Amongst the many genre of articles and books I read I usually keep away from one type by choice. I am intellectually uncomfortable with books or articles that talk about the end of American primacy. Its not because I find the topic disagreeable its just that often such books or articles are disappointing from the perspective of theory and logic. The latest is Time's cover story by Fareed Zakaria, "How to restore the American dream". The article, complete with a graphic depicting a toppled Statue of Liberty, gives some well reasoned cautioning about some challenges facing America today. Then Zakaria slides into tropes comparing China and India with America. Curiously Zakaria, just like the Economist did a few months back, cites the Tata Nano car as sign of innovation taking off in India. He writes:
"Two weeks ago, for example, I sat in a Nano, the revolutionary car being produced by Tata Motors in India. It's a nice, comfortable midgetmobile, much like Mercedes-Benz's Smart car, except that rather than costing $22,000, it costs about $2,400. Tata plans to bring it to the U.S. in two to three years. Properly equipped with air bags and other safety features, it will retail at $7,000. Leave aside the car itself, whose price will surely put a downward pressure on U.S. carmakers. Just think about car parts. Every part in the Nano is made to global standards but manufactured in India at about a tenth of what it would cost in America. When Ford orders its next set of car parts, will they be made in Michigan or Mumbai? "
Zakaria, a most respected columnist and commentator, is just fooling people here with a sleight of hand thats insulting. Comparing a no frills Nano (NO airbags, single windshield wiper, only one side rear view mirror, no air conditioner) with a Smart car that is laden with safety features and comfort features and THEN to cry foul on price is just intellectual chicanery. The Smart car comes with dual airbags, side curtain airbags, ABS, Acceleration Skid Control (ASC) etc etc.
The crux of Zakaria's article was the threat to the middle class lifestyle in USA. Its unfortunate that he forgot to mention why American cars made in Detroit cost so much. Amongst other factors the one relevant to us is the Auto Union contracts that ensure pay packages that would make our eyes pop, then add on the luxurious benefit, the almost near impossibility of firing a union worker and others. Compare that to a Nano assembly worker benefits I am sure the latter would not be thrilled. Note, this is not only for the car manufacturers, every ancillary unit related to car manufacturing is unionized and enjoy those benefits. So while Tata may yet pay a good wage the workers in ancillary industries, I am sure, slog at pitiful wages.
While some innovation did go into making the car, the design is not 100% Indian. The most important cost savings came from re-designing the conventional drive shaft by GKN involved drawing in Engineers from its Italian and German operations. Then of course there is the Wal-Mart philosophy of squeezing cost out of every supplier. Zakaria glides by all that.
Much of the cost comes from sheer "wage arbitration" of manufacturing in a country where regulations are lax concerning mandatory safety for the product, workers are ill-protected at work, related insurance costs are next-to-nothing. US car manufacturers have to abide by umpteen legislative mandates, workers are covered by exhaustive protections against injury by law (and the laws are enforced). Zakaria forgets to note that the average salary of IT workers have increased in quantum over 8 years. The labor costs for manufacturing are still depressed owing to multiple factors and that does give an undue advantage.
Would it better for a manufacturing employee to be working in USA or India? Only a fool would answer 'India'. The Nano is no industry re-defining innovation like Ipod.
Thomas Friedman, endless cheerleader for India and China, had another perspective. In a country plagued by pathetic roadways, creaking infrastructure, very high road accident fatalities and above all high pollution, he felt that a "Nano car is the last thing India needs".
Also what Zakaria fails to mention is Ratan Tata's travails with Mamata Banerjee regarding his Singur factory. Something that could not have happened in US anyday, not even under the current closet-socialist Barack Obama. Unfair comparisons, unfair conclusions, plain intellectual dishonesty.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
America's Geniuses: John Dabiri and a culture of nourishing excellence
Every year in September the MacArthur Foundation announces a grant for 20-40 American citizens cutting across disciplines. The grant is $500,000 with NO strings attached, as the foundation site says "MacArthur Fellowships come without stipulations and reporting requirements and offer Fellows unprecedented freedom and opportunity to reflect, create, and explore". This grant is also often called "MacArthur Genius grants" and the 'fellows' are also called 'geniuses'.
For 30 years the foundation has selected 'geniuses'. The 2010 fellows were noted for ethnic diversity, number of women, diversity in the fields. The foundation press release notes "working across a broad spectrum of endeavors, the Fellows include a stone carver, a quantum astrophysicist, a jazz pianist, a high school physics teacher, a marine biologist, a theater director, an American historian, a fiction writer, an economist, and a computer security scientist. All were selected for their creativity, originality, and potential to make important contributions in the future".
The youngest of them is John Dabiri, born to Nigerian Immigrants. John Dabiri is. "Associate Professor in the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories and the Option of Bioengineering at Caltech". Check out that hyperlink in Dabiri's name which is his page in Caltech's website. The short biographical sketch speaks, to use a cliche, volumes. Just ponder at the name of what he is professor of, a very unique, hybrid intersection of Engineering (aeronautical engineering) and biology. His research area is studying jelly fishes and trying to apply those principles to aeronautical engineering. His M.S. was in aeronautical engineering and his PhD was in bio-engineering. Dabiri was a 'tenured' professor by age 29. A 'tenured' professorship is such a big deal in America and it takes a genius to become one at 29.
His curriculum vitae is interesting to check out for the scholarships he had won. The scholarships, Government and Private sector, have really fueled him to higher echelons of academic achievements. The scholarships, apart from recognizing talent reward him financially thus enabling to study at the best schools of the country.What really impressed me is that "Popular Science" magazine identified him as "Brilliant Scientist" in 2008. In 2009 he was awarded "Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers" (PECASE). 2010 he is declared a 'genius' by MacArthur foundation.
