Into the Valley of Death ...

She rode fearlessly. And they got her. Benazir Bhutto, twice Prime Minister of Pakistan, is dead. The news channels hung on to some hope initially, saying she was injured. Not for long though. Word quickly got out putting out that optimism mercilessly. Another South Asian leader had met a gruesome end.

The legacy of the Bhutto family has a chilling parallel in India's Gandhi family. Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto started Pakistan's nuclear program and pursued a progressive agenda. His Indian counterpart, Indira Gandhi gave impetus to the Indian nuclear program and green-lighted India's awkwardly-termed first peaceful nuclear explosion. The two managed to broker the Simla agreement between India and Pakistan, which they hoped would be the basis for a lasting solution. With the end of the '70s decade, came a ghastly end to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's life. He was hanged after the government was toppled in a coup. A few years later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by Sikh militants.

Indira's son Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India when Benazir Bhutto was Pakistan's Prime Minister is late '80s. Theirs was a missed opportunity however. They could not capitalize on the gains of their parents, and Indo-Pak relations slipped back into familiar territory. Rajiv was campaigning for a return to power when a suicide bomber blew herself up just a few feet from him. Benazir met with a similar cruel fate just days ago.

Rajiv's children, Priyanka and Rahul are both in the Indian political scene now. (Priyanka less so, compared to Rahul Gandhi). It would be unsurprising if Benazir's son Bilawal Zardari stepped into her shoes as the head of Pakistan People's Party sooner or later. One hopes that the curse of two generations does not follow them.

Guns, Generals and Cable TV

A few weeks ago President Musharaff declared emergency in Pakistan citing vague reasons. This declaration, in itself, was perhaps nothing surprising in a country that has become accustomed to emergency rule over the many decades. Pretty soon, the media was reeling off statistics and comparing the latest emergency to the ones in the past. Leaders around the world were suitably outraged, but none too seriously. They called for a swift return to democracy and proclaimed their solidarity with the people of Pakistan. How utterly boring. I suppose a declaration of emergency in Pakistan is as newsworthy as a declaration of bankruptcy by one of the major US airlines. Been there, done that. At any rate, all this has been reported ad nauseam.

The President, who has since given up his army uniform, initiated a set of predictable steps. Get rid of pesky judges, clamp down the media. Most of the cable channels in Pakistan, which have mushroomed in the last few years, were taken off air. Some were allowed to continue, but were subject to censorship. There was a "first" in this emergency, however. Most private news channels were off the air in Pakistan. But at least one channel, Geo TV, continued its broadcast from its Dubai center. Its reporters were speaking of events unfolding in Pakistan, but the citizens of Pakistan were not privy to it all. Some Indian news channels quickly took their regularly scheduled programming and began airing Pakistani news as told by Pakistani channels!

I am sure whoever thought of the idea received a healthy bonus! He/she is surely entitled to it. I was in India at the time, watching TV. When channel surfing I came across a news being read by unfamiliar anchors in an unfamiliar studio. One of the anchors had a decidedly American accent, and looked desi. Hmm, odd, I thought. Some Indian anchors may try to fake an accent, or at least, speak in - an - exagerrated - tone. Let us blame it on Prannoy Roy. It took me a while to realize that it was not an Indian channel after all. It was strangely reassuring to know that news channels in Pakistan tend to be obnoxiously repetitive!

The wheels keep turning round and round ...

To say that the proposed Indo-US nuclear deal has gone through its fair share of ups and downs is an understatement. In July '05, the leaders of the two countries took a revolutionary step when they announced the broad terms of the proposed nuclear co-operation agreement. Cameras clicked, people smiled (some with disbelief), and the wheels of legal machinery began creaking forward. In a world where even the incremental, evolutionary changes are contested, it should come as no surprise that this revolutionary deal would face severe challenges in the months and years ahead.

Briefly, the agreement promised India access to nuclear fuel/technology that has long been denied to her chiefly, because of (a) refusal to join NPT and (b) conducting the nuclear tests in 1998. In return, 14 of the 22 nuclear reactors in India would be placed under international safeguards in perpetuity. You can read more about the deal here and here.

As early as the end of '05, some US lawmakers like Sen. Richard Lugar raised their doubts, which could seriously jeopardize the deal. In his prepared comments, he made it clear that he did not like that the Congress had not been consulted prior to the deal. The subtext of his remarks was that he did not trust the Indians' offering of "voluntary" compliances. He sought US control over any technology/fuel that was being considered. Moreover, he wanted more, i.e., all nuclear reactors in India under safeguards.

