Nirbhaya !!! When the fearless succumbed to rape…., don’t let it be left aside as just a Nirbhagya…

I did not want to write about the topic of the recent brutal rape in Delhi as it was all over the world press, and sincerely felt that Nirbhaya would survive the ordeal. Saddened by her death, but a positive glimmer of hope is that her demise will make people come out in the open without fear (Nirbhaya translates to fearlessness) and protest against this social evil. Delhi is the rape capital of the world, shame on the city. Many parts of India are not far behind, shame on the country. This is not an issue with India alone, it happens in many parts of the world, and in most places it is taken for granted and news is swept under the carpet. It happens even in western nations, so let us not think it is something that happens only in the third world and illiterate parts of the world. Shame on the world. Men are responsible for rape, period…, shame on all men. That does not leave women without blame too (will get to that in a minute), so shame on the entire humanity. Messages and protests all over India and on the web blame the government, but in this case it is the individuals and society that is to be blamed more, read on to know why. What I write might not please everyone, but I prefer to be blunt about such topics, and it is also from small experiences that might explain the callousness with which men, and society at large, treat women.

We hear of rape incidents on a regular basis in Delhi, official figures put it at around 2 every day, one does not know what the unofficial numbers are as most cases don’t go reported for fear of social stigma, and of fear of being raped further by the police (as has happened in recent times). Statistics can cover the true picture too, many states don’t have good reporting on these crimes and hence might look like better with incidents of rape, which is quite far from the truth. Why does this happen a lot on India?, the rate has doubled in the last 20 years, that too when Indians have more access to education and upward mobility. The reasons can be many, including much bigger population, easy access to drugs/alcohol, girls being more outward, easy access to money for youngsters, increased reporting of rape cases, and a general decrease of moral/cultural values. Can one tackle all of this? Quite difficult I’d say, especially in a nation that is seeing huge chaotic growth and upward mobility, along with an inefficient corrupt government in place that is at best reactionary.

The biggest issue that is the root cause of most rapes is in the minds of men. The fact is that some guys feel they can do anything to a girl, and more so if she dresses in a certain way or behaves in a certain manner. People even go to the extent of blaming girls for the incidents, and maybe Nirbhaya would have been fine if she had chosen to stay at home during after evening hours, but that is a shameless way to deal with it. I can give an example of the mental outlook of youngsters in Kerala, which is the most socially forward state in India and one of the few states where the sex ratio tilts towards women (so very little female infanticides). It is also a state which has the highest employment (and literacy) rates amongst women. Kerala’s social development, especially related to women issues, is attributed to a matriarchal  structure where women enjoy power. This does not make Kerala any good in terms of crimes against women, in fact it is notorious in many ways. I have lived most of my life in Chennai, a very conservative society, but some of what I mention below is true to Chennai as well.

I did my engineering in one of the 8 engineering colleges during that time in Kerala (now it probably has more than a 100). So my fellow students can be termed as being in the upper crop of the populace in terms of education/literacy. I was shocked at the attitude of the guys to the girls, including to their fellow classmates. Again, I am not generalizing, but there was a good percentage that indulged in (or were supportive of) such behavior that it is worth mentioning. One of the pleasures they indulged in was to go to places where there is a lot of crowd (buses during peak hrs, places of worship during festival time, hot spots of travel) for the purpose to have physical contact using elbows or fingers on certain body parts. Many of us found it disgusting and beneath human nature, and have said so in no uncertain terms. I for one have a mother and a younger sister in my family, and both of them I was quite close with. So it was unimaginable to me that guys would do this. I even remember asking one of the guys who was talking with pride of his exploits if he’d do this to his own people (family, relatives and close friends), obviously they did not like my comment. Most of these guys have mothers and sisters, and are also one of the first guys to show a nice side to girl classmates and likes talking to them. It is maybe a coincidence (divine coincidence?) that most of these guys are now married and have daughters. Please don’t jump to conclusions here on everyone having a daughter, it was just based on an interesting observation from a minute sample of the population.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that a lot of guys during my time did not care about genuinely protecting women and they treated them as objects at times. While fondling is not rape, it is still doing something against the girls wish. This is of individuals who are well educated and further on most of them went on to do quite well in life professionally (and maybe personally too). Some of them were otherwise nice guys too, and were guys that girls thought of highly as well. I had even talked to some female friends, with whom I could talk about such topics, and they have all told me that they have been subjected to this sort of behavior at sometime or the other. They hate when that happens, but fear social stigma or retaliation and hence suffer silently and try to protect themselves to the best of what they can do. While the guys who do this might not do it to their mothers, sisters and daughters, but leave them at the mercy of their friends or brethren to exploit. I sincerely hoped that things would have improved over the past 15-20 years, but clearly it has not,  and this was also highlighted in a recent Malayalam movie with a social message. There was also a very recent brutal rape incident on a train that garnered a lot media attention (and just that). So if this is the state of affairs with the educated populace in the most socially forward state in India, you can guess what it is with most other parts. Now, don’t think of me as a saint (which I am not), but I can assure you that the majority of the guys are like me and don’t approve of such acts, but there is a good portion of guys (maybe between 10%-20%) who are out there that I would not agree with on such topics.

