cancer or non-standard treatment where the top US institutions like Sloan Kettering are the best, and/or (b) to maintain privacy/secrecy. 
-

OK: I suppose (b) is impossible in India!
-

IB: So she has cancer?

-

PD: How can she have cancer when she is the cancer?
-

SS:  From attending functions in Bangladesh to sudden serious ailment to US to surgery to recovery.... rubbish, say many. It was a sudden dash to the US to salvage .... before Jan Lokpal became a reality. If anyone is really so ill as to have to dash off to a foreign country for emergency operation, the only son and the only daughter will not be smiling half way thru India, attending public / political functions, rallies etc.., In Any normal family, the kids will definitely like to be by the mother's side, not on the other side of the globe. POINT TO PONDER...
-

Me: You guys are so rough on this fine lady... :-)
-

PD: The fine lady is so rough on us. 
-

IB: Sandip define "fine"? it has many meanings.
-

OK: Yes. Did Sandip mean meter-maid? 
-

Me:  Good jabs there. My poor Sonia. Quoting Shakespeare, "You blocks, you stones, you cruel men of Rome" - I mean India. :-)
-

SS: Not on "SCHINDLER'S LIST", but on "SWINDLERS LIST".... how can you sympathize with such types, Sandip? Besides, anyone "fine" would be a total misfit for politics. The person has to be all and anything but "fine". If you mean a "fine scourge and all and everything unprintable", for most politicians, that would be more apt. Agree or disagree? 
-

Me:  Disagree. :-) I haven't seen evidence of her own personal dishonesty. Indians have been voting for splinter groups and regional parties so Manmohan and Sonia types are perhaps forced to form questionable alliances and are too weak to control corruption. In this milieu I doubt their opponents are, or can do better. That said, I'm admittedly quite removed from Indian politics. :-) 
-

IB: Sandip, you quoted: "You blocks, you stones, you cruel men of Rome" -- but from what I remember it went like: "You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things"---
-

OK:  IB, I noticed that too but I let it pass as Sandip speaks from the heart not from memory! :) Or perhaps he did not want to call us "worse than senseless things", being our kind friend? It's not that we love Sonia less...
-

And so it went, showing I've erudite friends and most aren't fans of the Gandhi dynasty or current leadership under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.  

I also get many emails forwarded by friends in rapturous praise of Anna Hazare, the 74 year old social-political activist that his admirers liken to Mahatma Gandhi.  Anna has gone on fasts unto death to demand that a super authority (Lokpal) be set up in India that can investigate for corruption and remove anyone in public office that it finds guilty including the Prime Minister and judges of the Indian Supreme Court.  

When I call my father-in-law in Pune he marvels at Anna's immense popularity and asks what I think of him and how the Indian government should respond. I half jokingly suggest that the government should let him starve himself to death so they can move on to more substantive issues.  

To my mind rampant corruption in India is not for want of more legal institutions or of more checks and balances.  We may already have too many that gum up the process of decision making.  The problem is that all of these may be corrupt and require pay-offs.  So having one more like a Lokpal with oversight of India's highest elected offices and consequent ability to blackmail such leadership may add to India's problems instead of solving them. 
-

Bose, one of my gym buddies who recently returned from a trip to India talked of the vast "new money", the related corruption in politics as well as the huge Anna Hazare following he witnessed at first hand.  On his perceptions about Anna's core supporters he drily remarked that they're probably seeking power to get their turn at the money till.
-

As I said in my Facebook exchange, India's problems appear to be compounded by its narrowly focused and ill informed voters failing to elect and give strong majorities to good leaders of national stature.  Such voters are swayed more by parochial and caste considerations that lead to fragmented parties and shaky alliances with elected representatives looking for quick payoffs in exchange for their support.  
-

The solution may lie in an electorate exercising better judgement and a resurgence of nationalistic parties.  Or India may be better suited to a different democratic system like a directly elected US style President (only stronger, though chances of this happening are almost nil and we're seeing its downsides in the US gridlock, too.)  But an appointed Lokpal who can remove the elected Prime Minister and judges of India's top court as the Hazare folks demand hardly seems to be the answer.

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.

Whom Would You Choose - Sully or Slater?

A good thing about news online or in hard copy is that you can pick the stories you want to read, and ignore the rest.  You can't do that with the TV (where I also watch the news.)  Even switching channels often doesn't work because they're fixating on the same inane thing.  It can be a balloon boy hoax one time or a flipped out flight attendant another.

Captivity to such TV coverage apart, this hoopla about Steven Slater cussing out a passenger and deploying the emergency chute to walk off his Jet Blue job gets to me in other ways.  The Huffington Post online poll shows almost half the readers regard him as a folk hero.  This may not be a representative sample of Americans as this readership is very liberal.  But Slater also has 100,000+ fans on Facebook, tee shirts sold in his name, and has a media fixture for the past four days.

