GM - Government Motors

I have been passionate about automobiles since I was a kid. With a special interest in vibration and dynamics, I landed six years ago in US to do a MS at Penn State which had close ties with "The Big3" in Detroit. I even overlooked a Fellowship offer from Ohio State to take up a Research Assistant offer at Penn State as I thought the latter would provide me best access to my career industry. Six years ago, I was dejected that I couldn't make it to Detroit. But after observing the automobile industry over the last few years, I am glad that my dream never came true!

On Monday, June 3rd, GM officially declared bankruptcy and in effect may have ended the glorious reign of one of the most popular companies worldwide. Kept alive on life support by the government for last few months, GM finally succumbed to the inevitable. It was unfortunate to see a company, which at one point held 46% of US market share, fold so abruptly. As it stands today about 3/4th of GM is now owned by the governments of US and Canada. It is the irony of Capitalism that allows paupers to become kings overnight and vice-versa. For almost a century, the US economy's crown jewels were the two Generals - General Motors and General Electric. With GM almost wiped out and GE stock flirting $6 few months ago, this might be the perfect time for a change in Guard. Welcome ExxonMobil & Walmart?

3 months from now, GM might still emerge strong, albeit leaner, from bankruptcy. It would however remain only a shadow of its prestigious past. It would be a miracle for this company to reach its glory days of mid 1950's. More importantly it would have to learn to compete with global market but not just the V8 savvy local truck markets. American car companies need to realize that cars (and trucks) cannot be sold on Patriotism alone. Patronizing the customers with advertisements like "This is my country", "American Revolution" etc can only get so much incremental revenues.

Some believe that cars would soon become a commodity. Just like the US no longer manufactures Televisions or Computers, similarly all cars would soon be made in India or China and probably assembled in Japan. The nice ones might still come from Italy and Germany, but most of the non-luxury, regular performance cars will come out of third world countries. In some ways this theory feeds on to the general trend that most manufacturing jobs will eventually gobbled up by developing economies. A few years ago, a person would have been ridiculed for suggesting that someday Jaguar would be owned by Tata and Hummer by a Chinese company. And its not surprising that the only profitable centers of GM today are GM Brazil, GM India and GM China!!

For over a century the American lifestyle has been defined by cars. The largest market in the world fed the automotive industry worldwide and at the same time employed millions at home. Its hard to imagine a similar scale of employment in this industry at home to continue any further. The only path forward for the US car companies would be to innovate and differentiate. I think that this might be the perfect time for the US to dump all its V8s and invest everything into electric cars. There is a whole new market to be tapped into and the country which jumps into it first will rule the industry worldwide for most of this century. Tesla anyone?

Economy

Its been over 5 quarters since the economy started its downward journey. A novice investor, I chose to invest my money at a very wrong time - Jan 2008. Having seen 50% of my direct stock investments evaporate, I have been following the market very closely. Economy rules the conversation whether it be TV or online forums or coffee shops. Last week, when I called my parents in India, even my grandmother struck a 2 minute conversation with me about the economy. She is 70 and she doesn't watch TV nor read newspaper! Although I have had strong feelings about the situation, I realized that I have not dedicated a single blog towards this Mega Disaster. So here it goes....

Growing up in India, I learnt the value of saving money. My dad rented our apartment for 39 years, and only on retiring did he use his lifelong savings to buy a house. People used the same philosophy to buy cars - save enough money and then pay in full. The concept of buying a house with only 10% down payment (or sometimes even less!) was thus very alien to me when I landed in US. Similarly, when I moved to LA, I got a big shock when I saw everyone in the city driving BMW & Mercedes. I thought people here are very rich, and without doubt they are definitely the richest in this country, but I soon found out that many just lived beyond their means. For $399 a month it was not difficult to lease a 3 series BMW. Why bother saving and buying, when you can finance and lease?

I found this credit driven economy fascinating. You could easily live 10 times richer than you would normally live, by borrowing. You can buy flat screen TVs, laptops, houses, cars, everything other than your family with borrowed money. You can use multiple credit cards and have a credit limit of $40,000 a month when you earn $4,000 a month! As the country's deficit continued to increase China, Germany and the rest of the world bought US bonds and financed this scheme. Surprisingly, this scheme worked very well. There were Harvard grad MBA's on wall street designing really complex models and keeping the economy steaming ahead. People kept getting richer and corporations kept making record profits. For the first 9 months last year, ExxonMobil made a net profit in excess of $1,500 per second!