This country has a tradition of "FERRETING" out excellence, "RECOGNIZING" talent, "REWARDING" merit. Whether its MacArthur foundation or Intel's talent search or Pulitzers or National Book Awards and so many, many other programs that have all become sheer institutions in their own right. What is most important is that over many decades these programs have been untouched by scandals or nepotism or favoritism or even censorship.
Annette Gordon-Reed, Historian at Harvard Law School (oh look at that alone what is a historian doing at a law school) shocked the literary world and America in general by publishing the damning "Hemingses of Monticello". That book nailed the most venerated founding father Thomas Jefferson for having fathered an illegitimate child with his Afro-american slave, Sally Hemings. The foundation rewarded for THAT. She is rewarded for debunking, or humanizing, a founding father of the nation. (let it be noted that this infomation about Jefferson is cited without fail in the official tours at Jefferson's historic home at Monticello. Good luck expecting that at Nehru's Teenmurthi).
A week after Dabiri won the award he was featured on NPR (National Public Radio, a popular non-partisan channel). Noting his Afro-American background the interviewer queried him on a very important sociological aspect. Within the Afro-american community and other ethnic minorities, attempts by children to excel academically could get mischaracterized as trying to 'act white'. Here is the exchange in full (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130377714)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
For 30 years the foundation has selected 'geniuses'. The 2010 fellows were noted for ethnic diversity, number of women, diversity in the fields. The foundation press release notes "working across a broad spectrum of endeavors, the Fellows include a stone carver, a quantum astrophysicist, a jazz pianist, a high school physics teacher, a marine biologist, a theater director, an American historian, a fiction writer, an economist, and a computer security scientist. All were selected for their creativity, originality, and potential to make important contributions in the future".
The youngest of them is John Dabiri, born to Nigerian Immigrants. John Dabiri is. "Associate Professor in the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories and the Option of Bioengineering at Caltech". Check out that hyperlink in Dabiri's name which is his page in Caltech's website. The short biographical sketch speaks, to use a cliche, volumes. Just ponder at the name of what he is professor of, a very unique, hybrid intersection of Engineering (aeronautical engineering) and biology. His research area is studying jelly fishes and trying to apply those principles to aeronautical engineering. His M.S. was in aeronautical engineering and his PhD was in bio-engineering. Dabiri was a 'tenured' professor by age 29. A 'tenured' professorship is such a big deal in America and it takes a genius to become one at 29.
His curriculum vitae is interesting to check out for the scholarships he had won. The scholarships, Government and Private sector, have really fueled him to higher echelons of academic achievements. The scholarships, apart from recognizing talent reward him financially thus enabling to study at the best schools of the country.What really impressed me is that "Popular Science" magazine identified him as "Brilliant Scientist" in 2008. In 2009 he was awarded "Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers" (PECASE). 2010 he is declared a 'genius' by MacArthur foundation.
This country has a tradition of "FERRETING" out excellence, "RECOGNIZING" talent, "REWARDING" merit. Whether its MacArthur foundation or Intel's talent search or Pulitzers or National Book Awards and so many, many other programs that have all become sheer institutions in their own right. What is most important is that over many decades these programs have been untouched by scandals or nepotism or favoritism or even censorship.
Annette Gordon-Reed, Historian at Harvard Law School (oh look at that alone what is a historian doing at a law school) shocked the literary world and America in general by publishing the damning "Hemingses of Monticello". That book nailed the most venerated founding father Thomas Jefferson for having fathered an illegitimate child with his Afro-american slave, Sally Hemings. The foundation rewarded for THAT. She is rewarded for debunking, or humanizing, a founding father of the nation. (let it be noted that this infomation about Jefferson is cited without fail in the official tours at Jefferson's historic home at Monticello. Good luck expecting that at Nehru's Teenmurthi).
A week after Dabiri won the award he was featured on NPR (National Public Radio, a popular non-partisan channel). Noting his Afro-American background the interviewer queried him on a very important sociological aspect. Within the Afro-american community and other ethnic minorities, attempts by children to excel academically could get mischaracterized as trying to 'act white'. Here is the exchange in full (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130377714)
MARTIN: Did you ever confront the challenge that some kids of color tell us that they confront, of being viewed as, you know, not cool or a nerd because of your interest in science?Mr. DABIRI: Yes, the phrase was typically acting white. You know, if you were someone who did your homework and spoke with correct grammar. I hope that that sort of attitude is waning. I don't know if it is. But that is something that I think discourages a lot of students. And so what we need are just more role models that show that you can be interested in science and engineering and still be a normal person who enjoys everyday things. You don't have to be a geek.
When George Bush wanted to use 'faith based initiatives' to address some social programs he was derided by the liberal intelligentsia, many shrieked in horror "separation of church and state, oh my god". Here is Dabiri talking about his church "We have a mentoring program at our church out here in California called The Faith Foundation. And many of the students in the area are from under-represented groups, and so we hope that the impact of our program will be to continue investing in the next generation of scientists and engineers."
Dabiri very warmly remembered his 4th grade teacher, "I remember my fourth grade teacher Cathy Kemp who really encouraged me in my classes. She encouraged me and I think made me believe that I was smart and so I took that and sort of owned that and tried to live up to the expectations that she had placed on me, even as a fourth grader".
Was I joking about the "no strings attached" condition for the $500,000?On national radio Dabiri cheekily said "I do know a small portion of that will go towards swimming lessons, because ironically, as much as I enjoy studying the ocean, I can't swim."
This is the bed rock of what makes America what it is today. Only the intellectually feeble would brush aside these and take refuge in bromides like "oh the country is rich", "oh the country is rich in minerals", "oh they drain the talent from other countries". For them I've no answer if they are willfully blind
When George Bush wanted to use 'faith based initiatives' to address some social programs he was derided by the liberal intelligentsia, many shrieked in horror "separation of church and state, oh my god". Here is Dabiri talking about his church "We have a mentoring program at our church out here in California called The Faith Foundation. And many of the students in the area are from under-represented groups, and so we hope that the impact of our program will be to continue investing in the next generation of scientists and engineers."