Then in early '06, the New York times gave a two thumbs down to the deal, before Bush's visit to India. Other hoped that the President's visit would in part, nudge the deal along. Around the same time, noted Indian scientists like Dr. Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Dr. Banerjee, director of BARC issued their support to the deal. This was echoed by several policy experts in the US and abroad like Stephen Cohen at the Brookings Institution, Walter Andersen at JHU, Frank Wisner and William Clark, former US ambassadors to India and importantly, Dr. El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA.

Within a couple of months after President Bush's India visit, the Indian Americans began galvanizing support for the deal. This was perhaps one of the first times that the community had managed to organize itself to the extent it did. Irrespective of the fate of the deal, one hopes that the Indian-American community will strengthen its newly-found confidence and voice.

By the middle of that year, some in the Indian scientific community voiced their opposition to the deal amidst calls of India becoming subservient to the US. At the same time, India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran was jetting around winning support for the deal. Within the end of the year, countries like UK and Italy would offer support even though Australia dilly-dallied. China, as expected, did not welcome the proposed agreement.

In October '06, North Korea rocked the boat by testing a nuclear bomb. And the shadow of the mushroom cloud threatened to engulf the Indo-US deal. That did not happen.

That brings us to the present year. 2007. The discussion in some sections of the Indian media, notably the Indian Express, got very detailed. Experts started analyzing the deal with a fine comb. Amazingly, the no-nonsense, technical discussion thrived in the newspaper. And this, in a country, where printing titillating pictures in the Times of India passes for journalism!

Prakash Karat, the articulate communist in India, issued his shrill opposition to the deal. For a while the left party opposition led by Karat threatened the survival of the Singh administration. That fear seems to have abated even as cooler heads prevailed on the left end of the spectrum. Notably, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the West Bengal Chief Minister and Jyoti Basu, its former CM unequivocally expressed their support for the deal. Amidst this hooplah, Prime Minister Singh made a an astonishing statement -- one that could come from either a visionary or one who had nothing to lose. Rubbishing Karat's stand, the Prime Minister said that history would judge the deal favorably. Now that takes some courage!

Just as the left worries were starting to subside in India and the Indian administration soldiered on with their business, the next step was launching into discussions with the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG).

And in what can only be described as deja vu, some lawmakers in the US (this time, the House) and the New York Times upped their ante and have come out against the deal. The House issued a non-binding resolution, which essentially seeks to do exactly what Karat wanted. Throw a spanner into the machinery, jam the wheels and bring it to a halt.

Dr. El Baradei will be in India on a 3-day visit shortly. But the officials are tight-lipped about the NSG discussions -- whether indeed, there will be any discussions. The Left parties are meeting around the same time. Oh, the drama! But it is difficult to imagine that Dr. El Baradei will go all the way just to shake hands and see the sights.

The picture is the US is shaping up more unfavorably. The next few weeks are sure to be taken up in talking about the President's veto of the SCHIP act and the Congress' attempt to override the veto. And of course, there is the Iraq war. Along with the immigration battle, the proposed deal may simply be passed on to the next President. As far as the nuclear deal goes, passing the buck would effectively kill the deal.

Middle East Mess

A friend of mine commented that this blog was unusually silent on the latest mess in the middle East. I have had several discussions on the topic, often animated, with folks around here. There is talk at the water cooler, a two minute discussion on the elevator liberally sprinkled with tsk-tsks, more drawn-out discussions on the metro (that's DC's subway), and the list goes on.

The middle East thing seems to be one big unending soap opera. You can tune in and tune out periodically without missing a beat. There are always going to enough and more finger-pointing, innumerable "but he did it first"'s, ever-present pissing contests. And of course, bombs.

Who cares about the hundreds of dead and injured, anyway?

United 93

A couple of weeks ago, I saw the movie United 93. It chronicles UA93's flight into history books as one of the ill-fated aircrafts lost on 9/11. Supposedly headed for the White House, the flight came down in Pennsylvania, less than 200 miles from Washington.

