Decoding the Numbers on Poverty

Business Columnist Steve Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post on the latest statistics on US poverty. This is an insightful column in summing up the perspectives from the right and the left.

He acknowledges that both sides have valid arguments but they are carried too far. Yes, the less wealthy have historical reasons as to why they remain that way (slavery) and present reasons (lack of opportunity or resources). And yes, it's also due to Government doing things the wrong way (welfare) and lack of discipline. While one places the emphasis on the responsibility of the society to uplift the poorer sections of itself, the other exhorts the individuals to rise above themselves. Pearlstein also talks about the fact that a very poor individual may find herself givig up any idea of economic or social resurgence because it seems beyond her reach. A $100 bill found on the street, for instance, will not pay for college, so she may blow it up on various intoxicants. The logic outrages most people, but this is true. I've seen this among the slum-dwellers in India and I see it here in the US. The individual is responsible primarily for his upliftment. At the same time, the society cannot sit by and let these people decline. Welfare as we know it may have alleviated some misery but it isn't going to solve the problem effectively. There is merit to the individual emphasis argument.

Interestingly the only non-argument that Pearlstein comes up with is that in order to motivate people to work or learn or pull themselves together into social behaviours that will keep them out of poverty, they need to get into a financial sweetspot between $24,000 and $96,000 median income. Beyond this maxima or minima, he concludes, complacence may set in.

Christianity has of course always focused on the individual. Even the society's role in encouraging the weaker brethren is primarily a role of the individuals within the society, not the role of legislation or force. As a democratic society though, the US legislates (in theory) what the majority of individual citizens want. And hence, it is an indication of the individual inclination to improve the lot of people around the individual. Here lies the rub (as far as I'm concerned): the American dream, the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness", the motivation to succeed, achieve, earn and spend is often contrary to the ideal to giving money away to someone else. On the one hand we want individuals to behave well, have social, economic and civic goals; on the other we encourage them to be selfish. That dilemma cannot be solved through economic legislation. The human heart needs to be changed. All Christians know that.

What can we do to make sure the Government does the right things to improve the capability or propensity of the people to achieve, succees, learn and be productive? Surely more by providing tools rather than the finished product. The finished products will leave us (as is happening now) with net consumers, not producers. Education is compulsory but sub-par in several poor neighbourhoods, the investment into teaching far less than needed. Opportunities for business reserved for minorities and historically under-utilized businesses, but no pro-active measures to impart business training to them or anyone else. There are no targeted programs for the poorer sections for these issues. No proper counseling for their emotional and mental trauma. A society that cares should count all of this as it legitimate cost in enabling all of us to succeed. Above all, as with 'reservations' in India, affirmative action in the US is more politicized than it is scientifically administered. Is there propoer measurement for how well it is succeeding? Is there a specific timeline for achieving metrics that are defined to eradicate the effect of past injustices? Is there a timeline to phase out affirmative action in the future? If it goes on indefinitely, it will only serve to create a pampered, net-consumer class of people who uneduc ated, un-motivated, uncultured wastrels (no offence meant, here- I'm a minority myself). Such a directionless program will also eventually create reverse discrimination and foster a new inequality.

The same goes for India. The issue of reservations is so shabbily discussed by both ends of the argument, and the rea concerns seldom addressed. And to make it worse, it is purely political. There is no other motivation to it and this makes it more dangerous than the US situation.

Bihar- India's Final Frontier

You can talk till the cows come home about India's cities, companies and people making progress in many fields. We always have another take from other quarters on our progress. The site of ancient civilizations, learning and cultures, the state of Bihar today is pitiable.

Sometime back there was the shocking news of a baby girl abandoned in rural AP that I had posted here. This new video on Bihar cops assisting a mob to attack a jewel thief is equally shocking.

Warning: This video shows a violent situation which may not be suitable for all to see

We have all known for long that the long arm of the Indian judiciary in Bihar is no match for the 'justice' meted out by the public. For an outsider to Bihar the extend of that brutality is not usually clear except from stories Biharis tell us. Now it's there for us to see and it's terrifying to see what a mob can 'democratically' do and actually think it's doing the right thing. Is there a stronger case for a impartial moral authority?