So how best can this be tackled? I’d put the onus of responsibility on individuals and institutions. As we often say, everything starts at home and this is very true here as well. Starting with parents of boys who should instill good values in their sons because that is where the root cause is. It is shameful that the first preventive measure our society talks about is to advice girls to not venture out and to dress in fully covered clothing. Does doing the contrary give a free ride to anyone to rape a girl? Instead mothers (this is why I said at the beginning that women have to be blamed too) should tell their sons that they do not harm other girls as someone else will then harm his own, and that it is beneath human decency. The same with sisters and fathers too, who should talk to their own. On friends who should persuade friends to not do such acts. For the leaders to pass bills that provide for strict laws and harsh punishments. On the law to persecute severely for any such acts, atleast that will act as a deterrence by fear, if not by morality/decency. For the police to encourage reporting and dealing with such victims in a more humane manner. Finally to the girls, If it helps try not to go to risky places at night as you don’t live in a perfect world. You can do that in a place like Singapore and no one will harm you, but most places are not Singapore and Delhi for sure is not. It is shameful to give that advice, but if that can avoid more such incidents it is worth it.  Finally, you girls should violently protest even if it is a small physical act against you, have to be Nir-bhaya literally or else more girls will end up like Nirbhaya. Please don’t let that happen.

-Ramanuja Iyer

PS: On a lighter note, it might be best to have curfew of guys not to venture out of homes after 8pm at night, that will ensure no rape happens after dark :-) .

SandyHook, Newtown: The kids deserved better from our laws…, if this can’t provoke an action nothing can…

US, Serbia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the list goes on…The US leads the pack of this not so great company (not to demean the nations in the list). Well, it is the list of nations with the most guns per 100 residents, so it is no surprise that we have scores of shootings including at elementary schools. The US is estimated to have 88.8 guns per 100 residents, which means if I am in a crowd of 10, everyone else has one, quite a scary thought.

I am shocked, saddened and angry at the mass shooting today at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, just 25 miles from my home. My heart goes out to the families impacted by this horrific tragedy, and pray that they have the courage to overcome the personal loss. It is not a time to look for blame, but it is a time to see how this can be prevented again.

About 20 small kids in the elementary school died, and for what purpose? Atleast a 100 rounds were fired, at innocent unarmed kids. The shooter was no doubt insane, but it is our gun control laws that are even more insane. How else can one explain providing automatic weapons freely to insane people without proper checks? It is not that US has more crazy nuts, every country has crazy people, almost in the same percentage range as in the US (maybe the US has less), but no other country makes it easy to arm these crazy nuts with automatic weapons.

These are not illegal weapons, they are very much legal. The gun control advocates are quick to jump at every mass shootings to say ‘it is not the guns, but the people, guns don’t kill, people do’. To which I say, dude, people cannot kill in masses unless you provide him an automatic with 100+ rounds. Ask the NRA and they might advise that guns make people safer. Going by that logic it is better to arm all kids in schools with guns than to have gun control. And by the way, more guns does NOT mean more safety, statistics show it is the opposite. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries per capita among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership. Violence committed with guns leads to significant monetary costs. It is estimated that such violence costs the USA $100 billion annually. On a lighter note, at a time when we are looking at closing the budget deficit this might help us. Congress, are you listening?

I am for full gun control, but that is like wishing for peace between Israel and Palestine this year. So for a solution that is realistic is to atleast not allow automatic weapons for civilians. The argument by the gun lobby is to bring in second amendment and self protection. You don’t need an automatic weapon for self protection, have a regular weapon if you want with proper checks. Make sure licenses are allotted to people after good background checks. Automatic weapons should only be in the hands of police officers, else it ends up in the hands of criminals and also puts the officers at risk.

