Ray Mathoda: Politics

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Contrarian View: Tough Times All Around Will Raise America’s Reputation Abroad

Most everyone knows that America is not very popular abroad right now, and hasn’t been for the past several years. Just ask any American who has travelled abroad recently. From Davos to Delhi, the general current perspective is that America is on the decline and other countries (such as China and India) will be the global leaders of tomorrow.

While I certainly agree that countries like India and China will continue to gain importance and power as their economic power increases to levels consistent with their massive populations, I disagree with this pessimistic view of the future of America.

I am an Indian born immigrant to America myself and based on what I’ve learned and seen of the world and America, I believe the American framework of life, liberty and opportunity is superior to the socio-economic frameworks in place most anywhere else.

The election of Barack Obama as US President is but one example of the beauty of the American framework....and this example is repeated daily, in ways small and big, by those who weren't born into money or power but who gain opportunity and success in America as a result purely of their hard work and smarts.

As the economic crisis works it's way around the world and once fast developing countries slow down and deal with the now-more-apparent weaknesses in their own social, economic and legal frameworks....I actually think America's reputation abroad will improve.

One Key Missing Piece: Early Thoughts on the Obama Plan for At-Risk Homeowners

I am pleased to see the Obama administration attempting – much more aggressively than the Bush administration ever did – to help (3-4 million) at-risk homeowners stay in their homes through a variety of loan modification initiatives and incentives which are designed to lower the at-risk homeowners’ payments to levels they can afford to sustain going forward. Creative and aggressive loan modifications are absolutely a critical part of any well designed foreclosure prevention and housing market stabilization program, and the Obama team’s plan included 2 additional elements I liked:

1. A clear stated definition of who the plan is not designed to help: Speculators. This is important because the American taxpayer cannot afford to help everyone, and everyone – particularly speculators – doesn’t deserve help. If anything, I wish the administration had made a further differentiation in treating homeowners who used their homes as a piggybank (by taking out cash and spending it) vs. those who didn’t (these latter borrowers are the most responsible group of at-risk homeowners)

2. Focus on a key practical issue – the lack of standardization (across Banks) on both the loan modification program guidelines (which the Obama plan says they will standardize) as well as documentation/forms (which I assume they will standardize consistent with the new standard guidelines). I cannot emphasize how important an issue this is and will continue to be from an execution standpoint. Just last week, I was in a discussion with a Los Angeles non-profit focused on foreclosure prevention, whose employees were telling me what a barrier to success it is to have different documentation requirements at each Bank.

I don’t know how well the programs the administration is trying to get implemented will work, but I know attempting this is absolutely the right thing to do…and if the administration and others involved in execution remain focused and flexible, they will learn and adapt from early experiences to re-design or enhance the programs to be most successful.

The above being said, I think the Obama plan as announced thus far fails to address what would happen to a critical, real and very large number of at-risk responsible borrowers: those that don’t qualify for a loan modification for their primary residence even under the expanded framework.

This set of borrowers would be particularly heavily concentrated in high cost regions such as California where I live, where the market (in the boom days) was heavily non-conforming and where as a result, refinance options will continue to be scarce despite the Obama plan. Also, there are just a lot of people, particularly from the financial services, real estate and mortgage industries who will just not make the kind of money they used to make during the boom days…anytime soon.

The right answer for these borrowers is not foreclosure; nor is it to keep them in homes they cannot afford anymore. We can and should help these borrowers avoid foreclosure and adapt their housing costs/reality to their new economic reality in a manner that is respectful and graceful – by aggressively implementing short sales programs that work (the short sales process currently practiced is broken and must be fixed).

In order to work, a short sale program must be systematic (just like loan modification programs are)…with clear guidelines, documentation requirements and approval/execution timeframes. Designed right, these programs save the Banks enough money (relative to the foreclosure option) that the Banks should be able to give the homeowner a helping hand (cash) to help them with their move and new rental.

And the best part? There’s no need for additional bailout money needed to “bridge the gap” and help prevent foreclosures even for those responsible homeowners that didn’t qualify for a loan modification or refinance.

Reconsidering my decision to tune into the Inauguration

The US Presidential Inauguration is this coming Tuesday…and it couldn’t come soon enough. It is clear that the problems facing the US and the world at large are very serious and we need vigorious action oriented leadership with the public’s confidence at the helm in this country ASAP.

So as we approach the Inauguration, and in light of President Elect Obama having invited gay bishop Gene Robinson to lead prayers at Sunday celebrations leading upto the Inauguration, I’m reconsidering my stand on whether I’m tuning into this historic occasion.

