Early in May, we participated in a fund raising 20 mile walk, called “Walk for Hunger,” which raises money for the hungry people in Boston. Some 43,000 people walked and over $4 million were raised.
Fund raising by volunteers is an American phenomenon. For a cause they believe in, a large number of volunteers undertake an activity to get money from others. This greatly leverages limited resources a charity has and, in addition, gets the society at large involved, instead of just a few rich philanthropists. That makes a lot of sense.
However, for those not from here, the idea of this voluntary activity being physically so challenging may seem strange. Why would a charity make volunteers subject themselves to “torture” instead of just making phone calls?
I think it is brilliant variation of the theme because of several reasons. Let me take this Walk for Hunger as an example.
When I first started participating in this event, the folks at “Project Bread”—the charity responsible for the Walk—told us that 20 miles represented what an average poor person in a poor country walks as he/she forages for food. If that is so, this walk would make me realize how difficult it is for a poor person to fill his belly, and make me empathetic to this cause instead of just being sympathetic. An empathetic volunteer is a good volunteer.
There is also a deeper reason for raising money in this manner. The fact that you are subjecting yourself to a difficult experience gives you a higher moral authority while asking for money than just volunteering your time to make a few phone calls. It is harder for you friend, relative, co-worker or whoever to turn you down.
Finally, the beauty of this fund raising method is how it enrolls the younger generation. When I looked around at the other walkers, I was struck by the demographics. Most of the hoard of walkers surrounding---and by passing me--- were younger than 20! For them, this event provided a perfect opportunity to spend a nice spring day with their friends and family members, chatting, singing, joking, screaming, and cursing along the way. There were mini-groups of white, black, and oriental kids---many wearing T-shirts describing their affiliations. They were having fun and their elders were perfectly happy to have their kids learn the deeper meaning of giving while doing so. What a great way to bring in grass roots support from the youth and making sure that the activity never goes out of existence?
This is a sustainable, robust method for raising money for a good cause, and represents a great innovation from USA that the world should emulate.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Flashing your teeth
Some of the recent digital cameras have a smile feature. That means that the camera will take a picture only if the subject is smiling. This smile has to be of the type that exposes your teeth. Otherwise the camera assumes that you are not worth taking a picture of and refuses to fire.
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Who am I?
In the next few days I will receive a packet from US Census. Once again I will be amazed by the absurdity of the question that relates to classifying us.
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
...so his son can be a poet.
Someone once asked a soldier, “why are you a soldier?’
“So my son can be a farmer, and his son can be a poet.” He replied.
In the modern day parlance, one can ask the question to a factory worker, and he would probably say that he is working hard so that his son can be a doctor or an engineer, and, if he enlightened like the soldier above, continue and say, “…so his son (or daughter) can be a liberal arts major.”
This was one of the major themes of an Indian movie called “Three Idiots” that I saw last month. It chronicles the life three students of a prestigious engineering college, modeled after the Indian Institute of Technology. The enlightened one amongst them keeps telling his buddies that they should follow their passions. “If photography is what you like, become a photographer, stop trying to become an engineer,” he tells one of them. Indeed, photographer is what he becomes.
This is an appropriate message for a nation where parents are obsessed about their sons becoming doctors or engineers.
It is also good message. At some point in a family’s history there should come a time when passion can trump practicality in choosing one’s profession. This will help the future generation in achieving happiness of the kind that does not depend on material things. The society at large will also benefit, because it is through passion that a culture can move forward.
However, remember that the soldier did not say that his son could be a poet, he would rather have his grandson become one. He sensed that without the prosperity brought about by someone in the family lineage, the farmer, such a dream would be impractical. He realized that without a financial cushion provided by his son, the poet would have a tough time.
Also, the little story stops at the third generation. It is unclear what the poet’s son would be doing. Could it be that the poet would say to his son, “Don’t do what I am doing. Go get some practical education and make a good living. This passion thing wears out after a while and the reality of hard living sets in.”
So will the cycle go into reverse?
May be.
May be not.
March 2010
“So my son can be a farmer, and his son can be a poet.” He replied.
In the modern day parlance, one can ask the question to a factory worker, and he would probably say that he is working hard so that his son can be a doctor or an engineer, and, if he enlightened like the soldier above, continue and say, “…so his son (or daughter) can be a liberal arts major.”