The movie opened to mixed reactions from people debating whether we needed to be reminded of an attack that is still fresh in our minds. Just a couple of days ago, as a reminder of 9/11, a small plane was escorted safely out of the controlled DC's airspace by military jets. When incidents such as these serve as grim forget-me-nots, it is fair to ask whether United 93: the movie's time had come. At any rate, I don't have a problem with the movie's timing.

The more important question is how the movie is made, not its timing. And on that point, the moviemakers score well, I think. The movie makes the real seem very real -- the tension is palpable as events of the day unfold, the 'grip' heightens as the day progresses. The camera work, the abrupt dialogue, unrecognizable actors, real pilots as actors -- it all fits rather neatly. Though there is nothing neat about the day.

On the aviation aspect of the movie, too, it does a remarkably good job. Aviation geeks will probably spot a goof or two. Overall, though, the movie pays close attention to detail and gets it right.

Condescensional Wisdom

In his column today, George Will mounts a spirited attack on John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist who passed away not too long ago. Now you may disagree with Galbraith's theories, but let the man rest in peace! Common wisdom flowing from the herd of masses of not-so-independent thinking says that one does not spout bitter babble toward a man whose grave is still warm. Perhaps in this regard, Will should condescend to learning from the masses!

United 93, the Movie

This entry is my take on:
Blogpourri: United 93, the Movie: Would You Watch It?

I fail to see the argument that its too soon, too traumatic to watch the movie. I too, remember the Day vividly. Living about 10 miles northeast of Pentagon, I can understand Sujatha's comments about the raw nature of that day.

There are several instances of art imitating life where you know the end even before the beginning - all those World war movies for example. For veterans of that war, I'm sure some wounds never healed. Making movies about those events does not in any way, demean their experiences. If potrayed with historical accuracy, these movies can serve as useful reminders for a long time!

Too traumatic? Sure, it was. And it still is for many. So is the AIDS epidemic. But movies like Longtime Companion, And the band played on, and Philadelphia were made. They have had a significant impact on how we even look at the subject today.

At the risk of sounding flippant, I would add that terrorist attacks like 9-11 seem to have a less traumatic impact on the Indian psyche. How many people remember the Bombay bombings today - or even the more recent Delhi bombings?

Long story short: I hope to see the movie United 93 soon - this weekend perhaps.

Psst ... "inside" info on the India-US nuclear deal

At the University today, DESI and US India Business Council had organized a panel discussion on the recent India-US civilian nuclear deal. My dear readers, you get the scoop - even before Chidanand Rajghatta of the Times of India can write about it!
The panelists Vikram Misri (Indian Embassy), Prof. Walter Andersen (a South Asia expert) and Ron Somers (President, USIBC, formerly with Cogentrix) made a strong case for the proposed civilian nuclear co-operation agreement. I won't belabor the much-talked about points like:

It's good for India because of energy needs, brought into world order, etc.

It's good for the US because of reduced energy dependence, strategic objectives (without the China angle), US business interests, etc.

Some interesting points:
I raised the question: "During the debate, the Indian left parties objected to the deal, saying it is a sell-out to the Americans; and the likes of Strobe Talbott believed that the US got a lousy bargain. Clearly, both can't be right. Who is more right?"

In response, Dr. Andersen made two points:

Although Talbott is pro-India, he "genuinely believes" that this agreement is dangerous and counterproductive to the disarmament cause. This is the view -- in substance, at least -- of President Jimmy Carter as well. Dr. Andersen disagreed with this line of thinking during his opening remarks.

He added that India had agreed to bring 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors under international safeguards "in perpetuity". Given that the US has only ONE of its 100+ reactors under IAEA safeguards, the UK has none and China has 3 (the extent of which is questionable); one could argue that India made significant concessions.

Talbott, by the way, was Jaswant Singh's counterpart in the talks after the Pokhran tests. The series of talks has had a tremendously positive effect on the relationship between the two countries in recent years. Anyone with even a passing interest in this dynamics should read his book "Engaging India." It's a fascinating look at history, politics and personalities. With that background about Talbott, we can safely assume that he is not pushing anyone's agenda when he opposes the present civilian nuclear deal. Rather, he has genuine concerns -- misplaced, but genuine nonetheless.