The events of past year have left many questioning whether this was the greatest Ponzi scheme ever. Were people in this country really rich or were they were just made to believe so? I will leave the fine economists at various Ivy league schools to ponder over this conundrum. The recession has definitely showed that US economy rules the world and the world is definitely more closely connected than we imagine. Think it this way - A regression model devised by few high IQ individuals in Wall St caused such upheavals that even my 70 year old grandma sitting 10,000 miles away is concerned for me. But for now, the pain is real, the job loss, the loss of 401 K wealth, foreclosures etc is terrible. With recovery not foreseen in 2009, I hope early 2010 gets better news. 2008 has definitely been a historic year and when we are old, we all can reflect on the events and pass fiscal wisdom to our grandkids.

This is a historic year for US in other ways too. The country is now commanded by a resolute leader, one of finest orators amongst contemporary politicians and someone who easily has the potential to become the greatest president of all time. President Obama's great ideas in the field of Energy, Education, Healthcare and Foreign policy stands in stark contrast to the previous administrations single pronged agenda of bombing all Islam nations. This country has only a short date of 8 years with this President, and unfortunately this tottering economy is threatening to consume most of it.

Presidential Farce 2008

Many posts ago, I had mentioned an analogy between election campaigns and advertisements
"....Sometimes I feel that the outcome is purely driven by the campaign rather than any agenda or ideology. The GOP is like Coke (Red), while the Dems are like Pepsi (Blue). Around 90% of people already have a preference for Coke or Pepsi. The remainder seemed to shift their liking based on whose commercials they like the most. This is not politics....this is pure marketing !! And since this 10% is ultimately the decider of the outcome, only a solid marketing plan could lead to success."

Since beginning of this year, the media has been bombarding information about presidential hopefuls forming exploratory committee and then raising funds through banquets and charities. As it stands today, a whooping $250+ mn has already been raised, and we are more than a year away from the D-day. Its easy to forget the amount of time, effort and resource wasted in acquiring this staggering amount of money and the equivalent amount of resources spent on utilising it to unleash a campaign. The media is so consumed in highlighting this fact, that no one cares that the country is ruled by a president having less than 35% approval ratings as Iraq continues to turn into another Vietnam

Let analyse the ludicrity of the current system with a simple example. I am Hillary Clinton and I live in the state of NY. I have great friends in Washington, and my husband is fairly well-known. Thus, it doesnt take me much effort to raise $60 mn in 6 months. On the other hand you are Mr. Mike Gravel, senator from Alaska, a state whose population is less than that of Brooklyn and a state whom many kids easily forget to be part of america. You have no friends in DC, and your spouse is not very well-known. Hence you are able to raise only $250,000 this year. Given this assumption, I (Hillary) have had enough funds & staff to travel to Davenport, Iowa 7 times in last 6 months, while you Mr. Gravel have had none. Now for young adults toiling in cornfields in remote suburbs of Iowa, on the election day it is a very easy decision on whom to vote. They obviously vote for me, casue they have never even heard of Mr. Gravel. It didn't matter who is a better candidate or what the candidates actually stood for...All that mattered at the end of the day was who campaigned better, who made his/her face more visible.

Now, I, Hillary Clinton have finally become the president of the country due to gullible voters swearing allegiance to me, only because I made them 7 visits while my opponents made none. But does this mean, that I repay your faith by standing up to things that mattered to you. Nope, cause I have my loyalaties directed somewhere else - my donors. The same guys who gave me $50 mn and made it possible to make road-trips to every village and parish in the country....and to their ulterior motives will I pander, when I take the oath and move into the white house with my hubby!

In an ideal campaign, all presidential hopefuls should be allowed to raise a fixed amount of funds and should be given a fixed amount of time to campaign. Lets say everyone gets only $5 mn to spend in 6 weeks before the elections. This would ensure that everyone gets the same amount of airtime & publicity. Under this system, all candidates will be analysed under the same microscope and the electorate would actually get an opportunity to appreciate the subtle nuances in their view points rather than following Mitt Romney's kids on a bike trail through state of Iowa.

As much as Youtube has been praised as the next breakthrough in the information age, I am utterly distressed at the colossal waste of time and effort it has caused on this campaign trail. Come on people, there are more important issues this elections than watching videos of Obama's girl clash Guillani's girl on Youtube. The media, as usual, is obsessed with the election trail, and it is never easy to sift the fact from the fiction. As John Mayer aptly puts in his brilliant song 'waiting on the world to change'

" and when you trust your television
what you get is what you got
cause when they own the information, oh
they can bend it all they want

that's why we're waiting
waiting on the world to change......."

