May 09, 2008

"Vote Both": Sam Arora

Many people have been dismissive of a Democratic “dream ticket,” with Barack Obama as the presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton in the VP slot. For example, DailyKos, which is strongly pro-Obama, has been sharply dismissive of the idea, for a number of reasons. First, Obama has been putting himself forward as the “change” candidate, and the Clintons represent the opposite of “change.” Second, as a Senator from New York, Clinton doesn’t deliver “geographically” the way someone like Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico) might [but what about Arkansas?]. Third, she is way too big a personality to be comfortable sticking to whatever message and strategy the Obama campaign is likely to devise. Fourth, all this talk of Hillary supporters defecting to McCain seems rather suspect — when it comes down to it, are committed Democrats really going to vote for someone who is pro-Life, pro-Iraq War, etc.? And finally, most people presume the two of them, by now, can’t stand each other.

Sam Arora thinks otherwise. He was, until recently, a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, and is still described as a “Hillary-ite,” though he is no longer with the Clinton campaign. He and some other Hillaryites have started a site called “Vote Both,” to promote the idea of a Democratic dream ticket, with either of the two candidates on top. Their project has gotten some media attention, and profiles in articles like this one. Sam Arora was also interviewed on TV here (check it out — he’s a pretty smooth talker!).

SM had a post on Sam Arora (the same Sam Arora?) here, when he was a contestant for a reality TV show. Sam was also one of the “50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill” a couple of years ago (see this). (I will leave it to others to ascertain whether Sam Arora really is, in fact, “hot,” as he has often been described.)

I was earlier skeptical about the joint ticket idea, but now I’m starting to think it could work, as long as the two of them can come to agreement on strategy and message (and agree that Bill should go back to Chappaqua, and stay there until January 2009). Obama is still a “change” candidate, but after Reverend Wright, he no longer seems quite as fresh or revolutionary as he once appeared, and I don’t think working with Clinton will tarnish his image. Finally, any personal bitterness the two of them might feel for one another would undoubtedly go out the window if they were to win the election in November.

amardeep at 10:03 AM in Politics · 91 comment(s) · Direct link

May 07, 2008

Fareed Zakaria's Latest: "The Post-American World"

Though I’ve often disagreed with Fareed Zakaria on specific policy questions, I’ve always been challenged and interested by his way of thinking about big issues. Like some of my colleagues here at Sepia Mutiny, I found his book The Future of Freedom stimulating, if imperfect. Zakaria seems to be especially good at synthesizing complex issues under the umbrella of a signature “big idea,” without choking off qualifications or complexities. He still may a little too close to the buzzword-philia of Thomas Friedman for some readers, but in my view Zakaria’s book-length arguments are a cut above Friedman’s “gee whiz” bromides. (Zakaria’s weekly Newsweek columns do not always rise to this bar.)

Zakaria’s latest big concept is The Post-American World, a just-released book whose argument he summarizes in a substantial essay in this week’s Newsweek. The basic idea is, the world is becoming a place where the U.S. is not a solo superpower, but rather a complex competitive environment with multiple sites of power and influence. Even as China and India (“Chindia”?) rise, it’s not clear that the U.S. or Europe will fall; rather, everyone can, potentially, rise together — or at least, compete together. Zakaria argues that despite hysterical anxieties figured in the mass media regarding the threat of terrorism and economic crisis, the world has rarely been more peaceful — and that relative peace and stability has created the opportunity for the unprecedented emergence of independent and rapidly expanding market economies in formerly impoverished “Chindia.”

There’s more to it (read the article), but perhaps that is enough summary for now. There are a couple of passages I thought particularly interesting, which I might put out for discussion. First, on India:

During the 1980s, when I would visit India—where I grew up—most Indians were fascinated by the United States. Their interest, I have to confess, was not in the important power players in Washington or the great intellectuals in Cambridge.

People would often ask me about … Donald Trump. He was the very symbol of the United States—brassy, rich, and modern. He symbolized the feeling that if you wanted to find the biggest and largest anything, you had to look to America. Today, outside of entertainment figures, there is no comparable interest in American personalities. If you wonder why, read India’s newspapers or watch its television. There are dozens of Indian businessmen who are now wealthier than the Donald. Indians are obsessed by their own vulgar real estate billionaires. And that newfound interest in their own story is being replicated across much of the world. (link)

This last insight seems dead-on to me, and it’s the kind of thing I think Zakaria appreciates precisely because he was raised in India (no matter how many times he says “we” when talking about American foreign policy, he still carries that with him). This is one of the spaces where Zakaria’s status as an “Indian-American” is a real asset, as it gives him a simultaneous insider-outsider “double consciousness” — he has the ability to see things from the American/European point of view, but also know (remembers?) how the man on the street in Bombay or Shanghai is likely to see the world. [Note: I did an earlier post on Zakaria’s complex perspective here]

(As a side note — for the academics in the house, isn’t the narrative Zakaria is promoting in the passage above a “pop” version of what postcolonial theorists have been talking about for years — what Ngugi called “The Decolonization of the Mind”?)

Secondly, another passage, which I think addresses what might be the biggest hindrance to the multi-nodal global society Zakaria is interested in:

The rise of China and India is really just the most obvious manifestation of a rising world. In dozens of big countries, one can see the same set of forces at work—a growing economy, a resurgent society, a vibrant culture, and a rising sense of national pride. That pride can morph into something uglier. For me, this was vividly illustrated a few years ago when I was chatting with a young Chinese executive in an Internet café in Shanghai. He wore Western clothes, spoke fluent English, and was immersed in global pop culture. He was a product of globalization and spoke its language of bridge building and cosmopolitan values. At least, he did so until we began talking about Taiwan, Japan, and even the United States. (We did not discuss Tibet, but I’m sure had we done so, I could have added it to this list.) His responses were filled with passion, bellicosity, and intolerance. I felt as if I were in Germany in 1910, speaking to a young German professional, who would have been equally modern and yet also a staunch nationalist.

As economic fortunes rise, so inevitably does nationalism. Imagine that your country has been poor and marginal for centuries. Finally, things turn around and it becomes a symbol of economic progress and success. You would be proud, and anxious that your people win recognition and respect throughout the world. (link)

Will resurgent nationalism turn out to be the biggest hindrance to the “smooth” globalization Zakaria is talking about? How might this play out? Will there be a new generation of wars, or will it be expressed in subtler ways (like, for instance, what happened with the nuclear deal within the Indian political system). In the Newsweek article at least, Zakaria doesn’t really explore the downside of emergent (insurgent?) Chindian nationalisms in depth; perhaps we can do so here.

amardeep at 09:38 AM in Economics, News, Politics · 93 comment(s) · Direct link

May 01, 2008

“Highlight the torture and your brown daughter”

Emperor Palpatine weighed in on the ‘08 race on Wednesday by giving “young” Jedi McCain some unsolicited advice from the bleachers. Rove said he thinks that the usually secretive McCain needs to open up a bit more about his private life if he wants the voting public to relate to him better. There were two specific areas of McCain’s private life that he thinks should be highlighted with increased enthusiasm:

1999 picture. Which one of these is not like the others?

“Private people like Mr. McCain are rare in politics for a reason,” Rove writes. “Candidates who are uncomfortable sharing their interior lives limit their appeal. But if Mr. McCain is to win the election this fall, he has to open up.”

Specifically, Rove says McCain should reveal more about his wartime heroics and days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He also says McCain should spend more time highlighting the fact he and his wife took in a sick Bangladeshi child in 1991, their adopted daughter Bridget. [Link]

Here is the meat without the fat: Rove thinks McCain should go into details about which “stress positions” were used on him during his seven year stint in a North Vietnamese prison because American voters like macho men (e.g., Jack Bauer), and he should show that he is a compassionate conservative by pointing out with greater frequency that he took in a young brown girl from the third world. This is the same brown girl who was at the center of a whisper campaign orchestrated by Rove “unknown Bush operatives” in 2000, which implied she was McCain’s black lovechild (blogged about at SM 4 years ago). This hurt him in the South Carolina primary which he eventually lost to Bush.

… in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. “I hope she can stay with us,” she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

I was aware of this story. What I did not know, and what I learned from Doris, is that there was a second infant Mrs. McCain brought back. She ended up being adopted by a young McCain aide and his wife.

