Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama V Romney US Presidential Debate


Last time, when Barrack was fighting Bush, I was riveted. But all those analyses and polls and the biases that coloured them scrambled my brain. This time round I decided I'd just watch the three debates. and perhaps verify some of their statements on fact checkers like the Huffington Post and the Guardian (reputable ones) but miss out on the rest of the hoopla. I was especially interested in their immigration policies and Obama’s four years in office with respect to his actions in the Middle East.

Barrack was disappointing in the first round. He was much too polite. The second round was impressive. My perception – both tried to be civil and “presidential” with Romney slightly more conscious of his staged moves. Both had their points and both put them across well. Neither let the other get away with pure rhetoric. Both had to have really good memories, bringing up facts, figures and incidences that lent weight to their arguments, without referring to any notes.

But there were one or two things different from last time which made me sad. Where he was once candid about pointing out what America AND other countries could’ve done better in the past, today he is more “seasoned” and circumspect because his rival, Romney, turned his visits to other countries at the beginning of his presidency into something anti-America like, “he kept apologising for America”. Please don’t change, Barrack. Honesty is so refreshing. It heals and strengthens bonds. It doesn't weaken you or your coiuntry. It promotes trust and a belief in your leadership and therefore, in your actions.

The other way in which Obama has changed makes me distinctly uneasy. More on that later but first, a very brief recap of my understanding of their positions on immigration as, to my mind, that impacts drastically on many people.


Both suggested that talent from all around the world wanted to live in the US. I would say that's true   for a huge number of people. Both stated that the US was a nation of immigrants and that they welcomed legal immigrants – the ones who didn’t break laws, were in queue (and kept getting pushed back because illegal immigrants got in before them), were qualified, wanted to invest in bold ventures, took risks with their money, started new businesses, created jobs, made things happen and employed people. It is good that they both acknowledged that.

Obama said he’d streamlined the system – made it easier, simpler and cheaper for people who were waiting in line legally; that it was beneficial to US economical growth. He said that they’d  made their borders more secure so that the number of illegal immigrants trying to escape to the US had been reduced considerably – the lowest on record since the last 40 years.

As for going after folks who were already in the US illegally – this is where Obama and Romney’s policies differed significantly. It is worth a mention because, in a way, it impacts even the legal migrants who are already there.

Obama said that they would prefer to do it smartly and go after criminals and gang members,  not students and people who were trying to figure out how to feed their families. He wanted children already brought in as illegal immigrants to be naturalised provided they had a college education. Romney didn't.

Both said these kids could become citizens if enlisted in the armed forces and both wanted the rest deported.

Romney suggested coming down hard on employers who didn’t verify against a list of criteria, that their employees were citizens.

Here’s what is disturbing. Romney wanted to give the police sweeping powers to check papers of anyone they suspected “looked” illegal. How does a legal migrant look different from an illegal one?

==================================================
It leaves things wide open to an individual officer’s interpretation.
==================================================  

What’s to stop them from harassing legal migrants under the guise that they look illegal?

Very scary.

Just so that this doesn't become a "he said - I didn't" piece I've included one link out of many thousands. Please refer to the second last item titled,"Reduce federal funding to sanctuary cities" in this long article about their immigration policies.


Note: I started writing about their policies in the Middle East but it made me too angry to think coherently so I decided I wouldn't go into too much detail. I will mention, though, that in the debate Obama said he wouldn't stand for anyone "messing" with America. My problem with that - nobody knows what constitues "messing" with the great, muscle flexing US.

I don't know what Syria or Iraq have done to the US. But they are destroyed. I know it wasn't Obama who started the Iraq war. It was Bush. But Syria is bleeding and I honestly don't know how it "messed" with the US.

Just disagreeing with the US could be labelled "messing" as could disagreeing with the callous behaviour of a country they consider their "friend". How long is the world to ignore what Israel has done and keeps doing to Palestine, especially the way it encroaches on Palestinian land, evicting Palestinians out of house and home, building their colonies on that land and then declaring it  "disputed territory" even though the borders are clearly marked in the 1967 treaty? One hears of even Israelis who are against such policies.Surely the US knows this.

All I know is, whether it is Romney or Obama, there is no hope for peace in the Middle East just yet.



As for their National policies, I feel Obama steals a march over Romney. He tries to address both – the concerns of individual US citizens and his concern for the country as honestly as possible. His investments are long term - like Education, Health and newer, cleaner Energy. The benefits of such policies are not immediately visible. But sick people who can't afford medical services and treatments to get better are in no condition to get jobs; unqualified people aren't in a position to get better paying jobs; and breathing cleaner air, drinking cleaner water and growing crops in unpolluted soil is more essential to the health and well being of individuals than having environmentally disastrous but affordable cars available for travel.

As far as I'm concerned, the government who looks after the well being of its poorest, its women and the country’s resources and tries to balance the budget in a sensible, long-term manner is the one to vote for.


Sunday, October 7, 2012

The Language of Crusaders


The year 2014 is a crucial one for India. It is election year. Whoever wins, whatever the outcome, I feel I'd like to air one grouse. 