The Centrist

Growing up, I did not care much for politics. India always had a multi-party system and incumbency and people's fickle mindedness always made sure that all the parties got their share of power. Besides, due to the divisive nature of mandate in most cases, smaller parties could benefit from floor trading and ultimately decide which party governs the country. During my adolscent age, BJP and Congress were the 2 big parties. I did not like BJP for some of their extreme right wing views and their association with VHP, Hindutva etc. On the other hand, the Congress was always pandering to Gandhi family, and seemed bereft of a powerful leadership. I was under the opinion that given BJP's alliance and strong leadership, they would drift towards the centre while the Congress laden with communist parties would shift far left. Hence I started supporting the BJP primarily because I sided with some of their fiscally conservative initiatives.

Coming to US, I got the real taste of a bi-party left-right politics. I never favored the current republican party from the outset, given their hegemonic attitude towards other nations and raking votes basis people's fear of terror. The current president might be a great politician but I never thought of him as a charismatic ruler, in the lines of his predecessor. Capitalism was taken to new heights with hefty tax cuts for corporations and approval to major mergers. Lobbying plays a major part in this country, but I think some of the antics of this party even jumps the realms of what is acceptable.

Living in California, one is exposed to a very liberal mindset. The rules are progressive - the government thinks greener and taxes your fuel heavily, the emission norms are stricter, worker benefits are higher etc. Then their rules which fund stem cell research, green initiatives, higher minimum wage etc. I got a taste for the liberal nature, when I entered a grocery store for the first time and found a whole aisle for alcohol. This was definitely a huge change from Pennsylvania where in most places you can't buy beer after 9:00 and some places you can't even buy more than a 12 pack at a time !! I found a lot of people to be more outgoing, more aware of world outside and in general very progressive in their thought process.

I always thought of myself as a centrist till I moved to Texas. I finally realised that in this country, currently atleast, the right is so far out right, that even a centrist view like mine seems a leftist view. Infact if you hold a purely leftist view you might almost be considered a communist!! In a city run by oil companies, its no wonder that people dont give a damn about the current oil crisis or environmental concerns. . When it comes to religious beliefs, I am more of an agnostic or in most cases a very light thiest - someone who doesnt care much about religion. But in Texas, church plays an important part of everyone's life. This is good, but I get scared when I hear or see the fanatic side of the religion. Given its pro-gun stance and avid detest for gay & abortion rights, places in South definitely seemed to be very different in comparison with cities like New York, Los Angeles & San Francisco.

Most cities in the country are liberal, but I might have to say this might not be true for some of the cities in the south. One thing which always surprised me is that although most of the cities are liberal, the rural areas are always conservative. Similarly both the east coast and west coast in many ways is liberal, whereas the central portion of the country is pretty conservative. Also student towns i.e. people of that demographic are typically liberal in their mindset. Political views are generally not influenced by education or occupation, then why is there such a clear demarcation ?

Dems Win

Finally, the hoopla surrounding the mid-term elections has come to an end. The democrats savored an overdue victory as they gained control of both the house and the senate. In the end, Sen Allen of Virginia seemed to have paid a big price for his racist use of term Maccaca, and might as well have caused the GOP control of the senate.

It remains to see how powerful the current president would be without the support of both the houses. To me, this seemed like a 2 year deadlock wherein no laws could be passed by the current government. I tried to fathom this predicament of the US constitution wherein the party in power doesn't enjoy a majority in the houses - something which is directly opposed to the British/Indian system of government. The arguement put forth by some colleagues was that this would ensure that the government would stop furthering personal agendas while concentrating on popular issues acceptable to both ideologies. This philosophy, thus has the potential of creating good governace.

I have never like the current government, but nor am I far left liberal. For some reason I always associate hard left stances with tree hugging wusses. On the other hand a far right position conjures an image of super religious, wealth worshipping, incompassionate guy in my mind. I think there is always a middle ground which could be successfully tread, as exemplified by the Governator - Arnold. Despite being a republican he has successfully managed to retain his power in the most democratic state in the country, California.

When Bush won the presedential election in 2004 on the back of what was popularly called as 'gods, guns and gays', I was shocked. Despite the gross mistake of venturing into Iraq without any solid evidence and costing the nation $200 bn, he managed to win the election. Although Kerry was not a formidable opponent, I still could not come to terms with the fact that a highly educated electorate would make such a decision. But I guess, education plays no role in shaping people's ideology. Education might eradicate blind faith, but it also equips induviduals with smarter arguements to further their cause. On a tangent, I think that the arguement that if people in Bihar were educated, they would not vote for Laloo is fallible.