I still believe the selection of Rick Warren for the invocation at the inauguration was a poor one, in light of the major recent loss the LGBT community has suffered in California with the passage of Proposition 8 (and generally during the last 8 years with similar constitutional amendments having been passed in 30 states). But I am also practical enough to realize 2 things:

1.The LBGT community is hardly likely to part with the Democrats in favor of the Republican party anyone soon given the continuing strong influence of social conservatives over the Republican agenda and party. The Obama team clearly understood this and so from their standpoint and given their objectives, selecting Warren was likely seen as a relatively risk free method of bringing more political support to the table.
2.The country and the world has more pressing issues to be addressed right now, and we have to prioritize and pick our battles. In fact, the country (and President Elect Obama) need every capable individual on the ground pulling their weight and trying to drive the country forward in the right direction

So I decided I do want to participate in history….and am now planning to tune in.

I think all of us need to give our new President a chance to make an impact before judging him. In fact, some judgment errors are to be expected as the team moves forward and makes decisions. I would even go as far as to say if we don't see some (hopefully small) mistakes, it is a signal that our President and his team are not making decisions quickly enough.

Redefining the War on Terror

The Mumbai "terrorist" attacks are a clear message to President Elect Obama, us, and the rest of the world. The problems of the world aren't just economic....they are equally urgent, social and extend deeply into our homes and places of worship.

The Bombay attacks are highly symbolic in their location/s, organization-level and timing. And they hit home. I definitely feel the significance of these particular attacks personally. The violence was directed at the heart of India's financial system where my (our) friends hang out, my (our) colleagues stay when they visit India, and our companies establish offices when they enter the Indian market (the 5 star hotels Taj and Oberoi in Bombay have been the India office for many a blue chip multi-national corporation). The targeting of westerners by the attackers is particularly galling since it targets a big source of support and growth for India and it's democracy, philosophies and people. India is getting more integrated with the west and the global economy, and the attacks sought to strike at the core locations and symbols of this progress.

So what? Since change is in the air, here's the 2 key changes I'd like to see made immediately in our"war on terror":

1. Rename it in a way that reflects what it is. In some ways I think we have glorified what is really going on, by allowing this global problem to be named a "War on Terror" fought against Terrorists. Certainly the acts can and do bring terror into people's hearts. But why not (at least) try to take away this terrible power? There is clearly no moral equality in this war, and the battleground is people's minds and hearts (not a physical battlefield). The truth is these so called terrorists are generally pathetic (and often unlucky) losers perpetrating violence in the name of God. Calling their movement what it is will go a long way towards accelerating it's end, in my view...and also helping make it less and ultimately non-violent.

2. Acknowledge that this is not only about Islam and is truly global/multi-national. Violent Islamic fundamentalists are certainly creating massive problems worldwide, but the problems extend beyond Islam. In my (our) lifetime the forces of religious fundamentalism have risen dramatically across the globe in reaction to the forces of globalization, westernization and modernity....and many outside Islam are also perpetrating violence in the name of their God. Broadening the focus beyond Islam will, I think, help address it more quickly in Islam also...as it will remove the ego and pride barrier created by the perceptions of denouncing an entire (and majorly important and large) religion.

Equality for all: US Supreme Court Decision and Timing

I am a strong believer that civil rights issues should be resolved through the legal (not political) process and feel it is only a matter of time until the US Supreme Court strikes all the discrimination that has been "constitutionalized" during the last 8 Bush years on the issue of gay marriage (sadly, fully 30 states now "ban" gay marriage via their constitutions). I was feeling like a naive optimist after a conversation over brunch this past weekend, where a (clearly very smart) lawyer made a strong argument that the US Supreme court wouldn't do what I say it will...at least not for the next 20 years!

Then today I saw 2 key arguments/quotes that give me hope that every individual and family will have equal rights and equal protection under the law in the USA sometime soon (despite the recent and unfortunate voter approval of the discriminatory Proposition 8 in California):

I was reading a fascinating article on the Princeton alumni website today entitled: "Her husband bakes, Scalia sings: Ginsburg describes the lighter side of the Supreme Court". Here's a direct quote from the article:

As she examined a small booklet with the text of the Constitution, she described her "favorite provision:" the end of section one of the 14th Amendment. She read aloud from it. "... (N)or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You can click here for the full article: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/48/08A80/

Then, I saw an LA times opinion piece by Brian Gray, a Professor at UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, which draws a parallel between the arguments against Prop 8 and a decision made by the US Supreme Court on a Colorado proposition, which had (and I quote): 'barred the state and its political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any law "whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" are the basis of a claim of discrimination.'

Here's what happened on the Colorado issue (and I quote again):

"Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed."

Click here to read this fascinating LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gray17-2008nov17,0,1425883,print.story

How long do you think it'll be before all individuals, gay or not, have full equal rights in the USA?