Dabiri very warmly remembered his 4th grade teacher, "I remember my fourth grade teacher Cathy Kemp who really encouraged me in my classes. She encouraged me and I think made me believe that I was smart and so I took that and sort of owned that and tried to live up to the expectations that she had placed on me, even as a fourth grader".
Was I joking about the "no strings attached" condition for the $500,000?On national radio Dabiri cheekily said "I do know a small portion of that will go towards swimming lessons, because ironically, as much as I enjoy studying the ocean, I can't swim."
This is the bed rock of what makes America what it is today. Only the intellectually feeble would brush aside these and take refuge in bromides like "oh the country is rich", "oh the country is rich in minerals", "oh they drain the talent from other countries". For them I've no answer if they are willfully blind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Fall Festival and an Immigration Debate
Yesterday we had a Fall Festival in our neighborhood. It was a typical fair with Funnel cakes, boat rides, stalls, stilt walkers and singing. I wanted to buy a bottle of water and found a stall selling it at $1 (very reasonable). As I glanced the table I got confused. I saw a book "Hiroshima", a bestseller on the bombing of Hiroshima, leaflets in Spanish, buttons saying 'no stinking paper'. I asked a guy at the stall what the "no stinking paper" button meant. He replied "what do you think of legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants?". I said "Well, I am an immigrant and I've no problem with legal immigrants but illegal immigration is different".
The guy then started off "we prefer the term undocumented immigrants". I just gave a smile that he understood. He continued "I understand you think its just semantics, but the word 'undocumented' carries a better connotation than 'illegal'". I told him "if somebody breaks into your home would you call him a 'thief' or an 'uninvited guest'". He said "of course "I'd call him a thief". Having understood the implication of what he just conceded he pressed further. "this country is engaged in illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". I knew where he was going with this patently idiotic analogy. I replied "if you think this is a dishonorable country why not choose some other country that would conform to your ethics for these demands". I also saw a book on economics on the table. He then changed tack "do you know how immigrants 'contribute' to the economy". I demurred "hhmm thats debatable". His repartee was "oh you are watching Bill O'reilly and Fox News". I said "you are now assuming my television watching habits". Incidentally I watch more of CNN than Fox. I've seen immigration rallies with placards saying "no human being is illegal". I felt like screaming "the question is not about your legality of being 'homo-sapiens' rather about how you entered the country".
Take a step back and reflect on the greatness of USA. Nowhere in the world can an ethnic community put up a stall in a community fair and brazenly ask for illegal immigration to be accepted. No other country in the world would accept an ethnic community with a stall that uses a language different from the local language. To rub it in the stall representative has a dim view of the country's foreign policy displaying books that cast a dubious light on the country. No other country in the world gives citizenship by virtue of being born on its soil. No other country in the world makes it illegal for any agency, law enforcement or otherwise (schools, libraries etc), to ask the immigration status of those who seek service or help.
What completely angered me was not just his criticism of Iraq war but bracketing Hiroshima (Pearl Harbor) and Afghanistan (9/11). Most Americans think Afghanistan is justified war. Even if one were to agree with his very malicious reasoning, US will be out of Iraq by 2011 so what do we do with the 14 million illegal immigrants at that point, what rationale will they cling to then?
The economic contributions of illegal immigrants is a very contentious debate that rests not just on 'economics' but in a very swampy land. John McCain, god bless the Maverick, in a speech for Immigration reform that would help provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, bravely asked his largely White American audience, "who amongst you would do the jobs they do". This is what is called as 'contribution'. But who pays for illegal immigrants going into Emergency Care and availing themselves of medical care? Why is America held to impossible and convoluted logic of human rights and compelled to provide education to children of illegal immigrants? Who pays for that? We are told children should not be victimized for the fault of their parents. Very laudable objective but get real. In a country where schools depend on property taxes its no wonder this causes friction. And we are not talking few tens or hundreds of children. No Emergency room attendant can ask an incoming patient for status of residency or even ability to pay. Who pays for that? In states like California, Texas, New Jersey, New York this is a big problem.
I support limiting the 14th amendment, citizenship by birth, to legal residents and citizens. The term 'anchor babies' does have a meaning. People, not many, do come here just to give birth, claim citizenship for their new born and in turn cite them as reason to be allowed to stay. I am aware of the roots of 14th Amendment but that scenario does not apply here in this debate.
The argument that I detest most is the cheeky "oh well this is a country of immigrants, they just came here before us". Yes, this is a country of immigrants but it has acquired a culture and character that has made it prosperous unlike any other country in history. We come seeking the fruits of American culture. For those who sneer at American culture and morals my simple answer is, "you are free to leave". I came to America to be American. I came to America to be assimilated not to contribute to islands of ethnic pride. Yes I love this country to be an English speaking country. There are parts of America where an American cannot get a job without knowing Spanish (knowing it would not be sufficient either). We are looking at a problem.
There are many other questions on immigration debate. What kind of immigrants does America need? Should America liberalize immigration to attract skilled immigrants? Can we reform the quagmire that the Green card process has become to retain much needed talent in USA?
America is at crossroads. A blog, as I repeatedly say, is no place for elaborate theses. This is only to tickle a readers intellect and give a flavor what I think.