As for the second amendment, this is a big wash and as anything else is by the lobbyists they bring up a narrative. "Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". It was created during the 18^th century to legalize the right to have weapons as the British had banned it to prevent the settlers from having an army (and weapons) to fight them. It made perfect sense then, but does it really mean the same in today’s civilized world ? Are we still living in the 18^th century? The gun lobby and the politicians that support them (and get money from them) have changed the interpretation to sound as if having a gun makes you a true American because it is about your freedom, and to fool the ignorant (and there are plenty of those around) they add the word constitution to it.

More deaths of innocents (including children) will continue in the months and years to come, and nothing will be done. This incident will be forgotten just like every others in the past.  I wish I am proved wrong, but there is no leader who has the guts to take on the powerful gun lobby. So I guess we have to get used to this and take it in our stride, and yes pray and hope we can.... We should all try to do what we can, and this is what I can do in a small way...

I know a lot many gun lovers will not like this post, but can you provide a logical explanation of what happened?, and do you really believe it has made you a lot safer?

-Ramanuja Iyer

Ceasefire in Gaza and 2 deaths in India

It is Thanksgiving weekend in the US and a time to reflect upon the good things in life. One positive news towards the TG start was the ceasefire in Gaza. The timing of the new conflict though is puzzling and reports from all around are conflicting too. One strong reason seems to be the fact that Bibi (Netanyahu) lost some of his strength at home after Obama’s re-election as he had betted on  a Romney win. It caused internal rumblings in Israel where the prime minister was perceived to have created a wedge in relations with the most important ally of his country. So what do you do when public opinion is down and you will be going into an election year soon?, stir-up nationalism is one good option (though not very rational), but that is what you’d expect of Bibi.

Now what can one say of the attacks itself, clearly it was not a fair fight amongst equals. Imagine a giant kicking a powerless street guy, that too hands tied (with trade blockade and no good weapons), you get the picture. On top of this imbalance, Bibi does not need to worry about the costs of the war, because it is sponsored by the American tax payers. If you are Bibi, life is good (for a while atleast) J. The US must help with the security of Israel (for a variety of reasons), but it is time for the US to lay down terms and have some say for the large 3B+ annual military aid to Israel, the aid cannot be used by a political leaders whims to destabilize his own countrymen and the entire region. This does not exonerate Hamas which has a history of violence, but atleast this time around, though they were powerless and no match for the Israeli army, the Palestinians (including Hamas) had the sympathy of most around the world. So in my eyes, Bibi won the battle, but lost the bigger war. Another winner was Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi who brokered the peace truce, and very soon expanded his own powers in Egypt.

It was also the week when there were 2 significant deaths in India, one celebrated by most in the country in a public way, while another by most in a silent way (or else big brother would arrest you......yes, that did happen to 2 innocent girls of the FB generation). The first one was the death of the Pakistani terrorist Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, who was the last surviving gunman of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. He was rightfully executed for the mass murder of 160 unarmed civilians and was the first capital punishment in India in more than 8 years. I saw all around the web and in FB about people celebrating his death. This is no cause for celebration as the masterminds are still at large in Pakistan, and some maybe in India itself. He deserved the punishment and that matter should be closed at that. There are many other things to feel proud and celebrate for.  

The second death was one of Bal Thackeray, the founder of the right wing Shiv Sena. He was popular (and very powerful) mainly within Mumbai city and in some parts of Maharashtra state. He formed the party to fight for the rights of people from his state as he felt Mumbai was being taken over by people from outside states, especially from Gujarat. It later became a very radical wing and was against other Indians in his state and against foreigners in the country. So maybe he could be thought of as anti-nationalist too for being against Indians from other states J. He led with an iron fist and had an army called Shiv-sainiks who would impose their rules on people. So clearly his death was received by many as a positive thing, and when Thackeray supporters called for a bandh in Mumbai, not everyone was supporting it. Most were obviously afraid of saying that out in public though. Now the current FB generation believes in free speech, and don’t think twice before clicking the blue ‘post’ button. So one hit the ‘post’ button to provide her views, while her friend duly obliged with a ‘like’. Soon enough, the two were behind the bars…, and freedom of speech went for a toss. Compare that with what happens in the US where one (and all) can slander even the President by calling him all names and yet life goes on…..

-Ramanuja Iyer

Primer on politics in the US, and the Presidential Election

What better time to talk of politics in the country than just a couple of days before the presidential election. Have been in the country for close to a dozen years  and this is the 4^th presidential election I am witnessing. During the initial years I had not paid a lot of attention to the political landscape, was more interested in international happenings (which is still the case) than politics within the US. There has to be a beginning for everything and a story behind it too, so here is the story. I had signed up as a guest speaker at my son’s school a few years back and chose the subject to be ‘Global Warming’ as it was very much in the news then. I had read about it a lot and clearly there was science involved in it and reasonable data to support it too. The talk to the kids were more on how they can help the environment based on the reduce/reuse/recycle thinking.