The tyranny of the majority

On May 15th, 2008 the California Supreme Court made a historic decision. They ruled that it was a violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to not afford gay couples the right to marry – almost exactly the same ruling they had made in 1948 on inter-racial marriage (which was at the time not allowed in California). Between June 16th (the day gay wedding licenses started being issued) and November 4th, approximately 18,000 couples got married in California.

The evangelical right was having none of the above. They knew that if gay marriages were allowed to continue in California (a major cultural force in the USA, and a state with the 7th largest economy in the world)…it was only a matter of time before they would become be allowed nationallly. After all, this exact sequence had occurred on the issue of inter-racial marriage. 19 years after the 1948 California ruling noted above, in 1967 the US Supreme Court (in a famous decision Loving v. Virginia) made the same ruling thereby eliminating all barriers to interracial marriage in the USA.

So on November 4th just as racial discrimination was dealt a massive and perhaps final blow with the election of the first African-American President of the USA, Californians voted by a 52.5% to 47.5% majority to take away this fundamental right to marry from gay couples in the state. Ironically, the same voters made the correct decision to expand animal rights in California.

Anger and sadness have enveloped millions in California since Proposition 8 passed last week…and this issue is by no means settled. Here are the thoughts of one prominent Los Angeles lesbian and mother who is in a 22 year committed relationship. I should also mention she is Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development Policy for Los Angeles…working tirelessly to create more affordable housing for the poor and disadvantaged.ray

Yes we Can! Reflections on Gay Marriage in California

Helmi Hisserich, Deputy Mayor, Housing and Economic Development Policy

On November 4th, Gays and Lesbians were pushed to the back of the bus. The vote to change California's constitution to ban same sex marriage was an act of prejudice against a minority group and a vote for second class citizenship. It is a sad irony that happened on the same day
that America voted for our first African American President. But it is also a reminder that the fight against prejudice is long and painful.

For the past 173 days I have thought about the meaning of marriage almost every day. I am a lesbian who has been in a relationship for 22 years. My partner and I have been faithful to one another, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health for more than two decades, but we have never had a wedding. We have been registered domestic partners since the law first allowed it in 1998, but that is definitely not the same as marriage. On my paycheck, my taxpayer ID says "single".

On May 15th, 2008 when the moderate Republican Supreme Court said the California Constitution guaranteed the right of same sex couples to be married, a sense of acceptance and equality came over me that was so powerful it I felt it deep in my bones. My God, I do have the fundamental right to pursue happiness in marriage with the person I love. This is what it means to live in a free country, this is the meaning of equality. My gay and lesbian friends all talked about it, especially those of us who are in long term relationships. We all felt we were being protected and accorded dignity under the law. It felt amazing. Prejudice is funny that way, when it is removed you realize
how accustomed you have become to being treated with less respect you deserve.

The 173 days between the California Supreme Court decision and the November election were painful. For me, it felt like a walk to the gallows. I know good people who are awkward and uncomfortable about homosexuality. I knew the yes on 8 campaign was playing on peoples fears. It made me sick to think that people by referendum could vote to take my rights away. In California you can change the constitution with a simple majority vote, but you need a two third majority to raise sewer fees. What kind of justice is that?

On election night, I was at the Music Box theater in Hollywood, which was the rallying place for the No on Prop 8 campaign. When Barack Obama was elected president, the place went wild. People were cheering and crying. We all understood the importance of this election. Many of us had worked on the Obama campaign as well as the No on 8 Campaign; donating time and money to bring about change. For an hour we felt jubilant beyond measure. But then the reality hit that our friends and neighbors had voted to eliminate our constitutional right to marry. The happiness faded.

The day after the election, my daughter came home from 6th grade and told me kids were saying gays and lesbians are disgusting. She said she felt like people hated our family without knowing us. That is what prejudice is, I told her, judging people without knowing them. But 50 years ago a black person and a white person could not get married, and today someone from an interracial family was elected the president. She asked if we could change the constitution back to what it was. At first my though wandered to the difficult struggle we face to gain acceptance, but as I looked at down at her shining face in her blue community organizer t-shirt, the future became very clear - "Yes we Can".

A New Focus for American Foreign Policy: Human Rights

One of the fatal flaws of the Bush approach/policy framework that I would love to see Barack Obama change…is this idea that it is America’s job to spread Democracy around the world. As a student of Democracy and child of the largest Democracy in the world (India), I do believe in and love Democracy. However, just like Capitalism….Democracy, too, is a flawed, chaotic, and imperfect system and I just don’t think it’s America’s job to tell other countries what political system is best for them.

In fact from a purely theoretical standpoint, I believe a ‘benevolent autocracy’ is likely the best political system to help efficiently/quickly advance a society economically and socially. The only issue is, those benevolent/enlightened autocrats are really difficult (virtually impossible) to come by….and power corrupts, so this too is a slippery slope.