Corruption is high on the agenda. Reams have been written about, spoken about and discussed by everyone. The discussions continue unabated. It is wonderful that the common Indian citizen has started speaking out boldly. There was a time, as recently as the nineties, when only a very few used to speak out. The rest of us used to rail and rant, but within the confines and safety of our four walls. And then, four or five courageous individuals told us exactly what loopholes the politicians were using in the law to get away with siphoning off crores of rupees and for gagging the whistle blowers.

I understand the ordinary person is disgusted with the looting of the Indian treasury. Just to give one example, they’ve seen individuals start in politics with modest homes to their names and within a couple of years, move to palatial houses.

I understand the anger.

So many of us have come together to fight this common enemy. We are from disparate backgrounds and we’ve come together because we want the same outcome – the eradication of this blatant looting.

What is my grouse? It is about the discussions at the "India Against Corruption's (IAC's) fb and other sites. 

Yes, we feel a natural affinity towards members of our group. We want the identical same thing. 

Yes, we now have two plans of action to move forward where previously we had one. Some of us believe we can make politicians accountable with dharnas, anshans, fasts and protest marches while others believe we've tried that route and by itself, it hasn't worked. It needs another dimension as well where the common educated and respected Indians (retired chief justices, social activists and others) introduce those accountability laws themselves - from within – by becoming politicians; that the politicians of today will never, of their own accord, allow a law that demands accountability from the corrupt to be passed. Under such a law they would be the first to be punished.

Yes, I understand there are staunch supporters of each of the two current major parties (ruling and opposition) who join in the discussions online so that they don't pass up the opportunity to bad mouth each other or to bad mouth the IAC in the hope of getting a rise out of IAC supporters.

And yes, many of these bad mouthers are staunch supporters of IAC too.

Anyone can understand people having heated discussions.  I am not squeamish about people showing their loyalty, prejudice, preferences or anger. But the stream of filth that continues to plague these discussions, words like "bhos*i " and more used to attack individuals... this has got to stop. 

The more decent individuals either ignore such comments or appeal to the offenders to stop. Neither of these two strategies seems to be working. The filth continues unabated.

Such people do a lot of harm to their own case. And if they are on the IAC forum, that’s who they harm. Their disgusting language is met with a dignified silence from the corrupt politicians they foul mouth. As a result, the corrupt come out smelling of roses - their wrong doings get sidelined.

And tomorrow, if anything goes wrong, these foul mouthers are the very individuals who will be difficult to contain. They blow their tops during discussions – what chance that anyone can contain them in any other situation? Why wait that long - wily and seasoned politicians who don't want the IAC to get into politics on the platform of corruption (too popular with the hoi polloi and too dangerous for them?) are always on the look out to stir up trouble. And a volatile few play right into their hands.

Things are looking good for IAC. People admire them for their courage and for explaining exactly where and how corruption has taken place. Here are Arvind Kejriwal's tapes (in Hindi) explaining what each of fifteen politicians has done. I think they are worth a visit.

Let's not rock the boat. Lets nip the bad mouthing right now. I wish I knew how. Suggestions welcome. 
 

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Acumen’s Global Fellowship Program

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MAHATMA GANDHI AND LAL BAHADUR SHASHTRI.
(This post is about a charitable organisation and the training it offers to social enterpreneurs and I feel you would approve.)


Has anyone heard of Acumen? It is an organisation that invests in future leaders by training them for a year for social entrepreneurship. It runs leadership programs that teach individuals innovative and practical ways to assist the poor and to merge their social skills with business acumen. It gives these carefully selected future leaders operational and financial skills so that they, in turn, can equip the poor with the means to earn a living. Besides investment techniques, valuation, marketing and operations these future leaders are also trained in self-reflection, negotiation, storytelling and much more. 

After you complete the two month training in New York you begin a nine month field placement helping with one of Acumen’s various global (charitable) investments. A few work plans in the past have included: 

  • Developing a model for expanding access to low-cost drip irrigation systems in India, Pakistan and Kenya.
  • Creating and implementing a Customer Relationship Management strategy to support the expansion of a chain of maternity hospitals in India. 

Application Form: The application process is now open for the year 2013-2014. The cut off date is 11:59 pm (EST) of 16th November 2012. Filling in the application is a detailed process and just so you know it isn’t for the faint hearted, here’s a sample form you’d need to fill in. Links to the FAQs, the form and tips to fill it in are at the end of this post.

The application for the Acumen Fund Global Fellows Program consists of four parts:
  • Personal information
o   Contact details, qualifications, professional background, number of years of work experience and your main area of expertise
    • your business skills that would be valuable for the field of social entrepreneurship.
o   a strong example of how you have demonstrated a commitment to bringing about positive social change.
  • 2 references
  • Your resume/CV (to be uploaded)
  • Short & long answer questions (see below)
Short Answer Questions (40 to 50 words each)
Your greatest: achievement, failure - why? Your strength as a leader and opportunities for growth.

Long Answer Questions (150 words each)
Why the Global Fellows Program, and why now?  What would you bring to the program? What are you most passionate about?
What's your story? (300 words) 
 
Apart from the above they ask for and give additional information.

Links:

Watch this YouTube video about Acumen Fund Fellows to find out more. 

FAQs page – a must read before you apply.