The deeds are nowhere comparable but I'm reminded somewhat of the hundreds of women who write love letters or send marriage proposals to serial murderers or rapists in prison.  In a free country everyone gets to have apologists, even amongst strangers.  If only these women could be advanced to the head of the victim line instead of the other poor hapless souls targeted by such predators.  In the same way if only Slater fans on their flights could be privileged to have only crew members like him in attendance.

Joseph Lopez who was a flight attendant himself cites his difficulties and challenges as a rationale for Slater's behavior in an August 14 piece in the Washington Post.  But I'd agree a lot more with Rich Lowry in his August 14 opinion in the Salt Lake Tribune.  He lauds the quiet heroism of Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger in landing his US Air plane in the Hudson River, and contrasts that with Slater's self-indulgent excess that "is not in the least bit admirable." 

On my own air trips I'd hate to have someone like Slater aboard.  To add to my July 13 post on airline experiences  I've witnessed my share of surly, brusque or stone-faced flight attendants, especially on American Airlines.  One snapped "what do you want?" to a diffident old lady sitting across the aisle from me when she pressed the attendant light button to request for some water to take her medication after we had boarded.  The same attendant wore a scowl for the most part of the flight - a passenger on my other side wondered if this was because their flight attendant union had just agreed to wage concessions in bankruptcy talks.  On another trip a flight attendant glowered at a young mother who had requested water for her restless infant after boarding, and took 20 minutes to bring it.

In both cases I toyed with the idea of quietly noting the errant attendants' names and sending feedback to the airline after getting home.  But their name tags that they are required to wear on their uniform were missing - this was probably not accidental.  I also observed their far more cordial and gracious colleagues on the same flight and wished there was a way to track and reward good and conscientious staff while penalizing bad conduct.

But in the aftermath of the chute exit drama it seems these workers just needed to behave more shockingly and egregiously to win accolades and fans among a sizable chunk of regular Americans.  I'd instead much prefer airlines to "Sully" their image after wiping their Slate(rs) clean.  And I'd like TV broadcasts to focus more on real news.

Landmark Half-Measures

This is just the latest of the Obama (and Congress) half-measures that have been widely labeled as "historic", "unprecedented" and "landmark".  I'm referring to the Financial Reforms Bill signed into law on July 21st.

It started with the $800B economic stimulus package of Feb. '09 that Paul Krugman warned even at the negotiation stage as being very inadequate,and reiterating these concerns after Congressional agreement. His fears of a stalled recovery have been realized.  Next we had the Afghanistan surge of troops, but with delays and declaration of a withdrawal starting in July 2011 - signaling intentions to embolden the enemy though leaving some leeway.  Then of course there's the health care overhaul of Mar. '10 but without even the public option, leave alone the far more appealing and cost effective "Medicare for all" (aka "single payer") push.

Which brings me back to the financial reforms law.  It is huge and complex, yet leaves almost all the important safeguards against a meltdown to be put in place through subsequent regulations by government agencies.  That's great for bankers and their lobbyists who can get all the loop holes and escape clauses inserted while working with regulators.  If they can win over hundreds of lawmakers, why not a few dozen regulators behind closed doors?  Krugman points to further timidity by the Obama team - they are even dithering over nominating an obviously great fit like Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer financial protection agency.

But that's not all.  Regulations can be changed by successive administrations, without further legislative oversight.  That means that even if the present crop of  regulators do their job well and insert the right checks and balances, all this can be undone by a future Bush clone who assumes the Presidency.  Knowing this, even the Republicans beholden to bankers and supporting them may not be quite so upset with the new law.  And as seen in the current crisis, it can take many years for the negative consequences of lax oversight to surface, while banks can start to profit almost immediately.

This means that a future regime that loosens regulations that unfairly helps banks can benefit from their patronage.  Yet such an administration can quite possibly escape (or at least get the benefit of the doubt for) the blame for planting the time bomb that causes a financial disaster on a successor's watch.  

Other instances of the Obama and the Congressional Democrats collectively lacking courage are in enacting effective energy legislation, and perhaps immigration reform.  In energy we couldn't even have the weak cap and trade system passed, leave alone a stiff gasoline tax that can fund alternative fuel development as espoused by Thomas Friedman for years.

My take even on Obama "victories" is generally of his doing a lot when cornered into having to act, yet without doing enough.  It's almost like trying to save half the patient.  And it's not a question of being a centrist, but being ineffective.  I believe his taking the lead and acting more vigorously and decisively on contentious issues would help rather than hurt the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.  It would not only rally his disheartened Democratic base, but also win the respect of more independents. 

But some initiatives did work well.  The response to the H1N1 "swine" flu epidemic was good overall, and overestimating the demand for the swine flu shots and the resultant oversupply was much better than if they'd underestimated it.  On the gulf oil spill the Obama team could have acted faster and forced more skimmers to be mobilized, including those from other oil companies.  But it did force BP to pay into a $20 billion fund despite Republican condemnation and appointed Kenneth Feinberg to administer compensation (with luck speedily and impartially) from it.   

Hopefully they can build more upon these types of successes in the time to come.