The Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2007
Foreign Policy magazines list of Top Ten stories that were overlooked during the past year.
Monday, December 31, 2007
A volunteer evacuates a villager after floods hit Ngawi, East Java
A volunteer evacuates a villager after floods hit Ngawi, East Java province December 29, 2007. REUTERS/Sigit Pamungkas. From picture of the day at http://www.alertnet.org/
Seriously, the cigarette makes the photo. Hey, just another smoking break from the office, and maybe I'll rescue a few people while I'm outside...
Sunday, December 30, 2007
DNA Tweak Turns Vole Mates Into Soul Mates
This is still one of my favorite articles. It is based on an article in the journal Nature.
Link to story below.
Times Staff Writer
June 17, 2004
Scientists working with a rat-like animal called a vole have found that promiscuous males can be reprogrammed into monogamous partners by introducing a single gene into a specific part of their brains.
Once they have been converted, the voles hang around the family nests and even huddle with their female partners after sex.
The results suggest that "a mutation in a single gene can have a profound impact on complex social behavior," said Larry Young, a neuroscientist at Emory University who reports the results in the current issue of the journal Nature.
The research, Young said, could help shed light on monogamy — a rare social behavior — and hints that perhaps specific genes could play a role in human relationships.
But don't expect gene therapy for human swingers.
"This is not something that we should be playing around with," Young said.
Voles, found in the wild throughout much of North America, have been particularly useful in studying monogamy, which in biology refers more to the complicated social bonds based on partnership than to absolute sexual fidelity.
One variety — the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) — pairs up like humans. Males may occasionally stray from their lifelong partners, but they inevitably return to their nests and help care for litter after litter.
In contrast, meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), a similar but separate species, prowl their habitat for any available female and show no interest in staying in touch.
The difference, it turns out, is a receptor for the hormone vasopressin. Prairie voles have such receptors in a part of the brain known as the ventral pallidum. Meadow voles do not.
To make promiscuous male meadow voles behave like their loyal prairie cousins, the scientists used a common gene therapy technique. They injected the animals' forebrains with a harmless virus carrying the gene responsible for expressing the receptors.
Each vole, a young virgin that had never before encountered a member of the opposite sex, then spent 24 hours caged with a female that had been injected with estrogen. They mated.
Each male was then placed in his own plexiglass complex. Leashed in one room was his original partner. Down the hall was another female primed for mating.
The 11 genetically altered voles overwhelmingly stuck to their first partner. The couples mated. They then nestled together and exchanged licks.
The voles in the control group did not consistently seek out their original partners.
What looks like romance, the researchers suggested, may be the product of two neural pathways in the pleasure center of the brain.
There is the gratification of sex, which depends on dopamine receptors in a part of the brain known as the nucleus accumbens. But nearby, in the ventral pallidum, are the vasopressin receptors, which allow for individual recognition.
The result: sexual preference for a specific partner.
Fewer than 5% of mammals are monogamous. Monogamy has rarely suited males when it comes to propagating their own genes. More often it has been in their interest to reproduce with as many females as possible.
In some cases, however, monogamy makes sense. For example, if predators are particularly rampant, males are better off staying around their homes to protect their offspring.
Scientists believe that monogamy evolved from polygamy. The results released Wednesday suggested that flipping one genetic switch might have been enough to spur a massive social reordering, Young said.
But Evan Balaban, a neuroscientist at McGill University in Montreal, questioned whether a single gene could cause such a dramatic change. He said that in the wild, many genes were likely involved in the expression of vasopressin receptors.
In female voles, it is another hormone, oxytocin, that appears to be involved in pair bonding.
The same hormone systems also operate in all other mammals, including humans.
The genes that control expression of vasopressin receptors vary widely in healthy men.
Human relationships, of course, are complicated, and culture and socialization probably matter as much as biology. Even so, Young suggested that genetic differences could help explain why some men have trouble maintaining relationships.
Gene E. Robinson, head of neuroscience at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, cautioned against extrapolating the results to humans. "The behavior of animals is much simpler than the behavior of humans," he said.
Even if the findings could lead to an elixir for fidelity, a single gene would not solve every problem at home. The genetically altered meadow voles spent more time with their partners, but unlike their naturally faithful prairie relatives, they did not help care for the pups.
That, Young said, probably depends on other neural pathways.
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
THE NATION
DNA Tweak Turns Vole Mates Into Soul Mates
Promiscuous mammals become stay-at-home dads in a study. There's no cure yet for humans.