“We were called at midnight by Cindy,” Wes Gullett remembers, and “five days later we met our new daughter Nicki at the L.A. airport wearing the only clothing Cindy could find on the trip back, a 7-Up T-shirt she bought in the Bangkok airport.” Today, Nicki is a high school sophomore. Mr. Gullett told me, “I never saw a hospital bill” for her care. [Link]

Yeah, I’ll bet Rove was “aware of this story.” Years later, Bridget, just like Kanye West, wondered why George W. Bush hated her. I call bullshit on the Emperor and his mis-use of The Force for his continued use of Bridget for poltical gain.

abhi at 12:16 AM in Politics · 56 comment(s) · Direct link

April 28, 2008

Reminder: Jindal on Leno tonight

As I mentioned last week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will be on Leno tonight in a show he taped earlier. If Leno is on past your bedtime then you can read the full transcript here:

Leno: So, tell us Bobby. If John McCain came asking or begging you to be vice president, you’re telling us you will say “no”.

Jindal: Jay, again, I would be honored but I have a job to do and that is to be the governor of all of the people in Louisiana, republicans and democrats, rich and poor, young and old.

Leno: Spoken like a politician Bobby. You are learning fast. But, getting back to the question. Would you say absolutely say I would not serve as Vice President if asked. Remember you would be a heart beat away from the Oval Office and McCain is no “spring chicken”. Are you telling the nation tonight you would not serve no matter what?

Jindal: Jay, I have a job to do. I was voted into office by a large majority. I want to be the best Governor Louisiana has ever had and we have really had some real colorful clowns in the past.

Leno: So, that is the best we will get from you tonight, right.

Jindal: I have spoken repeatedly about this issue explaining my feelings, so let’s talk about how Louisiana is becoming a major force to be reckoned now and in the future.

Leno: Governor, first, I’ve been wondering. Tell me. How did an Indian American become Governor of the same state that almost put David Duke in the mansion a decade or so ago? Did you buy his list or something?

Jindal: (laughs) Well, Louisiana has changed so much in the past decade and will do so even more during my administration. I am pleased that the son of an Indian immigrant could become Governor in the Deep South. I was born in Baton Rouge, am an American and am dedicated to turning Louisiana around after years of neglect and poor leadership. [Link]

I have to say, he is saying all the words a person who’d accept and invitation to be VP should be saying. I don’t think you’d HAVE to resign your Governor’s job to be a Vice Presidential running mate. I guess it is in his advantage to keep his name in the spotlight by not dismissing the idea. I’ll link the video once its up.

abhi at 10:36 PM in Politics, TV · 143 comment(s) · Direct link

April 24, 2008

Floating the Jindal balloon

With respect to the question of whether or not John McCain will tap Louisiana’s Governor Jindal for his VP, I have been quoted on this website as saying, to paraphrase, “when pigs fly in hell.” I just don’t see the strategic value in such an arrangement. Why would Jindal want to give up the best possible job in the world (executive experience in a state which he can only make better…since it can’t possibly get any worse) in order to run with a nominee with tough odds (its forecasted to be a bad year for Republicans)? If he has ambitions he should strategically wait until 2012 or 2016 to act upon them. On the flip side, why would McCain pick someone who is young, intelligent, brown and relatively inexperienced to take over for him if he keels over while in office (he’s kind of old you know)? It undermines the very arguments he will need to make against Obama. But today we saw these pictures as the straight talk express rolled through New Orleans:

McCain illustrates the current administration’s popularity trend in Louisiana.

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee, today toured a portion of New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward still showing the ravages of Hurricane Katrina and called the federal government’s initial response to the catastrophe “disgraceful.”

In New Orleans as part of his “Straight Talk Express” tour, McCain - with Gov. Bobby Jindal at his side - sharply criticized the Bush administration for “mishandling” the disaster but also said Congress must share some of the blame for backing pork barrel projects when that money could have been used to strengthen the city’s levees and restore the state’s vanishing wetlands and coastline. [Link]

My guess is that McCain is trying to do whatever he can to get the media to stop focusing on the Clinton-Obama slugfest and to start concentrating a little on him. What better way to do that then to make people start speculating about his VP with greater interest. Also out today was this article:

There is a buzz in Republican political circles that John McCain could pick former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Carly Fiorina, 53, to be his vice presidential nominee.

NBC11 political analyst Larry Gerston said a potential McCain-Fiorina ticket could inspire Republicans who think the country may be on the “precipice of change…” “A number of Republican leaders are looking for a way to take a rather stodgy candidacy and bring some life to it,” said NBC11 political analyst Larry Gerston. “It comes at a time when Democrats have an African-American and a white woman battling each other — while the Republicans have a 71-year-old white male as the presumptive nominee…” [Link]

So there are two McCain stories floating out in the media on the same day. One has him paired with and ambitious and often vilified white woman and the other has him paired with a brilliant but relatively inexperienced young brown man. Hmmmm. Getting back to Jindal, this is what he had to say about the speculation:

Gov. Bobby Jindal dismissed rumors about him joining Sen. John McCain on the Republican ticket as vice president, but didn’t definitively say he would refuse McCain if called upon by the presumptive nominee.

Instead, Jindal said, “He’s not going to ask.”

“I’ve made it abundantly clear that I’m happy in my job,” Jindal said while in Monroe on Thursday. “I love the job I have.

“It’s flattering that my name has been raised, but this is a historic time in Louisiana and I want to be a part of it…” [Link]

Interestingly though, he does leave the door open AND he is appearing on Jay Leno next Monday. Politicians often go on the late night show circuit before announcing something major. However, like I point to above, this could all be a clever attention grabbing stunt by the Republican establishment. I still think this is a very unlikely pair.

abhi at 10:43 PM in Politics · 94 comment(s) · Direct link

April 21, 2008

Pose Your Questions to Amit Singh...

A few weeks ago, I got a chance to interview Amit Singh who is a currently a GOP primary candidate for Virginia’s 8th District congressional seat. The interview covered a variety of topics and generated some interesting comments & discussion amongst the Mutiny. One specific request was an opportunity for other folks to hit him with questions of their own.

I pinged Amit and not only did he enjoy reading the discussion spawned by the interview but he was pretty interested in doing more Q&A with us. So, we’re going to use this post for other readers to send their questions to Amit.

I do wanna set a few groundrules -

• STRUCTURE: We’ve all got day jobs (this is a jetlagged-in-a-foreign-hotel blogpost, for ex.) so rather than a Live Q&A (which requires realtime moderation), I’m going to use this blogpost to compile questions from folks and present them to Amit who’ll hit ‘em in a subsequent post. Schedules permitting, we may try to do some Live Q&A afterwards.
• TIMING: Between Amit’s campaign schedule and my work/travel schedule we’ll give commentor’s here ~1 week to post questions and about a week or so later, I’ll get the responses up and posted.
• MODERATION: Because politics can bring out the nasty side of a very small number folks, it’s worth being pretty direct here - If your question / comment is a personal attack, rude or insulting, SM Intern will delete it (yep, our busy intern was forced to pounce on a few in the last interview with Amit; others were borderline). If it’s *really* rude or insulting, you get banned. One can disagree without being disagreeable. And, we’ll try our best but, in all likelihood, not all questions will get addressed.

Fire away….

vinod at 11:52 PM in Politics · 56 comment(s) · Direct link

April 18, 2008

Maoist Victory in Nepal -- A Good Thing?

Journalist Siddharth Varadarajan was in Nepal for the past couple of weeks, covering the recent Constituent Assembly elections there first-hand, and he’s written some marvelously informative articles about where the country seems to be going at this decisive moment of reformulation.

In a piece published in The Hindu on April 16, Varadarajan argued that the recent Maoist victory in Nepal might end up as a good thing for both Nepal and India:

By the time of the Jan Andolan of 2006, it was the Maoist demand for an end to the monarchy and the election of a Constituent Assembly which had captured the imagination of the people, even if the Maoists were not at the head of the mass movement in Kathmandu.

Over the past two years, the Maoists succeeded in pushing the envelope further, winning popular acceptance for their slogans of an inclusive, federal republic as well as for a more equitable voting system. Nepal’s political elite and sections of the Indian establishment who feared losing control of the entire process sought to derail the momentum the former rebels had built up. The proposal for a fully proportional election system was blocked and the Madhesi agitation encouraged as a means of weakening the Maoists. None of these efforts succeeded. The Maoists contested the CA election as the creators of the new mainstream. And it is hardly surprising that the people of Nepal should have chosen them to lead the process of writing the country’s constitution. (link)

This goes against the conventional thinking on Maoists, who in other parts of Asia have tended to be more comfortable as guerilla fighters/terrorists than as fair leaders in democratic republics. From the rest of the article, I gather that Varadarajan trusts them because 1) the other political parties in Nepal have thoroughly discredited themselves over the years (read the article for more), and 2) since coming above-ground, the Maoist leadership (Prachanda) has behaved in ways that suggest it really is committed to the democratic process, including cooperation with other parties. I must confess that despite Varadarajan’s work I remain uneasy about this — Maoists just do not have a good track record in terms of human rights, anywhere in the world. (I first wrote about the Maoist ceasefire in December 2006.)