Life in a Metro- Confusion of a Postmodern Society

Despite innumerable disappointments we still watch Hindi movies once in a while because people around us raise our hopes about the quality and depth of the new movies. While we have seen that there is a trend upward, none have so far been convincing enough. The reason is this: Hindi movies, even when they deal with serious subjects, are prone to project image over substance. Thus in movies made by ad-men (as several are these days) there are slick production values, Armani-suited, grim, business-like, svelte people (who may look more convincing than the saas-bahu dramas of old), but this is all there is. The story is well-told, the music and songs toned down or placed in the background instead of the actors belting them out; what I find missing is the idea of the movie- what ties it all together. Of course there are exceptions. The Namesake as with all Mira Nair movies had a subtle but very present message about Indian life in the US. But if there is anything one could remark about the message of the movie Life in a Metro, which we watched yesterday, is that it is existentialist. It has pop-rock songs that are sung by minstrels that appear on the streets at major milestones in the story ( a departure from the usual 'musical' genre where protagonists sing in order to convey what is in their heart) and less in-your-face emotion, but as to the actual message, it falls flat.

For a Christian this movie serves only to be shocked at the absence of any moral compass in the lives of the protagonists, much less an idea of what may be beneficial to their lives. The film portrays young, upwardly mobile middle class Indians living in Mumbai as having extra-marital affairs, casual sex (no overt acts are portrayed on screen) and completely lacking any guiding principle to navigate them through life. A young man asks a married woman if she loves her husband and if she doesn't she should just "follow her heart", as if her heart is somehow the standard of moral uprightness or lasting joy. A 20-something girl calls her elder sister on the phone to ask if it's okay to have pre-marital sex, and the sister's response is a question: "Are you sure you know what you are doing?" No guidance, there. No surprise, as the elder sister is herself caught in an extra-marital affair. The calls ends, as the younger girl tells her, "Don't worry about it- I need to go." A cheating husband justifies his infidelity by reminding himself that there is no emotional attachment to his affair and if it hurts noone it should be okay. Of course, the movie does portray the events as being hurtful to him and others around him, but it still doesn't show us a way forward. The most believable character is an everyman with a roving eye who is fond of a feminist who sees him as a friend, but he is willing to go with an arranged wedding his family proposes. To his feminist friend's question as to how he could love someone he has never met, he says, "Well, you need to start loving in order to have love. So why not do that after you marry?" This is the closest this movie gets to any actual thinking. I liked that line, but the movie does not expand on this theme at all. It just gets buried under heaps of nonsense that follows. In the end the cheating wife and husband reunite for whatever reason (perhaps the Indian customs they had been accustomed to forces them into that), and we see the young lover roaming the streets. The movie sympathizes with him and nothing more is said or done about it. The focus is so much on sex and infidelity though the sexual acts are not portrayed on screen. Commitment in marriage is portrayed as a burden to be borne and not as an act of nobility. There is no reason given as to why people are together except for the demands of the society, besides of course in some cases the "dictates of the heart".

Several years ago and possibly even now, Indians thought Americans were in general footloose people with broken marriages and uncontrolled passions. This was primarily a thinking that came right out of Hollywood movies. Alma and I are in the position of thinking that about Indian city-dwellers. The past ten years have seen a dramatic shift in values in India, especially among the youth. We get a glimpse of this in the movies, but the jury is still out there on how realistic they are. While I'm sure they are embellished, they also portray something of the truth. This movie could not have done well 10 years ago as most people would have found it unbelievable and less than proper to exhibit in movie halls. Today the acceptance of the movie makes one wonder, if this is where India is headed. If that is indeed the case, it's more dangerous than we can imagine. In the US the objective moral values from Christian faith and thinking have a profound influence on society. In India I have not yet found such a compelling moral compass. We need a voice crying in the wilderness to make straight the way of the Lord.

Independence Day Insights (or Shadows of the Indian Economic Miracle)

I recently came across this article in the Telegraph (UK) about Phusi, a young girl whose poverty kept her from India's economic miracle and eventually led to her murder by her frustrated mother. This is from the prolific pen of Peter Foster (his blog here), the South Asia correspondent of the Telegraph.