By Alan ZaremboTimes Staff Writer
June 17, 2004
Scientists working with a rat-like animal called a vole have found that promiscuous males can be reprogrammed into monogamous partners by introducing a single gene into a specific part of their brains.
Once they have been converted, the voles hang around the family nests and even huddle with their female partners after sex.
The results suggest that "a mutation in a single gene can have a profound impact on complex social behavior," said Larry Young, a neuroscientist at Emory University who reports the results in the current issue of the journal Nature.
The research, Young said, could help shed light on monogamy — a rare social behavior — and hints that perhaps specific genes could play a role in human relationships.
But don't expect gene therapy for human swingers.
"This is not something that we should be playing around with," Young said.
Voles, found in the wild throughout much of North America, have been particularly useful in studying monogamy, which in biology refers more to the complicated social bonds based on partnership than to absolute sexual fidelity.
One variety — the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) — pairs up like humans. Males may occasionally stray from their lifelong partners, but they inevitably return to their nests and help care for litter after litter.
In contrast, meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), a similar but separate species, prowl their habitat for any available female and show no interest in staying in touch.
The difference, it turns out, is a receptor for the hormone vasopressin. Prairie voles have such receptors in a part of the brain known as the ventral pallidum. Meadow voles do not.
To make promiscuous male meadow voles behave like their loyal prairie cousins, the scientists used a common gene therapy technique. They injected the animals' forebrains with a harmless virus carrying the gene responsible for expressing the receptors.
Each vole, a young virgin that had never before encountered a member of the opposite sex, then spent 24 hours caged with a female that had been injected with estrogen. They mated.
Each male was then placed in his own plexiglass complex. Leashed in one room was his original partner. Down the hall was another female primed for mating.
The 11 genetically altered voles overwhelmingly stuck to their first partner. The couples mated. They then nestled together and exchanged licks.
The voles in the control group did not consistently seek out their original partners.
What looks like romance, the researchers suggested, may be the product of two neural pathways in the pleasure center of the brain.
There is the gratification of sex, which depends on dopamine receptors in a part of the brain known as the nucleus accumbens. But nearby, in the ventral pallidum, are the vasopressin receptors, which allow for individual recognition.
The result: sexual preference for a specific partner.
Fewer than 5% of mammals are monogamous. Monogamy has rarely suited males when it comes to propagating their own genes. More often it has been in their interest to reproduce with as many females as possible.
In some cases, however, monogamy makes sense. For example, if predators are particularly rampant, males are better off staying around their homes to protect their offspring.
Scientists believe that monogamy evolved from polygamy. The results released Wednesday suggested that flipping one genetic switch might have been enough to spur a massive social reordering, Young said.
But Evan Balaban, a neuroscientist at McGill University in Montreal, questioned whether a single gene could cause such a dramatic change. He said that in the wild, many genes were likely involved in the expression of vasopressin receptors.
In female voles, it is another hormone, oxytocin, that appears to be involved in pair bonding.
The same hormone systems also operate in all other mammals, including humans.
The genes that control expression of vasopressin receptors vary widely in healthy men.
Human relationships, of course, are complicated, and culture and socialization probably matter as much as biology. Even so, Young suggested that genetic differences could help explain why some men have trouble maintaining relationships.
Gene E. Robinson, head of neuroscience at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, cautioned against extrapolating the results to humans. "The behavior of animals is much simpler than the behavior of humans," he said.
Even if the findings could lead to an elixir for fidelity, a single gene would not solve every problem at home. The genetically altered meadow voles spent more time with their partners, but unlike their naturally faithful prairie relatives, they did not help care for the pups.
That, Young said, probably depends on other neural pathways.
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
New Russian made armor-piercing grenade causing US casualties in Iraq
Interesting blog article about Russian made military weapons being used against the US in Iraq:
New Russian made armor-piercing grenade causing US casualties in Iraq.
No links to the original CBS news report, but one to a website called The Raw Story.
Here is some info about The Raw Story website which purports to be "an alternative news nexus" where they state that their "goal is to unearth and spotlight stories underplayed by the popular press, in particular those which highlight betterment and open people’s eyes to injustice throughout the world."
Be forewarned that The Raw Story website has lots of pop-ups and advertising. Not exactly how you think the alternative press will look, but hey even outsiders have to make a living.
New Russian made armor-piercing grenade causing US casualties in Iraq.