I would also recommend an earlier article by Varadarajan from just before the elections (April 6), where he explains the ethnic/communal tensions that are part of this story. (The Maoists have traditionally supported the Madhesis, who are ethnically ‘Indian,’ but who have in the past been the victims of discrimination by the Nepalese majority. Recently, however, there have been conflicts between the Maoists and armed/militant Madhesi groups.)

amardeep at 08:48 AM in Politics · 38 comment(s) · Direct link

April 15, 2008

Parallels between Madia’s and Obama’s campaigns

For those of you who haven’t already heard, Ashwin Madia, who we interviewed way back in December here at SM, won the Democratic Primary in his Minnesota Congressional district against rather tough odds:

DFL activists Saturday chose first-time office seeker and Iraq War veteran Ashwin Madia as their endorsed candidate for the Third Congressional District seat being vacated by Republican Jim Ramstad.

It took eight ballots before state Sen. Terri Bonoff, who had trailed Madia throughout the day, withdrew.

DFLers left the convention energized by the possibility of having a Democrat elected to the seat in the western Twin Cities suburbs for the first time in 50 years. [Link]

I find that there are some interesting parallels between the strategy he used to beat the more well known and experienced Terri Bonoff, and the strategy Barack Obama has used to pretty much beat Hillary Clinton:

1. Both women were the presumptive front-runners with loads of traditional political experience and establishment backing
2. First-time participants make up the base of both Madia’s and Obama’s supporters and are very enthusiastic
3. Madia and Obama both realized that it is the delegates that matter most and went after every one
4. Rhetorical charm, not attacks were employed by both during debates and speeches to win support

Eric Black, a writer at MinnPost.com who has a great play-by-play of the selection process, made the following observations about Madia’s campaign that also struck me:

• Ashwin Madia, a very young, dark-skinned, bachelor lawyer with a foreign-sounding name, who had not run for anything since college, who started with name recognition in the zero range, beat state Sen. Terri Bonoff, a bright, attractive, well-regarded, well-financed woman for the DFL endorsement
• As the candidates trouped around to various joint appearances and debates, Madia continued to impress audiences. I moderated two debates in the race. Madia didn’t crush Bonoff and Hovland with big put-downs, not at all. As I heard it, his rhetorical charm has been his knack of at least giving the impression that he had actually answered the question he was asked, more often than many politicians do.

Politico.com observed the following:

• “It became very clear [Madia] was working very hard and [Bonoff] didn’t take him very seriously,” said Minnesota-based political analyst Barry Casselman. “On paper, she was the perfect candidate, a moderate who fit the district, yet she lost.” [Link]

Like many of Clinton’s supporters, Bonoff’s supporters were left wondering what happened:

“He came out of nowhere and he doesn’t have a voting record,” Kay continued. “Anybody can say something. I just don’t know where he stands.”… [Link]

Madia has a really good shot at winning this congressional seat and becoming the first Indian American Congressman since Bobby Jindal. Despite the fact that the 3rd usually goes to the Republicans, anti-Republican sentiment is high in Minnesota and the rest of the country. You can tell the Republican’s there are afraid because they immediately started distorting him:

DFL leaders talked of the need to focus the passion that was brought to the endorsement against presumptive Republican opponent Rep. Erik Paulsen, who is running without opposition. Immediately after Madia’s endorsement, state Republican leaders said Madia was “pretty far out there in the liberal fringe.”

“He’s far from a moderate and he’s far from a centrist,” said Republican spokesman Mark Drake, who pointed to Madia’s opposition to tax relief and to surveillance programs, as well as the endorsement on Thursday by U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison. [Link]

Ummm. Madia is actually a former Republican who voted for Bob Dole and supported John McCain in 2000. I asked him about his Republican roots in my interview.

The fight now focuses on Erik Paulsen:

Madia labored hard to build a grassroots organization and went after delegates hard in recent endorsement conventions.

Madia estimated he will have to raise $3 million during the upcoming campaign, but said he is confident he can do it.

Early in the day, DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez urged delegates to focus on defeating Paulsen, the expected Republican candidate, in November instead of getting caught up in differences that might emerge during Saturday’s endorsement fight. [Link]

If you want to support Madia’s campaign you can volunteer or donate $.

abhi at 10:13 PM in Politics · 41 comment(s) · Direct link

April 11, 2008

In Defense of Pakistan's Hindus

Ali Eteraz has an informative column on Comment is Free about discrimination against Pakistan’s 3 million Hindus.

The immediate inspiration is a recent lynching of a Hindu factory worker in Karachi, after it is alleged that he uttered blasphemous words about Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. The family of the man who was murdered have suggested that he may have been killed for other reasons, and his co-workers have merely invoked blasphemy as a convenient ruse for a murder committed for more prosaic reasons. It is unclear whether his killers will be prosecuted, though there does appear to be some legal interest in doing so.

In his column, Ali Eteraz rightly condemns the institutional discrimination that exists against religious minorities in Pakistan, including the establishment of separate electorates for Hindus (dating from 1973), and an anti-Ahmadiyya blasphemy law that was first instituted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then enhanced by Zia ul-Haq in 1982.

One of the commenters on Comment is Free also linked to this article in the Washington Post, which describes Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws in greater depth. Reading that article reminded me how complex Pakistan’s legal system is. I think Ali Eteraz’s sincere hope is that the Blasphemy Law in particular ought to be immediately repealed. For my part, I must admit I have no idea whether that is a realistic possibility or not. However, we might remember that Pakistan’s legal community took a heroic stance last fall in the face of Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions. Perhaps they can do so again.

amardeep at 11:09 AM in Politics · 102 comment(s) · Direct link

April 10, 2008

I went to Pakistan with my roommate

Barack Obama dropped a “bombshell” today, something not mentioned in either of his two books:

According to his campaign staff, Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent “about three weeks” there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India. [Link]

Whoa. He went to Karachi and probably had Hyderabadi biryani on the same college trip over 25 years ago! If he is elected President might not this learning experience alone help him bridge the divide between the South Asian nations? Remember when he said he was appalled that one of his staffers wrote the D-Punjab memo? At the time he stated an affinity for the South Asian community because his college roommate was desi. Turns out BO rolled at least three deep in his younger days:

In “Dreams from My Father,” he talks of having a Pakistani roommate when he moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik who “had overstayed his tourist visa and now made a living in New York’s high-turnover, illegal immigrant work force, waiting on tables…”

During his years at Occidental College, Mr. Obama also befriended Wahid Hamid, a fellow student who was an immigrant from Pakistan and traveled with Mr. Obama there, the Obama campaign said. Mr. Hamid is now a vice president at Pepsico in New York, and according to public records, has donated the maximum $2,300 to the Obama campaign and is listed as a fund-raiser for it.

Mr. Chandoo is now a self-employed financial consultant, living in Armonk, N.Y. He has also donated the maximum, $2,300, to Mr. Obama’s primary campaign and an additional $309 for the general election, campaign finance records show. [Link]

Clinton (D-Punjab) loves India and Indian food, but as far as I know, on a day-to-day basis she only runs one deep. And McCain? I don’t know if he has any desi friends but his daughter is desi, so I guess that also counts as one deep. All this is important because having desi friends means that you might understand aspects of foreign policy better, as Obama explained today:

“I knew what Sunni and Shia was before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” he said. [Link]

He might have a point. We all know that W. doesn’t have a desi posse and, as you’d expect, he didn’t know what a Sunni or Shia was. Bottom line: Having South Asian American friends = good. That is something both parties should be able to agree on.

abhi at 10:13 PM in Humor, Politics · 51 comment(s) · Direct link

April 09, 2008

Amit Singh Sits Down With the Mutiny

Election 08: The Mutiny Inquires and the Candidates Respond. Well, one of them anyway .