This was one of the major themes of an Indian movie called “Three Idiots” that I saw last month. It chronicles the life three students of a prestigious engineering college, modeled after the Indian Institute of Technology. The enlightened one amongst them keeps telling his buddies that they should follow their passions. “If photography is what you like, become a photographer, stop trying to become an engineer,” he tells one of them. Indeed, photographer is what he becomes.
This is an appropriate message for a nation where parents are obsessed about their sons becoming doctors or engineers.
It is also good message. At some point in a family’s history there should come a time when passion can trump practicality in choosing one’s profession. This will help the future generation in achieving happiness of the kind that does not depend on material things. The society at large will also benefit, because it is through passion that a culture can move forward.
However, remember that the soldier did not say that his son could be a poet, he would rather have his grandson become one. He sensed that without the prosperity brought about by someone in the family lineage, the farmer, such a dream would be impractical. He realized that without a financial cushion provided by his son, the poet would have a tough time.
Also, the little story stops at the third generation. It is unclear what the poet’s son would be doing. Could it be that the poet would say to his son, “Don’t do what I am doing. Go get some practical education and make a good living. This passion thing wears out after a while and the reality of hard living sets in.”
So will the cycle go into reverse?
May be.
May be not.
March 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Siblings
As I observe relationships among siblings, I can not but think that this is one of the most complex ones among human experiences.
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
On the one hand, you share common genes, similar upbringings, and years spent together. What could be more powerful than this in creating strong bonds?
On the other hand, there are forces that tend to tear them apart.
First are the forces related to sibling rivalry. One is wealthier than the other, better looking, or more popular. For most people, the obvious reaction is jealousy and resentment.
Second, and more interesting, are the forces put in play, almost always inadvertently, by the parents. This happens in three ways.
First, the siblings get different support from parents while growing up. Although a lot has to do with a sibling’s ability and interest in pursuing different careers, a person can start making a case that the amount of help, primarily financial, she received in preparing for a successful career was smaller than the one received by her brother.
Second, during the later part of life, when the tables are turned, and the care of parents become an issue, the source of unhappiness could be the level of support that one sibling provides compared to the other one.
Third, and the biggest source of contention, is when parents die and what is left behind for each sibling. In many situations, the amount just can not be equally divided…how do you divide an estate that includes a lot of items like businesses and real estate into equal parts? Even if the amount left behind is equal, an argument can arise from not being adequately compensated for the inequality shown during the other two phases described above.
The root cause in all this is the expectation that the parents have to be equally fair to each sibling and exhibit such fairness throughout their lives. The parents would love to be fair, but the complication is that there is no easy way to judge what is fair, leave alone implement fairness in real life. Fairness—like beauty—is in the eyes of the beholder.
For example, how exactly does a person living far from a parent provide equal support as the one living nearby? Why shouldn’t a child who needs more financial assistance get more help than the one who is well off? What is fair? How should a parent exhibit fairness?
Most people realize this conundrum, especially when they become parents and confront the same dilemmas that their parents faced. That, hopefully, allows them to diffuse the negative feelings and focus on the positive ones. Having good communications with their siblings and parents also helps resolve any festering issues. For many, however, that does not happen and the siblings become their worst enemies.
That is a great tragedy. Isn’t it?
February 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
A New Beginning?
So, a new decade has begun.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Perhaps it is time to be an optimist again and wish for a grand new beginning. My sincere hope is that we will find a way toward solving some of the most difficult and intractable issues that we have faced over the past many years.
Here is my short list of three such issues and what could happen, if you take a positive view.
Religious Extremism: What would it take for Muslim terrorists to stop threatening US and Israel with complete annihilation? When will the Jewish extremists stop building settlements in land that “was given to them by God?” Who will stop the Christian mullahs from proclaiming that everyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell? How will Hindus accept the fact that Muslims have an equal right to live in India and destroying mosques to build temples is not the solution? Could it be that the next decade will bring some sanity?
May be the moderates in each religion will finally rise to the occasion. They will see the futility of what a small fraction of their fellow citizens are doing to harm not only the “others” but themselves. They will find a way to involve the extremists in their dialog, address their needs, and tone down their actions.