Misri, the Indian on the panel, was eloquent about India's track record in the nuclear business. He began his remarks with a landmark that I was not aware of. As early as 1944, Bhabha who is the founder of Indian nuclear program, submitted a proposal to set up a nuclear research institute. This led to the creation of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) in December 1945. The Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1948 and the construction of India's first nuclear reactor Apsara began in 1955. Apsara went critical in August 1957 (56?) becoming the first reactor in Asia. In other words, as we know, the Indian nuclear program is not new.

As an aside, when I came across Ron Somers' name in the announcement, I was pleasantly surprised. If you are from Karnataka, you will probably recognize his name -- he was with the controversial Cogentrix project. That was the power project that got embroiled in controversy and politics involving Maneka Gandhi, Deve Gowda, etc. I won't go in to the messy politics. But suffice it to say that at some point, there was a legal battle that the company and Somers personally was drawn into. They were accused of bribery. Needless to say, that was a politically motivated lawsuit that was cleared up as soon as Somers left the country.

I was struck by the humility of the man in spite of those nasty attacks. He had nothing but kind words for the people of Mangalore and their support. More, he holds a special place for India in his heart since he essentially built his career there.

With some hesitation, he spoke about the business angle to the proposed deal. If the business community makes a forceful case, they might be seen as greedy, he said. Hence the measured and somewhat delayed tone. In the coming days, however, the business community will make a more compelling case. If the proposed India civilian nuclear deal goes through, there is the potential for creation of 3 million jobs -- some of that will benefit France, Russia and the UK, but the US will benefit to a large extent.

With allies like Somers, Andersen and spokesmen like Misri, we can move forward with assured confidence.

Some things never change

For all the hype surrounding Pakistan becoming a 'major ally' against the global war on terrorism (sic); for all the smooth talk by General Musharaff, it is events like these that reveal Pakistani army's true stance. They are warning the people of Pakistan to stay alert against those "Jews and Hindus." (Cue: roll eyes). Fits in nicely with the 'its all one big conspiracy against the Muslims' refrain though.

Next time you bump into the powers that at be in the Pakistani camp, convey my message, willya? -- "Dude, Get a life!"

Pakistani Pamphlets Link Militants to Hindus, Jews

Port Security Humbug

So the administration wants to award port security contracts to a UAE-based firm. And just about everybody in the US Congress - Republicans and Democrats alike - is opposed to the idea. This makes for perfect political posturing, and you hear jingoistic statements like "let Americans control America's security." Conveniently though, they forget the disclaimer: Except when UK controls port security! You see, for years now, a London-based firm has been handling this business!

The Congress is saying it will kill the proposed deal. Democrats, in a rare instance of demonstrating any spine, are saying they will join in sinking it. Bush has vowed to veto any legislation to block this deal.

Or may be Democrats are wagging their fingers just like they did when threatening to filibuster Justice Alito's nomination. Everyone, including the Democrats, knew that the nomination was a done deal. But hey, the cameras were rolling!

In any case, this is just another instance of the us vs. them syndrome. To the Americans, anyone in the greater middle East (except for Israel) is a 'them'. If they sport turbans or flowing robes, they must be terrorists, no? Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Port Security Humbug

Real politique

In three corners of the world, new realities came to bite in all the wrong places this week. Canadians saw a peaceful change of government after the latest general elections. Liberals will be licking their scandal-inflicted wounds for a long time while the
conservatives occupy centre-stage after about a decade.

In the middle east, Hamas' clear victory in the elections wasn't a welcome development to most of the world. A party that celebrates violence and has annihalation of its neighbor on its agenda is not exactly someone you'd want at the conference table, much less the dinner table! On the other hand, Hamas rode the magic horse called democratic elections to power. These elections were supported by the US with words and money - atleast $50 million of it. When elections throw up uneasy answers, do you question the principle of democracy or do you deal with the reality that it presents? If President Bush's answer at yesterday's press conference is an indicator, it is fair to say the administration is one hundred percent clueless!

The paralysis in diplomacy can't last long, of course. If the US and EU can deal with dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Pakistan, they'll find a way to deal with a Hamas government in Palestine. In time, Hamas will moderate their rhetoric. Its easy to shout, lecture and engage in subversive tactics when you are not the buck-stops-here guy. But Hamas can't do that now. They have to use this chance they've been given. And govern.