No links to the original CBS news report, but one to a website called The Raw Story.
Here is some info about The Raw Story website which purports to be "an alternative news nexus" where they state that their "goal is to unearth and spotlight stories underplayed by the popular press, in particular those which highlight betterment and open people’s eyes to injustice throughout the world."
Be forewarned that The Raw Story website has lots of pop-ups and advertising. Not exactly how you think the alternative press will look, but hey even outsiders have to make a living.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
China's Big Year: 2008 & the Olympics
2008 is going to be a China's big coming out party as journalists and tourists descend upon China for the Summer Olympics.
For me, it seems like Tiananmen Square happened in the recent past and not almost nineteen years ago in 1989. What a difference a couple decades can make. The Chinese democracy movement has essentially disappeared or been effectively neutralized, depending on your viewpoint. The combination of the brutal oppression by a police state ruled by a small, secretive, omnipotent party, the suppression and censorship of the press, and the successful liberalization of the economy with a heady dose of capitalism have succeeded in quelling all dissent. It's an accomplishment the current Administration and its past and present cadre of Roves and Cheneys would aspire to and admire.
I have met some of China's youth, bright twenty-something professionals who have immigrated to the US, and they are different from past generations. They do not have terrible memories of China, being separated from parents, having family members jailed or not seeing them for years when they escape. This generation got on an airplane with a passport as smoothly as could be. And many of them want to go home, home to visit every year, home for retirement. They are buying investment property in China. They go clubbing when they visit Beijing.
There are no worries about the government. There are no fears about repression or censorship. There is no Tiananmen Square Massacre hanging over them.
But the dissidents, the Tibetans, the victims of the state are not entirely forgotten. This past Fall, I listened on local cable television to individuals speaking to the Pasadena City Council, asking them to reconsider and revoke the approval of the participation of the People's Republic of China in the Rose Parade. Each person gave their own story of oppression and imprisonment.
Some journalists are also pointing out the dichotomies of the People's Republic of China hosting the Olympics at a time when 'people's journalism' has become a powerful force on the internet, such as an article anticipating The 2008 Beijing Olympic Disaster.
The Chinese government made the argument in the 1990's that economic development had to come before democracy. Perhaps this is the year that argument will be tested. Economic development has arrived and progressed. How will China handle the free press and the 'people's press' reporting without censorship from inside their country?
The Great Digital Wall of China will be challenged by hordes of satellite connected journalists, and cell phone carrying, You Tube enabled bloggers.
For me, it seems like Tiananmen Square happened in the recent past and not almost nineteen years ago in 1989. What a difference a couple decades can make. The Chinese democracy movement has essentially disappeared or been effectively neutralized, depending on your viewpoint. The combination of the brutal oppression by a police state ruled by a small, secretive, omnipotent party, the suppression and censorship of the press, and the successful liberalization of the economy with a heady dose of capitalism have succeeded in quelling all dissent. It's an accomplishment the current Administration and its past and present cadre of Roves and Cheneys would aspire to and admire.
I have met some of China's youth, bright twenty-something professionals who have immigrated to the US, and they are different from past generations. They do not have terrible memories of China, being separated from parents, having family members jailed or not seeing them for years when they escape. This generation got on an airplane with a passport as smoothly as could be. And many of them want to go home, home to visit every year, home for retirement. They are buying investment property in China. They go clubbing when they visit Beijing.
There are no worries about the government. There are no fears about repression or censorship. There is no Tiananmen Square Massacre hanging over them.
But the dissidents, the Tibetans, the victims of the state are not entirely forgotten. This past Fall, I listened on local cable television to individuals speaking to the Pasadena City Council, asking them to reconsider and revoke the approval of the participation of the People's Republic of China in the Rose Parade. Each person gave their own story of oppression and imprisonment.
Some journalists are also pointing out the dichotomies of the People's Republic of China hosting the Olympics at a time when 'people's journalism' has become a powerful force on the internet, such as an article anticipating The 2008 Beijing Olympic Disaster.
The Chinese government made the argument in the 1990's that economic development had to come before democracy. Perhaps this is the year that argument will be tested. Economic development has arrived and progressed. How will China handle the free press and the 'people's press' reporting without censorship from inside their country?
The Great Digital Wall of China will be challenged by hordes of satellite connected journalists, and cell phone carrying, You Tube enabled bloggers.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
More harm than good?