When I started reading this I was happy to see the disclaimer that stories trump statistics- a phrase which I thought was meant to caution India and not beat it with. Phusi's story brought tears to my eyes and I grieved for those that in my country the economic resurgence had not touched- until I reached the middle of the article.

Then the author turned to statistics. When it comes to statistics the way he plays around with it is either deliberately misleading or being ignorant of facts. The 1.3 million people employed in the IT industry are direct employees of IT companies- this industry creates a hardware industry, a construction industry, administrative, clerical, managerial and unskilled-labour type jobs that are usually contracted out (I know because I work for an IT company). The IT industry also provides for market capitalization that allows groups like the Tatas to give away just a little equity and bring in billions of dollars to buy firms like Corus. The IT industry also spawns the growth of the airline industry meaning more construction work and several other service industry type work.

While it's true that Phusi couldn't have found work outside of education, we are seeing more and more jobs being funneled out of India's growth industries. The mistake the author makes- and he is not alone in this- is presuming that the $50 billion IT industry is all we are rooting for. IT is only a conduit for growth, an excuse to develop infrastructure if you will, and an example to others that we can do better. In each field- whether politics, defence, manufacturing, negotiating with China, whichever- we get better and better partly as a result of this confidence.

That said, I still grieve for Phusi. Her death was a crying shame and a stark reminder of human sin more than anything else. It was not simply a result of our fast and unequal economic progress (as Foster seems to imply) but clearly of parental neglect. Criminal and dangerous behaviour needs to take the blame for itself and not blame it on poverty or lack of opportunity. Do all impoverished people behave like this? Of course not! I do hope more insightful articles than this come up when covering her story.

Happy 60th independence day, India! You may have miles to go before you sleep, but let noone belittle your accomplishments on this glorious day!

Matt Slick at the Atheists' Convention

Speaking of Matt Slick, he attended the 33rd annual Atheist Convention (April 5-7, 2007, Easter weekend) in Seattle, Washington, as he says on his website. Someone with a camera recorded a couple of his conversations with atheists. They're interesting to watch:



The above is a conversation about God's judgment. The clip below is Matt talking to an atheist about objective moral values. The atheist walks away from him.

Winsome Debate

The bigger they boast the louder they burst. The Rational Response Squad that made headlines a few months ago by debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort on ABC, 'moderated' by Martin Bashir, also debated Christian apologist Matt Slick a few weeks ago. Prior to the debate they had proclaimed on their website that they would now 'own' Slick as they did their previous opponents. But the debate was not broadcast on their website as their other debates had been. Perhaps this was only to be expected since Kelly from the RRS appeared on Matt Slick's radio show, and Matt Slick would naturally own the rights to broadcast. But strangely enough, there is no word on their website proclaming how they 'owned' Slick. Of course, this is not so strange to people who tuned in to the debate, now published on Slick's website as an MP3 as well as on Youtube in 6 parts, which reveals how deftly he demolished the atheists' arguments.

Here is the MP3 link (20 MB).

Or, the Youtube links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Slick demonstrated that to categorically state a negative is to invite a burden of proof on the negative. To say one is agnostic-atheistic (as Kelly paraphrased her position) would mean considering the proofs offered by a theist and either rejecting or accepting them. To say they are not convincing enough would then warrant an explanation that is objectively true and validated. Kelly tried to take the usual route of saying that atheism was the default starting position. This argument is clever up to a point. When an atheist argues, like Kelly did, that a new born baby doesn't hold a view of a creator, she probably means that the baby cannot conceive of such an idea. Without stooping to clarify this, Slick simply asked her to prove that the baby is by default an atheist. When she could not substantiate this, he said, 'So you simply assume that it is the default position.' Good line of thinking there. After all an atheist could equally claim that the baby doesn't believe in parents either, right? But how would she know? She need to prove it if she makes a categorical statement. The baby is not an atheist- the baby simply has not considered the question in the same manner we consider it as adults. Tp prove that the baby has considered this and rejected this is ridiculous.