A week later at a social gathering in the school I was confronted by a parent who came-up to me and said “so you are the one who is spreading the liberal left wing ideas on kids”, much to my bewilderment. Frankly speaking I was not sure of what he meant by the liberal left, so I just brushed him off telling it was just a talk to help kids save energy and thus money even at home. The first thing I did on getting back home was to read on what that term meant and I was to a certain extent ashamed at my ignorance on the politics in the country I was living in. I felt the urge to read more, one reason was to make sure I did not get into similar situations in the future and to be more aware of the ground realities, and be politically correct going forward. It acted as a start button to read more on the politics in the country, it was a fascinating ride as it was a very complex and muddled topic, to say the least. So here is my attempt to clear the picture with a short primer.

The two main parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are many other small parties which do not play a significant role, so for all practical purposes the country is just a 2 party system. The republican party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party), is the party of the conservatives (or the right wing). The democratic party is the pat of the liberals (yes, that was the term J), who are also known as the left wing. Both parties have evolved in what they stand for over the years and I find that fascinating, will get to that later. Approximately 30% in the country are registered as democrats and 30% are registered as republicans, the rest 40% are independents and form the swing voter category. Now let us look at the voter base based on the various segments to see how the population is divided.

·         Geography:

o   Republicans: The base of the party is in the South, along with the Midwest, the Plains  and Rockies areas, and those states are known as the Red states. Usually the less populated and less literate states are republican.

o   Democrats: They are predominantly based in the east coast, especially the Northeast states, along with the populated Midwest states and the West coast. The more populated and more literate states are democratic.

·         Demographics: A rough approximation based on data, and some intuition

·         Age:

o   Republicans: Old and middle aged are typically republican

o   Democrats: The younger to the middle aged group is more aligned to the democrats

·         Ethnicity: The color of the skin is always an underlying factor in elections though people try to say it is not, to me it can be a big factor with many voters

o   Republicans: White/Caucasian, especially in the South and Mid-West regions, very little diversity

o   Democrats: More diversity with Whites, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and most other immigrants

·         Sex:

o   Republicans: Very strong amongst males (mainly whites), possibly because historically they are not in favor for women rights, and are very much for less gun control

o   Democrats: More stronger among females, possibly because of their support of social and women’s causes

·         Economic stature:

o   Republicans: The very rich, rich and middle class (based on regions). Possibly so because republican policies are for lower tax, especially for the rich.

o   Democrats: Some rich (especially entertainers), middle class and mostly low income. Possibly because they promote social causes.

·         Religion:

o   Republicans: Mostly Christians, especially very devout ones. Some differences between Protestants and Catholics earlier, but now both are predominantly republican

o   Democrats: Less devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other religions

·         Education

o   Republicans: non-college amongst whites, and some college too. Typically the less educated group. This is very clear with just around 10% of college professors aligned to the republicans.

o   Democrats: Majority of the post graduates, and the graduates. Also includes non-college group from African-American and Latino communities

·         Other ideological differences: I have just picked the big factors only, there are many more, but remember this is just a primer and not a detailed study J

o   Role of federal government: Republicans prefer very less government in peoples life and more power to states, and proving more control to the private companies. Democrats are of the view that government has a big role in channeling the country forward. Both parties are for capitalism as the American way and there is no dispute on that fact.

o   Social benefits and entitlements: Democrats are in general for social causes while the republicans are against. The major social causes are medical care for the old and poor via the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Another big one is Social Security (like retirement pension funds for those who are wondering what social security is). Others are Food Stamps for the very poor and unemployment benefits for those who lose jobs. Democrats believe these social programs provide upward mobility to the poor.

o   Gun control: Republicans are against any gun control while democrats are for gun-control (though in the recent past they have not made this a big issue to please some voter bases). Just a note that US has the highest rate of death via guns, much more than any other country. Not surprisingly the US also has the highest ownership of guns in the hands of its citizens, a distant second and third comes Yemen and Libya (not a great company to be in J).

o   Taxes: Republicans are for very low taxes overall, including for the super rich. Democrats are for lower taxes only for the low-middle income groups.

o   Industries supported: Republicans have been heavy supporters of Wall street, Oil, Food Giants, Pharma, Insurance and Defense industries , no wonder the super rich vote republicans as they get a lot of tax loopholes added. Democrats support the technology industry and new energy companies, and of late automotive firms too, which again is not surprising with support from the govt.