The guy then started off "we prefer the term undocumented immigrants". I just gave a smile that he understood. He continued "I understand you think its just semantics, but the word 'undocumented' carries a better connotation than 'illegal'". I told him "if somebody breaks into your home would you call him a 'thief' or an 'uninvited guest'". He said "of course "I'd call him a thief". Having understood the implication of what he just conceded he pressed further. "this country is engaged in illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". I knew where he was going with this patently idiotic analogy. I replied "if you think this is a dishonorable country why not choose some other country that would conform to your ethics for these demands". I also saw a book on economics on the table. He then changed tack "do you know how immigrants 'contribute' to the economy". I demurred "hhmm thats debatable". His repartee was "oh you are watching Bill O'reilly and Fox News". I said "you are now assuming my television watching habits". Incidentally I watch more of CNN than Fox. I've seen immigration rallies with placards saying "no human being is illegal". I felt like screaming "the question is not about your legality of being 'homo-sapiens' rather about how you entered the country".
Take a step back and reflect on the greatness of USA. Nowhere in the world can an ethnic community put up a stall in a community fair and brazenly ask for illegal immigration to be accepted. No other country in the world would accept an ethnic community with a stall that uses a language different from the local language. To rub it in the stall representative has a dim view of the country's foreign policy displaying books that cast a dubious light on the country. No other country in the world gives citizenship by virtue of being born on its soil. No other country in the world makes it illegal for any agency, law enforcement or otherwise (schools, libraries etc), to ask the immigration status of those who seek service or help.
What completely angered me was not just his criticism of Iraq war but bracketing Hiroshima (Pearl Harbor) and Afghanistan (9/11). Most Americans think Afghanistan is justified war. Even if one were to agree with his very malicious reasoning, US will be out of Iraq by 2011 so what do we do with the 14 million illegal immigrants at that point, what rationale will they cling to then?
The economic contributions of illegal immigrants is a very contentious debate that rests not just on 'economics' but in a very swampy land. John McCain, god bless the Maverick, in a speech for Immigration reform that would help provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, bravely asked his largely White American audience, "who amongst you would do the jobs they do". This is what is called as 'contribution'. But who pays for illegal immigrants going into Emergency Care and availing themselves of medical care? Why is America held to impossible and convoluted logic of human rights and compelled to provide education to children of illegal immigrants? Who pays for that? We are told children should not be victimized for the fault of their parents. Very laudable objective but get real. In a country where schools depend on property taxes its no wonder this causes friction. And we are not talking few tens or hundreds of children. No Emergency room attendant can ask an incoming patient for status of residency or even ability to pay. Who pays for that? In states like California, Texas, New Jersey, New York this is a big problem.
I support limiting the 14th amendment, citizenship by birth, to legal residents and citizens. The term 'anchor babies' does have a meaning. People, not many, do come here just to give birth, claim citizenship for their new born and in turn cite them as reason to be allowed to stay. I am aware of the roots of 14th Amendment but that scenario does not apply here in this debate.
The argument that I detest most is the cheeky "oh well this is a country of immigrants, they just came here before us". Yes, this is a country of immigrants but it has acquired a culture and character that has made it prosperous unlike any other country in history. We come seeking the fruits of American culture. For those who sneer at American culture and morals my simple answer is, "you are free to leave". I came to America to be American. I came to America to be assimilated not to contribute to islands of ethnic pride. Yes I love this country to be an English speaking country. There are parts of America where an American cannot get a job without knowing Spanish (knowing it would not be sufficient either). We are looking at a problem.
There are many other questions on immigration debate. What kind of immigrants does America need? Should America liberalize immigration to attract skilled immigrants? Can we reform the quagmire that the Green card process has become to retain much needed talent in USA?
America is at crossroads. A blog, as I repeatedly say, is no place for elaborate theses. This is only to tickle a readers intellect and give a flavor what I think.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
From Mao to Mozart: China embraces the West
Recently I watched "From Mao to Mozart” an Oscar winning documentary about the historic visit of American Violinist Isaac Stern to China in 1980. The timing, the choice of Western Classical musician, the ethnicity of Stern etc all make it very interesting. Isaac Stern, a Jew born in Ukraine, migrated to USA as a child and trained in violin. Amongst the lovers of Hollywood Musicals he is known for his contribution to “Fiddler on the roof” (a nice musical set in the backdrop of anti-semitism and pogroms in Czarist Russia).
The "cultural revolution" started by Mao ended completely only with his death in 1976 and left thousands dead in its wake. The terror it unleashed on the intellectuals, in typical communist fashion, crippled Chinese intelligentsia for decades. The documentary features a violin teacher who testifies how he was imprisoned and how his family was threatened. Deng Xioping is often credited with pushing China to embrace the West unlike Soviet Russia, albeit in a very controlled manner especially on political matters. Unlike Kruschev's famous speech to the Russian parliament denouncing Stalin and laying bare the horrors of Stalinism, Deng left Mao's halo untouched but reversed critical policies.
What surprised me about the documentary was why did China decide to invite a Western Classical musician and have him perform to packed halls across China and allow this critical documentary to be made. The Chinese, unlike Soviet Russia, did not have any traditional linkage to Western Classical music. China did not have a Stravinsky or a Tchaikovsky. Western Classical is as alien to Chinese as it is to Indians. Why would the Chinese government promote something that has no roots to the country's cultural ethos that too barely 4 years after the death of its founding father? I don't know.
Isaac Stern goes to China with a very open mind that is typically American. He is curious, he is wary too but he is ready to embrace the country and goes all out to charm his chinese audience. The best part of the documentary is when the teacher in Isaac Stern emerges. He chides a performer for not using the bow on a violin completely along its length. He tells the student how to use the bow along its entire length like a flowing motion used in table tennis, a sport most chinese are familiar with. It is during this tour that Stern identifies Wang Jian who would later become a world famous cellist.
Unlike Soviet Russia that not just viewed the west with suspicion but made any contact with west dangerous for its citizens, China allowed western ideas to seep in and eagerly engaged with the west. Of course they are two very different countries, different intellectual traditions and at 1950 very different in their economic situations.