In any event, to get back to the original point of this blog….I believe America needs to officially change this stated policy of spreading Democracy….and focus primarily on spreading/ensuring basic human rights for every human being. Even if you disagree with my point on Democracy….I think most should agree safety comes before politics…and the problems the people of the world face in so many countries (including the Middle East) are still about safety.

Let’s work on the basics, and get to politics later.

Rascist slurs at McCain/Palin rallies should be denounced by candidates and party

I was trying last night to have a mellow evening at home after a full day of work. The full day of work was quite an experience after spending 3 blissful months ‘Exploring my Zen’ (as I like to call it) following the collapse of Indymac during the Summer. So here I was…cuddling with my 2 freshly bathed (and good smelling) Great Dane’s Lara and Tank…watching TV. But what I saw on CNN shocked me.

It looked (from the multiple clips they showed) like many people (definitely way more than a handful) at Palin/McCain rallies were screaming rascist comments and the crowd was supporting them. This included statements like “Obama bin Ladin”, “Mohammed Husein Obama”, “Them Commies”…etc.

Could this really be going on in America, without bipartisan public denunciation? As I recall, McCain actually defended the people attending their rallies during the final presidential debate. Is this new, or do these conversations go on in this rough tone more regularly? I sure hope I see McCain or Palin step up and call this nastiness what it is – unacceptable in America.

On a broader note: We take things like equal protection under the law and non-discrimination so much for granted at least all the places I’ve lived in America which includes Universities (New Jersey), Cities (Los Angeles, Chicago), Companies (McKinsey, Indymac, and many Fortune 1000 clients served while at McKinsey), or just plain walking around (anywhere….from San Francisco to Michigan to Oregon to Dallas to Seattle to Arizona…the list goes on).

But none of these “now so obvious” modern principles of equality so clearly embodied in the US constitution came naturally to Americans, or really to most societies around the world. They (for the most part) had to be inflicted on the majority by the righteous/enlightened minority or the founders of the modern day states.

Schumer triggers Indymac failure....why?

In late June this summer, about 2 weeks before the “failure” (i.e., inability to continue to be in business without third party support) of my ethical and well run employer Indymac Bank, I – then a Senior Executive at the Company - read in horror a letter that New York Senator Charles Schumer had sent to two key regulatory bodies - the Office of Thrift Supervision (Indymac’s primary regulator) and the FDIC - and that his office had “leaked” to the Wall Street Journal. We had been fighting hard to adapt/save our business and as many jobs as possible for 12 hard months since the capital markets froze up in the summer of 2007....and this Schumer letter looked like a possible death warrant for our business. "When it rains, it really pours", I thought.

Within hours the letter was all over other media outlets. It (the letter) essentially made public this New York Senator’s concerns about the financial condition of Indymac (a California Thrift), and triggered a “run on the Bank” which ultimately (2 tough and painful weeks later) led to the company’s takeover by the government.

The truth is that financial services companies survive and operate based on “confidence”, and no Bank in the country (or really the world) can survive a run on the Bank. In fact, Runs on Banks were virtually unheard of in modern times until….recently they have become quite widespread (more on why in a future post), and have been the “triggering mechanism” for most if not all of the financial institution failures you have read about in the media (in the US and abroad).

At the time it happened, me and those around me wondered what a US Senator who was also a longtime member of the Senate Banking Committee was doing taking such a public action which he knew (or should have known) could (and probably would) result in the failure of a (regulated) US Bank. Not to mention the question of why a New York Senator was so focused on a (relatively small) California Thrift….when there was plenty to worry about right in his own backyard i.e., on Wall Street.

But too many lives and jobs were at stake…and we got totally consumed first trying to fight this huge “fire” (to try to save the company)….and when the "fire" consumed the company, trying to deal with the aftermath of this disaster on our jobs and lives, and the jobs and lives of those around us.

Then, today, I saw the below article in the news…and it brought the events of the summer right back.

Wasn’t it irresponsible of Senator Schumer to basically trigger Indymac's failure? Why raise a public concern about any financial institution, knowing the possible consequences of such an action? And why Indymac instead of Washington Mutual or Wachovia or some Wall Street firm....all of whom really ultimately faced very similar problems?

Here are some articles on this issue:

Article 1:
Schumer Ripped IndyMac as Democratic Donors Probed Books
New York Sen. Charles Schumer's public criticism of IndyMac Bancorp last summer, which critics say helped spark a run on deposits that took under the troubled thrift, came while IndyMac's assets were being eyed by investors who are major donors to the Democratic Senate campaign committee the senator chairs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428567636046459.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Article 2:
The OTS press release on Indymac...the day it was taken over by the government:

http://www.ots.treas.gov/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=37f10b00-1e0b-8562-ebdd-d5d38f67934c&ContentType_id=4c12f337-b5b6-4c87-b45c-838958422bf3&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2008

And here is an excerpt from the release: “The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

A suggestion for addressing the root-cause of this financial crisis….from a (humble) Banker who has experienced it firsthand

One of the fundamental reforms that is nowhere to be seen on the horizon…that I believe is absolutely critical to addressing one of the key root causes of the current crisis of confidence in the global financial markets is the lack of any significant education on the topic of personal finances and money management in middle/high school and college curriculums worldwide, including in the US.