o   Civil rights: Democrats are for civil rights and equal freedom for all races, while the republicans were not in strong support, especially in the southern states

o   Women’s rights and Abortion: Democrats are for women’s rights, including equal pay and abortion (so big of an issue in the US, people from outside the country would be very surprised). Republicans are not so in favor. So clearly that is reflected in why each group has the party preference too.

o   Labor and Union: Democrats are for more Labor laws (including minimum pay) and for Union rights

o   Discrimination: Democrats support equal opportunity for all irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. Republicans support it to a certain extent, mainly from the moderate republicans.

o   Immigration: Democrats are for opening up immigration, while republicans oppose it. Again, this is reflected in the support base too.

o   Military/war: Republicans are very pro-war and pro-military while democrats prefer war only as the last option. This is also reflected why most military personnel vote republicans. This is also seen based on history that most wars are started by republican presidents and ended by democratic presidents

o   International policy: The international policy of the US does not change in a big way based on the party in power, though republicans prefer a more aggressive and interference approach while the democrats prefer a less aggressive approach. The big difference is the view on war (see above).  

o   Environment: Democrats have been strong proponents of the environment, including supporting regulations to reduce emissions and to support new innovations/technologies. Republicans are against the same and it makes sense too as they are a big supporter of the oil companies. Democrats also believe strongly in Climate Change (or Global Warming) as they think it is based on science, while the republicans do not believe in Climate Change and feel very strongly against it (now you see why I was questioned on being a liberal without me even knowing what a liberal meant here in the US).

There are no right and wrong in the ideologies, just that they are different ideologies each part believes in now (for whatever reasons that suit them) and each person will have a set of values they believe in and hence align to one or the other party. Those who do not believe in ideologies remain independent. Both parties have moderates in them, but that group has been diminishing over the past few years, this is more prominent on the republican side where a moderate leader is virtually non-existent (though moderate voters still exist). The country is more polarized than ever before, and this is because of the lack of moderates who could come across the aisle to solve issues. Moderates tend to cross over based on issues and not on ideology.

One of the things I wanted to check on was the performance of each party in passing landmark legislations, especially in the past 60 years and I was surprised by the results. Almost all legislations, including Social Security, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Women’s Rights and Medicare were passed by democrats, and almost all had strong opposition from the republican side, there was some signs of bi-partisanship from the republican moderates though (which was a difference from the recent healthcare reform act that was very polarized). The only major one from the republican side was the Federal Highway act passed under president Eisenhower in 1956. Again, one can question what the definition of Landmark act is, but to me all mentioned above qualify as landmark acts due to their impact to a large percentage of the population and the way it altered the history of the nation. Even after these facts, one can see that the nation is divided equally between the two parties. The fact is politics is always polarized to a good extent and people tend to leave rational thinking out (even if they are capable of it) when it comes to politics.

I did talk about the party’s ideology evolving over time and some aspects are very interesting, so here are a few. The republican party started in 1854 as an anti-slavery platform and their slogan was ‘free labor, free land, free men
’. This is so much far (or should I say backwards) from their current stand where they are a party of white supremacy (again, there are moderates in the party too who are not for the same) and against civil rights. Abraham Lincoln was the most famous of that old republican party. The African-Americans were strong republicans till the mid of the 20th century, and now there are very few who are republicans.  And the democrats started as a party that wanted more rights for states and less for the federal, a 180 degree turn from what they stand for now. Also, they were against a national bank way back in the 1790s. Change as they say is inevitable, but so much change?, not what I expected.

Finally, I find the terms conservative and liberal to be amusing. For starters, what does a political conservative mean, when he is not for conserving the environment (against any environmental regulation), or conserving human life (very pro-war and gun support), or conserving animal life (big meat eaters), or conserving human values (torture of humans and animals), I can add on more to this list. And what does a liberal mean?, for conserving the environment :-)?, conserving human life?.., and the list can go on here too. What I prefer is to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so where would I fall :-).

As for me, I prefer to be independent as I look at issues on hand and not on a specific ideology. I believe in a set of values too. I do value the environment, prefer peace on earth and believe everyone should be given an even chance to compete, and must contribute a fair share also. I believe a nation’s success is in the upward mobility it can provide for citizens to come out of poverty and explore their dreams, along with the ability to have the framework to create innovations  and innovative companies in an open market environment. I believe the government has a very constructive role if used in the right way and we need to have sensible regulation and laws in place so corporations don’t take people for a ride. As for the role of government, it is clear from the Hurricane Sandy that these are times when we feel there is a real need for govt in our lives, it acts like an insurance cover.

