Today the world faces one of the toughest choices since evolution, what is more important to solve first - Hunger Or Global Warming? Ever since the 'Go Green' phrase has become a phenomenon, the fight against global hunger for food has become tougher. The fear of global warming has led to governments offering record breaking subsidies to producers of bio fuels. Which in turn has led to replacement of growing essential crops like wheat and rice with bio fuels like corn. The production of corn is at an all time high. And countries like China becoming a net importer from exporter of wheat is not helping either.
The global demand of food is driven by many factors. The most interesting of which is the rise of the middle class in two of the most populous countries in the world - China and India. Together these two countries alone have 2.5 billion residents out of the 6.2 billion in the world. The incomes of the middle class are reaching $ 3,000 and $ 5,000 in both the countries, which leads the people to replace rice and cereal with meat, poultry and fish. The protein intake has risen to 15 grams a day. The world's hunger problem would be solved if people stuck with wheat, rice and cereal, but that is not the case.
With increasing demand for meat, half of the wheat crops produced every year goes in raising and feeding cattle to keep up with the demand. This leads to more demand and less supply of these crops. China will become a net importer of wheat in the next year and countries like India have already shut down export of wheat to control the rising shortage of food within India itself.
All of the above has led to sky rocketing food costs in rest of the world. In the US alone, the food costs are up by significant number and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization have already sent warning signs for scarcity of basic food commodities like wheat. This was also fueled by farmers in US opting to abolish their traditional wheat growing practices to get subsidies for growing corn and other bio fuels.
The flip side of the coin, is just as grim. Planet earth is rapidly changing and if steps are not taken rapidly to conserve it, the rising sea levels will cause huge problems for major cites in the world. Drastic measures need to be taken to reduce emissions from carbon based fuels and thus the use of bio fuels as an alternative has become so popular. With an ever increasing demand for bio fuels, governments have no other way of encouraging people to produce them but by giving huge tax breaks and subsidies.
With the world population about to reach 9 billion in 2050, and the planet already in peril, the choices are handful. The hunger problem is immediate and the time for taking action against global warming is running out. Steps need to be taken today to avoid global calamities in the coming years. Hunger has led the people to streets and riots in many countries of Africa and other parts of the world.
An entire civilization is at stake and thus this is one of the toughest choices since evolution - Hunger or Global Warming?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
30 years and 60 books worth
A lot has been said about toughness and ability to lead from day one in the 2008 democratic primary election. This has been the focus of Sen. Clinton's appeal to the super-delegates. Sen. Obama tries to claim that he is the tougher cookie but that certainly didn't seem the case in the last debate in Philadelphia. He got frustrated and agitated at the questions that were asked. Questions that will become the core of the debates for the fall elections.
In the fall elections, the republicans know they can not win against either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama over issues. What they are going to talk about is Rev. Wright, "bitter" and "cling" to their guns comments, Michelle Obamas remarks, friendly relations with Ayers, the Bosnia sniper-fire issue, etc. This what the republican "kitchen sink" will look like. So how is Sen. Obama going to withstand that when he can not answer a few questions, which frankly the American people have the right to know the answer to. If you are going to tag these critical questions as "manufactured", you missed yet another point Sen. Obama.
There are many reasons why Sen. Clinton is the "fighter" or the "Rocky" of this fight. One of which is that she has withstood so much scrutiny in her career and overcome it. For example, to date there have been over 60 books written on Sen. Hillary Clinton, of which 9 have been written by the senator herself, 18 have been written with a neutral opinion, 6 with a pro-Hillary saga, and 27 with a strong anti Clinton theme. 27 anti Clinton books means a lot of pages and even more negative words that have been said over her course of 30 years in the political arena. There is no other women candidate in the history of this country that has taken more punches and answered more questions than Sen. Clinton. Do you see her frustrated or agitated or shying away from these questions? From Watergate to Mrs. Lewinsky, from her misinterpreted kitchen comment to the Bosnia sniper-fire gaffe, there are hundreds of issues that Sen. Clinton has been dragged into and just as many statements that were wrongly interpreted by the media or rivals.
But, the fact that she still stands today and the fact that the number of people supporting her and her public service has increased by millions, shows that she is not only tough enough but has also connected with the people at the roots. To be this popular after being scrutinized for almost every word you say for over 20 years is a remarkable achievement. Her whole life is transparent to the public and has been open for people to read for over 20 years now. The media and your rivals will always "manufacture" issues or tangle your statements, that is what they get paid for or that is how they win. Of all the people in the world, a politician running for the highest office in the country should know better.
The American people hardly know Sen. Obama. With being in the political arena for only 9 years and actually coming in the limelight mainly in the last 15 months, there is a lot more that the American people will ask about before they pick him as their commander in chief. The only thing that documents his journey so far is the 3 books that have been written about him and 2 of the 3 have been written by Sen. Obama himself. The third one talks about his great campaign and how he energized the young. He has hardly faced any scrutiny in this election. And to sit and whine about a few tough questions the way he did only shows his weakness. These are not the traits of a tough candidate or a fighter who will champion the peoples issues. Thinking of this, one of Harry Truman's statements comes to mind for Sen. Obama - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
The Obama campaign thinks that the Clinton camp is being negative and vice verse. This is nothing compared to what will come in the fall. Being negative is making a "coward" out of a Vietnam war "hero" as with Sen. John Kerry in 2004 or making a "rich careless liberal elitist" out of Al Gore in 2000. That is what will come at Sen. Obama in 2008 if he is elected and he whines about a few tough questions. God save the Democrats.