So here’s my idea Mr. Paulson and (hopefully future) President Obama: add a mandatory requirement that every middle school, high school, and college student in America get a basic education in how to think about personal finances (budgeting, money management, borrowing, net worth, financial ethics etc.). The long term benefits of such an addition to educational standards in the US and other countries would be invaluable.

I am regularly amazed by how little formal or informal education any of us receive (unless we have very diligent and focused parents with good personal financial habits…a rarity) on the topic of money. Yet, understanding money and making/managing it (in whatever quantities “work” for each individual) is critical for the achievement of personal success and happiness.

Fighting and debating the wrong "war"

I find myself quite uncomfortable with the near consensus I see in America today (as reflected in the media and recent policy coming out of the House and Senate) on the belief that "the war" on terror is going poorly, and the answer to this problem is for America and the world to pull out and leave the Middle East to solve it's own civil and societal issues.

My two main contentions/concerns are as follows:

1. I feel everyone is missing the forest (the real war), as they are focused on the trees (Iraq, and sometimes Afghanistan). The war, and I do believe, we are in the midst of "the third world war" is much broader than just the conflicts in these 2 countries....and I fear "pulling out" of Iraq, may reflect a broader pull back on any sustained attack or defence against the root cause of the war....which I believe is largely, if not fully, unaddressed today (more than 5 years after 9/11).

2. The real war we have is not a physical war at all. It is a virtual or mental war....a war of beliefs and values (largely Islamic beliefs and values on key issues, but broadly religious fundamentalism and the violation of basic human rights using religious beliefs/edicts as a justification).

This real war is the ultimate untraditional war. Yet, the world has largely responded to it with traditional tactics....i.e., physical attack and defence. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent already, on physical conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine what this money could achieve if appropriately redirected into fighting the real war....the war of beliefs.

I think it's time to take a step back, somehow firmly but fairly extricate ourselves out of Iraq over time (I know this in itself is a huge issue, but I'll leave my thoughts on Iraq specifically for a separate discussion. I will say I think it's key despite all the past mistakes....to leave Iraq a much better and more peaceful place than it was and is), redefine and understand the real war against terror, and get cracking using more "untraditional" means such as economic policy, incentives, education, TV and the internet, opportunity and basic common sense and logic....to help the muslim world adopt a more moderate version of their religion (as has happened with other religions, including Christianity over the past few hundred years).

It won't be easy for people to ignore the actual words from the Quran that are used by some to justify killing, discrimination against women, and other inhumane and backward practises....but this is religion....and muslims must adopt moderating changes themselves after debate and discussion....if they are to retain their pride....which is paramount when you are talking about religion and culture.

How the middle east will be liberated

Ultimately, I believe true 'liberation' and 'freedom' for the oppressed in the middle east (those that are denied opportunity and freedom....particularly youth, women and children) will have to be achieved by the people in the middle east for themselves.

Perhaps I am biased, being Indian (given our history of achieving freedom from the British through struggle). This freedom will be achieved on the ground over time with education, knowledge and a taste for how it feels to be able to determine one's own future. Check out this great article from last week's Wall Street Journal. To me, the media is the most important tool in helping bring information to people....so their own minds and hearts are changed. We should be spending billions on this....not mere millions. Look what TV, knowledge/information and opportunity have done for post-liberation India!!
Lastly, to clarify, I am talking about true internal change....not just a change in the broad, high level framework of government (which the US has facilitated in places like Iraq). The high level framework too is important...but not nearly enough in an of itself.Liberty TV

By KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON
May 6, 2006; Page A8

In recent weeks, we've heard a great deal in Washington about how we ought to be broadcasting to Iran. But it might be instructive to examine what U.S. international broadcasting is already doing.

Very recently, on a Persian-language satellite television broadcast from the United States, the people of Iran learned that Iran's oldest and largest student organization, Tahkim Vahdat, urged the government to suspend uranium enrichment and to cooperate with the international community by restricting nuclear development to peaceful uses. The group called the government's behavior "irrational and confrontational." Needless to say none of this appeared in Iran's government-controlled media; few rulers on earth exercise the degree of censorship enforced by the Iranian government.

Another program featured the story of Hossein Derakhshan, once jailed in Iran for starting an Internet blog. Upon his release, he managed to get to Canada where he now runs the most popular blog -- in Iran.

Or consider this exchange that occurred on our nightly Persian-language news and current affairs program on the Voice of America.