This is a creepy story that I had never heard of before reading about it today, HIV trial in Libya. Also, today was the "7 Europeans held in Chad kidnap case." Sometimes it's better to just stay home and mind your own business. Apparently, the first world does more harm than good, and even when they don't they are suspected of it.
Too many catalogs?
There is a service that will remove you from catalog mailing lists. They offer to help reduce the amount of unsolicited mail in your mailbox thus helping the environment. Might be convenient if you get too many catalogs. I for one am still trying to get on the Neiman Marcus catalog list as I need whatever it is they've picked for their annual Christmas gift.
The Rise of India
The Rise of India
What will India's innovation and booming economy mean for Americans?
03/01/2006
ABC News video on India, outsourcing and how economies of India and US are impacted. It's very positive towards India and towards outsourcing. I read about it on the blog of a NRI that I came across randomly.
It's a change to be thinking about India and Indians. Before I started working at my current company, I had no exposure to the revolution taking place with Indians in IT, outsourcing or what these young people are like who are immigrating nowadays. I never saw so many people from one foreign country working in one company before. It was a dramatic change. I was used to working in a multi-cultural, multi-national environment. People were open and friendly and had a very positive view of America.
But the company I joined was dominated by one Indian company, and the people were closed to non-Indians, critical of non-Indian culture, openly nationalistic and verbally abusive in their criticisms of everything about US culture and society.
It reminded me of moving to New York, except that I didn't move anywhere. I just stayed in place and the world came to me this time. But the similarity was that when I lived in NYC, New Yorkers would always make an effort to tell me what was wrong with Los Angeles and California and why New York is so much better. But in Los Angeles, we never gave a thought to New York. It was a big, crowded city with a lot of crime, and it was an exciting cultural and financial center, but it was not a place anyone thought about. I would never have found a New Yorker in Los Angeles and made a point of telling them why L.A. is better than NYC.
Similarly, I would never find an Indian living in the US and tell them why US society is so much better than Indian society. But these Indians were always telling me how terrible it is here. According to them, in the US people cheat on their spouses, have no morals, everyone gets divorced, etc. I have been told that arranged marriages are superior to US marriages and that is why divorce is so high in US. It was startling. A whole generation of Indians had grown up thinking that 'Dallas' and 'Knot's Landing' represented America. And they had no sense of history, or irony or the ridiculousness of such a perspective.
The US has long been Puritanical in its social and sexual mores. From the European viewpoint Americans are generally repressed, conservative in matters of the body and sex and hypocritical in their condemnation of public nudity, and all matters sexual.
Now this new generation from India is telling me that the US is a place lacking in morality, a country of sexual degenerates. Any mention of an extra-marital affair, and some Indian guy or gal will say "Only in America this would happen."
So, I have had to take pause and ask 'what the hell is going on here?' When did America go from the land of sexual repression to the land of Sodom & Gomorrah?
And the answers are complex. In some ways the US has loosened up its sexual mores. There is a definite pornification of society that is going on that is deeply influenced by the internet. (however, I will leave the pornification of society to an entire discussion of its own.)
There is also still a distinct puritanical streak in the US relative to our European counterparts. When you watch television in the UK or EU you will see a noticeable amount of nudity, and remarkable lack of violence. Our news and TV shows are filled with car chases, gunfire, scenes of bloodbaths and gore. European news and TV has breasts. Yes, bare, naked breasts. I watched the six o'clock news in Germany and a woman at Oktoberfest bared her breasts to the newscaster. After her boyfriend reached under her shirt and rubbed her nipples hard. Then she flashed Germany a look at her hard-nippled, small, perky German breasts. This was the six o'clock news, not a preview of the new 'Girls Gone Wild' video. And narry a gun or car chase in sight.
In the US nudity is still exiled to pay cable channels such as HBO which has a controversial new drama that I have heard has simulated sex scenes and bare asses. I can't afford cable so I wouldn't know for certain.
What do Americans think of when they think of India? Certainly not prudishness. Americans think of the Kama Sutra and kundalini yoga as practiced for sexual techniques. Americans thing of dark, sultry, sexy, men and women with ancient traditions of lovemaking and revealing clothing that shows their bare stomachs. Naked brown skins sensually bathing in the local river and making love in fields. It's a total stereotype.
And that is the crux of the matter. The stereotype that Indians have of the US is as inaccurate as the stereotype that Americans have of India.