Last month, we profiled Amit Singh who’s running for a congressional seat representing Virginia’s 8th district. To get there, he’s first fighting for the GOP nomination against Mark Ellmore on June 10th. The winner of that race will in turn do battle against long serving Democratic incumbent, Jim Moran in November.

Amit recently (and quite graciously) took some time out of his busy campaign and day job to answer some questions via email. The Q&A is below the fold and spans the gamut from his positions, to why he’s a Republican, to his observations on Desi-American politics, down to some of his thoughts on controversial national issues like illegal aliens and Iraq.

In addition to answering our questions, Amit also pointed me at a few of his other, recent interviews including this video and some updates on his website including a WaPo profile. For example, he recently took a position similar to McCain in pledging to avoid the widespread practice of earmarks - a cornerstone of pork barrel politics, and particularly so at the local congressional district level.

His video interview on Darshan reveals him to be a well spoken, thoughtful individual in RealTime and he gives us some tantalizing clues about his “intelligence community” job -

“the rest of the world is adopting free market principles… including India and China and the United States seems to be going in the opposite direction.” “we have a very young district, I myself am 33 and our average voter is 32” “my niche is building prototypes for the intelligence community… we do a lot of work for soldiers that are deploying out to Iraq and Afghanistan that have an evolving threat. IEDs, for example, are consistently changing and maturing so we have to stay ahead of the game…” - Amit Singh on DarhsanTV.com

Amit Singh in WaPo

General Questions

[Vinod:] So, the biggest question - Why are you running?

[Amit:] I am running because I feel that the current group of politicians is leading our country in the wrong direction and we need problems solvers to put us back on course. I was compelled to run when I saw so many people around me struggling to pay their mortgages and losing their freedoms. I never had any political ambitions but could not sit idly by while our country was being lead down the wrong path. I wanted to support one of the candidates already running for local office.

However, after I learned more about their positions I only saw people who would continue to lead America down an untenable and irresponsible path, candidates who felt that a bigger more intrusive government which did not respect the people was the solution.

Can you summarize the top 3-5 elements of your platform?

1. Limited Government - I believe that we should have faith in the American people and trust them to run their lives. By promoting free markets and personal freedom we will have a stronger, wealthier, and better educated nation.

“I believe many follow this general notion that the Democrat is automatically better for minorities and immigrants without actually looking at the policies implemented and positions taken by the candidate.”2. Fiscal Responsibility - The ballooning national debt and huge amount of government waste are the greatest long-term threats to the American economy and security. We are currently mortgaging the futures of every young American to pay for our current needs. Unless we take corrective action now and begin to reign in wasteful spending, we will see the dollar continue to fall in value and find ourselves unable to provide for our citizens.

3. Personal Liberties - Unfortunately, we have seen our civil rights and civil liberties slowly taken away from us. I oppose measures like the Real ID which violate our constitutionally inviolable rights and in the end make us more vulnerable.

4. Immigration - Our immigration system is broken. I believe we need to secure our borders, but also need to encourage legal immigration. We can foster legal immigration by improving our economy, streamlining the cumbersome immigration process, and implementing guest worker programs.

Party Affiliation & Background

Why are you running as a Republican?

Nothing says Real like a cameraphone photo…

I believe that the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for personal liberties most closely match with the core principles of the Republican Party. Granted, recently some Republicans have been promoting, encouraging, and enacting a platform that counters those principles that rest at the foundation of Republicanism. However, I am running a true Republican who always respects the rights of all the people.

In some reports, you qualify yourself as a “libertarian Republican”? How is this different from other shades of “Republican”?

I believe a true Republican respects the rights and power of the people at all times and on all issues, not just when they find it convenient. Some have described me as a “libertarian Republican” because I strongly believe in the idea and practice of fiscal responsibility, protecting our civil liberties, and limiting the size of the federal government, thereby differentiating me from others who have co-opted the name Republican. Unfortunately, there are some who call themselves Republicans who believe that a more intrusive government, a more wasteful government, and a government that ignores the fundamental rights of its people is the preferred type of government. To me, that type of government sounds like the polar opposite of core Republican values and what America should be.

By some measures, most Indo-Americans see themselves as Democrats (estimates for the margin ranges from 3-1 all the way up to 10-1). Why do you think this is so? “My father is a college professor of statistics and my mother is wanting me to get married.”

I believe many follow this general notion that the Democrat is automatically better for minorities and immigrants without actually looking at the policies implemented and positions taken by the candidate. Additionally, as my parents described the philosophy of government they saw in practice, many South Asian immigrants come from a world where the central government was responsible for all services and the citizen was wholly dependent on the government - a system they recognized being offered by some Democrats.

However, I see a change occurring as more South Asian Americans analyze their positions. Many begin to describe themselves as fiscally responsible Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, or socially tolerant Republicans, Main Street Republicans. In truth, they find that they are actually more moderate and centered politically than the more philosophically extreme candidates typically offered by either party.

Unfortunately, our politicians encourage people to blindly vote for the letter next to the name as opposed to examining the positions and views of the candidate in question.

Many / most politicians come into the game from a law or policy background. Your educational background is in engineering and professionally, small business. How does this shape / alter your approach to & expectations from government?

I was born and raised near Richmond, VA and attended the University of Virginia where I received my Electrical Engineering degree in 1996.

“I’m a big believer in limited government,” said Singh, 33, who is single. He also said federal bureaucracies, although “well-intentioned,” are “counterproductive.”

- Amit Singh in WaPo; Perhaps chiming in on the ever popular Intentionalists vs. Consequentialists debate.

My father is a college professor of statistics and my mother is wanting me to get married. In the past few years I have made it a point to visit at least one foreign country a year. Last year was China and before that included Budapest, Czech Republic, Thailand, Austria, Korea. I wanted to go to Turkey this year but with the campaign I may have to break the promise to myself.

I am an engineer by trade and started my own engineering firm about 8 years ago which primarily serves the Defense Dept. I specialize in designing and building prototypes because I have a talent of working with a number of unknowns in a highly fluid situation.

My engineering background and personality drive me to be a very solutions oriented person. The beauty of engineering is that you learn there are many ways to solve a problem and to arrive at the best solution you need to try many things. That is a fundamental reason I am against the Federal govt controlling so many of our services like Education with a one-size-fits-all solution. By allowing the States to control many of our services, we are more likely to learn from one another and improve the services for everyone.

As a businessman, I understand the entrepreneurship spirit that has made America so strong. I also understand how over-regulation and over-taxation reduce the incentive to take risks and serve our customers better. I would use this background to help foster a better business environment in the US and help repeal regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley and lower the corporate tax rate which is the second highest in the world so that American business will be more competitive on the global market.“My background has encouraged a level of support from the South Asian community because many are proud to have “one of their own” running for office…”

South Asian-ness

Aside from highly notable figures like Bobby Jindal, there’s an oft-noted dearth of South Asians involved at different levels of the political process. Why do you think this is so? What sort of participation are you seeing from Indo-Americans in your campaign?

I may see a slightly different side of this living so close to DC, but I have seen and know many South Asians directly and actively involved at all levels of the political process. Regardless, many of our parents’ generation came in search of economic mobility and did not have roots in the community which allowed them to feel comfortable actively running for office. Thus, many second generation South Asians were brought up in households where we were encouraged to become professionals and a political career was not promoted. In my case, the jump from being an engineer running a business to a Congressional candidate has posed many challenges; for example, the expectation that a politician will always be evasive when my profession requires me to be very straightforward and realistic.

My campaign has attracted the support of people of all backgrounds, ranging from traditional Republicans and Democrats, to young and old people of both genders. I have a number of South Asians supporting my candidacy and a few are on my full-time staff. Admittedly, some were initially attracted because of similarities I share with them.

However, they all became my supporters because they believe in my message of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for our civil liberties.

Given how much attention is being given to “Identity” as a campaign issue in the presidential race, has being Indo-American affected your campaign and positions?

My background has encouraged a level of support from the South Asian community because many are proud to have “one of their own” running for office. However, they continue to support me because my positions are universally beneficial to all Americans regardless of background.

In fact, I believe when politicians attempt to gain favor from groups by pandering to them or giving them special treatment, any short-term gain comes at a heavier long-term price.

What issues tend to resonate more with the Indo-American community in your district vs. the community-at-large?

The DC area is so diverse, even among Indo-Americans, its difficult to pin it down to a few issues but the Economy is the one most important to me. Even if its not the biggest issue for most, I try to remind them it is the first issue. When the economy is strong other issues such as Immigration and Health care are easier to address.