Moderator, Ms. Setareh Derakshesh: "Our guests today are Mr. Bijan Kian, a businessman associated with the American Council on Foreign Relations, and Dr. Abbas Maleki of Sharif University in Tehran, who is currently a Harvard Research Fellow in the United States. Dr. Maleki, how do you see the possibility of direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran on Iran's nuclear policies?"

Dr. Maleki: "From the beginning, direct talks have been part of Iran's agenda. From Iran's point of view, the nuclear issue is not a real problem. This is part of the overall process of development which is going on in all parts of our society, like nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and so on . . ."

Mr. Kian: "It is amazing to hear about such claims as progress in nanotechnology in a country where there is widespread unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, so many women's issues and, finally, political repression and coercion. The real dispute is not between our two countries. It is between the Iranian people and the government of the Islamic Republic . . ."

Dr. Maleki: "Well! Using polemic language and slogans talking about political coercion is very easy. Even in the U.S., that technologically speaking is the most advanced country in the world, you still have poverty everywhere, unemployment and so on. Tehran is so much cleaner than New York. You can go and check the trash-ridden streets of New York. Go and have a look at poor people there. . . . Just look at the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and now this atmosphere of war the U.S. government is creating about Iran . . ."

Ms. Derakshesh: "Dr. Maleki: The majority of the people in Iran live under the poverty line -- and Iran's prisons are filled with political prisoners . . ."

Dr. Maleki: "Excuse me! You are the moderator yet you are passing a wild judgment."

Ms. Derakshesh: "This is not my personal opinion, sir . . ."

Dr. Maleki: "Whose facts are these, where did you get them -- that there are political prisoners in Iran?"

Ms. Derakshesh: "These are facts reported by credible international human rights organizations."

Mr. Kian: "Whenever we talk about what is really going on in Iran, what we say will be branded as slogans by supporters by the regime. I have to emphasize that the American government is not in favor of war with Iran. Just look at what has been said by President Bush and his secretary of state."

* * *
In VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the U.S. has a model illustrating how broadcasting news and information (i.e., the truth) can lead to the liberation of a people.

That certainly occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Recognizing that fact, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors moved to increase television and radio to Iran long before the current crisis in that country. In early 2003 we launched Farda, a round-the-clock, youth-oriented radio service to Iran. A few months later we began broadcasting daily Persian news and current affairs satellite television.

The television launch may have been modest -- $1.9 million for 30 minutes daily with repeats. But we have come to recognize that satellite television is to the future what shortwave radio was to the past.

That daily program today is an hour (with repeats), and by September, thanks to better than $9 million from the Bush administration and Congress, we will be broadcasting four original television hours -- with news, debates and call-in shows -- daily. Funds in a supplemental now before Congress could increase these broadcasts even more -- and strengthen our coverage.

Small satellite dishes are proliferating in Iran and there are strong indications that VOA's nightly programming is becoming a staple for large numbers of Iranians. Telephone polling (which tends to undercount audiences living under repressive regimes) show that better than one-in-five adult television viewers say they regularly watch VOA's satellite television programs.

As was the case with RFE/RL and VOA in the Cold War, it is important that our broadcasts are provocative -- and credible. Intense journalistic supervision is critical to achieving this goal. Truth does not lie half way between the views of Washington and Tehran. But talk and debate programs give Iranians a taste of freedom -- and enlightenment.

Ultimately, the future of Iran rests with the people of Iran. Just as in the Cold War when the people ultimately prevailed over their oppressors, it will be the people of Iran who will deliver their country from the tyrants who rule them now. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we can give them the tools -- information the mullahs don't want them to hear and debate challenging the lies of mullah-sympathizers -- and the people of Iran can finish the job.

Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees U.S. international broadcasting.

If you don't know it, you can't fix it? Unsexy but critical: Data/Metrics

I was reading an article about the french riots and the core liberal philosophy underlying french society and government. The french believe (rightly) that all people are equal and that race, color, ethnicity shouldn't matter. As a result, they don't measure any of their social outcomes by race, color or ethnicity.

No data on whether there are particular ethnic or racial segments of society that are having major problems? No way to fix these problems. If you've read the papers at all in the last few weeks, you know what I'm talking about.

Not sexy, but true (to me anyways). You achieve what you articulate and focus on. You fix problems you see. You improve metrics you measure and report regularly.