Today the NY philharmonic and other opera houses go to China to hunt for talent. Whether its Lang Lang or Yo Yo Ma or budding star of Metropolitan Opera Shenyang the Chinese have arrived on the scene of west's most prized bastion, western classical music (See my earlier blog http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/lessons-for-madras-music-academy-from.html).
Li Cunxin China's most famous Ballet dancer and a product of Mao's cultural revolution, later emigrated to USA (where else) and wrote his autobiography, aptly titled, "Mao's last dancer", its now a major motion picture of the same name.
Isaac Stern's sense of humor, the total absence of any condescension, the teacher in him etc make the documentary very watchable. I mentioned his Jewish heritage as a surprising factor in his visit to China because Indian communists would have howled from the rooftops if a Jewish musician came to India.
The "cultural revolution" started by Mao ended completely only with his death in 1976 and left thousands dead in its wake. The terror it unleashed on the intellectuals, in typical communist fashion, crippled Chinese intelligentsia for decades. The documentary features a violin teacher who testifies how he was imprisoned and how his family was threatened. Deng Xioping is often credited with pushing China to embrace the West unlike Soviet Russia, albeit in a very controlled manner especially on political matters. Unlike Kruschev's famous speech to the Russian parliament denouncing Stalin and laying bare the horrors of Stalinism, Deng left Mao's halo untouched but reversed critical policies.
What surprised me about the documentary was why did China decide to invite a Western Classical musician and have him perform to packed halls across China and allow this critical documentary to be made. The Chinese, unlike Soviet Russia, did not have any traditional linkage to Western Classical music. China did not have a Stravinsky or a Tchaikovsky. Western Classical is as alien to Chinese as it is to Indians. Why would the Chinese government promote something that has no roots to the country's cultural ethos that too barely 4 years after the death of its founding father? I don't know.
Isaac Stern goes to China with a very open mind that is typically American. He is curious, he is wary too but he is ready to embrace the country and goes all out to charm his chinese audience. The best part of the documentary is when the teacher in Isaac Stern emerges. He chides a performer for not using the bow on a violin completely along its length. He tells the student how to use the bow along its entire length like a flowing motion used in table tennis, a sport most chinese are familiar with. It is during this tour that Stern identifies Wang Jian who would later become a world famous cellist.
Unlike Soviet Russia that not just viewed the west with suspicion but made any contact with west dangerous for its citizens, China allowed western ideas to seep in and eagerly engaged with the west. Of course they are two very different countries, different intellectual traditions and at 1950 very different in their economic situations.
Today the NY philharmonic and other opera houses go to China to hunt for talent. Whether its Lang Lang or Yo Yo Ma or budding star of Metropolitan Opera Shenyang the Chinese have arrived on the scene of west's most prized bastion, western classical music (See my earlier blog http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/lessons-for-madras-music-academy-from.html).
Li Cunxin China's most famous Ballet dancer and a product of Mao's cultural revolution, later emigrated to USA (where else) and wrote his autobiography, aptly titled, "Mao's last dancer", its now a major motion picture of the same name.
Isaac Stern's sense of humor, the total absence of any condescension, the teacher in him etc make the documentary very watchable. I mentioned his Jewish heritage as a surprising factor in his visit to China because Indian communists would have howled from the rooftops if a Jewish musician came to India.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Being a Super Power Is Not Easy.
Imagine a clash of titans over 40 years. Suddenly one titan falls down and is exposed as a pygmy walking on stilts hiding behind a shield the real titan would be tempted to trample the vanquished. Unless the real titan is USA and pygmy-as-titan was Soviet Russia.
I just completed reading "Dead Hand" by David Hofman on the cold war arms race. Both US and Russia were involved in an arms race stockpiling nuclear weapons that could destroy the earth many times over. When Soviet Russia crumbled like a cookie from within Americans were exuberant over the demise of their nemesis. Ideologically, politically, militarily and economically Soviet Russia lay prostrate. In fact there remained no Soviet Russia. Just Russia and splinter states that Stalin had gobbled up. Could America afford to gloat and stand by to see its existential nemesis disintegrate? Of course there was gloating. Of course there was triumphalism. BUT there was concern amongst the knowledgeable in the various arms of US government.
Soviet Russia's nuclear stockpile, the biological weapons program (pursued in blatant violation of treaties that USSR had signed) etc were scattered amongst various splinter states that were all breaking up. The command and control structure was vaporizing. USSR scientists now staring at abysmal poverty, some were 'down to the last sack of potatoes', were on the lookout for any buyer. Iranians showed up in Russian colleges under the pretext of studying chemistry. Outright poaching of dangerous scientific talent was afoot.
America could ill afford to sit out as spectator. Recession was raging at home. Two senators, Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) came together in a bi-partisan effort to craft the Nunn Lugar bill (1992) to help fund Russia to destroy its stockpile of nuclear weapons. America being an open society and that such congressional bills have to be shepherded through the Congress with utmost political skill brings to relief what a moment it was. One of the bills opponents drily remarked "we have spent more than trillion dollars over decades trying to destroy USSR why spend our tax payer money to save them now". Nunn and Lugar faced political uncertainty and had to explain to the American taxpayer why American money must be sent to USSR in the larger interest.
Just to cite one example. Things were so deplorably bad in USSR that American experts who went to assist dismantling weapons were simply shocked at the dilapidated conditions of trains used to transport nuclear weapons. One such train was then shipped to US, retrofit with safety devices and sent back, all on US taxpayer dollar.