Other Issues

Illegal immigration & undocumented workers are pretty polarizing issues to say the least. Still, on your campaign website you highlight this issue in particular. As the son of immigrants do you have a unique perspective to the problem?

Pounding Pavement

Absolutely. I understand the logistical issues and emotional attachments that immigrant families have with their native countries. That is why I am strongly in favor of a smart guest worker program so families can remain in native countries while the breadwinner is able to safely travel across the border and not be forced to take the calculated risk of bringing their families over as well.

Iraq. Where should we go from here? While most on both sides of the aisle want to be out of the country, the real questions are How and When. And the limiting factor seems to be “what would happen if we pulled out”? Could it turn into another Somalia or post-Soviet Afghanistan if the pullout happens too fast? How do we determine if it’s our very presence there vs. deeper faultlines that are causing the violence?

Realistically, the US will maintain logistical personnel, diplomatic protection and some strategic forces in Iraq for a very long time. US forces have been in South Korea for almost 60 years. The real question is about combat troops and how and when they can return. We cannot pull out of Iraq in a day, but we can take aggressive actions to turn over control to local authorities faster. My experience in the Intelligence Community has shown me this is most effective method of ridding the country of extremists. Also, the Iraqi govt must take more ownership of their country and help improve their economy. Even in Iraq, a good economy will solve multiple problems.

Most importantly - Bhangra or Filmi-Pop - what’s on your iPod right now?

I’m old school filmi, Aap Ka Jaise Koi, Qurbani, and Amitabh, etc. but they’re on my 8 track not my iPod ;-)

---

Like what you hear? If you’re of a similar mindset, I’m sure Amit would appreciate your support - join up, buy a t-shirt, watch his YouTube channel, or heck, join the facebook group.

DC-area mutineers, you get a particular call to action: your Congressional Primary is June 10; and Amit has a couple of electioneering events this weekend. You can sign up on his email list to learn more and contribute.

vinod at 02:59 PM in Politics · 41 comment(s) · Direct link

March 25, 2008

Pakistan's New PM: Raza Gilani

The first sentence of the AP report on the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gilani, is rather telling:

When former parliament speaker Yousaf Raza Gilani was first tipped as a contender to be prime minister, he quipped that taking high office in Pakistan’s cutthroat politics could fast-track him back to prison. (link)

Wait — back to prison?

In fact, Gilani spent five years in prison on corruption charges that may have been political in nature, and was only released in October 2006. Musharraf can’t be thrilled that a person his government once accused of defrauding the government of millions ($30 million, to be exact) is now running an overwhelmingly dominant coalition government against him. (As a side note, I find it interesting that Gilani was actually a member of Zia Ul-Haq’s government in the early 1980s, before switching over to the PPP. I haven’t been able to ascertain anywhere why he switched — what Zia stood for ideologically is quite the opposite of the PPP. Does anyone have the scoop on this aspect of Gilani’s past?)

The media is reporting that the real power will still lie with Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto’s widower, and president of the PPP. Zardari, for his part, really was corrupt (charges against him too have been dropped recently), so if one believes that Gilani’s status as PM will mean a lesser likelihood of a return to the bad old days of the Benazir Bhutto regimes, one might be relieved at this turn of events.

Then again, there is also a suggestion that Zardari will run for Parliament in a by-election this summer, which would qualify him to be Prime Minister. If I were Zardari I might skip that step, and wait until Musharraf steps down as President. One would expect him to aim for the office where the real power lies in Pakistan — the Presidency.

Finally, the big question on everyone’s minds has to be the status of the former Supreme Court justices, who were detained last fall and also recently released (but not reinstated). If the new Parliament decides to go the route of confronting Musharraf directly, will not the poop hit the punkah [pukka in Punjabi]? Will Musharraf step down without a fight?

amardeep at 09:44 AM in Politics · 16 comment(s) · Direct link

March 21, 2008

A Little on Obama's Speech

I disagree with Manish’s assessment; I actually thought Obama gave a very good speech on Tuesday. I do see the limitations: the tone and delivery was much more restrained than Obama’s earlier big speeches, so it’s not likely to bring him a new wave of supporters where he could use them most (i.e., here in Pennsylvania). But a soft and dispassionate tone was probably essential, as his primary goal was to distance himself from the unrestrained, over-the-top anger of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

In contrast to Manish, I do feel that Obama did address the segments of American society who are not black or white, when he mentioned immigrants:

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.

Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. (link)

The rhetorical move here is intriguing — he starts by acknowledging the resentment of working- and middle-class whites (which is itself significant; it’s perhaps the first time I’ve seen a Democrat say anything like this). But in the final paragraph, he moves to include immigrants, and in some sense suggests that the resentment of whites might also overlap with the resentment of immigrants about things like affirmative action. (Certainly, I know many South Asians — and Asians, more generally — who are deeply opposed to Affirmative Action, so this rings true.)

A second reference to immigrants comes later in the speech:

But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

This time, the reference is more purely sentimental: he’s talking about our shared experience of striving and struggle. But his choice of examples here is really telling as it reveals who he’s trying to reach: middle-class whites and immigrants.

In short, while this is primarily a speech about relations between blacks and whites, Obama does inject a “third” position into the mix, which might refer to Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants.

amardeep at 09:49 AM in Politics · 187 comment(s) · Direct link

March 19, 2008

Has the Tiger been leashed by the Dragon?

China continues to deploy troops in an effort to quell any protests in/over the “disputed region” of Tibet as the Summer Olympics, China’s coming out party, inches ever closer:

Chinese troops and police have tightened their hold on Tibetan areas in the westernmost region of the country as they work to keep anti-government protests from spreading.

Journalists and activist groups have reported large numbers of troops in provinces along Tibet’s eastern border…

Peaceful protests against Chinese rule in Tibet began last week and gradually turned violent.

China says at least 16 people were killed in riots in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa Friday. But the Tibetan government-in-exile says at least 99 people have been killed in the unrest. [Link]

Last week the nation of Nepal bent over for China by caving to a request to shut down all points on Mt. Everest higher than base camp between now and the middle of May. The beginning of May is thought to be a prime time for a summit attempt, groups having spent the few weeks before that steadily climbing and acclimating. Only a Chinese team, carrying the Olympic torch, will be allowed to proceed, without worry that they will be met by Tibetan protestors at or near the top. All those that may have spent years planning for their ascent attempt get screwed. This isn’t as trivial as it sounds since tourism related to Everest brings a large chunk of money and prestige to the impoverished nation. On the brightside, it looks like Nepal might have begun to come to its economic senses in the past few days. They are no longer “sure” about acceding to China’s original request:

“How could they do something so devastating to the economy and to a Nepalese icon?” said Peter Athans, a 50-year-old American mountaineer who has reached the summit of Everest seven times. “A country superior in size and power is grinding under foot Nepal’s small but very important tourist industry.”

An expedition leader who has a group of 14 clients arriving next week said: “We just want to climb. But suddenly we have this other priority. We don’t need the Chinese intimidating us.” The Nepalese Ministry of Tourism backed away from its ban yesterday, with a spokesman insisting that the season’s 25 Everest expeditions would proceed as planned. “You can go any time to Everest,” he said. [Link]

What about India and its role as related to the protests in Tibet? In Dharamshala this past week, India too decided to suck up to China:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said he “appreciated” the steps taken by Indian authorities in handling protests by Tibetan refugees in the country.

More than 100 refugees were detained in India while attempting to march to the Chinese border last week.

They were marching as part of the global pro-independence protest.

India has in the past been sympathetic to the Tibetan cause but in recent years Delhi’s relations with Beijing have improved.

India has not allowed large-scale public protests for fear of embarrassing Beijing. [Link]

Let me understand this. The world’s largest democracy won’t allow peaceful protests because it may embarrass its authoritarian neighbor? That’s an interesting interpretation of democracy. The relationship between India and China is of course a complex one and the issue of Tibet goes back a long ways. The following is an excerpt from a great article in The Hindu Business Line which puts India’s response in a historical context:

When the Chinese People’s Liberation Army occupied Tibet in 1950, the Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Patel, wrote to Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru on November 7, 1950 saying: “The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intentions. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to install into our Ambassador (academic K. M. Panicker) a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means.”