Americans think of wanton, sensual Indians practicing the Kama Sutra every chance they get. Or Indians who live in degraded poverty with no food, no running water, no electricity, barely surviving in the world’s largest slums. And perhaps added to that is the rude, incomprehensible, call center Indian who has stolen someone's job and does it with arrogance and condescension, providing only hassles and never help or service. And yes, I get that these are narrow stereotypes. That's the point.
But most definitely, Americans do not think of Indians as morally superior people who have a better society with fewer divorces and more responsible family lives.
Yet, I hesitate to criticize this Indian pride in the superiority of their society and their country. Because it seems such a fragile thing to me. Because I don't believe in it. How can I criticize the offensiveness of a nationalistic prejudice when I somehow suspect that they may on some level be afraid it is not true? And whether that is a real doubt or just my own inability to believe in the great superiority of such a complex and troubled country, I couldn't say.
If you look at early Hindu culture, sexuality is very much a part of the celebration of life and the celebration of god. The act of creation is revered as a metaphor for god's power and creation of the world. But 400 years of Mughal invasion and dominance, suppressed the sensual aspect of Hinduism. Even to the point that Hindus do not mention that the symbol for the god Shiva is the penis. Lingam and yoni are worshipped, but contemporary Indian philosophical texts have completely removed all sexuality from them and wrapped these reproductive organs in an incomprehensible jargon of mysticism and philosophical abstraction.
And a hundred years of Victorian British culture did nothing to liberate Hindu culture from the shackles of Muslim suppression. Victorianism served to institutionalize sexuality and make it something not only suppressed but also unmentionable and degraded.
What is left to post-colonial India is this arranged marriage system that is embraced by even the youngest Indians today. Yet in this most personal and private decision, these young people defer to society and parents because, and this is the most important aspect.... they have been raised all their lives to accept, to conform, to fit into the group, the family, the society, and they have not been taught to question, to analyze, to think.
Because if you stood back and thought about arranged marriage, you would see that it is institutionalized racism. The purpose of the arranged marriage is to prevent the individual from marrying anyone different from themselves. They must not marry down or up or across cultures. They must marry people of the same religion, the same color of skin, the same background, the same language. A Brahmin must not marry a Dalit. You can't say this because it is not acceptable to support the caste system and be openly prejudiced even in India. But the entire arranged marriage system is about prejudice. An Indian cannot marry a white or a Chinese person because non-Indians are from an inferior culture. A light skinned Indian does not marry a dark skinned Indian and vice versa. Northern and Southern Indians do not marry each other. Brahmins and Dalits do not marry. The system is institutionalized racism. And if it was my country I would be vehemently opposed to it.
Why would I be opposed? I would be opposed because I do not support racism. I would be opposed because hundreds of years of foreign domination and occupation from the Mughals to the Victorian British have twisted a culture against itself. I would be opposed because fanatical Hindu fundamentalists support the old systems with the cynical purpose of pushing forward their own personal political agendas.
But it's not my culture and not my country. So I am mildly intrigued and curious. I wonder what it is like to have sex with a complete stranger for whom you have no feelings. That is something I would never do. That is a taboo in my society. But that is how all arranged marriages begin. Sex with a total stranger. Perhaps it is exciting in a naughty sort of way.
I am curious what happens when you realize that you are married to someone who you don't actually like. Someone who is irritating or boring or mean or dull or violent or manipulative. Someone who is more or less materialistic than you, whose every word is an idiotic irritation. How do you suppress those emotions?
And finally I think it must be nice to be an Indian man. No matter how ugly or fat or smelly or rude you are, if you have a good job, you will be able to marry a pretty young virgin who will meet your needs for cooking, cleaning and sex, and you won't even have to pay her. Hell, if I could tell my parents to find me a sexy young guy who will cook and clean for me, I'd be on the phone right now. And if he was a modern guy who would also dress sexy and bring me home his income, all the better.
In fact, maybe I'll go suggest it to my mother right now.
What will India's innovation and booming economy mean for Americans?
03/01/2006
ABC News video on India, outsourcing and how economies of India and US are impacted. It's very positive towards India and towards outsourcing. I read about it on the blog of a NRI that I came across randomly.
It's a change to be thinking about India and Indians. Before I started working at my current company, I had no exposure to the revolution taking place with Indians in IT, outsourcing or what these young people are like who are immigrating nowadays. I never saw so many people from one foreign country working in one company before. It was a dramatic change. I was used to working in a multi-cultural, multi-national environment. People were open and friendly and had a very positive view of America.