The elections are close and people should look at what have in front of them, and don’t get fooled by the barrage of negative ads from both sides (I am tired of seeing them, even though I have seen very little as I always record the little bit of TV I watch and hence can fast forward the ads). Whichever party wins will most likely win the 2016 elections as well because the US economy is predicated to grow between 3%-4% over the next 5 years (faster than any other major economy in the world), and hence the party in power will have a big momentum going. Also, if democrats win this time, it will be very difficult for republicans to win in 2020 and forward, unless they change their ideology and try to accommodate other minorities as the % of non-Caucasians will grow at a faster pace by that time, so it would be interesting to see how they evolve.

This election provides a very clear choice for people on what they feel is best for the nation, based on what values they believe in. The choice of the US president will have big ramifications all over the world. For e.g. If Al Gore was the president instead of George W Bush, we would not have had the Iraq war, and the colossal amount spent in the war could have been invested inside the US itself and also helped to reduce the deficit by a big percentage.  The world would have been a lot different based on just that one action. So vote based on issues and not on ideologies, that will help one make the right choice. I hope people make the correct choice...

-Ramanuja Iyer

Issues over Ideology, and a week where Sandy blew over the top....

This week turned out to be a very happening week, so here are a few thoughts from the week…

While not the main news of the week, this definitely took my attention as it was like a breath of fresh air in the age of extremely partisan politics, with a highly regarded republican leader endorsing a democratic candidate for presidency purely based on issues

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/01/citing-climate-change-bloomberg-endorses-obama/?hpt=hp_t2

What we need is more politicians who have the guts to cross over the aisle on issues and not get tied down by ideologies.  

Sandy wreaked havoc across the northeast, blew over in a non-partisan manner. It also showed that no country, irrespective of how powerful it is, have to bow down to mother nature. On the positive side, it also showed that the country has the resilience with stories of human survival and the sense of community all across. Along with it, it did bring out gaping holes in the basic infrastructure that is badly in need of improvement (and more investment, now that is a bad word in some quarters).

Oh, and BTW, for all those who are for reducing Government, it took a Sandy from the Caribbean (some would say from Africa)  to show it is more than just for Medicare and Social Security……, and also highlighted how short we are in terms of the first responders who are over worked these days with more frequent, yet larger magnitude natural disasters…, and yet we continue to say there is no climate change happening…

Whether you call it Global Warming or Climate Change, there is something happening, changes that are much more rapid over the past 5 years that is very unlike the past 50-100 years. You can call it hallucination and ignore it, but that would be plain stupid, but if that is what the populace is…. there is only so much that can be done…., Maybe not if we make the correct choices…

With the most important election in the world coming up early next week, I have to pen a few words on my initiation to understand politics in US, and why being an independent puts you in a good place to judge…., so check back in a couple of days…

-Ramanuja Iyer

Arsenic in Rice, Organic food not being more nutritious, and sensationalism by the media

If you happen to follow news either on print or on TV you would not have missed the reports on arsenic in rice and about organic food not having more nutrients. While it is good to inform the public of health related news, they should be careful in scaring the public by not providing the whole story.

The first one was related to a recent study by the consumer reports magazine on arsenic levels in rice. If you go to the details of the report from consumer reports, they mention that use of arsenic based fertilizers is rampant in any agriculture, including fruits, vegetables and animal farming. Besides, we have arsenic in our ground water too. One big flaw in the reports is that it talked about arsenic in rice as if arsenic was only present in rice, what about other foods? Has the study been done on other types of food, say corn? Such a study would be quashed by the corn industry as it wields huge power. I am not stating that corn contains more arsenic than rice, but we do not know that either. Rice cannot be so bad, if that was the case about 4 billion Asians, who make up two-thirds of the world population, would not have survived over generations :-). So maybe there is some truth to the reports, but it cannot be a problem with rice per se and there could be other factors

So here are some facts that I found to be useful in the context of the media reports and can help people from giving up on rice altogether.

·         The U.S. is the world’s leading user of arsenic, and since 1910 about 1.6 million tons have been used for agricultural and industrial purposes

·         Arsenic is used on vegetables, fruits and animal farming as well, and it is found in drinking water too. Hence it is found in small quantities in many food varieties.

·         Arsenic levels on rice grown in the southern states were higher than from other areas, and it is the southern states that are the main rice growing states in the US .

·         Arsenic was widely used for cotton crops, and most of the cotton in the US was grown in the southern states. So you see the connection with the above point…

·         Organic rice has relatively less levels of arsenic, again this can vary based on the area of cultivation.