In fact reflecting on this angle I see how America reconstructed western Europe under the Marshall plan ploughing in billions of dollars to stave of the communist threat. Mindful of how the victorious countries punished Germany in 1918 America took the leadership in reconstructing Europe in such way that Western Europe would stand as an equal ally in the fight against communism and the nations that were held in thrall behind the Iron Curtain.Whether its Germany or Japan they are what they are today thanks to American power that was exercised arbitrarily and unilaterally. But for Marshall plan western Europe would have crumbled and got lost. Yes America had its selfish aims. In fact it was naked self interest that propelled America to take those decisions. But it was not self interest at the cost of another. At least not always.
I just completed reading "Dead Hand" by David Hofman on the cold war arms race. Both US and Russia were involved in an arms race stockpiling nuclear weapons that could destroy the earth many times over. When Soviet Russia crumbled like a cookie from within Americans were exuberant over the demise of their nemesis. Ideologically, politically, militarily and economically Soviet Russia lay prostrate. In fact there remained no Soviet Russia. Just Russia and splinter states that Stalin had gobbled up. Could America afford to gloat and stand by to see its existential nemesis disintegrate? Of course there was gloating. Of course there was triumphalism. BUT there was concern amongst the knowledgeable in the various arms of US government.
Soviet Russia's nuclear stockpile, the biological weapons program (pursued in blatant violation of treaties that USSR had signed) etc were scattered amongst various splinter states that were all breaking up. The command and control structure was vaporizing. USSR scientists now staring at abysmal poverty, some were 'down to the last sack of potatoes', were on the lookout for any buyer. Iranians showed up in Russian colleges under the pretext of studying chemistry. Outright poaching of dangerous scientific talent was afoot.
America could ill afford to sit out as spectator. Recession was raging at home. Two senators, Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) came together in a bi-partisan effort to craft the Nunn Lugar bill (1992) to help fund Russia to destroy its stockpile of nuclear weapons. America being an open society and that such congressional bills have to be shepherded through the Congress with utmost political skill brings to relief what a moment it was. One of the bills opponents drily remarked "we have spent more than trillion dollars over decades trying to destroy USSR why spend our tax payer money to save them now". Nunn and Lugar faced political uncertainty and had to explain to the American taxpayer why American money must be sent to USSR in the larger interest.
Just to cite one example. Things were so deplorably bad in USSR that American experts who went to assist dismantling weapons were simply shocked at the dilapidated conditions of trains used to transport nuclear weapons. One such train was then shipped to US, retrofit with safety devices and sent back, all on US taxpayer dollar.
In fact reflecting on this angle I see how America reconstructed western Europe under the Marshall plan ploughing in billions of dollars to stave of the communist threat. Mindful of how the victorious countries punished Germany in 1918 America took the leadership in reconstructing Europe in such way that Western Europe would stand as an equal ally in the fight against communism and the nations that were held in thrall behind the Iron Curtain.Whether its Germany or Japan they are what they are today thanks to American power that was exercised arbitrarily and unilaterally. But for Marshall plan western Europe would have crumbled and got lost. Yes America had its selfish aims. In fact it was naked self interest that propelled America to take those decisions. But it was not self interest at the cost of another. At least not always.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Obama's Lunch and Gorbachev's Eateries
I am currently reading David Hoffman's "Dead Hand" (Pulitzer winner). Its about the cold war arms race and its legacy. One of the interesting passages was how Gorbachev threatened some communist party men to fall in line. While the average Soviet citizen had to stand in queues for basic the communist party officials had their own grocery stores (well stocked) and eateries that provided delicacies only for party apparatchiks. Something as simple as food was disbursed based on hierarchy in Soviet Russia.
David Remnick's masterful "Lenin's Tomb" (Pulitzer), about the downfall of Soviet Russia, has hilarious anecdotes of how Soviet party apparatus functioned. When party bosses went hunting choice animals would be herded in range of their guns, when they went fishing divers would go underwater and hook fishes onto the fishing reels, a palace would be constructed for Brezhnev's visit that would be used for just a few hours.Remnick writes how Politbureau members would know if they are out of favor by watching how the line up is ordered for farewell when the General Secretary went for trips abroad.
Soviet Russia, found on the principle of 'dictatorship of the proletariat', ended up enshrining the class differentiation that it was supposed to shatter. Sort of like the pigs in Orwell's 'Animal farm" which overthrow rule by men but end up imitating men.
It is actually striking to see how India adopted such practices, many left over from British days. Even in companies like Best and Crompton there used to be an 'officers mess', ordinary workers could not eat there. We are familiar with ministers standing with a bouquet in hand for departing CM's.
Two weeks back Barack Obama visited New Orleans for Katrina's 5th anniversary. He had lunch at some fast food place typical of New Orleans. He stood in the line, got his food and told how much it cost. Obama, President of USA, did not have enough money (sort of like USA right now). Obama borrowed $20 from his secret service agent and paid up. Bill Clinton did the same at a book store (what's with Democratic Presidents they always seem to never have money when they need to pay up).
Malcolm Gladwell, in "outliers" calls this the "Power Distance Index", it depicts how hierarchical a society is and how across the hierarchy the people of lower rings are comfortable challenging the superiors. USA has a low PDI.
My brother in law used to work for a mid size web hosting company in Maryland. The CEO would come to the cafeteria for lunch. The guy serving burgers would holler out a cheerful "hey" and of course the CEO would pay too.
It was a charm to see Senators, Governors and Presidential candidates squirm in their seats when Tim Russert would grill them mercilessly. Not many could get elected without undergoing Russert's inquisition.
David Remnick's masterful "Lenin's Tomb" (Pulitzer), about the downfall of Soviet Russia, has hilarious anecdotes of how Soviet party apparatus functioned. When party bosses went hunting choice animals would be herded in range of their guns, when they went fishing divers would go underwater and hook fishes onto the fishing reels, a palace would be constructed for Brezhnev's visit that would be used for just a few hours.Remnick writes how Politbureau members would know if they are out of favor by watching how the line up is ordered for farewell when the General Secretary went for trips abroad.