However, the best thing that happened since yesterday is that there no more campaign advertisements on the television. For weeks, regulars shows were interrupted by mud slinging commercials on different candidates and propositions. Sometimes I feel that the outcome is purely driven by the campaign rather than any agenda or ideology. The GOP is like Coke (Red), while the Dems are like Pepsi (Blue). Around 80% of people already have a preference for Coke or Pepsi. The remainder seemed to shift their liking based on whose commercials they liked the most. This is not politics....this is pure marketing !! And since this 20% is ultimately the decider of the outcome, only a solid marketing plan could lead to success.

War & Qana

54 civilians, including 34 children, were wiped out on Sunday by an Israeli strike on a residential building in the city of Qana. The war in its 20th day has already claimed more than 700 Lebanese life, most amongst them are reported to be civilians. Israel, on the other hand, has suffered much lesser amount of casualities, but innocent civilians in both the countries have paid a heavy toll, neverthless.

When Israel leaped into the war, there were many who defended their actions. Notably, US which is backed by a strong jewish lobby and which has always favored Israel over its struggle against the arabs, agreed with the Israeli military action. It didn't matter if the Israelis destroyed the International airport, or the highways, or the ports - it was all a matter of "self defense". Lebanon has, literally, been set back by atleast 20 years due to the destruction and war has only started on the ground.

Its true that Hezbollah is a gruesome terrorist organisation and such outfits must be disarmed and routed. But is war the only solution or can war ever be a solution ? Its easy to claim that you cannot eliminate civilian casualities in a war, but try telling that to the widowed lady who lost the sole bread winner of the family or the kids who became orphan for no fault of theirs or their parents. The 34 kids who lost lives in Qana would never know why their lives were so short lived ? In a war, both the warring factions are loser. There is never a winner. When the war ends, hopefully at the earliest, Israel might look back smugly at the fact that they have dismembered a radical organisation that has inflicted a heavy civilian casualities in northern Israel. But I think that feeling would be fleeting, cause such belligerent actions would only end up converting the moderate arabs into hardliners and give rise to many such fundamentalist groups. As it stands, I see no solution in the middle east. War is certainly not the solution, but at the same time I think diplomacy and gumption have failed miserably too.

The UN, as always, is toothless. I expected sterner action from UN, after the Israel attack on a UN surveillance unit where 4 UN observers were killed, but the UN continued with its innocuous diplomacy. I guess the UN can only be as strong as the 5 powerful nations want it to be, and with one of the them not totally against the war, the UN is powerless as usual. The UN might ultimately help rebuild the middle east, but it could probably have saved itself the task by not allowing the mayhem to happen in the first place. Israel has set a brilliant example for all nations in the world, to go wage a war against any country which houses a terrorist organisation that threatens them. A perfect recipe for future chaos, an example for all to use reckless abandon in dealing with your neighbour and show complete disregard for international opinion.

Finally, I wonder what the two abducted Israeli soldiers might be thinking, if they are still alive . Approximately 1000 innocent lives have been lost, for their two lives. I know, lives cannot be explained with mathematical equations, but I still wonder what is the thought process they are undergoing as they lay down to sleep?

Fact Check

For 12 days now, there has been one and only one news dominating the US media - "Crisis in the Middle East". The latest count puts the death toll close to 300. At the same time that the war was happening, over 200 lives were lost in Mumbai blast, more than 700 people died in Indonesia Tsunami, more than 500 people were killed in a typhoon in China, and on an average 50 people died everyday in car bomb in Iraq. Th Chineese typhoon, in particular, has gone totally unnoticed and I was surprised that most of the people I talked to were not even aware of this tragedy. News of 4 people dying in Philadelphia due to heat wave got twice as much coverage as most of the other news. Depending on what you see and read, the biggest news last week could have either been the crisis in the middle east or Bush using "expletive" while talking to Blair or the "terrible" heat wave in US and western Europe or the Mumbai blast or Floyd Landis making a remarkable come back in the tour de france.

Is our world, restricted to the Media around us or is Media around us serving us the world we want to know ? The latter could be true if we can be sure that the Media is not controlled by the government of political bigwigs or wealthy industrialists. If we start with the assumption that most form of Media is controlled by a chosen few, then it implies that a chosen few control the world we see and hear about.