So why the hell is this the subject of a blog? Well, I'm not sure this is going to be a crowd-puller, but I was reading an article my boss sent me from the Wall Street Journal and I'm feeling validated (enough to share anyways!). The article is about Michael Walker, founder of the Fraser institute in Canada. A few snippets from the article which I totally agree with:

"A debate about government policy isn't likely to be settled around values. But when there is objective measurement, resolution emerges"

"The dirty little secret of Canada's single payer health system: that care is rationed through time rather than price"

"I firmly believe that you become what you think about, and that is as true for countries as it is for individuals"

Fitting yourself into a neat box: The problem with bundling opinions

Some on this blog have complained about the use of labels to denote 'bundles of opinions'. Liberal. Conservative. Democrat. Republican. Gay. Straight. Pro or Anti-Hindu. These complaints struck a cord with some of the feelings I have on this issue. Why do we need someone else...a political party, a social group etc to tell us which opinions and views 'belong together'?

I have a practical answer to this question: most people don't have or want to take the time to think through how they really feel about each issue that is important to our society, particularly if their own life is 'OK' in that particular area. So, they align broadly with a group or party...and vote based on this broad choice, thinking most of the time they will vote 'right' (i.e., consistent with a more thought through personal choice on any particular topic).

This practical consideration, however, doesn't make me feel better about the choices available, as I believe they significantly (and potentially adversely) impact legislation 'on the margin' (i.e., active legislation today).

A few examples:

1. Why does a pro-free trade stance belong with an anti-gay rights stance? Trade doesn't have much to do with religion.
2. Why can't you be pro-teacher and pro meritocracy and pay-for-performance in education (charter schools in America)?
3. Why can't you be pro-Hindu (one of the greatest, and most flexible religions in the world!) without being anti-Muslim?
4. Why can't you be pro-business and pro-gay rights or pro-choice? Who do you vote for if this is the case?

I think it's time we started voting for issues, not parties!!

Actions are all that matter

Almost everything I, and we, do at work or in life revolves around people and our relationships with them. I am fascinated by what makes relationships meaningful and what makes some people more successful than others in life. I have come to the conclusion that separating people's actions from their words is the key to answering some of these questions. In fact, I believe actions are all that matter!

Having said that, I'll caveat my statement by acknowledging the importance of communication, and education in our lives and for society. But at the end of the day, I've found that the only way to 'cut through the crap' and get to the heart of what's right and valuable is to look at actions not words.

How many of you know people who claim to be bleeding heart liberals and who are vehemently anti-globalization? I know a few, who immigrated to America and stay here. How many of these folks have moved back to India (if that's their home country) and stopped working their high paying corporate jobs? None.

How many people do you know who go to the temple everyday and discuss the importance of religion in their lives and decision making? I know a few. Many of these folks drive lavish cars and have a lot of money but would pass by a hungry homeless person without offering them a bite to eat. Also, most don't engage in any significant charitable activity.

How many people do you know who are against allowing legal rights for same sex couples in multi-year relationships (as they believe this is anti-family) but are divorced or engaged in extra marital affairs themselves? I know many...and know there are even more I don't know..most of whom voted for Mr Bush.

Capitalism: Imperfect, but our best available option

I can't help but offer an alternate view to the 'critique of capitalism' posted here a few days ago. Many critics of capitalism (including the author of the post above) compare the outcomes of capitalism (quoting the various ills in the world today e.g., inequality) to an imagined 'ideal state' that has never existed in the history of the world.

I'm a realist, focused on practical executable solutions (i.e., what should we do differently based on what we have learned) and believe the current outcomes of capitalism should be compared to the outcomes of pre-capitalistic and non-capitalistic socieities and economies.

This, more real, analysis reveals that although capitalism is by no means perfect (there are winners and losers in capitalism, just as there have been winners and losers in the evolution of our world. I believe the role of government is to mitigate the brutal 'survival of the fittest' results of capitalism), it is by far the best option available to countries and socieities seeking to improve their peoples standard of living.

Just go ask any Indian who tried to improve his or her families lot in life in the pre-1991 'socialist-democracy' era and who has been trying to do the same post the 1991 liberalization of India's economy. I think the answer is crystal clear. Non-capitalistic societies end up being extraordinarily political, with power, opportunity and information controlled by a few. Capitalism is an objective, fair system with the best (although not perfect) outcomes. I believe the best answer economically is a capitalist economy, balanced by government supported equality of opportunity (as much as possible - e.g., by ensuring equal access to education) and government provided 'safety nets' for those that fall to the bottom of the totem pole in capitalism.

Value of life

The 'value of a life' is a recurring topic of conversation in our home. It has always confounded (and impressed) me how much americans value a single american life. I'm told a whole bunch of marines will go in and risk their life to try and save just one of their brethren during war.

I find this most fascinating, being part of a generation of Indians who grew up reading almost daily about dozens if not hundreds of deaths in Sri Lanka (the LTTE problem), Andhra Pradesh (the Naxalites), Punjab (the terrorism/secession problem there in the late '80s and into the '90s), Kashmir (you all know this one, I'm sure), Assam..and the list goes on (and this doesn't even include violence outside of India!!).