Soviet Russia, found on the principle of 'dictatorship of the proletariat', ended up enshrining the class differentiation that it was supposed to shatter. Sort of like the pigs in Orwell's 'Animal farm" which overthrow rule by men but end up imitating men.
It is actually striking to see how India adopted such practices, many left over from British days. Even in companies like Best and Crompton there used to be an 'officers mess', ordinary workers could not eat there. We are familiar with ministers standing with a bouquet in hand for departing CM's.
Two weeks back Barack Obama visited New Orleans for Katrina's 5th anniversary. He had lunch at some fast food place typical of New Orleans. He stood in the line, got his food and told how much it cost. Obama, President of USA, did not have enough money (sort of like USA right now). Obama borrowed $20 from his secret service agent and paid up. Bill Clinton did the same at a book store (what's with Democratic Presidents they always seem to never have money when they need to pay up).
Malcolm Gladwell, in "outliers" calls this the "Power Distance Index", it depicts how hierarchical a society is and how across the hierarchy the people of lower rings are comfortable challenging the superiors. USA has a low PDI.
My brother in law used to work for a mid size web hosting company in Maryland. The CEO would come to the cafeteria for lunch. The guy serving burgers would holler out a cheerful "hey" and of course the CEO would pay too.
It was a charm to see Senators, Governors and Presidential candidates squirm in their seats when Tim Russert would grill them mercilessly. Not many could get elected without undergoing Russert's inquisition.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Going to school in America.
Tomorrow Rowena starts school and we are thrilled about yet another mile stone. The experience of enrolling her in school was interesting. In US kids become eligible for free public education, irrespective of legal status of parents, at age 5 (I'd say that's a year later than I'd like). Side note, Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on the need for a free public education is a shining gem.
School year starts after Labor Day (First week of September). Around May I called the school district official and inquired about the formalities. It was simple and straightforward. Just fill out a form, provide supporting documents to prove residency in county (not legality of residence in country), vaccination history from doctor, choose after school program and thats it. When I asked if my daughter would get a 'seat' as I would be filing the request only in late June after returning from vacation, I was told "Sir, your child, as resident of this county, is 'ENTITLED', to a seat, do not worry have a nice vacation".
One fine morning we went to the school and filed the paperwork. A cheerful lady checked out the documents, answered all our questions, absolutely polite. A typical school day for a KG class is just 3 hours (very inadequate) so we had to enroll Rowena in after school care. After school programs, especially or KG students, are pricey at approx $750 per month. A challenge for working parents especially for those whose income may not justify the extra expense but need the extra income. Students get heavily subsidized lunch, poor students get almost free food. School lunches are a hot topic. Michelle Obama heads a task force to reduce obesity among students and school lunch choices are scrutinized for health choices. Sodas have been removed from lunch offerings.
Last week when I stopped by Walmart I saw, at the entrance, for each class, list of what is required for classes. The list was from the school. "Back to School" shopping is a multi-billion dollar industry. Stores like Walmart and Target have large sections devoted to school supplies and promotional programs are heavily advertised (ad revenues for media runs to millions). Large corporations have charity drives to collect 'back-to-school' supplies for poor students.
Once we filed the paperwork the admissions process proceeded seamlessly. Out of 3 elementary schools we were sent notifications from one school to which Rowena was assigned to. Of course we did feel a tad overwhelmed by the forms we had to fill in (no online submission and no central co-ordination). For the subsidized food we knew we were not eligible but we had to submit it to say "no thanks". We had to apply separately for school bus.
School buses are a charm in US. When a school bus picks up a child, in front of his/her home, the traffic on either side of the median comes to a standstill while the tiny tot walks, at his/her own pace, towards the bus. Only after the door shuts does the traffic resume. Also a long rod like restraint flips open to prevent the kid from running across the bus. Of course the bus comes equipped with adequate seating and emergency exits. School buses are free of cost.
An orientation program was organized for KG students. Its a federal mandate to communicate with parents in a language they will understand so all communication is bilingual in English and Spanish (taxpayer expense!!!). Whether its college orientation or a KG students orientation the goal is the same. Introducing the school to the students, making the students and parents comfortable with the school and its procedures, basically making the students "FEEL WELCOME". The school authorities were cheerful, humor abounded in every aspect, everyone was equally respected. No uniforms. Teachers introduced themselves with a cheer and wave of hands. Somebody dressed up as school mascot posed for snaps with kids.
Rowena and we went with Rowena's assigned teacher (most Hispanic kids went with a 'bilingual' teacher). The hallways had cartoons painted on walls. The classroom had an air of kid friendliness with posters, a US flag and of course some helpful rules too. A rule taught children to 'respect property' by not vandalizing it, another taught them to 'respect others' by not intruding in their freedoms. 5 computers were neatly lined up. The classroom had an attached toilet so that kids need not step out of the classroom unsupervised (5 year olds). Even the toilet was kid friendly, set low, clean.
The teacher introduced herself, talked about her kid then read out a small story. She encouraged the students to ask questions, she made the kids feel comfortable and 'friendly'.
Each student gets a cubby to keep their things. No lugging of heavy textbooks. Homework is listed online on school websites. Textbooks, very pricey, are free of cost and are to be returned at the end of school year in pristine condition.
Americans take education, especially school education, very seriously. Debates rage on school textbook contents, each textbook is prepared with a panoply of experts. Publishers vie with each other to get textbook contracts. Publishers compete with products that take education to its very frontiers. Presidents deliver addresses to students on first day of school. Networks carry prime time discussions between Secretary of Education and Teachers unions covering a range of topics from merit pay to teachers to funding schools. George Bush and Barack Obama completely changed how America educates its children. It is thrilling to see a President put education on the top of his domestic agenda. Obama's "race to the top" program for allocating millions of dollars to states that SHOW reforms is changing the landscape of education. In the process, for once, he is at loggerheads with a very powerful union, the teachers union.