But the company I joined was dominated by one Indian company, and the people were closed to non-Indians, critical of non-Indian culture, openly nationalistic and verbally abusive in their criticisms of everything about US culture and society.
It reminded me of moving to New York, except that I didn't move anywhere. I just stayed in place and the world came to me this time. But the similarity was that when I lived in NYC, New Yorkers would always make an effort to tell me what was wrong with Los Angeles and California and why New York is so much better. But in Los Angeles, we never gave a thought to New York. It was a big, crowded city with a lot of crime, and it was an exciting cultural and financial center, but it was not a place anyone thought about. I would never have found a New Yorker in Los Angeles and made a point of telling them why L.A. is better than NYC.
Similarly, I would never find an Indian living in the US and tell them why US society is so much better than Indian society. But these Indians were always telling me how terrible it is here. According to them, in the US people cheat on their spouses, have no morals, everyone gets divorced, etc. I have been told that arranged marriages are superior to US marriages and that is why divorce is so high in US. It was startling. A whole generation of Indians had grown up thinking that 'Dallas' and 'Knot's Landing' represented America. And they had no sense of history, or irony or the ridiculousness of such a perspective.
The US has long been Puritanical in its social and sexual mores. From the European viewpoint Americans are generally repressed, conservative in matters of the body and sex and hypocritical in their condemnation of public nudity, and all matters sexual.
Now this new generation from India is telling me that the US is a place lacking in morality, a country of sexual degenerates. Any mention of an extra-marital affair, and some Indian guy or gal will say "Only in America this would happen."
So, I have had to take pause and ask 'what the hell is going on here?' When did America go from the land of sexual repression to the land of Sodom & Gomorrah?
And the answers are complex. In some ways the US has loosened up its sexual mores. There is a definite pornification of society that is going on that is deeply influenced by the internet. (however, I will leave the pornification of society to an entire discussion of its own.)
There is also still a distinct puritanical streak in the US relative to our European counterparts. When you watch television in the UK or EU you will see a noticeable amount of nudity, and remarkable lack of violence. Our news and TV shows are filled with car chases, gunfire, scenes of bloodbaths and gore. European news and TV has breasts. Yes, bare, naked breasts. I watched the six o'clock news in Germany and a woman at Oktoberfest bared her breasts to the newscaster. After her boyfriend reached under her shirt and rubbed her nipples hard. Then she flashed Germany a look at her hard-nippled, small, perky German breasts. This was the six o'clock news, not a preview of the new 'Girls Gone Wild' video. And narry a gun or car chase in sight.
In the US nudity is still exiled to pay cable channels such as HBO which has a controversial new drama that I have heard has simulated sex scenes and bare asses. I can't afford cable so I wouldn't know for certain.
What do Americans think of when they think of India? Certainly not prudishness. Americans think of the Kama Sutra and kundalini yoga as practiced for sexual techniques. Americans thing of dark, sultry, sexy, men and women with ancient traditions of lovemaking and revealing clothing that shows their bare stomachs. Naked brown skins sensually bathing in the local river and making love in fields. It's a total stereotype.
And that is the crux of the matter. The stereotype that Indians have of the US is as inaccurate as the stereotype that Americans have of India.
Americans think of wanton, sensual Indians practicing the Kama Sutra every chance they get. Or Indians who live in degraded poverty with no food, no running water, no electricity, barely surviving in the world’s largest slums. And perhaps added to that is the rude, incomprehensible, call center Indian who has stolen someone's job and does it with arrogance and condescension, providing only hassles and never help or service. And yes, I get that these are narrow stereotypes. That's the point.
But most definitely, Americans do not think of Indians as morally superior people who have a better society with fewer divorces and more responsible family lives.
Yet, I hesitate to criticize this Indian pride in the superiority of their society and their country. Because it seems such a fragile thing to me. Because I don't believe in it. How can I criticize the offensiveness of a nationalistic prejudice when I somehow suspect that they may on some level be afraid it is not true? And whether that is a real doubt or just my own inability to believe in the great superiority of such a complex and troubled country, I couldn't say.
If you look at early Hindu culture, sexuality is very much a part of the celebration of life and the celebration of god. The act of creation is revered as a metaphor for god's power and creation of the world. But 400 years of Mughal invasion and dominance, suppressed the sensual aspect of Hinduism. Even to the point that Hindus do not mention that the symbol for the god Shiva is the penis. Lingam and yoni are worshipped, but contemporary Indian philosophical texts have completely removed all sexuality from them and wrapped these reproductive organs in an incomprehensible jargon of mysticism and philosophical abstraction.
