One of the obvious by-products of the outsourcing-to-India boom which displaced a number of US employees, would be a small fraction to consider moving to India to work on similar jobs.
ToI has an article today, about the Indian government's decision on this.
The part where I take offence to the apologetic bent is this quote

With the outcry from the West over outsourcing yet to subside, the Indian’s government’s stance may trigger an avoidable controversy.

It implies that because we're taking jobs away from the US markets, we should make concessions in our policy to allow foreigners to work in the ITeS. Whereas the Indian government's stance is no different from what the US has always stated - requests from foreign nationals for employment visa for jobs, for which a large number of qualified citizens are available, will not be considered. It does not mean that we're shutting the door for good on foreign employees in the Indian BPO sector, it's just that we're putting a doorman there, who's going to evaluate who's coming in.
What I find ridiculous is a newspaper article covering a matter of policy under one phrase - "avoidable controversy". I don't grudge the media having a say on matters of policy as long as it's stated clearly, after stating both the pros and cons of the issue. Unfortunately here in this case, a mockery has been made of the print media by ToI. They could have just as well, added a "Tsk,Tsk." there, for all that mattered.

India has always been a society where the larger responsibility towards the family used to overpower the needs of the individual. That was the mantra, that was the hunger behind the thousands, millions who lay down their lives for freedom.
Now, with India and it's growing globalization, that hunger has dispersed. Slowly, but steadily, the individual's needs are overpowering the need for the "greater good". Specially in our generation.

The question is "Does the moral police have the right idea, just the wrong methods". Is there a need to hold onto that value, that greater responsibility or do we not interfere with free will and let nature takes it course.

That question will be answered in the next 5 years. Will we, only partially, become the "American" state and is that a bad thing for society and the individual?

Singapore. For most part, a bustling example of the economic state. Efficiency is the word on everyone's mind, when Singapore is mentioned.
Yet, the question of the role of a political and legal system in a economic state is best asked in the context of Singapore. Why, you ask? Because Singapore, is the country with the maximum number of per capita executions per year.

Singapore enforced a mandatory death penalty on drug traffickers and murders back in the mid-70s. As a result, if anyone is convicted of these offences, the judge has no option but to enforce a death sentence on the individual.

Amnesty has been crying foul for ages, yet the country's legal system does not recognize any other way. And who but the people of a state, can pressurize the government into changing the "system". Yet the people of Singapore are mum about the dis-advantages of capital punishment.
It's a separate strata of people who're affected after all. Murderers and drug traffickers are generally the lower income class of individuals. And drug trafficking isn't an incurable disease. The right to life and rehabilitiation holds true in the case of these individuals more than anyone else. I'm sure in my mind, that the number of people deterred by capital punishment would be close to the number of people 'rehabilitated' by the state. And of course, those people have the right to life. A second conviction, should open the doors to capital punishment. It's that grey area between Amnesty and the Singapore government which I think a state should remain in, in my opinion.

My thoughts wander to the similarities with India. India, who is taking bold steps into the future - nuclear reactors, software engineers, security council seat, Asian superpower - is finally a collective of the people who're driving that growth. And those very people are helplessly turning a blind eye to the underlying state in the political and legal system. And once a system gets institutionalized or deep-rooted, it's tougher to dig out. It requires a stronger wave to remove it altogether, and I'm not sure if us Indians will have enough resilience to keep pushing long enough. I wander, yet I wonder. Hope, there should be hope.
We need another 1947 to save the country.

The problem with a jury system of penalty is that it is too human.
Impassiveness and indifference do not bode well with jurors.
It's a pity, which can't be balanced in any way.

Elevator conversation for Monday morning -

You : So how much did you sell your elephant for, before moving to the US?
Indian colleague : Couldn't get a good deal, so left it parked in the garage.
American colleague : Wha?

R.I.P.