Its true that we are not forced to subscribe to a particular newspaper or watch a particular channel. A rational person would gather his information from different sources and draw his conclusion. But the underlying assumption here is that the facts he gathers from these sources are accurate. There are some facts that is universal, its potrayed by all and sundry, and we can safely assume that they are correct. But then there always facts which are reported only in a certain section of media, to propogate their point of view. Given these, how do we sift between fact and fiction ?

Sometimes it feels like all of us are participants of a huge "Truman Show". Our opinions on issues are only restricted to what we see and hear. It would be an interesting experiment to raise two identical twins by exposing them to two totally different kinds of media. For example, one kid could be raised on Fox Channel, and one on MSNBC. I am sure this would lead to the first instance of a staunch liberal and a hard core conservative living under the same roof. So is there a neutral media ? A media which covers news from all angle, which is fair, and reports the cold hard facts. They are many out there, who make the above claims, unfortunately there is none who translate those claims into deeds.

The Mumbai Blast

The morning after the tragedy, things returned to normalcy. The kids beamed smiling faces
as they splashed on water puddles on their way to school, the postman ran his daily routes
on his bicycle, and commuters packed Churchgate station to catch the 5:54 pm Borivali Fast
local. The city known for its resilence, woke up stoically, and edged back to normalcy in
the wake of the aftermath. But things would never be the same again for the friends and
family of the 200 people who lost their lives on their routine commute back home. A
cruel blow was dealt to these fun loving hard working innocent Mumbaikars.

I have a lot of mixed emotions from my time travelling in the local trains in Mumbai. As a kid, I remember standing close to the windows and peeping out. I would read out and memorise the name of each station, and come home to enact the whole journey with friends. As I grew up, I always wanted to emulate people who hang out of the doors while the train was moving - it seemed like a cool thing to do. However, things weren't this simple when I started commuting to college. I had to get used to the crowd on a daily basis, and boarding a fast local from platform # 4 in Dadar seemed like a herculean task. Often times, while boarding with friends, we would compete to see who can enter the train first. There were times when I would get really frustrated cause the trains would run late, and then there were times when I was on a empty fast train which rushed through smaller stations without stopping, and I would smirk at bystanders on the platform. For anyone who has grown up in Mumbai, the suburban locals form an integral part of their life, and it is really hard for people to digest that someone could make such a vicious attempt to disrupt their "lifeline". But given the circumstances, people are helpless and it was no surprise that most of the trains ran to their full capacity, a day after the tragedy.

Nowadays, its very common to read about terrorist attacks in different parts of the world. Add to this, the insurgent and rebel attacks all over the world and its very easy to get desensitised to such atrocities. And desensitised we are, till something hits close to our home and heart. Its only then do we start taking notice of them, and reflect on our good fortune. I had to bear a few anxious moments in the morning as I frantically tried dialing home, to check up on family and friends. Fortunately, everyone I knew was safe, but not everyone came out of the attack unscathed and my heart pours to all those people who are having a silent dinner tonite in the absence of their loved one. Their grief is certainly beyond words and description and I only wish that they be endowed with enough courage to pull themselves through this horrific ordeal.

Sometimes I think life was more peaceful during the times of Cavemen. If I were a Caveman,
the only reason I would get attacked by another Caveman would be if I cheated with his wife,
or took away the boar he had hunted. If I didn't harm him, then harm stayed out of my way.
But in today's world, it seems like the bulk of terrorists and rebels wrath falls upon the innocent, defenseless public. People suffer brutal death for absolutely no fault of theirs.....and we call ourselves a civilised version of the Caveman ?

The Lost Nation

About a week ago, I had been to a Major League Soccer game featuring the LA galaxy & DC united. During the half time, there was an announcement on the public system that Mexico trounced Iran 3-1 in their opening world cup 2006 encounter. This address was greeted by a rapturous applause from the audience. Once the noise subsided, the speakers blared the announcement that USA takes on Czech in their first game at 9:00 am tomorrow morning. One might have expected this news to be received with a louder cheer, but to my surprise the applause was not even a tenth as strong as the former. Inspite of the fact that the city of Los Angeles has almost 1/3rd of its population of Hispanic descent and probably more than 70% of its soccer fans belong to this ethnic group, the above incident shocked me.