And a hundred years of Victorian British culture did nothing to liberate Hindu culture from the shackles of Muslim suppression. Victorianism served to institutionalize sexuality and make it something not only suppressed but also unmentionable and degraded.
What is left to post-colonial India is this arranged marriage system that is embraced by even the youngest Indians today. Yet in this most personal and private decision, these young people defer to society and parents because, and this is the most important aspect.... they have been raised all their lives to accept, to conform, to fit into the group, the family, the society, and they have not been taught to question, to analyze, to think.
Because if you stood back and thought about arranged marriage, you would see that it is institutionalized racism. The purpose of the arranged marriage is to prevent the individual from marrying anyone different from themselves. They must not marry down or up or across cultures. They must marry people of the same religion, the same color of skin, the same background, the same language. A Brahmin must not marry a Dalit. You can't say this because it is not acceptable to support the caste system and be openly prejudiced even in India. But the entire arranged marriage system is about prejudice. An Indian cannot marry a white or a Chinese person because non-Indians are from an inferior culture. A light skinned Indian does not marry a dark skinned Indian and vice versa. Northern and Southern Indians do not marry each other. Brahmins and Dalits do not marry. The system is institutionalized racism. And if it was my country I would be vehemently opposed to it.
Why would I be opposed? I would be opposed because I do not support racism. I would be opposed because hundreds of years of foreign domination and occupation from the Mughals to the Victorian British have twisted a culture against itself. I would be opposed because fanatical Hindu fundamentalists support the old systems with the cynical purpose of pushing forward their own personal political agendas.
But it's not my culture and not my country. So I am mildly intrigued and curious. I wonder what it is like to have sex with a complete stranger for whom you have no feelings. That is something I would never do. That is a taboo in my society. But that is how all arranged marriages begin. Sex with a total stranger. Perhaps it is exciting in a naughty sort of way.
I am curious what happens when you realize that you are married to someone who you don't actually like. Someone who is irritating or boring or mean or dull or violent or manipulative. Someone who is more or less materialistic than you, whose every word is an idiotic irritation. How do you suppress those emotions?
And finally I think it must be nice to be an Indian man. No matter how ugly or fat or smelly or rude you are, if you have a good job, you will be able to marry a pretty young virgin who will meet your needs for cooking, cleaning and sex, and you won't even have to pay her. Hell, if I could tell my parents to find me a sexy young guy who will cook and clean for me, I'd be on the phone right now. And if he was a modern guy who would also dress sexy and bring me home his income, all the better.
In fact, maybe I'll go suggest it to my mother right now.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The North Wind
The North Wind
There is no sun in Hoya.
Black slate roofs reflect
The lack of light
As the place slowly fades
In wet gloom.
I sit alone in our empty room
Staring down at the rows of dark rooftops
As the glass turns to a mirror of the interior
Until I’m staring at myself.
What I see leads me like a thread
To a woman I met from a northern isle
Whose craggy shores match
Her angular face.
In the winter her house
Groans like a sick cow,
Only when the north wind blows.
My eyes are tired and I wonder
Do the clouds get tired too
As they pour out their soft tears
On the black slate roofs.
The threads seem unraveled
And the world as we know it
Askew and moaning from
The bitter north wind blowing.
There is no sun in Hoya.
Black slate roofs reflect
The lack of light
As the place slowly fades
In wet gloom.
I sit alone in our empty room
Staring down at the rows of dark rooftops
As the glass turns to a mirror of the interior
Until I’m staring at myself.
What I see leads me like a thread
To a woman I met from a northern isle
Whose craggy shores match
Her angular face.
In the winter her house
Groans like a sick cow,
Only when the north wind blows.
My eyes are tired and I wonder
Do the clouds get tired too
As they pour out their soft tears
On the black slate roofs.
