John Roberts: Chief Justice nominee

John Roberts goes from virtual unknown to Chief Justice. Man, this is quite a power trip for this guy! I thought some of the current judges on the supreme court might be aspiring for this top job? Don't they have some kind of seniority consideration for this post? Maybe not. This is a clear case of a total outsider walking in and taking the top job. The guy is in his fifties and is likely to hold the top job for a few decades! Wonder why no one is talking about trying to change the rules of the game especially when the country is so sharply divided.

A cake walk confirmation just got interesting....

Supreme Court Justices: Term limits?

Why don't Supreme Court justices have term limits? I don't understand the logic behind these life time appointments. The US produces so many lawyers with great credentials, so why should this privilege of being on the Supreme Court be restricted to just a few individuals.

Its sad to see Chief Justice William Rehnquist drag himself to court despite his poor health. Sure, its a personal decision and he wants to continue serving. But when the country has so many qualified individuals can't we give the poor guy some rest? (Btw, I truly admire his resilience and commitment, and this is nothing personal towards him or other cancer patients).

I just think its crazy to have lifetime appointments for any post. Getting rid of it will certainly help reduce the partisan nature of the battle that goes in the appointment and confirmation process. Some kind of system where every President gets to appoint a couple of Supreme Court justices or something on those lines.

BJP headed for a split?

The differences between the hardliners in the BJP and those in the Advani camp who aspire to embrace a more moderate veneer are increasing by the day. I think its only matter of time before the split in the party occurs. At the present time there is little sign of unity and no sign whatsoever of the next line of leadership emerging and gaining control of the party and crafting its future. As the Congress govt is cruising along in its second year in power, the BJP in its current form appears to be headed towards self-destruction.

John Roberts: President Bush's master stroke

The Democrats were all geared up for tet another battle as President Bush was ready to announce his Supreme Court nominee. With the selection of John Roberts, President Bush has foxed his opponents once again. A virtual unknown, the Democrats are going to have a hard time digging up dirt on this candidate. The conservative groups appear to be pretty happy with this choice too. In short, President Bush has kept his base happy and made life hard for his oppenents.

At present it looks unlikely that fighting John Roberts candidacy will win them any political mileage. It might be prudent for the Democrats to pass on this battle and instead go after the Karl Rove controversy.

Further increase in toll!

Read over the weekend that come 2007 the toll on bay area bridges are going to be increased by a dollar. The toll will be $5 for the Golden Gate bridge! This toll increase is simply insane. Combined with the ever increasing gas prices, simply getting to work is slowly becoming such an expensive affair. No wonder jobs are going overseas!

Democrats must pick their battles

Ever since the elections last year the Democrats have been struggling to develop a coherent strategy. Without a majority in either the senate or the house, the President has a strong chance of pushing ahead with his agenda. Faced with this predicament, the Democrats are inclined to oppose anything and everything simply because of the ideological differences. At present it sounds like they raise a hue and cry each time (judicial nominees and other appointments) and then finally go away empty handed. Unfortunately, this will not help their cause, especially in the long run. It might be prudent to develop a comprehensive strategy, which involves picking a few battles and somehow trying to win them. Else they will just come across as being obstructionist and this might worsen their tally in the years to come. The Bolton nomination is yet another test of their strategy.

I get the feeling that politics in the US is fast becoming like West Bengal politics (!!) -- the same party is always in power, the opposition is just their to fill some seats and make some speeches with little influence on policy.

Lebanese cab driver

I had an interesting chat on a recent cab ride. I asked the driver, who happened to be Lebanese, what he thought of the happenings in the middle east, particularly the war in Iraq. And boy! This guy was like volcano, he could talk non-stop. It was an interesting perspective nevertheless from a middle east native. So here is the dump as verbatim as I can remember......

"Its great that there is change happening in Lebanon. Happy that Syria is forced to withdraw. Its all thanks to the war in Iraq. I fully support the war in Iraq. You think American' s want to kill people? You have lived here for so many years. You know this is not true. Saddam was killing innocent Iraqis. Iran and Syria are behind the insurgency. I support an attack on Iran and Syria!!! But for the war, you think Syria would withdraw? You think India Pak would talk peace? ....How many universities did Saddam build? I wanted to study computers but there weren't good universities in Lebanon. The Arabs think they can drive the Israelis into the sea or wherever and then live peacefully. Its not realistic. Everytime they fought the Israelis they failed. Lebanon has so many Palestinian refugees who never left after the last war with Israel. You are lucky you are from India. You have good schools there because its a democracy....."