....and then I tried imagining what I would have felt if I were a citizen of this country (not a naturalised one, but someone born & raised here). Or for that matter how would I react if Bangladesh received a bigger cheer than India in Wankhede stadium during a Ranji Trophy game ? I am probably comparing apples to oranges here, as USA is very different from India, as the former in essence is a land of immigrants, whereas the latter bears no such attributes. But this fact still unsettled me.

There is a theory that the most progressive countries are the one whose citizens are most patriotic. Japan is often cited as an example to this rule. But then, how come a country like USA, which probably boasts of least patriotic population as a whole be a superpower ? Is patriotism essential to a country at all or pure economics can drive a country to riches ?

Also what differentiates loyalty to a country from allegiance to a city ? I have been in LA, for less than a year, but I have vociferously supported Clippers, Lakers, Kings, Dodgers and the Galaxies whenever I have seen them in action in the stadium or in a bar or my living room. However, after living in this country for close to 3 years, I still didn't feel like supporting USA against Italy last weekend in their world cup soccer 2006 encounter. For that matter I dont support team USA is any sport. Likewise I know a lot of friends who would willingly vouch for Penn State in any college sports inspite of being a student for only a year or two. But such things never happen when it comes to the country(USA in this case). What makes us join hand in hand with students of a school or residents of a city to support the local teams, but at the same time withdraw when it comes to the Nation to which these clubs and schools belong? Or is it because there can be multiple cities, clubs, schools but one and only one NATION?

49.5%

While India Inc is making giant strides towards deeming itself as an economic superpower, the Government of India has decided to take one giant leap backwards, socially. The legislation to increase the reservation for backward classes to 49.5% would be up for debate on the floor during the monsoon session of the parliament, which in any case is merely a formality, given the backing it has recieved from the power hungry politicians. So from the academic year 2007, half the seats in most of the central goverment regulated universities would be filled based on quota and not merit. The IITs and the IIMs which for decades have served as the benchmark for nurturing the cream of the country won't be spared either. What a shame !!

Its true, that people from backward classes constitute more than 50% of the Indian population, and some might claim that they are only getting their fair share. But then why restrict only to OBC's. The ratio of high shool grads to the total population is least for the community of Muslims. So why not start a reservation for minorities like Muslims, Christians, Parsis too. After all, this seems more in line with some of the affirmative action policies found in the US, where Native Indians, African Americans receive a share of reservation in many universities.

The arguement put forth by the government seems fine, if most of these reserved seats are occupied by OBC's who come from a poor, oppressed background. But from my personal experiences I have seen the best seats are hogged by those who actually come from a financially sound background, but have the tag of OBC attached because their great grand father was oppressed. I have seen people much richer than my dad ending up paying a pittance for fees and scraping with grades at the bottom of the class, while I would slave to beat the stiff competition.

Some claim that the financial background should be the sole criteria for reservation. However, I do not completely agree with this as a child born to illiterate parents in a rich family is probably not on par with a relatively poorer kid from a well literate background. Probably, a better system might be to limit reservation to a single generation of a family only. For example, if your parents made use of it to educate themselves and attain their career goals, you should not be given access to it. Again, this system is not foolproof or convincing as there would be controversy over what educational level of the parent would disqualify the kid from the reservation.

But, the best solution of all is to strengthen the primary and secondary school to educate the backward classes so that they are on a level ground with students from open category while competing for higher education. The financial shortcoming could still be overcome with subsidised fees, but merit shall not be compromised. Instead, the current system tries to mold professionals out of students who havent received a solid educational background, resulting in tall qualifications with shallow foundations.

We claim that our society is just and equitable, and we shall always stive to create equal opportunites for all. Its a shame that we have to resort to such a quota based reservation system to attain that goal. And 60 years after independence, instead of rooting out the caste system, politicians are making further attempts to firmly implant it. But then again, I am an armchair theorist typing from 12000 miles away from home and can only play with words. The real heroes are the numerous striking students nationwide who raised their voice in unision to combat this divisive law. May common sense prevail !

ps: Thapar unmasks Arjun Singh's ignorance . ...and these are the inept leaders leading us into 21st century ! (courtesy Anarkist)

Immigrant Nation

Last week, President Bush outlined his plan to deal with illegal immigrants. On the most vital issue of granting amnesty vis a vis deportation, he claimed that he would tread a middle ground, wherein illegal immigrants won't be granted automatic citizenship, but rather will have to wait in line along with others and pay penalty in terms of taxes and learn english. If paying taxes and learning English were a penalty, then I guess lawful immigrants and citizens of this nation have been burdened with this penalty for years. And if illegal immigrants have to wait in the same line as the legal immigrants to obtain citizenship, then what is the reward for those who legally enter the country or should I say what is a deterrent for those who don't ? If this is not amnesty, then I probably don't use the same dictionary as the president.