September is also when there is a glut of articles in leading newspapers about the state of education, issues concerning parenting, changes that are sweeping the academic portals, questioning if tenured professors put enough work, school dorm costs, curriculum changes and so much more hit the FRONT PAGES.
Indians have a lot of misconceptions about America and the worst is how human relationships, especially parent-child, are materialistic. This is total bunkum. American parents are very affectionate and like any parent like to see their kids excel. We think American parents are 'aloof' about their kids. Terms like "helicopter parents" denote parents who constantly hover around their kids. Recently NYT ran an article on how parents undergo separation anxiety when they leave the kids on the first day of college.
I've purposely stayed away from recounting my days in Indian schools and colleges. Suffice it to say that it was anything but any of the above. Lets leave it at that.
School year starts after Labor Day (First week of September). Around May I called the school district official and inquired about the formalities. It was simple and straightforward. Just fill out a form, provide supporting documents to prove residency in county (not legality of residence in country), vaccination history from doctor, choose after school program and thats it. When I asked if my daughter would get a 'seat' as I would be filing the request only in late June after returning from vacation, I was told "Sir, your child, as resident of this county, is 'ENTITLED', to a seat, do not worry have a nice vacation".
One fine morning we went to the school and filed the paperwork. A cheerful lady checked out the documents, answered all our questions, absolutely polite. A typical school day for a KG class is just 3 hours (very inadequate) so we had to enroll Rowena in after school care. After school programs, especially or KG students, are pricey at approx $750 per month. A challenge for working parents especially for those whose income may not justify the extra expense but need the extra income. Students get heavily subsidized lunch, poor students get almost free food. School lunches are a hot topic. Michelle Obama heads a task force to reduce obesity among students and school lunch choices are scrutinized for health choices. Sodas have been removed from lunch offerings.
Last week when I stopped by Walmart I saw, at the entrance, for each class, list of what is required for classes. The list was from the school. "Back to School" shopping is a multi-billion dollar industry. Stores like Walmart and Target have large sections devoted to school supplies and promotional programs are heavily advertised (ad revenues for media runs to millions). Large corporations have charity drives to collect 'back-to-school' supplies for poor students.
Once we filed the paperwork the admissions process proceeded seamlessly. Out of 3 elementary schools we were sent notifications from one school to which Rowena was assigned to. Of course we did feel a tad overwhelmed by the forms we had to fill in (no online submission and no central co-ordination). For the subsidized food we knew we were not eligible but we had to submit it to say "no thanks". We had to apply separately for school bus.
School buses are a charm in US. When a school bus picks up a child, in front of his/her home, the traffic on either side of the median comes to a standstill while the tiny tot walks, at his/her own pace, towards the bus. Only after the door shuts does the traffic resume. Also a long rod like restraint flips open to prevent the kid from running across the bus. Of course the bus comes equipped with adequate seating and emergency exits. School buses are free of cost.
An orientation program was organized for KG students. Its a federal mandate to communicate with parents in a language they will understand so all communication is bilingual in English and Spanish (taxpayer expense!!!). Whether its college orientation or a KG students orientation the goal is the same. Introducing the school to the students, making the students and parents comfortable with the school and its procedures, basically making the students "FEEL WELCOME". The school authorities were cheerful, humor abounded in every aspect, everyone was equally respected. No uniforms. Teachers introduced themselves with a cheer and wave of hands. Somebody dressed up as school mascot posed for snaps with kids.
Rowena and we went with Rowena's assigned teacher (most Hispanic kids went with a 'bilingual' teacher). The hallways had cartoons painted on walls. The classroom had an air of kid friendliness with posters, a US flag and of course some helpful rules too. A rule taught children to 'respect property' by not vandalizing it, another taught them to 'respect others' by not intruding in their freedoms. 5 computers were neatly lined up. The classroom had an attached toilet so that kids need not step out of the classroom unsupervised (5 year olds). Even the toilet was kid friendly, set low, clean.
The teacher introduced herself, talked about her kid then read out a small story. She encouraged the students to ask questions, she made the kids feel comfortable and 'friendly'.
Each student gets a cubby to keep their things. No lugging of heavy textbooks. Homework is listed online on school websites. Textbooks, very pricey, are free of cost and are to be returned at the end of school year in pristine condition.
Americans take education, especially school education, very seriously. Debates rage on school textbook contents, each textbook is prepared with a panoply of experts. Publishers vie with each other to get textbook contracts. Publishers compete with products that take education to its very frontiers. Presidents deliver addresses to students on first day of school. Networks carry prime time discussions between Secretary of Education and Teachers unions covering a range of topics from merit pay to teachers to funding schools. George Bush and Barack Obama completely changed how America educates its children. It is thrilling to see a President put education on the top of his domestic agenda. Obama's "race to the top" program for allocating millions of dollars to states that SHOW reforms is changing the landscape of education. In the process, for once, he is at loggerheads with a very powerful union, the teachers union.
September is also when there is a glut of articles in leading newspapers about the state of education, issues concerning parenting, changes that are sweeping the academic portals, questioning if tenured professors put enough work, school dorm costs, curriculum changes and so much more hit the FRONT PAGES.
Indians have a lot of misconceptions about America and the worst is how human relationships, especially parent-child, are materialistic. This is total bunkum. American parents are very affectionate and like any parent like to see their kids excel. We think American parents are 'aloof' about their kids. Terms like "helicopter parents" denote parents who constantly hover around their kids. Recently NYT ran an article on how parents undergo separation anxiety when they leave the kids on the first day of college.
I've purposely stayed away from recounting my days in Indian schools and colleges. Suffice it to say that it was anything but any of the above. Lets leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)