There was nary a day when one didn't hear of a 'brown bag' exploding and killing all the people on a bus...or some story similar to that. Most of us got used to this over the years, and became relatively immune to the violence and death.

I'll blog some other time about my hypotheses on what drives this dramatic difference in how a human life is viewed in different parts of the world.

Today I'm wondering and thinking of how one values a dogs life?

Yesterday, our beloved Great Dane Lara got 'bloat' - a relatively common but life-threatening condition that large breed dogs (particularly deep chested ones) are prone to. Here, for seemingly no reason, the dogs stomach gets filled with gas and twists on itself. Immediate surgery is required to reverse the condition, and many dogs die either during or soon after surgery. Aside from the emotional stress and pain, there's also the issue of expense. We're $1500 bucks down already (for the surgery) and just dropped her off at a 24 hour hospital which is going to cost another $500 or so per night. We're lucky that we can afford the expense, and she's lucky that we love her like crazy...but it does bring up the question: how far do we take this? What is the value of a dog's life? Here we are trying desperately to save this beloved dog, who we got from a rescue 3 years ago (she was already sick, and has had orthopedic problems since)....should we be saving a human life instead?

I'll tell the dog-lovers before I sign off that despite all the debates and questioning, the path forward is clear. We'll do whatever it takes to have some more time with Lara. She is special, with a gentleness and human-like emotional quality we've never found before. What if we weren't this lucky and didn't have this choice to make?

perception is reality

people, to me, are the most interesting and important thing in the world. priority number one, above work, above all the things i want to and need to get done in my life (in a macro sense, all said and done). personal relationships follow, then, as a key driver of my personal happiness and satisfaction...and people watching (and thinking about what i see) follows as an absorbing hobby.

so i've noticed, and often think about this: how we perceive a particular situation or incident seems to differ quite a bit from person to person. not surprising, i guess, since we view the world through the lens of our individual prior experiences and what we have personally learned through these experiences.

but perception, i believe, is reality (after all, our perceptions drives personal decisions and actions, which are real and tangible). but how can it be that there are over 6 billion people in the world walking around each with their own slightly and sometimes not so slightly different view of what's real? isn't the world we live in fascinating?

Information and Opportunity

I'm falling in love with blogging. I've never kept a personal diary, but always wanted to. The opportunity to share my thoughts (even if the line of thinking isn't always 'complete' i.e., there's no clean resolution at the end of each thought) and have others comment, provide feedback, and tell me theirs is invaluable. I can't help but believe that over time, in aggregate, I will find more answers than I would have on my own. Certainly, I have already found a different kind of community.

So back to the theme of this one. I see information and opportunity as two of the key (if not the key) drivers of a lot of what I observe around me.

First, information: control of information is critical in most Indian families - information is power, and those in power limit access to information for those they want to keep less powerful than themselves. This could be husbands keeping wives less informed than themselves (a common occurance), the arab rich keeping information out of the hands of the common arab, the chinese government controlling information access to the common chinese...the list goes on. What we're seeing globally is the loss of control over information. The media are key to this loss of control..the internet, print media, satellites, globalization etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm waiting to see what happens as the billions of Indians, Chinese, Africans and Latin Americans who do not have open access to information get it more and more over the coming decades.

Second, opportunity: I think the root cause of a lot of the 'violence' we see in the world is lack of opportunity. And I specifically mean economic opportunity - the opportunity to rid yourself of hunger, thirst, disease and other basic human needs. A person without opportunity has no hope. This is where faith steps in. Because religions brings back some form of hope (the hope of salvation, nirvana, etc). Lack of opportunity combined with lack of information leads to billions of people following the words of those who control them. Typically, this is religious and political leaders who promise some form of 'light at the end of the tunnel' if those listening do what they are told.

So how do we spread opportunity to those that don't have it? And what role can an individual play in this?

Opportunity, to me, is the key to America's dominant global position right now. I came here for it. So did almost everyone I know who wan't born here.

I will be writing more on this topic over time as I think a lot of the public policy and foreign policy 'answers' lie in laws/policies/rules that in some way impact opportunity for the common man.

The missing link in education

Education as a topic is of immense interest to me. I have seen what it has done for India i.e., created an educated populace that was primed for the opening of the capitalist pump in 1991, and positioned to harness economic opportunity to create immense economic growth and social value for India and Indians (e.g., great accumulation of wealth in American Indians, increased living standards, more jobs, hopefully an eventual reduction in poverty).

But as I go about my day to day life and interact with people both at work and socially, I can't help but protest at the missing link in education worldwide: the lack of education on personal financial management and communication skills.

I feel the average individual I meet is relatively unequipped in both these skill sets which I believe have a disproportionate correlation with personal financial and professional success. Shouldn't we be lobbying hard to get these courses included in both at the high school and college level?

Ray Mathoda

Datos personales

Etiquetas

Archivo del blog