Living in Los Angeles, a city with close to 30 percent of its population of Hispanic descent, and where more than 500,000 people marched downtown to protest the immigrant reform, it's hard not to ponder or converse this issue everyday. I dont have even an iota of doubt that the city of Angels would come to a screeching halt in the absence of illegal immigrants. I have met numerous people who at sometime or the other have hired an illegal person to trim their hedge or retile their bathroom. And why would't you ? It makes economic sense, and it seems like a really minor infringement of the law, if any !

Deportation and criminilisation of the illegals would have an adverse effect on the economics, and that probably was ruled out by economists much before the politicians realised it. On the other hand by granting them citizenship, you are being unfair to those who enter this country legally and pay taxes .

Some claim that the guest worker program might be a solution to this problem. But then, would the guest worker program qualify only to Mexicans ? And if it qualifies to other nations, why wouldn't China & India fill it up ? And if it gets filled up by other nations, why wouldn't people across the border who were deprived of it, jump the fence ? Building the fence and increase the border patrol might be a solution, but then protesters claim that it's impossible to patrol 2000+ miles of border and it increases the strain on the taxpayer.

I saw a documentary today on CNN, which talks about a real estate agent from Atlanta who hates the illegal immigrants and is an active proponent of the immigration reform, but at the same time earns his living by selling houses built by them. Often, when you talk to people regarding a controversial issue, they have a firm stance on it, irrespective of whether their right or wrong. However, the problem of immigration is highly involved, and its riddled with so many contradictions, that no one seems to have an effective solution. The dilemma was best brought out by Ann Coulter on Bill O'Reilly's show where she jokingly remarked that the US-Mexico border can be built only with the help of Illegal immigrants !

Creating Chaos

How difficult is it to kill 20 people, torch 10 buildings, topple governments, and create pandemonium all around the world ? Apparently, it's as easy as drawing a cartoon. If you don't believe me, just ask the two employees of Jyllands-Posten, the danish newspaper that's creating headlines in dailies all over the world.

It all started when the Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammad in a rather "humorous fashion". The first print was greeted by a very civilised protest by the Muslim ambassadors to the Danish PM. However, a subsequent reprint, by the Danish, and then by the French, German, Spanish and Italian daily has jolted the world in a way none of the editors could have imagined. The uproar spread like a wild fire amongst most of the Muslim dominated countries.

What started as a peaceful street protest has taken a very ugly and violent turn. 13 protesters in Afghanistan alone were killed in a rally. Scores of Danish flags have been torched, Danish embassies attacked. Other European embassies also had to face fire. Protests reached the www as more than 100 Danish websites have been hacked. The latest, Denmark is advising all Danes to leave Indonesia as their life may be under a threat.

In a world composed of hundreds of religions, we must learn to be tolerant towards other religious faiths. Its true, that some religions seem to possess more hardliners and fanatics than others, but that doesnt give us any right to mock their rigid stance. It's beyond doubt that the European dailies have only themselves to blame for raking the wrath they are facing from the muslim world and they sure do owe all a apology.

But that in no way justifies the scale of the protest. In a civilised world of today, such actions are totally unwarranted. In most cases these protests are run by a few fanatics whose sole aim is to divide and rule. In my opinion the protests have further widened the chasm and increased the hatred between the involved religions. Its a shame how a few protesting maniacs could have such a large impact. I always used to think that illiteracy is the root of all problems, but I think in most cases educated people are more rigid and intolerant in their views, cause they believe they know it all.

I would like to join all the Doomsday theorists in predicting that the next big destruction of the world wont be wrought by a "Little Boy" or a "Fat Man", but a few over caffeinated editors displaying their ignorance and a few hardliners brandishing their fanaticism. Cheers to this great civilisation !

Desi Media

Living in US, the only way to access news from back home, is through the various popular Indian websites. Some of the websites that I frequent are Indian Express, Rediff, TOI, Economic Times, NDTV & Hindu. Some of the international websites that I visit regularly are CNN, BBC, NY Times, LA Times, and I can't help noticing the stark differences amongst these websites.The international ones look really professional, and they focus on exhaustive information on the latest developments. Barring NDTV, and to some degree Hindu, I have been thoroughly disappointed with the other Indian websites.