·         Rice grown abroad has a much lower level of arsenic, again because of the difference in soil, ground water and fertilizers used.

·         The arsenic levels on all foods will increase based on the arsenic levels in soil, and rice might have a higher absorption as it is grown in water flooded conditions.

                       

So should we be concerned about the study? Yes.., but don’t be alarmed. If you are an Asian, you are most likely to buy rice grown in an Asian country and the levels should be lower than rice grown in the US. Also, try to use organic food if possible as it does not use fertilizers directly, but we cannot escape what is present in the soil due to previous fertilizer use over a sustained period. So do due diligence, but go back and enjoy that morsel of rice. So will I… :-)

On to the 2^nd topic, and a very important one. The story that was all over the media world said that there is little evidence that organic foods have more nutrition than conventionally grown foods. This was based on a study by researchers at Stanford University.  The media and the researchers got this all wrong, we don’t need PhD’s to know that organic foods might not be more nutritious when you just look at the vitamin content :-). What they missed is what negative impacts do the conventional foods have with higher chemicals, via pesticides/fertilizers. This is predominantly why most people take organic foods. The lead author of the study Crystal Smith-Spangler writes in the Annals of Internal Medicine that "Despite the widespread misperception that organically produced foods are more nutritious than conventional alternatives, we did not find evidence to support this perception." Mr Smith-Spangler, now who told you that we eat organic food under the same misconception that you speak of, on the contrary I had never even thought about it. Instead we take it for the following reasons:

·         To reduce exposure to toxic chemicals via heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers used in conventional farming.

·         To reduce/eliminate exposure to hormones and antibiotics that are used in conventional farming (especially animal products).

·         Better tasting food, and food in its natural form. Try organic fruits and you will know the difference.

·         It is better for the environment in more ways than one, including providing local communities good drinking water due to the soil not having the pesticides/fertilizers.

Apart from the points above, there is the question of huge health risks to the society due to conventional farming. Organic food can help to improve the overall health of people in the country and reducing healthcare costs in the long run, this does not affect an individual, but collectively can be big.

Some of the health risks include:

·         Increase of diseases like cancer due to the presence of chemicals in our body

·         Increase of new super viruses and new strains, especially due to factory based animal farming, a good example is the H1N1 (or swine flu as we know it) epidemic.

·         Impact of hormones on kids development, including early puberty especially for girls

Now the study looked at just the vitamin content and ignored the rest of the positives of organic food. They did make a few passing suggestions on the positives without delving into the details and did not care to analyze them too, and the media promptly ignored them as it would not be sensational. One of the suggestions in the study was that eating organic foods can reduce the likelihood of consuming pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Hmm, just ‘can’ J, but they did not care to test on them. Which leads to the question, was the research sponsored by vested interests? They also reported a 33% increase in the risk of consuming antibiotic-resistant bacteria in conventionally raised chicken or pork compared with their organic counterparts, again just as a side note. They also note that no long-term studies has been done of the health outcomes for people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food, maybe it is time to do that too.

The point I am making is not to say everyone should move to organic food, it is for every person to decide what works best for them and their family. I think it is better for everyone in the short term and more so in the long term, and that is just my opinion based on what I read and experience. The reports by the media to discourage people from taking organic food came at a crucial time as there was a significant movement towards organic food and helping a lot of local communities. I hope they do not succeed in their attempt in the long run, even though they might have slowed the momentum to a certain extent.  What was surprising was that reputed media including NY Times had this reported on its main page, so did CNN (but that was not a surprise). It looks like they are looking for attention grabbing headlines without thinking of the consequences. I guess these days we cannot just read the headlines and get the story, the media is forcing us to read the entire story and do more research on the topics by their incompetent reporting that is just interested in the number of clicks and eye balls.

-Ramanuja Iyer



PS: Looks like NY-Times is following iVichar :-), checkout the new article that came out on the 2nd of Oct:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/that-flawed-stanford-study/?hp

Hmm, what shall I say :-)

Unrest over a stupid video...

Unrest over a stupid video - Radicals calling the shorts on both sides, time for the moderates to step in…

The turn of events in the middle-east and in other parts of the world has been very disturbing. Quite clearly the agenda has been hijacked by radicals and has been transformed into a dangerous narrative to the ill-informed. How else can one explain the brutal killing of ambassador Stevens who has been a friend and supporter to the Arab world. The fact is that the movie was made by a bigot just for attention, and it had quite rightly fallen into the intended hands and got the desired effect.