Sardar Patel added: “(Throughout history) the Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier for any threat from the North. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble…Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side, but also include the important part of Assam… Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers, which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national and historical claims”. [Link]

Sumit Ganguly, writing for Newsweek, sounds pissed about India’s blatant appeasement:

India does itself a disservice by not standing up to China over its treatment of Tibet. If India wishes to be considered a great power, it needs to display a greater degree of independence and not kowtow to Beijing. With rapid economic growth, a substantial military establishment and robust political institutions, India should stop behaving in a subservient fashion and forthrightly stand up and defend certain inalienable rights of the Tibetan minority in its midst—rights that should obtain in any humane and democratic state.

New Delhi’s reluctance to challenge China over Tibet goes back to Beijing’s brutal repression of the Khampa revolt 50 years ago, when the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal head of the Tibetans, fled to India. Although China sharply reproved India for providing refuge to the Dalai Lama, India stood its ground. Shortly thereafter, following a breakdown of negotiations over a disputed border, China attacked and defeated India in October 1962. Even though India’s army has since been modernized and prepared for mountain warfare, the memory of this rout still haunts Indian military planners and policymakers. That’s why, when the Chinese army periodically crosses the border, India responds with anodyne criticism. And why India has been willing to publicly and abjectly reassure China that the Tibetan exiles will not be allowed to engage in any meaningful political activity.

Appeasement might not be a bad policy if it actually succeeded in keeping Beijing satisfied, but it doesn’t. There is not a shred of evidence that it has ever moderated Chinese behavior. Whenever Tibetan exiles have engaged in minor protests, Beijing has sternly rebuked India for allowing them to engage in political activities. Faced with Beijing’s continued expressions of discontent, New Delhi has rarely missed an opportunity to genuflect before the Middle Kingdom. The Tibetan crackdown is only the latest example.

This humiliating deference undermines India’s national interests as a rising Asian power and corrodes its credentials as a liberal democracy.[Link]

By the way, if you are curious as to what law in the Indian Constitution allowed India to scoop up these protestors, it is known as “Preventive Detention”:

The Fundamental Rights have been criticised as inadequate in providing freedom and opportunity for all Indians. Many political groups have demanded that the right to work, the right to economic assistance in case of unemployment and similar socio-economic rights be enshrined as constitutional guarantees,[27] that are presently listed in the directive principles of state policy.[46] The right to freedom contains a number of limiting clauses and has been criticised for failing to check government powers[27] such as provisions of preventive detention and suspension of fundamental rights in times of emergency. The phrases “security of State”, “public order” and “morality” are unclear, having wide implication. The meaning of phrases like “reasonable restrictions” and “the interest of public order” have not been explicitly stated in the constitution, leading to frequent litigations.[27] The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1975) was strongly criticised for giving then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi the authority to arrest opposition leaders following the declaration of emergency in 1975. [Link]

In any case I, like the Dalai Lama, hope there is no more violence against peaceful protestors.

abhi at 09:45 PM in History, Military, News, Politics, Religion · 68 comment(s) · Direct link

March 14, 2008

Hussein Ibish Embarrasses Himself on The Colbert Report

Alert Mutineer Giri hit up my wall on Facebook*, and wrote a scorching screed about something he witnessed while watching last night’s Colbert Report.

Apparently, Hussein Ibish, the Executive Director of The Hala Foundation For Arab-American Leadership was a guest on the show; he was invited on to address the whole “Is Obama actually a Muslim?”-question, or, as Colbear facetiously put it, whether Obama is “a secret Muslim”. Ibish was ostensibly offended enough by Colbear’s jocular query to utter the following stupidity to his host, as if this would clear everything up:

“If someone says…that you…are a secret Hindu or perhaps a child molestor…are we to take that as…”

I beg your pardon? Sorry, Mr. Ibish, perhaps you should beg ours?

To his credit, Colbert forcefully replied, “I’ll take care of this one” to his loudly booing audience. He went on to proclaim:

“I find it offensive, that you are implying that all Hindus are child molestors. Your words, Sir. Your words.”

I find it offensive, too. What kind of “spokesperson” is so utterly reckless, or barring that, terrible at hiding their biases? Ibish went on what is arguably an influential television program and offered a dysphemistic metaphor, when he should have— for his sake, his cause’s sake, hell, everyone’s sake— been far more diplomatic.

I know that there are people who will watch this clip and think that it’s not a big deal. Well, call me a saffron-balled, pseudo-secular friend of Moor Nam, but I was and am offended. If this situation weren’t egregious enough, this paragon of E.D.-ship didn’t seem concerned at all at how his remarks actually sounded, outside of his head. Ibish has decried hate against the Muslim community in the U.S., after 9/11. He of all people should understand the power of insinuation, as well as the need to combat ignorance, vs. stoking it. Shame on him.

::

*Might be a first, in terms of tip submission ;)

anna at 10:07 PM in Politics, Religion, TV, Video · 93 comment(s) · Direct link

March 11, 2008

Amit Singh runs in The Real World of Virginia

My friend Ankur tips me off to the fact that there is a macaca running for Congress in Virginia’s 8th District. Let’s meet Amit Singh:

Born and raised by immigrant parents near Richmond, Virginia, Amit lived a typical American life - birthday parties, Redskins games and the high school prom. But his parents made sure he understood that a world of opportunity was available to him if he worked hard, opportunities only available in America.

Amit graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering. While at UVA he managed the technology at the public broadcasting station serving the Charlottesville area. He also found a way to make engineering help people in need by developing software to allow doctors to use robots to care for patients in other parts of the world.

After graduation Amit moved to Arlington to work for NASA and the Department of Defense. A few years later, Amit started his own small business. He works with U.S. Intelligence Community and our soldiers on a daily basis. Throughout his career Amit has seen first hand the threats that America faces and worked to keep his country safe. [Link]

Here is his resume so that you can best judge his level of experience for yourselves. Singh is running as a Republican candidate against incumbent Democrat Jim Moran (provided Moran can win the primary first). That means that Singh’s main issues are the same as many other Republicans. Here is a sampling:

• Lower the Corporate Tax Rate to encourage business in America
• Punish companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers
• Implement native country based guest worker program
• Lift sanctions and trade with more nations
• I am absolutely opposed to Homeland Security’s mandate for all the states to implement a bio-metric identification card for all citizens. There is no way the government can ensure our personal information is protected from highly motivated hackers and internal abuse. Instead of being more secure, citizens will be more vulnerable to identify theft and publication of personal information. The Real ID act also poses a major infringement on our privacy rights and civil liberties and I will not stand for it.

The Fairfax Times has more background on the race:

The Republican field for the seat has been fluctuating, with a few candidates that have already withdrawn. At press time, the apparent candidates for the Republican nomination are Mark Ellmore, Amit Singh and Dianne Kelly…

Amit Singh, 32, of Arlington, is also seeking the Republican nomination. His platform is “libertarian leaning” and advocates reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

Singh, born and raised near Richmond, graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in electrical engineering. He now owns his own engineering firm that primarily serves federal agencies. This is his first foray into politics.

“A lot of this is a new experience to me, but I’m learning quickly,” he said.

His biggest issues are the federal deficit, preserving personal liberties and foreign policies, which he said are costing the United States financially. Singh said he has not yet begun the fund-raising portion of his campaign. [Link]

Singh also posts several YouTube clips of him addressing the voters on a range of issues. Here is one of him speaking about illegal immigration. He should know that Republicans like to hear them referred to as “illegal aliens” and not “undocumented workers.”

abhi at 10:39 AM in Politics, Profiles · 120 comment(s) · Direct link

March 05, 2008

Kal Penn @ UPenn

This past Sunday I went down to the University of Pennsylvania for a rare, open Q&A session with Kal Penn. As readers may remember from Anna’s earlier post on the subject, Penn is at Penn this spring, teaching a class on representations of Asian Americans in the Media. He’s also shooting episodes of “House” (go, House), and stumping for Obama in his free time, though with that schedule I’m not sure how he has any.

As I understand it, there was initially some controversy about the class — is this going to be a stunt, or a real asset to a the Asian American Studies curriculum?

If it were just about bringing a little glamor to campus, I would be skeptical too. But I think it’s fair to say Penn is both an actor and a careful observer of the representation of Desis in both Hollywood and the Indie film world. If you listen to him talk, it’s clear that he’s thought carefully and self-critically about his experiences and choices (he’s very aware that his role as a home-grown, Muslim-American terrorist on 24 might be seen as “problematic,” for instance — though he still defends the choice to take the role). He’s self-conscious enough to know what a racist representation of a South Asian character is, and call it by that name. But at the same time, he’s open about the fact that minority actors sometimes need to play ball to get an entree in Hollywood.