Further east, India celebrated her 57th republic day to commemorate the adoption of the constitution. I use the term 'celebrated' very loosely here. A day or two earlier, the Supreme Court delivered a stinging rebuke to Buta Singh who stepped down as governer of Bihar. Last year, Buta Singh in a colossoal abuse of the constitution, dissolved the state legislature. The Central Cabinet signed off on the idea without batting an eyelid. Or may be they did bat an eyelid - it was a midnight meeting when they signed. The ink was barely dry when a groggy-eyed Indian President who was in Moscow at the time affixed his rubber stamp. But, wait. It gets better. In spite of the resounding slap in the face, Buta Singh vowed to take salute at the republic day parade. Have they no shame?!

The same week saw another constitutional crisis, this one in the southern state of Karnataka. Dharam Singh's Congress government supported by Deve Gowda's is on the brink of collapse. Karnataka's governer Chaturvedi had asked Dharam Singh to prove his mettle on the floor of the house today. The day brought with it a rancarous legislative session. But no vote. In a seemingly desperate move to cling to the chair, Chief Minister-for-now Dharam Singh didn't seek the required vote of confidence. The constitution, for all its voluminous speak on ridiculously meaningless and moral policing acts, is mostly silent on this important issue. Where does the authority of the executive -the governers and the President - stop?

But if there is a common thread across these very different political climates, it is this. People don't like inefficiency and corruption. It is only a matter of time polticians pay a price for it.

Peeping Tom

Some people gleefully accuse President Bush of being intellectually challenged. They say he is too simplistic; that he sees things in black and white; that he doesn't take a nuanced approach. All that is besides the point. I think a highly underestimated Bush would make a good scientist. Before you get your panties all twisted, let me illustrate with a very recent example. A few days ago, we learnt that Bush had authorized domestic spying, ostensibly in response to the continued terrorist threat. To say the least, it raised more than a few eyebrows and the administration quickly realized it was losing the domestic debate.

In what can only be described as a brilliant move, Bush's minions came up with a time-tested strategy: rename the problem. Domestic spying became terrorist surveillance. Now, who in their right mind can oppose 'terrorist surveillance'?!

Not to be cynical about it, but that's how a large part of the research world in engineering works. If something doesn't work, change the problem you were trying to solve! And whatever you propose, make sure it has a cool-sounding name. A cute acronym gives you bonus points. Without taking away the merit of the work, CONDENSATION algorithm (CONitional DENSity propogATION) is an example. The counter-cynical view? Sour grapes!

Bush Thanks NSA Employees

Coast to coast on the road!

Two weeks on the road - a coast to coast road trip. Actually a coast to coast to coast road trip! Check out the road trip page for pictures and more!

An era of terror is over

Veerappan, the notorious bandit, was shot dead in an encounter yesterday. This guy has murdered more than 100 people, killed countless elephants for their ivory, and disrupted the lives of many. The police had set up a special task force to capture him, but he was always one step ahead. After all, he knew the forest like the back of his palm.

A little over four years ago, early in August I was making final preparations for my journey here. July 2000 was pretty hectic as I tried to scramble together things that I might need for my graduate study, including a visa to get here. I was scheduled to fly out of Madras (or Chennai) on the 2nd of August. The plan was to take the train from Bangalore that morning, visit my uncle and his family in Madras, and board the plane that night. Amidst the chaos of shopping and packing and bidding adieus came the news that Veerappan had abducted Dr. Rajkumar, a well-known actor in the state. Fans took to the streets, and Bangalore came to halt that day. This was on the 31st of July. Bangalore police imposed curfew in a bid to contain the violence. The next day, things got worse. Reports and rumours of violence grew thicker by the minute.

Veerappan hails from Tamil Nadu state. He kidnapped Rajkumar who is idolized in the neighboring state of Karnataka. Madras is in TN, about 7 hours by road from Bangalore, Karnataka. So, here I was, in Bangalore, about to travel to TN. And the people of Karnataka had directed their anger at the whole of TN! Oh, joy! We heard that the highways leading out of the city were being blocked. We were convinced that the trains would too. It was only a matter of time. We could hire a taxi, we thought, and make our way in the dead of the night of 08/01. No wait, that's too risky. How about getting a police escort across the state line? someone said. In the end, we decided to simply take the train as planned hoping for safety in numbers. Plus, we reasoned, it was an early morning train; most of the train/road blockers get serious after 8am. We should be out of the state by then.

Thankfully, the train chugged out of the station as scheduled early in the morning. The scene outside the window melted gradually from an urban landscape to rocky hills, and we knew we had crossed into TN. After an unevenful train journey, we reached Chennai Central on time to be greeted with smiles of relief!