In places where the protests happen, they react as if the American government was behind the video. It is as if telling that the Saudi government was behind the Sept 11 attack because Osama was a Saudi citizen. The idiot who took the movie is an unknown in the US, and so was his stupid video. None had even heard of it and there was absolutely no coverage in the news. The US government, and more so the president, has much more to worry, trying to get the economy moving and on his own re-election bid. On the same tone, the vast majority within the US does not subscribe to such nonsense, but then people want to listen just to the minority to which they cannot connect and then further more they end up reacting to it.

The irony is that the other set of idiots who reacted like mad men to this video has only done more harm to their religion and added credence to the movie. Little do they know that the US has a very tolerant society and religious freedom as well, unlike what the propaganda is out there in the Islamic world. People from all over the world are free to practice their religion, which includes various types of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and many others. This includes more than 2000 mosques in the US. One cannot imagine practicing their religion freely on many places where we have seen this violence. Well, you can’t do this even in China where there is a tight lid on religion and they have dealt with Islamic fundamentalism in some provinces in a very harsh manner, of course behind the iron curtain J.  

I know of quite a few Muslims in the US who are here because they have more freedom and comfort than in their own countries. My intent is not to speak high of the US, and yes there are a lot of negatives too, especially with the bitter taste left over from the Bush years. Having said that,  little do these people know that the US is the single largest donor for helping the poor and hungry in all parts of the world, through UN and outside of it. This is not just from the government, but from private donors as well. In fact, the very people who protest, whether from Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.. may have all benefited from US aid to these countries.

What added fuel to the fire was the fact that none of the leaders of the nations where the riots have happened have come out in the open to criticize violence and try to impart sense by stating that what they are doing is damaging the religion and the country more. It would do a lot of good if the moderates in the Islamic world come out openly against violence of all sorts and project their good side. Most Muslims are peace loving and are not the face of Islam as the world know it now, it would do justice to them too if the moderates take control. It would also do a lot of good if people pay less attention to bigots and their actions, and instead try to find common ground. Imagine what would have happened if the people who saw the movie ignored it, would it not have been a slap in the face to the idiots who made it.

Finally, a comment on a company that I like a lot. Google (and YouTube) should have done better on this topic, free speech is needed, but to be a medium through which hate spreads does not qualify as free speech. ‘Don’t be evil’ also means you don’t spread evil thoughts and cause more evil actions. The world we live in is not perfect, so the term free speech must have a limit. We say the sky is the limit, and even the sky is not infinite…

-Ramanuja Iyer

Olympics sans the Spirit: When ‘profits’ leap over ‘values’

As an avid sports fan and a bigger Olympic fan, I find that Olympics is moving away from the true Olympic spirit these days.

I feel cheated that we don’t get to see most of the Olympics live on TV in the USA. Btw, we are living in a world where all communication is instant and yet NBC chose to show the events as a delayed recording. The reason is simple, they get more ad revenues during primetime. And what do they do with the recordings, they end up showing all events full blown that you have to sit through the night to see the events you are interested in, or record them on the DVR and then watch them the next day.

Did NBC really think that people will get excited to watch the delayed recording of the 100m finals after knowing the winner already via other media? Will advertisers truly get their bang for buck with dissatisfied customers? Instead what NBC could have done is to show the events live and then have a 2 hr highlight show of the main events for the day, and reaped ad revenues from both. The combined revenues would not be too low from what they get now and they would have had a lot of satisfied customers. Profits don’t equate to happy customers, you need to have a balance. When firms and organizations are focused on profits, they miss the finer points of life. More on this topic for a later iVichar…

Another ironical factor is that in the days of childhood obesity and junk food, the main sponsors for the Olympics are Coke and McDonalds. You want kids to aspire to be an Olympian, and not wanting to be a kid with a coke on one hand and a big mac on the other. Oh IOC, where did you leave your spirits? Some credit to the IOC president  Jacques Rogge for questioning the suitability of McDonald's and Coke as Olympic sponsors, but it was after the fact. Again, the reason to go for these big sponsors is big money. There could be other firms that could have paid good money too, but it will be difficult to match the amounts doled out by these food giants. Question is should the IOC forgo the Olympic spirit for a few dollars more, I don’t think so.

Oh and by the way, can the media in the US come clean on the overall standing?, the team that wins the most gold leads the table (even if that is China) and not the team that wins the total number of medals. Every media in the world, including the official Olympic sites go by the gold first rule. The ‘win at any cost’ approach is so un-olympic. It is a mockery on all the great champions...

So much for the Olympic spirit...

-RamanujaIyer

PS: There is still a lot of great champions out there who play in the true Olympic spirit and I still enjoy watching the Olympics....