Kelly then went on to state that religion is a social construct. Again, the burden of proof was on her. To make this claim she needed evidence- which, of course, she didn't possess.

Though the RRS didn't mention a word of this serious defeat and (surely) the deflation of their sizeable egos on their website, their discussion forum had loyal RRS fans venting their frustration against Slick, claiming he was relying on semantics rather than logic. Listen to the debate and you will see it is the other way around. Slick did trip up Kelly with language only when she was being infantile, and trying to insult him rather than prove her point.

Above all else, Slick was respectful to the end and confirmed this with Kelly by asking her if he had treated her fairly. She sort of miffled and said, 'it was fine' (grudgingly, I thought). Good thing too, as RRS and their ilk have a habit of trying to make Christian debaters seem vicious in their descriptions. Besides, their own behaviour when they invited Slick previously to debate 4 of them at once on their show was completely mannerless to say the least.

All said and done, this should not be a source of vapid triumphalism for the Christian. It's good to see that our position has been put forward and defended logically. But the victory in debate is a minor one compared to the victory of leading an unbeliever to the Lord. As Slick told Kelly, 'I can't persuade you to believe anything. I can offer you proof, but whether you accept that proof and believe is upto you.'

Deconstructing Wipro

We've heard it before- complaints about Indian companies not making big ticket US acquisitions, excelling in infrastructure services but not going the whole hog by providing hosting, being too risk averse and India-centric, not being global enough to establish high end services locally in the US, Europe and Japan.

One wonders what to make of Wipro. Wipro's acquisition of Infocrossing for $600 million out of cash reserves of $750 million changes the paradigm. With the acquisition Wipro gets complementary services (hosting) through 5 US datacenters, 900 US employees and reasonably well known senior management from the US (who are also not originally Indian). Will this pay off? I hope so. This was after all Vivek Paul's dream for Wipro- to make it a $ 4 billion company by 2002- half of it coming in through acquisitions.

This is another positive fall-out of the rising Rupee. Time to buy. When and if the Rupee falls again it will pay off much more. Wipro is also not interested in restructuring its acquisitions. Which is why its talks with other big US companies to acquire them have not taken off. The 900 Infocrossing employees will remain on board. The 12 percent net margin is much smaller compared to Wipro's (mid 20s), but Wipro is planning to move a lot of existing work into the datacenters which are now run mid-capacity, a move which should improve their net margins substantially. All in all a satisfying acquisition. I hope Wipro and Infocrossing have the apetites to digest it.

Bourne Again!

The Bourne Ultimatum was released today. I'm unlikely to see it in a theater as the presence of a 3 year old has made Alma and me very estranged from theaters, but you can be sure that I will rent the DVD as soon as it gets released. I watched both the earlier Jason Bourne episodes more than 5 times each and learned to enjoy them like fine wine. I like the fact that Bourne is tough and determined (though he was trained to be en effective assassin), that he is the archetypical DIY sort of guy (unlike the Bond/Rambo/Ethan Hunt/ big guns/bombs/cars/women types), outwitting the institutional types with streetsmartness and everyday tools. He doesn't give in to wisecracks or svelte puns, just does what he does because he needs to do it. Anyone in sales would appreciate his tenacity in picking up a phone directory to call the hotels in town to locate Julia Stiles. He is a bare knuckles one-on-one, fearsome fighter; and he doesn't stay around to receive accolades. He is also intensely soul-searching and trying to look back beyond where his amnesia left him. We feel his pain and want him to succeed for his own sake. His car chases don't want to satisfy us with gravity-defying acrobatics, they just happen because he drives very well. No gadgets or fancy cars, just talent. In 'The Bourne Identity' he drives a subcompact through the streets and alleyways of Paris, outwitting police cars and motorcycles because of his dexterity at the wheel alone. In 'The Bourne Supremacy' an old Russian taxi car is all he has against cops and an SUV driving assassin. In The Bourne Ultimatum I hear there is a scene in which he rides a motocycle up a concrete wall. This wasn't computer wizardry, a stuntman actually did it. That's what I prefer.

So much for the lyrical prose. Ninety percent of the reviews out there for all three films are positive, 'nuff said. I'm waiting for the movie to hit the small screen.