Climate change: How can the developed countries tell those who are developing to make drastic cuts when they themselves are profligate in their use of energy? Sure, the citizens of India and China have every right to blame the western countries for being the major contributors to this global crisis, and aspiring to become as materialistically comfortable as them. However, in doing so, they would bring the world to its knees. This “tragedy of the commons” will play out, accelerating the climate change process and lead to a potential disaster.
However, may be, just may be, sanity will eventually prevail. The solution will involve the industrialized nations accepting deep cuts and the developing countries abandoning their vision to be like the Americans.
Nuclear proliferation: The world is watching helplessly as one by one every country in the world acquires this capability. How can one stop it? How can you tell a dictator, who has seen that the world bestows a special status on those who are nuclear armed, not to follow that path? How can you convince someone not to do something that you yourself have done in the past? We are probably going to have a future in which most countries that chose to do so will have nuclear weapons. What would happen then?
May be the fear of “mutually assured destruction (MAD)”will prevent the usage of these weapons on a world-wide basis. Also, as mentioned above, the extremists will feel that their needs can be met without causing widespread destruction. Thus, removing the threat from those that are not deterred by MAD.
So what will the next decade bring? The same old issues, only worse?
Or, a move toward long term stability, peace, and sanity?
Wish you all a happy decade.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Authentic Part 2
The last posting generated interesting discussion, and so I thought it to be worthwhile to explore the topic further. To do so, let me throw out three examples of situations in which choice needs to be made on whether to buy/experience something “authentic” or an imitation.
Think about a name brand purse…you know Gucci, Prada, or whatever (I am not an expert on the topic). The objective in purchasing is very clear; to tell the world that you are well-off and can afford such an insanely priced luxury. If an imitation is as good as the real thing---capturing all its characteristics---a rational person (a rational show-off) will prefer it above the real thing. Only a die-hard purist (an ultra show-off?) will insist on owning the authentic thing and perhaps figure out a way to indicate it is the real thing (“oh, you know, my husband is so silly, he bought me this…”) because most people will not appreciate that fact otherwise.
Now let us turn to a diamond necklace. The objective is probably two-folds…look good wearing it and show off your wealth. The current fake stuff achieves both these pretty well. Once, one of our relatives tried to figure out if my wife was wearing real or fake diamonds by coming uncomfortably close to examine them….if she could not tell, nor can mere mortals like you or me. So, why would a rational person purchase the real thing?
The third example is that of travel. People travel for multiple objectives---to see, hear, smell, meet, experience, and so on. You can’t achieve all these objectives by visiting a fake place or through virtual reality. But suppose, suppose, in the future one is able to do all that without going to the real place, will most people take the plunge? My hypothesis is yes. If I am able to achieve all my objectives for travel without traveling, I will not travel. As one of our friends (another travel addict) said---why would I suffer through air travel, and such if I don’t have to?
So, if you can achieve your objectives, even if it includes showing off, by purchasing a non-authentic thing, a rational person would do so. The implication…. authenticity will be come a thing of the past!
Think about a name brand purse…you know Gucci, Prada, or whatever (I am not an expert on the topic). The objective in purchasing is very clear; to tell the world that you are well-off and can afford such an insanely priced luxury. If an imitation is as good as the real thing---capturing all its characteristics---a rational person (a rational show-off) will prefer it above the real thing. Only a die-hard purist (an ultra show-off?) will insist on owning the authentic thing and perhaps figure out a way to indicate it is the real thing (“oh, you know, my husband is so silly, he bought me this…”) because most people will not appreciate that fact otherwise.
Now let us turn to a diamond necklace. The objective is probably two-folds…look good wearing it and show off your wealth. The current fake stuff achieves both these pretty well. Once, one of our relatives tried to figure out if my wife was wearing real or fake diamonds by coming uncomfortably close to examine them….if she could not tell, nor can mere mortals like you or me. So, why would a rational person purchase the real thing?
The third example is that of travel. People travel for multiple objectives---to see, hear, smell, meet, experience, and so on. You can’t achieve all these objectives by visiting a fake place or through virtual reality. But suppose, suppose, in the future one is able to do all that without going to the real place, will most people take the plunge? My hypothesis is yes. If I am able to achieve all my objectives for travel without traveling, I will not travel. As one of our friends (another travel addict) said---why would I suffer through air travel, and such if I don’t have to?
So, if you can achieve your objectives, even if it includes showing off, by purchasing a non-authentic thing, a rational person would do so. The implication…. authenticity will be come a thing of the past!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