Phew! I had barely managed a few words on the 25 min cab ride. But I was exhausted. I got of the cab and headed for my flight.

Deep Throat: Top 10 reasons why now?

10. He was sick of seeing Bob Woodward raking in the moolah for three decades.

9. At 91, it was about time he collected his real retirement package.

8. He was encouraging the FBI to come out with the truth on Iraq.

7. He was sick of hearing his grandson call him a "girlie-man".

6. It was a pre-emptive strike before Al-Zawahri claims to be Deep Throat.

5. He saw Paris Hilton's Carl's Jr. ad and had a change of heart (oops it was a heart attack!)

4. He heard that the Bush administration was planning to attack Iran because they had evidence that Deep Throat was living in Iran.

3. He had a Reagan moment.

2. Someone introduced him to President Bush as Deep Throat, the President said, "mmhh...that's a nice name, never heard that before!"

1. Mark "Felt" it was time he finally took his own advice to follow the money!

Mani Shankar Iyer's comments

It certainly helps to have well educated qualified individuals as ministers. Check out this article with interesting quotes (from Tom Friedman of NY Times book release function) from Mani Shankar Iyer, Union Minister for Petroleum in the Manmohan Singh ministry. The current government in India a strange mix of extremes, especially when it comes to the ministers and there pedigree.

Quote of the day!

"There is only a veneer of democracy in the United States, and we have a real democracy," he said, brushing aside suggestions that Iran's election rules unfairly favor the hard-liners who control much of the government. "Election laws are so complicated in your country that people have no choice but to vote for one of the candidates who are with one of the two parties." Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran. Check out the complete article in NY Times. (registration required)

While there might be some partial truths in this, its ironical that it has to come from a politician in Iran!

Senate Crisis: What a pity!

The US Senate crisis appears to have been averted.

After all the excitement created by the Presidential elections last year, there has been a relative lull on the US political scene. Barring the boring opposition (which systematically ended in failure) from Democrats to virtually every nominee proposed for every single post by the President, there has hardly been any new exciting developments since the Presidential polls (with Howard Dean in charge there is some hope of an literal outburst sooner or later). Unfortunately, just when it seemed like some new excitement will creep into the mainstream the Senators have arrived at a comprise. What a pity! (They just saved the world from a few thousand hours of TV analysis and speculation and several thousands of pages of online commentary!)

Diplomatic traffic

In case you haven't noticed, the number of foreign dignitaries visiting India in the last few months has been truly phenomenal. In my lifetime I have not witnessed this level of diplomatic traffic. Top leaders from China, Iran, Pak, Japan, Afghanistan, Russia, USA, to name a few. Hopefully India can leverage some of these relationships to land a permanent seat on the UN security council.

Peace process "irreversible"

On his recent visit to India, President Musharraf insisted on adding the word "irreversible" as part of the joint statement with India. Firstly, what's he trying to tell the world? Previously the peace process was reversible?

For a guy who is infamous for his political and diplomatic doosras, this one was some kind of master stroke? Didn't find much in the press either explaining what he might have meant by "irreversible". One thing is for sure, the confusion from the statement is certainly irreversible.

New Pope

I was surprised at the euphoria over the announcement of the new Pope. Radio and TV networks dropped regular programming to focus on the announcement. I was really surprised that NPR dropped its morning program to report live on the announcement. Its possible that media acted in a similar fashion in Europe, or at least parts of it. I can understand a quick announcement followed by return to regular programming, but this was not the case! Maybe this is an extension of the red states-blue states split facing the US, maybe the majority are in favor of this from the media.

Powell on Iran

The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. (as quoted in the Washington Post).


Hello!! didn't he say the same thing last time (about Iraq) at the UN. What kind of credibility do we have to accuse any other country based on our intelligence reports!!

Democrats in a hopeless state

Boy, that's quite a defeat for the democratic party. Its party time for Bush and his team. After four years of economic downturn, rising deficit, war etc. etc. the voting patterns across the US don't seem to have changed despite the "far-right" stance of the Republican party.


I am surprised that the democratic party did not make a more concerted effort to grab one of the states in the heartland. It appears that they completely disregarded these states. From this perspective, in hindsight, it might have been better for Kerry to have chosen Gephardt or some other VP candidate who could deliver at least a state or two.


I think the moral of the story for the democrats is that they better find a Presidential candidate who can carry a couple of red states in the American heartland (a la Bill Clinton) in 2008. Hillary Clinton, perhaps! At least you can be sure that the best democratic campaigner will be out there in full swing.

It's President Kerry, I think.