In response to one of the questions posed by a student at the Q&A Kal Penn effectively acknowledged that this was the dilemma he faced when he auditioned for his first Hollywood movie, “Van Wilder.” Unfortunately, Penn also suggested, in response to another question, that things aren’t all that much better even now, for actors who are just starting out:

“I think things for me personally as an artist have changed dramatically, but I know that overall, that change has been slow and incremental. There is no shortage of truly talented actors of South Asian descent in places like New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, and London. There are folks who majored in theater, studied film, and are experiencing the same struggles I went through when I was starting out. I think that was my main point: things for me have begun to change, but things for others are perhaps remaining the same.” (Kal Penn, from an email)

For instance, Penn was asked not long ago to do an Indian accent for a small role he had in a big studio film, but the respectful rendition of an Indian accent he attempted on camera was found to be insufficiently comical by the studio. After the film was shot, the studio execs actually asked him to go back and re-dub his lines with a thicker, more comical accent. To his credit, Penn refused to do it — and there wasn’t really anything the studio people could do (the film was destined to flop in any case). As Penn put it in his answer to the question, “They were using racism to hide a bad script. Racism was their marketing strategy.”

(That last comment strikes me as dead on, but still distressing. It’s not that racism or sexism sneaks into scripts by accident — it might be that in some ways studios know this is exactly what they need to sell product…)

Penn pointed out that part of the problem is with the writers and studios that make this stuff — and note that the alternative to unfortunate images of Asians in the media is often the complete erasure of all people of color from the fantasy world presented on TV and in the movies. “Friends” and “Seinfeld” were both shows with all white casts, set, improbably, in New York, one of the most diverse cities in the world. In the Q&A, Penn asked, “How come there are no people of color in their New York City?”

But of course, it’s not totally irrelevant to this that most South Asians in the U.S. are professionally oriented — there aren’t many of us trying to be writers or media people. “We’re too busy trying to be doctors and engineers,” Penn suggested, to think of this as a serious career option. If more of us were in the business there might be fewer characters like Apu (or Taj Mahal Badalandabad), and more characters like Gogol Ganguli.

I also stood up to ask a question myself, about naming — since this is one of the things that some readers at Sepia Mutiny have sometimes grumbled about vis a vis Mr. Kalpen Modi (not to mention, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal…). My question was this: I completely understand why you chose a stage name when you were first starting out. But now that you’ve achieved a measure of success as an actor, have you considered going back to your given name?

Some parts of the answer were expected. For one thing, quite a number of professional actors use stage names. Penn did recount that he had been advised by friends to adopt a more “Anglo-sounding” name when he was first starting out. But he also mentioned something I hadn’t known about before, that “Indian uncles” had suggested that, based on Hindu numerology, it would be good luck for him to try and keep his real first name, but add an extra letter to it. And voila: Kalpen became Kal Penn.

As for whether Kal Penn might ever revert to his given name, not likely — once you started getting credited under one name, he suggested, it’s hard to change it. Still, on several of his recent films, he’s lobbied to get his real name introduced on the credits somewhere, perhaps as production assistant. On “The Namesake,” he was fittingly credited for Nikhil as “Kalpen Modi,” and for Gogol as “Kal Penn.”

amardeep at 01:44 PM in Film, Identity, Issues, Politics, TV · 75 comment(s) · Direct link

Doing the Texas two-step

It’s been a long 48 hours for me here in the heart of Texas. Monday night I went to check out Barack Obama for myself at one of his stops in Houston. The crowd was about six thousand or so strong and was composed mostly of people of color (probably an 85-15 split) including quite a few South Asian Americans. I’d never been to a political rally and figured this would be my chance to witness one first hand. I would have loved to have gone to a Clinton rally as well but my schedule (and hers) didn’t permit it. My observations from the rally were many, but here are a few:

1) There are a lot of sheep who will bay at just about anything

2) People seem to go crazy when free stuff is being handed out. When free Obama placards were being handed out (to wave around at the rally) I felt like I was in the middle of a disbursement of flour in the Gaza strip, given the way people started acting

3) The vast majority of people want to believe in someone other than themselves

4) Gas prices seem to be the most important thing to the group of people I was with

I realized that a rally just doesn’t do anything for me. I am a policy wonk and find it more satisfying when I feel the candidate is talking directly to me rather than simply trying to inspire me.

I early voted in the primary but I also caucused after the polls closed at 7 p.m. CST tonight (Tuesday). This dual primary-caucus system is unique to Texas and is often described as the Texas Two-Step. At 7:15p.m. you sign in and declare which candidate you are caucusing for. You have to caucus for a candidate in the same party as the person who you voted for earlier in the primary. However, there is nothing preventing you from splitting your “two votes” among two candidates if you choose to.

The caucus — officially dubbed a “precinct convention” — begins at 7:15 p.m. or when the polls close, whichever is later.

Caucus-goers arrive and put their names and presidential preference on the “sign-in sheet.” Ideally, they should show proof of having voted in the Democratic primary, but it is not absolutely necessary, according to the Harris County Democratic Party.

The group first elects a chair and secretary. Those two then take a count, noting the total number of people and how many are for Obama or Clinton. Delegates then are distributed proportionally.

For example, say 100 people show up at a given precinct on Tuesday night. If 75 of them support Clinton, and 25 support Obama, then she gets 75 percent of the delegates and he gets 25 percent. If the precinct has 20 delegates to allot, Clinton gets 15, Obama 5. [Link]

I live in a heavily African American district so I expected that the caucus at my local precinct, an African American church directly adjacent to my apartment building, would be filled with Obama supporters. It was. I also expected there to be a heavy representation of health care professionals since the area of town I live in is called the Med Center area. There was. So many people showed up that just signing everyone in took an hour and a half. Since I was one of the first to sign in, and since I lived right next door, I left the caucus, made barbecue and lime salmon with steamed asparagus, ate my dinner, and then returned to the church just in time to begin the caucus.

At this point the Obama supporters were asked to go to one side of the room and the Clinton supporters to the other (no other candidate had enough supporters to meet the threshold). The caucus vote was roughly 370-80 in favor of Obama which meant that the delegate breakdown for my precinct was 29-7 in favor of Obama. Now we had to vote, from among the remaining caucus participants (half left after signing in and being counted), who would serve as elected delegates to the state convention. I think I had a pretty decent shot at being elected a delegate by my peers but I passed. I am instead thinking of making a power play to become captain of the entire precinct (the person coordinating a caucus). If Jindal can win in Louisiana why not I in Texas ? Baby steps like these are a way in which desis can get more politically active on a small scale while keeping their day jobs. Plus…I’m power hungry.

In any case, I observed that most of the desis there (about a dozen or so) caucused for Hillary Clinton, and that all of those present until the end were under ~35. I also noticed that many of the African American participants questioned every detail, afraid that their vote might not be counted or that the middle-aged white Obama supporter who serves as the current precinct captain might change his vote or might not be sufficiently loyal enough to Obama. Not a single black man remained to caucus for Clinton, but a handful of black women did.

I left just after 10 p.m. CST feeling pretty satisfied. I excersied my vote to the fullest extent possible. Juding by the results, every vote counted.

abhi at 12:33 AM in Musings, Politics · 89 comment(s) · 1 reader(s) linked · Direct link

February 29, 2008

'Every Unsavoury Separatist is Gloating': Questions about Kosovo

Via Crooked Timber (and also 3QD), there is a learned critique by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in Indian Express, of the recent “engineering” of independence for Kosovo by western European powers and the U.S.

The key paragraph in the argument for our purposes (i.e., with South Asia in mind) might be the following:

In the 19th century, there was a memorable debate between John Stuart Mill and Lord Acton. John Stuart Mill had argued, in a text that was to become the bible for separatists all over, including Jinnah and Savarkar, that democracy functions best in a mono-ethnic societies. Lord Acton had replied that a consequence of this belief would be bloodletting and migration on an unprecedented scale; it was more important to secure liberal protections than link ethnicity to democracy. It was this link that Woodrow Wilson elevated to a simple-minded defence of self-determination. The result, as Mann demonstrated with great empirical rigour, was that European nation states, 150 years later, were far more ethnically homogenous than they were in the 19th century; most EU countries were more than 85 per cent mono-ethnic. (link)

In his Column in Indian Express, Mehta keeps his focus sharply on Kosovo’s status within Europe, and also considers the seeming double standard as the Western powers disregard Russian objections to Kosovo’s independence, on the one hand, while they go out of their way to accommodate China’s (unconscionable) policy on Taiwan, on the other.