Of monoliths and republicans

There is a lot of chatter about how the Republicans are showcasing people with widely differing opinions, moderates etc. in the ongoing convention. For instance, there's muscle-man Schwarzeneger from a liberal state, California, former mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani (curiously, both their names are not easy to spell!), Senator John McCain whom everyone loves! And just in the past week, VP Dick Cheney who has a gay daughter, reiterated his position against a constitutional amendment against gay marriage at a time that seemed politically convenient. And added in the same breath that the President makes policy decisions and that he is for an amendment. In that case, Cheney said he just goes along with whatever the Commander says. I can't help but admire the cleverness of the Republican strategists. Not only did they manage to say that there is room for differing opinions in the administration but also that the President decides at the end of the debate.

Come to think of it, if one supports the amendment barring gays from entering matrimony, then if one takes the argument to its logical conclusion, one has to support Hitler's idea of exterminating the homosexuals. You see, if one accords a second-rate citizenship to the gays and lesbians and says that such relationships are "not what God intended" using sentiments like "hate the sin" etc., then this hubris that drives one to say I'm-better-than-you will turn to saying "I'm better than you and I don't want to have anything to do with you because you were not meant to be here in the grand scheme of things." Well then, short of blasting the gays and lesbians and whomever one doesn't like, off to Mars or creating a city beneath the Yucca mountains, one is left with little choice but to go the Hitler way! But I digress..

To go back to what I started talking about, i.e. the presence of moderates on the Republican stage - again, you have to hand it to the political pundits in the GOP. It may be moderates who are batting, but President Bush would take the winner's cup. And I should probably stay away from sports metaphors!

On a different note: WMATA which is the Washington Metro transit authority has created this cool animation about evacuation in emergency - check it out: http://www.wmata.com/riding/safety/evac.cfm .

Did he really say that?!

The Republican National Convention kicked off yesterday with 9/11 being the predictable theme. From the family members of 9/11 survivors to the popular Senator John McCain to the then Mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani, everyone had praises for President Bush for his able leadership during and after those trying times. That they said all that and more, keeping a straight face, is itself praiseworthy. Never mind that the current administration is far from being "humble" as it had promised during the 2000 campaign. Never mind that, in the eyes of the world, they have reinforced the American stereotype of being the damn-the-rest cowboy. Never mind that they wasted away the tremendous outpouring of sympathy from all over the globe immediately after that fateful day.

And, oh the cheesy comment of the night? I would give that distinction to Rudy Giuliani's : "At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and I said to him, “Bernie, thank God George Bush is our President. I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our President. And thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background is our vice president."

Row, row, row a boat ...

So the Swift Boat Veterans drama continues. A lawyer working for the Bush campaign who was also partly responsible for the ad attacking Kerry, has resigned. Senator McCain wants the President to "tell his sleazy Texas buddies to stop these negative ads". And President Bush comes back with a meek all-such-ads-including-the-present-ad-are-bad response. Senator McMain saying that's not enough commented, "I've said before I would like for the president to specifically condemn that ad, but the president has said John Kerry served honorably and also the president is now committed to acting to try to bring 527s into regulations that are appropriate."

You have to hand it to the Republicans. They are trying (quite successfully, I think) to kill two birds with one stone. Through such irresponsible ads that is filled with untruths and half-truths, they attack Senator Kerry. At the same time, they say they are not to blame but the "soft campaign money" is. It is a well-known fact that there are more ads attacking Bush than Kerry, thanks to organizations such as moveon.org .By shifting the focus from the ad in question to some vague assertion against 527s, they not only control debate about who gets to question the Bush administration but also make wild charges against the Kerry campaign that are largely baseless. They can always issue something that sounds mildly apologetic but the damage intended is done. As President Bush said to Senator McCain during the 2000 primaries, "its all politics, John." Senator McCain's reply? "No George, not everything."

Attack!