There is no doubt that whoever wins the democratic nomination will write a new chapter in the history of American politics. With Sen. Clinton's proven track record, the chapter will read actions and reality. But with the unknowns about Sen. Obama and no significant achievement to his name, will the chapter read eloquent words and empty calls of hope or will it be an outright tragedy?
In the fall elections, the republicans know they can not win against either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama over issues. What they are going to talk about is Rev. Wright, "bitter" and "cling" to their guns comments, Michelle Obamas remarks, friendly relations with Ayers, the Bosnia sniper-fire issue, etc. This what the republican "kitchen sink" will look like. So how is Sen. Obama going to withstand that when he can not answer a few questions, which frankly the American people have the right to know the answer to. If you are going to tag these critical questions as "manufactured", you missed yet another point Sen. Obama.
There are many reasons why Sen. Clinton is the "fighter" or the "Rocky" of this fight. One of which is that she has withstood so much scrutiny in her career and overcome it. For example, to date there have been over 60 books written on Sen. Hillary Clinton, of which 9 have been written by the senator herself, 18 have been written with a neutral opinion, 6 with a pro-Hillary saga, and 27 with a strong anti Clinton theme. 27 anti Clinton books means a lot of pages and even more negative words that have been said over her course of 30 years in the political arena. There is no other women candidate in the history of this country that has taken more punches and answered more questions than Sen. Clinton. Do you see her frustrated or agitated or shying away from these questions? From Watergate to Mrs. Lewinsky, from her misinterpreted kitchen comment to the Bosnia sniper-fire gaffe, there are hundreds of issues that Sen. Clinton has been dragged into and just as many statements that were wrongly interpreted by the media or rivals.
But, the fact that she still stands today and the fact that the number of people supporting her and her public service has increased by millions, shows that she is not only tough enough but has also connected with the people at the roots. To be this popular after being scrutinized for almost every word you say for over 20 years is a remarkable achievement. Her whole life is transparent to the public and has been open for people to read for over 20 years now. The media and your rivals will always "manufacture" issues or tangle your statements, that is what they get paid for or that is how they win. Of all the people in the world, a politician running for the highest office in the country should know better.
The American people hardly know Sen. Obama. With being in the political arena for only 9 years and actually coming in the limelight mainly in the last 15 months, there is a lot more that the American people will ask about before they pick him as their commander in chief. The only thing that documents his journey so far is the 3 books that have been written about him and 2 of the 3 have been written by Sen. Obama himself. The third one talks about his great campaign and how he energized the young. He has hardly faced any scrutiny in this election. And to sit and whine about a few tough questions the way he did only shows his weakness. These are not the traits of a tough candidate or a fighter who will champion the peoples issues. Thinking of this, one of Harry Truman's statements comes to mind for Sen. Obama - "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
The Obama campaign thinks that the Clinton camp is being negative and vice verse. This is nothing compared to what will come in the fall. Being negative is making a "coward" out of a Vietnam war "hero" as with Sen. John Kerry in 2004 or making a "rich careless liberal elitist" out of Al Gore in 2000. That is what will come at Sen. Obama in 2008 if he is elected and he whines about a few tough questions. God save the Democrats.
There is no doubt that whoever wins the democratic nomination will write a new chapter in the history of American politics. With Sen. Clinton's proven track record, the chapter will read actions and reality. But with the unknowns about Sen. Obama and no significant achievement to his name, will the chapter read eloquent words and empty calls of hope or will it be an outright tragedy?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
i can't believe it's not "bitter"
In a room filled with rich and elite democrats, probably where he felt as if he was with his own kind and was in his comfort zone, Sen. Obama said - "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them," in an address to fundraisers in San Francisco last week. He continued to say - "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Can you characterize over a 100 million people in a way any more belittling than this? Has the Ivy league degree gone to Sen. Obamas head or is he so out of touch with rural Americans that he actually believes they cling to guns or religion to express their frustrations? Is this what Sen. Obamas myopic view of the middle class America look like?
First of all, let me tell you Sen. Obama that you need to come down a little from your Ive league arrogance level to understand what I am about to tell you. Small town Americans do not cling to their guns and religion to express their frustrations with the economic conditions, but because they are people of faith and because guns have been a part of the American culture and upbringing since America was founded. Especially in states like Pennsylvania, where 70% of the population goes to church every Sunday and most of whom believe in the second amendment.
In states like Pennsylvania, people do not own guns because they are tired or "bitter" over the economy, but because hunting is a big part of their upbringing. It is deeply embedded in the cultural roots of Americans. Similarly, they do not go to church every Sunday because the times are tough or because they are "bitter" as you characterized them, but because they are people of faith. People who have been going to the church every Sunday for years, regardless of good times or bad times. It is now clear that Sen. Obama wears a mask that is slowly coming off. It started with Michelle Obamas and Rev. Wrights comments and now it is the man himself.