Times Of India believes in attracting its readers through skimpily clad damsels. Mallika Sherawat is featured atleast once a week, and the pictures of International Models perpetually line up their front page. Their front page is not complete without 2 raunchy articles on sex life of some celebrity, with wild headlines screaming, "Britney is animal on bed", or "Ashton not satisfied by Moore" etc. India Times, is more like a soft porn website, which lures people into registering with them just to watch all the skin they have to offer on their website. By the way, I totally forgot to mention the 5-6 different popups that one encounters while navigating through these websites.

Rediff, is only slightly better, as it compensates for lack of sleaze, through its numerous annoying advertisements. The website seems like it was developed by a high school student dabbling with FrontPage for the first time. There are numerous annoying advertisements on matrimony, as if that is the only concern of all Non Resident Indians. Rediff India is only slightly better than Rediff USA. A lot of times the headlines make no sense at all. For eg "Who are the real Dalits of India?", "Sharukh sharif admi hain!" etc. Economic times thinks that the only Indians outside India are software junkies. Their headlines scream, "Techie wife says, she is bored" (I am not creating headlines here, this did appear on one of their issues)

Websites like NDTV, Indian Express seem to have good news coverage and refrain from appealing to the baser instinct of its readers, but again, their websites are not devoid of those cheap flash advertisements and pop-ups. It really surprises me that a nation whose citizens comprise 10% of workforce of Microsoft, and occupy top positions in all highly tauted Silicon valley companies, a nation which probably possesses the best software developers in the world is incapable of having one professional and dedicated news site for its citizens. I might have made a really sweeping statement, but show me one Indian news website which can match BBC, and I shall retract my statement.

On a different note, TOI had the more hits than any other Indian website in 2004 - Is this an indication of what Indians really like to read on web ?

Age of Walmart

On my first visit to Walmart, I was totally awestruck by the size of the supercentre, which occupied an area of approximately 2 soccer fields. I saw people carrying toothpastes, camping tents, clothes, fruits, guns, TV's, dog food etc. Infact, when I saw a couple push a trolley with a small kid in it, I asked my friend, "Do they sell kids too ?". I shall reserve a serious discussion on this topic to one of my 3023 A.D post. I made sure I followed my friend closely through all the aisles, lest I get lost in this strange place.

For a city with a population of only 100,000, State College had 2 big walmarts, which meant that these stores were never really crowded, though saturday and sunday afternoons were a bit different. On the other hand, there are 20 Walmarts for a population of 17 million people in Los Angeles county. The ratio of people per Walmart is 20 times more than what it was in Pennsylvania. On my limited trips to this superstore in Northern LA, I have noticed this difference in ratios. The stores are choc-a-bloc with people, the aisles are clogged, the check out counters run long, the cheapest items are all sold out, and the parking lots are overflowing with cars.There are kids running all over the place, and the generally cordial associates seemed overstressed and understaffed, and the whole experience of shopping at the store seemed a trifle painful.

With Walmart expressing interest in opening stores in India, I start wondering whether there would be similar scenes inside these stores in India, if not worse - Parents admonishing their squabbling children, frustrated people lining up at a counter where an elderly couple is holding up the line due to price check on a trivial item, people haggling at the customer service dept cause they wouldn't accept a returned item etc.... and I started thinking what Walmart would do the India markets. Firstly, Walmart has been a huge success in USA due its ability to sell cheap goods produced in Asia. This formula will, however, not hold good for the Indian markets. But a corporation like Walmart doesnt mind raking up losses, to beat all the local competitors. The technique of lowering prices, and bearing losses to beat local competition has been very successfully implemented by leading dailies like Indian Express & TOI in small cities.

The more successful you are at a particular thing, the more susceptible you are to criticism. Walmart has faced its own share of litigations and lawsuits. Walmart has been alleged of depriving its workers of any benefits, while paying a measly 5-6$ an hour. There has also been cases of hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants. There have been lawsuits over racial & sexual discrimination. I know a lot of people who have stopped shopping at this giant cause they dont consider the company to be ethical. On the other hand I have also heard great stories about Sam Walton and his first store in Bentonville, AK. I have heard tales of how he coined the term "associates" for all the employees and how the company cared for its employees. I am in the process of researching more facts about the company, and shall refraing from making anymore haphazard comments.

The whole idea of the post was to write about feasibility of Walmart in India, but I seem to have drifted a lot, and thus I shall stop.

ps: There is going to be a long hiatus in my blogging activity, as my parents are coming to Los Angeles, and I shall don the hat of a California tourist guide for a month......