Despite all the media and pundits promising a close race and lawyers lined up to fight the battles in court, I think John Kerry will win the presidential elections and win convincingly. Here are some reasons why:


The Debates: Kerry did a fine job in all three debates winning them 3-0. Until these debates he was relatively unknown. But in these debates he came across as a very knowledgeable on policy issues (on par with Bill Clinton) without the arrogance and over-confidence portrayed by Al Gore. He also showed his lighter side and sense of humor in answering the question about what he had learned from his wife and daughters. Last but not the least he showed that he was a very shrewd politician at heart when he dragged Cheney' s daughters name into one of his answers.


The Campaign: Despite all the talk about lacking charisma, Kerry did all the right things to run a very inclusive campaign. The important thing was that pretty much everyone in the democratic party was on-board the campaign. Unlike Gore, he took all the help he could from Clinton and signed on as many of Clinton former team as possible. Besides, he ran a campaign that was relatively scandal free (no serious revelation barring the failed swift boat campaign), with no special surprises.


The VP Candidate: Though I think Kerry didn't really care a whole lot for Edwards, he did the smart thing by selecting John Edwards as his running mate. For whatever its worth, Edwards managed to energize the party base after Dean screamed himself out of steam. There was no chance of Edwards stealing Kerry's limelight given his relative inexperience. In short, as a team they served each others purpose.


Newspaper endorsements: Kerry landed a number of key newspaper endorsements (not sure how much of an influence these are) like the NYT, Washington Post, Economist, Financial Times etc.


External Support: Michael Moore, and the rest of Hollywood had made a very visible plea to the voters to dump Bush. Again, its hard to measure the impact of that, but it was definitely something that benefited Kerry more than hurt him. To his credit he did a fine job of tapping this support to energize the voters bringing in the actors, singers and other entertainers at the right time to draw the crowds.


Young, first time voters: The amount of money raised online, the number of student volunteers, and the overall presence online was far stronger for the democratic party than the Republicans. John Kerry did a fine job of tapping into the online momentum that the Dean campaign had put in place.


Anti-Bush: There has been an incredible anti-Bush wave in the US and across the globe that one can't but notice. Several people overseas were hoping that Bush would loose the elections. There were no shortage of people who felt "anybody but Bush". All these voters will most likely vote in favor of Kerry. While he might not have done anything to win them, I think he made sure he didn't do anything to loose them!


Lastly, I think Bush and his team have chosen to operate too far to the right all through his first term. Having lived here for over a decade I think the majority of US citizens are uncomfortable with such extreme positions and are more accommodating and moderate. The best proof of this are the results in an election with an all time high turnout.


All in all, I think John Kerry will become President by a comfortable margin.

A few interesting links

Interesting news and sites I learned about lately:

• If you are closely following the presidential elections in the US, here is one you'd love. This site follows all the various polls and gives you an estimate of the electoral votes for Bush and Kerry.
• Fired from Delta Airlines for blogging . I guess it won't be long before companies have strict guidleines for blogging.
  
  
• Truly fascinating fund raising effort from the Firefox browser folks $250K in less than 10 days.
  
  
• If you use gmail, just fyi.
• If you are into following VCs, investments and other tech stories from silicon valley, this a useful blog
  
  

The Vice-Presidential debate

Saw the debate. The format certainly suited Mr. Cheney's style, but he couldn't help coming across as a "school principal who knew all the answers" like Tom Brokaw aptly put it. Mr. Edwards on the other hand looked young, charming, but almost canned. He certainly does his best to emulate Clinton, but he just can't come close. Nevertheless, I think he held his own throughout the debate. On the crucial question of being a heart beat away from the Presidency, I thought Mr. Edwards did a less than convincing job of answering the question. Instead, he quickly diverted attention from it. Mr. Cheney didn't quite jump onto the issue (and even if he did it lacked impact because of his low-key style of delivery) as I think he should have. I guess he doesn't like to talk whole lot about it, because in his case he gets to be President while he is still the Vice-President! Mr. Cheney did his party's campaign some damage when he referred to http://www.factcheck.com instead of http://www.factcheck.org


In the current battle for the Presidency, a lot has been said about "flip-flop". First the Republicans accussed John Kerry of flip-flopping. Now the democrats say that President Bush is the one who has been flip-flopping. When does one flip-flop? Obviously, it happens when you are not sure of something. Ironically, when asked specifically about it (What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?) in the debate, both candidates evaded the question and instead accused each other of flip-flopping!