First, some background. One of the advantages the Kerry campaign prides itself on is Senator Kerry's Vietnam service. The presidential candidate who commandeered a boat during the Vietnam war is a decorated war hero and his campaign doesn't miss a chance to remind the country about it. Contrast this with President Bush's record and you see that there really is no contest. Again, as the democrats never fail to remind the nation, the President chickened out of the war and enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard where his attendance, apparently, isn't much to speak about. In any case, a lot of water has flown under the proverbial bridge since then - yet, the war card carries considerable weight and anyone who watched the democratic convention would surely agree with me. From his opening line in his acceptance speech - "I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty" (Gee.. can anything be more cheesy?!) - to his war buddies coming up on stage to testify to Kerry's courage under fire, it was one big chest-thumping party that could put Tarzan to shame.

On to the story that has made headlines this week. A few days ago, a group called the "Swiftboat Veterans for truth" consisting of military men who were also in Vietnam at that time, some of whom were in the boats in the same boatalion (sic) as Senator Kerry, have taken out a TV ad accusing Kerry of fabricating evidence of his own bravery. Never mind that there are inconsistencies in what they say. Never mind that their connection to the White House is a hop, skip, Karl Rove away. Never mind that the President won't condemn such below the belt attacks as Senator John McCain (a well-regarded Republican Senator from Arizona) does. Of course, given that the Republicans have successfully attacked former Senator Max Cleland and questioned his patriotism, there's nothing surprising about this ad per se. And by the way, Cleland also fought in the Vietnam war and lost both his legs and an arm in the bargain. What I find funny is that the people are willing to ignore Iraq, the economy, healthcare (a word of caution: don't get sick in America!) and any issue worth talking about, and spend all their energy, money and power on the length of the Kerry's wound decades ago. One of the people in the now-famous TV ad is the doctor who treated Kerry on at least one occasion. He says Kerry's wound was so superficial that it was a mere scratch. (I paraphrase). Man, he must have a photographic memory if he can remember the extent of some soldier's wounds during a war that happened decades ago even when the wound in question was not something one could write a paper about. And oh, the medical records don't say anything about a scratch either.

McGroovy :)

A couple of days ago Governor McGreevey of New Jersey heralded "I am a gay American" and tendered his resignation. He had an extra-marital affair and just when things looked like they would blow up in his face, he pre-empted all the hoopla by announcing his intention to step down. Of course, it was foolish and unethical on his part and it is safe to assume that the voters wouldn't be kind and forgiving although I don't think people are all too shocked when politicians are caught in sex scandals. If the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is any indicator, the Republicans would've had a field day with McGreevey's confession.

But the fact remains that Clinton, with Senator Clinton by his side weathered the storm and went on complete his innings. Would we live to see a world where the likes of McGreevey don't have to act straight (no Oscars for that!) - and go on to be openly gay governors and presidents?!

Censor this!

VP Dick Cheney used the "F" word in the Senate when talking to- make that shouting at -Democratic Senator Leahy during a photo-op in the Senate earlier this week.( The senator, like many Americans have been questioning the VP's link with Halliburton, the firm that has profited handsomely in the wake of Iraqi war). It gets better. Today's Post reports that Cheney defended saying f*** the senator! Apparently the VP thinks that Senator Leahy deserved it. This coming from an administration that made all the brouhaha after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super bowl halftime performance. Can you imagine their reaction if Janet Jackson had said "Yeah! it was part of the act .. The American public deserved it!" or something along those lines...

I watched the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, last night. Of course, it does not even pretend to present an unbiased view of the administration. So I don't know why some people are taking potshots at the movie and not thinking about the charges the movie makes - charges based on facts. For instance, after the President was informed that the two towers were struck by planes and that the nation was under attack, he continued to sit there in the Florida classroom reading "My goat" (or whatever) to the elementary school kids. Shouldn't he have bolted out of there and I don't know talked to somebody to know what was happening?

After all the planes in US airspace were grounded, including those of former President Bush and Ricky Martin, why were more than a dozen Saudi jets allowed to ferry the bin Ladens out of the country? Yes, Osama's relatives were right here in this country. Now I agree that shots showing Wolfowitz using his saliva to tame a stray strand of hair etc. were merely titillating. But what about the Bush-Saudi-binLaden oil money connection? I could go on but I might get in trouble for saying such things - I don't want the FBI to come knocking on my door! Am I being paranoid? I don't know but the PATRIOT act sure gives me a pause.

Bill Clinton's book "My Life" is making big news. He's a smart guy and everything but when he says "after the cold war, the right-wing needed a new target" and that he replaced communism in the eyes of the right - I couldn't help rolling my eyes. I mean, Come on!!