But there is obviously a question for South Asia here as well, and India in particular. Mehta briefly alludes to the history of nationalism in the Indian subcontinent when he invokes Jinnah and Savarkar, but his column raises questions for us as we think about the present too — specifically the questions over the status of Kashmir and Assam (maybe also Manipur and Nagaland, not to mention Punjab in the 1980s).

The debate between Acton and Mill Mehta invokes isn’t so much a “conservative” versus “liberal” debate — John Stuart Mill is considered one of the architects of the philosophy of liberalism, but in this case his views come out as less “liberal” than Acton’s. Mill supports thinking of nations as defined by race/ethnicity, but that approach can reinforce ethno-religious differences, rather than leading to an environment where different communities have equal status in a diverse nation. I tend to favor Acton’s approach, except perhaps in cases where minority communities face imminent violence, or genocidal suppression.

(Incidentally, Mehta builds his arguments on an essay called “The Dark Side of Democracy” in New Left Review, by Michael Mann; for those who have subscriptions, you can find the article here.)

amardeep at 10:12 AM in Politics · 67 comment(s) · Direct link

February 28, 2008

Follow-up: Hillary Clinton's Op-Ed in India Abroad

It turns out Barack Obama is not the first presidential candidate to publish an Op-Ed in India Abroad, after all (see earlier post). In fact, Hillary Clinton had her own Op-Ed appear there three weeks ago. An anonymous source close to the paper sent me a link to the article.

It’s very different from Obama’s, and looking at the two side by side one gets a clear sense of the different approaches taken by the two campaigns. Hillary stresses the India-U.S. relationship much more than Obama does; Barack, for his part, seems to be more attentive to the Indian-American community in its specificity. Hillary has a number of specific events she can cite — experience! — whereas Barack is all about ideas (admittedly, most, though certainly not all, of the events Hillary cites are from her husband’s administration). And Barack goes on a bit longer (too long?), while Hillary goes for the crisp, content-stuffed bullet-points. Here, then, is Hillary Clinton:

As First Lady, I traveled to India twice to represent the United States. I’ll never forget my visit in 1995. In Ahmedabad, I met women taking advantage of microcredit to start their own tiny businesses and achieve economic self-sufficiency for their families. I was inspired by these hardworking women and moved by their hope for the future of their families and of India.

In New Delhi, I was warmly welcomed by Sonia Gandhi, and at a speech at the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, I spoke about the importance of opening up educational opportunities to girls, as well as boys. And I was so gratified to see the progress India had made when I returned a few years later.

On my second visit, I went to Kolkata where I met with President Narayanan. We discussed the great strides being made to send more girls to school and to bring girls and women into the circle of economic and social opportunity. That circle is growing by leaps and bounds in India, encompassing more and more people, lifting millions out of poverty.

I am proud that the Clinton administration helped build a strong partnership between India and the United States and I was proud that president Clinton made that historic visit to India in 2000.

As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus in the Senate, I’ve been working hard these past four years to build on those efforts. And as a Senator from New York, I have been honored to represent a thriving Indian-American community, among the most successful immigrants in our nation’s history.

I visited India in 2005 and have met with India’s leaders both in the United States and in India. I also voted to support the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement to pave the way toward peaceful nuclear cooperation — and to move toward greater cooperation to prevent nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. (link)

Which Op-Ed speaks to you more?

amardeep at 12:57 PM in Politics · 41 comment(s) · Direct link

Obama Says "Ji, Haa" To Indian Americans

Via SAJAForum, Senator Barack Obama has written a substantial Op-Ed (PDF) in India Abroad, outlining his appeal to Indian Americans. India Abroad doesn’t publish online, so we’re grateful to the SAFO people for posting the full text of it.

There are several paragraphs relating to Obama’s opposition to racial profiling and support for hate crimes legislation — that much we certainly knew. Also references to Mahatma Gandhi, his admiration for Indian success in technology fields, as well as points where he draws a comparison between his father (who came to the U.S. “without money, but with a student visa and a determination to succeed”) and the experiences of Indian immigrants. The Op-Ed is well thought-out and polished on the whole.

(Incidentally, is this the first time a Presidential Candidate has published such an Op-Ed type piece in an Indian American community paper? It’s certainly the first time I can remember seeing something like this.)

Something struck me on reading the paragraphs on Obama’s Pakistan policy:

The United States and India must work together to combat the common threats of the 21st century. We have both been victims of catastrophic terrorist attacks, and we have a shared interest in succeeding in the fight against al Qaeda and its operational and ideological affiliates. That fight must not be undercut by a misguided war in Iraq.

I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, arguing that we needed to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda” in Afghanistan. I have argued that we need to do more to roll back the al Qaeda sanctuary along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and that we cannot put all of our eggs in the Musharraf basket in Pakistan. That is why I proposed, long before the declaration of martial law in Pakistan, that we need to condition our assistance to the Pakistani government so that we encourage stronger action against al Qaeda and a restoration of democracy. Our goal remains not simply an ally in Pakistan – our goal is a democratic ally, with a vibrant civil society and strong institutions. (link)

The policy laid out here isn’t new — Obama was talking about this approach to Pakistan back in August (notably, before the State of Emergency, and before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto). But what is new might be the use the position is being put to: it may be that Obama’s hawkishness on Pakistan might eventually be an asset for him in appealing to Indian American voters (and perhaps more importantly, Indian American campaign money).

I wonder if Obama will be posting something similar in an English language Pakistani-American paper. If so, will he tweak the language at all, or keep it as is?

amardeep at 09:31 AM in Politics · 38 comment(s) · Direct link

Jindal: Off to a Good Start in LA

I’ve grumbled some about Bobby Jindal’s ultra-conservative views on social issues. But he campaigned heavily on cleaning up Louisiana’s state government, which is an issue that nearly everyone, irrespective of ideology, would probably agree with. It looks like in his first two months in office he’s remained focused on those goals. Indeed, his first major legislative battle went in his favor:

Six weeks into the term of Gov. Bobby Jindal, an extensive package of ethics bills was approved here this week, signaling a shift in the political culture of a state proud of its brazen style. […]

Grudgingly, pushed by public opinion and business pressure, it went along. When the legislative session ended Tuesday, lawmakers had passed bills aimed at making their finances less opaque, barring their lucrative contracts with the state — some have been known to do good business with them — and cutting down on perks like free tickets to sporting events. The bills, which advocates say will put Louisiana in the top tier of states with tough ethics rules, now await Mr. Jindal’s signature, which should come early next week. (link)

Interestingly, one of the most glaring signs of potential corruption is a particular steak house, located next door to the Capitol building:

Similar indulgences, of course, have gone on in other state capitals, though Louisiana does rank low nationally on state ethics charts. Here, however, they are carried out with particular frankness: lawmakers are known to scour the chambers for willing lobbyists when a day’s session ends, hoping to cadge a dinner invitation. They need not look far.

Mr. Jindal took that penchant on as well, effectively aiming a blow at the Capitol’s de facto sister institution, Ruth’s Chris Steak House, where business is transacted nightly, courtesy of lobbyists (“sponsors,” in legislators’ parlance).

The governor, ignoring cries of pain and going against the unswerving devotion to Louisiana’s food culture, pushed for the $50-a-meal cap, at any restaurant. No more unlimited spending. (link)

Time for the lawmakers to go easy on the free steaks, I guess. Maybe a trip to the gym instead, courtesy of coach Jindal?

Another thought: how long before someone makes a ‘holy cows’ joke? (Think: steak house + Jindal’s Indian ancestry —> attempt at teh funny)

Incidentally, here at Sepia Mutiny, our stringent anti-corruption rules dictate that bloggers have a free meal cap of exactly $4.60 — just enough for a single Kati Roll…

amardeep at 08:52 AM in Politics · 6 comment(s) · Direct link

February 26, 2008

Desis Vote

SAMAR Magazine has a new issue up on its website on elections — both within South Asia and here in the U.S. They have essays on the recent election in Gujarat, the Parliamentary elections in Pakistan, the upcoming elections in Nepal, a piece by an SAFO member, and a piece on the Desi vote in New York. There’s also a short essay by myself, on “Skinny Candidates With Funny Names,” which brings together points made in several of my Sepia Mutiny posts on Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal. In the piece I make reference to some Sepia Mutiny comment threads, and I actually quote directly from commenter Neal (Neal, thank you).

My own piece aside, I would recommend people start with the pi