When significant decisions that impact millions of people across the globe have to be taken, its understandable that there might be a legitimate reason to flip-flop. In fact, it might be better to flip-flop and analyze the situation a little longer before coming to a decision. In President Bush's words, "Its hard!" Perhaps, if we hadn't been so sure about Iraq and instead flip-flopped a little we might not be in the mess we find ourselves in today?


In the summary, I think Mr. Cheney came across as tough, hard-assed and uncompromising while Mr. Edwards did appear a little light weight at times. I don't beleive that either side did enough damage to the other to impact public opinion or the race for that matter. In short, this debate will be forgotten by the time the second debate gets underway, which incidentally is in a couple of days.

Arundhati Roy's talk in the Bay Area

Arundhati Roy is clearly a crowd puller, especially in the bay area. By the time I got to know about the talk at UC Berkeley on 18, August 2004, the event was already sold out despite the $21 cost per ticket. However, I had the privilege of watching the recording of her talk on Booktv (C-Span II). (I think this was a talk she delivered in San Francisco and not the one at Berkeley). The event lasted about a 100 minutes in all including the speech and the Q&A.


Overall, the content of her speech was interesting and engaging. She read her speech from written text and her responses during the Q&A session were not necessarily as impressive or as insightful as her speech. Her strength clearly lies in writing than in speaking. She is brilliant in word play and has the ability to draw interesting parallels that most people can relate to. Some of the points I recall from the speech (I am writing this from memory and not from notes. Note taking is not my strength, unfortunately!):

• Terrorisim is the privitization of war! (I thought this was a nice way to present the idea)
• Extending her view that George Bush and John Kerry are not very different she drew an interesting parallel about two soaps (ivory coast and one other name I can't remember) both being products from P&G. "You'll have Bush without Bush if Kerry were elected". She said a similar situation exists in India --while she described the BJP as blatantly fascist, she said the Congress party's policies are not very different on most issues.
• The people of a country pay the price for the mistakes of their Govt. In Afghanistan, the people suffered because of the US attack instigated by the Taliban; In Iraq the people suffered because the US chose to get rid of Saddam; likewise the US people suffered the 9/11 attack because of the US govts policy in the middle east. The difference she pointed out was that barring the US where we have a democratically elected President (or so to speak as she pointed out tongue-in-cheek) the others are oppressive regimes. In short, people have been forced to suffer for no fault of theirs. The US population on the other hand, needs to feel responsible for its predicament and can't entirely blame its govt.
• She described Call Centers as an extension of racism. "Sure they are better off because of these jobs, but requiring people to work odd hours, pretend to be somebody they aren't (Rosy , Roxanne etc.), and speak with a fake accents, is a form of racism!".
• When asked about the US, she said she admires Americans and thinks that because the people here are far more well off than the rest of the world, the Americans can mobilize and make a difference to humanity as a whole by influencing the role of Govt. and the military establishment than people any other part of the world.
• She talked about the role of Big Media (how Afghanistan no longer gets press, and soon the same will happen to Iraq, The World Social Forum event held in Mumbai in Jan 2004 got no coverage whatsoever in the mainstream media in India despite the huge turnout. btw, if you care to learn more about this vist the Independent Media Center etc.), the questionable motivation behind several NGOs (their source of funds etc.).
• On Iraq, she thought the US should withdraw and repatriate (and pay in $) the loss. She referred to the "thugerry of Cheney, Rumsfled and Wolfowitz" At one point, prior to saying something controversial she said, "If I have to go to jail, I would rather go to jail in India than here in the US"
• "Sarkar" (govt in hindi) and "public" ("this is now a hindi word used extensively to refer to the people") -- she referred to these at various points in the speech. She said that it was important that everyone understand that sarkar is the servant of the public and are not kings! She described her moving experience of an entire village in the Narmada destroyed by its own people. Apparently, the people in this village were forcibly relocated by the Govt. to less than acceptable new housing in a different area in return for destroying their existing homes.
• She dodged a question about more fiction writing by her or simply forgot to respond to it because the "mc" combined too many questions together.

Immediately following Ms. Roy's speech, one of the folks on the stage innocently said to the camera man, "Can we find out from the camera man if its ok if we did it on the table!" (he was referring to the fact that Ms. Roy was back on the chair after the speech and if it might be ok for her to answer questions while she is seated!" (the guy was embarrassed as soon as the crowd was roaring with laughter at the snafu!).

Overall, I enjoyed the C-Span telecast. Besides, I can't complain having saved myself a painful drive in traffic, plus the certain frustration of finding parking in Berkeley, and the $21 entry fee.