The threads seem unraveled
And the world as we know it
Askew and moaning from
The bitter north wind blowing.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Punk Rocker
The history of punk rock from the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica. This is part of why I am GenX and not a Baby Boomer.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Versailles' Hall of Mirrors reopens
Versailles' Hall of Mirrors reopens to the public. Magnificent, historic room was closed for extensive 3-year renovation.
entropy
entropy
"entropy." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Aug. 2007):
4 : the ultimate state reached in the degradation of the matter and energy of the universe : state of inert uniformity of component elements : absence of form, pattern, hierarchy, or differentiationentropy -- David Bidney> <entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder -- J.R.Newman>
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
entropy
Main Entry: en·tro·py
Pronunciation: en-tr-p
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -pies
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek trop change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn
Date: 1875
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS
- en·tro·pic \en-tr-pik, -trä-pik\ adjective
- en·tro·pi·cal·ly \-pi-k(-)l\ adverb
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (2003-OCT-10)
entropy
A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend
to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of
maximum disorder (high entropy).
The entropy of a system is related to the amount of
information it contains. A highly ordered system can be
described using fewer bits of information than a disordered
one. For example, a string containing one million "0"s can be
described using run-length encoding as [("0", 1000000)]
whereas a string of random symbols (e.g. bits, or characters)
will be much harder, if not impossible, to compress in this
way.
Shannon's formula gives the entropy H(M) of a message M in
bits:
H(M) = -log2 p(M)
Where p(M) is the probability of message M.
(1998-11-23)
"entropy." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Aug. 2007):
4 : the ultimate state reached in the degradation of the matter and energy of the universe : state of inert uniformity of component elements : absence of form, pattern, hierarchy, or differentiation
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
entropy
Main Entry: en·tro·py
Pronunciation: en-tr-p
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -pies
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek trop change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn
Date: 1875
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS
- en·tro·pic \en-tr-pik, -trä-pik\ adjective
- en·tro·pi·cal·ly \-pi-k(-)l\ adverb
Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (2003-OCT-10)
entropy
A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend
to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of
maximum disorder (high entropy).
The entropy of a system is related to the amount of
information it contains. A highly ordered system can be
described using fewer bits of information than a disordered
one. For example, a string containing one million "0"s can be
described using run-length encoding as [("0", 1000000)]
whereas a string of random symbols (e.g. bits, or characters)
will be much harder, if not impossible, to compress in this
way.
Shannon's formula gives the entropy H(M) of a message M in
bits:
H(M) = -log2 p(M)
Where p(M) is the probability of message M.
(1998-11-23)
Guess Who's Hiring in America
A recent Business Week article, Guess Who's Hiring in America, (in June 25, 2007 edition, pg 47) notes that Infosys and other Indian companies are cutting costs by hiring more locals in the U.S.
Maybe usually. But not always.
We are in a state of entropy. Theoretically.
"The U.S. hiring by the Indians echoes the strategy Japan's auto industry devised after soaring levels of imports sparked political outcry in Washington in December, 2000. "The Indians are doing to the world's IT processes what the Japanese did to manufacturing," says analyst John McCarthy of Forrester Research Inc (FORR). And now, like Japan's carmakers before them, the Indians are becoming major employers in the U.S. as well."Signs of a new trend starting up. In 1989 a young MBA told me that IBM was defunct as a company and would not exist in five years. In 2002 any number of writers reported that white collar jobs were all going to be offshored. Sometimes we just don't know what the future will hold. We can always count on change to be painful and scary with much collateral damage, and by that I mean nice people suffer when they shouldn't have to, but we can't count on everything always being increasingly horrible.
Maybe usually. But not always.
We are in a state of entropy. Theoretically.
The Changing Reality of Outsourcing
On Linked In "Answers" a member brought up the changing reality of outsourcing recently with the question: Is the Indian outsourcing engineering and IT market now efficiently or overpriced?
Some interesting points were:
"A journalist friend of mine asked me recently about this: he had met a valley company the other day that had laid off its engineers and refocused its engineering back to the valley. Logic given: salaries have risen so high there, that the office and coordination is no longer with the price. My intuition has been that with the masses of companies seeking outsourcing to India that the pricing was going to reach market rates quickly. Not with facts, but with some reasoning and intuition, I have particularly thought that this would be true of small companies and small outfits very soon.It is quite worth reading the responses for the variety of and rapidly changing nature of what is going on in international labor markets. Or global outsourcing and offshoring as these are the current buzz words.
I'm curious for other people's data, analysis, thoughts, and examples of other companies."
Some interesting points were:
- Salaries are growing at 10% to 25% annually in India for software engineers
- There is more demand than supply in India for software engineers
- It is cheaper to hire locally in the U.S. than to bring a person over on a visa
- Only large companies with very large projects are seeing the economic benefits
- Indian companies are outsourcing to other countries such as China to save money
Sunday, June 24, 2007
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, (R) 1952
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)