Is this the beginning of the end of Sen. Obama or will he live to die another day?
Can you characterize over a 100 million people in a way any more belittling than this? Has the Ivy league degree gone to Sen. Obamas head or is he so out of touch with rural Americans that he actually believes they cling to guns or religion to express their frustrations? Is this what Sen. Obamas myopic view of the middle class America look like?
First of all, let me tell you Sen. Obama that you need to come down a little from your Ive league arrogance level to understand what I am about to tell you. Small town Americans do not cling to their guns and religion to express their frustrations with the economic conditions, but because they are people of faith and because guns have been a part of the American culture and upbringing since America was founded. Especially in states like Pennsylvania, where 70% of the population goes to church every Sunday and most of whom believe in the second amendment.
In states like Pennsylvania, people do not own guns because they are tired or "bitter" over the economy, but because hunting is a big part of their upbringing. It is deeply embedded in the cultural roots of Americans. Similarly, they do not go to church every Sunday because the times are tough or because they are "bitter" as you characterized them, but because they are people of faith. People who have been going to the church every Sunday for years, regardless of good times or bad times. It is now clear that Sen. Obama wears a mask that is slowly coming off. It started with Michelle Obamas and Rev. Wrights comments and now it is the man himself.
Is this the beginning of the end of Sen. Obama or will he live to die another day?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
amnesty and 21st century slavery
Call it amnesty or legalization or earned adjustment or regularization or normalization or comprehensive immigration reform, they all refer to the same thing in one way or another -providing legal status to undocumented immigrants. It has been of debate for almost a decade now and you hear these terms more and more everyday. This issue is also at the heart of the US election in 2008.
Don't you think amnesty at it's core is morally wrong? If the US Government starts giving legal status to "illegal" immigrants (note that the stress here is on the word illegal), wouldn't it be unfair to those who are here legally and are waiting for immigrant rights or million others whose immigration files are pending? Also, do not mistake the term legal status when it comes to amnesty. Illegal immigrants do not just want a legal status, they want equal rights to a permanent resident or a citizen.
Granting legal status to 12 million illegal immigrants in the US would be morally wrong and unfair to those who come to this country legally. Is it the fault of the legal immigrants that they did not jump the border or forged papers or stayed beyond their visa? I would bet a fortune, that if these legal immigrants were told they could stay beyond their visa and still become legal in the next few years, more than half of them would rather opt to become illegal than go back to their countries.
Just recently I heard a Latino leader saying that not providing legal status to these 12 million undocumented immigrants is "21 century or modern day slavery". This is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have heard in a decade. Comparing slavery to illegal immigration is blatant mockery of what African Americans have been through. Were these illegal immigrants tied by ropes and chains and brought to the US against their will? I don't think so. In this case I think it is the US that has become a slave of illegal immigration. The tax dollars of hard working Americans are paying for the health care of illegal immigrants.
Amnesty is a slap in the face of the US immigration system. If the US government starts giving legal status to those who jump across the borders or forge papers or over stay their visa, I do not see why people should wait up to 20 years to come to the US legally. Why not just jump the border? Or get a visitor visa and never go back.
Don't you think amnesty at it's core is morally wrong? If the US Government starts giving legal status to "illegal" immigrants (note that the stress here is on the word illegal), wouldn't it be unfair to those who are here legally and are waiting for immigrant rights or million others whose immigration files are pending? Also, do not mistake the term legal status when it comes to amnesty. Illegal immigrants do not just want a legal status, they want equal rights to a permanent resident or a citizen.
Granting legal status to 12 million illegal immigrants in the US would be morally wrong and unfair to those who come to this country legally. Is it the fault of the legal immigrants that they did not jump the border or forged papers or stayed beyond their visa? I would bet a fortune, that if these legal immigrants were told they could stay beyond their visa and still become legal in the next few years, more than half of them would rather opt to become illegal than go back to their countries.
Just recently I heard a Latino leader saying that not providing legal status to these 12 million undocumented immigrants is "21 century or modern day slavery". This is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I have heard in a decade. Comparing slavery to illegal immigration is blatant mockery of what African Americans have been through. Were these illegal immigrants tied by ropes and chains and brought to the US against their will? I don't think so. In this case I think it is the US that has become a slave of illegal immigration. The tax dollars of hard working Americans are paying for the health care of illegal immigrants.
Amnesty is a slap in the face of the US immigration system. If the US government starts giving legal status to those who jump across the borders or forge papers or over stay their visa, I do not see why people should wait up to 20 years to come to the US legally. Why not just jump the border? Or get a visitor visa and never go back.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
google vs apple vs microsoft
When three of the biggest names compete, the winner has to be the consumer. Right? Or may be not. It's the competition of innovation vs cutting edge vs power and market share. If you had to pick one of these three for you portfolio, which one would you pick? In what order? And Why?
Here's my order -
1) Apple
2) Microsoft
3) Google
Apple as number one because there is constant innovation and they involve themselves in cutting edge technology, which gives them the highest probability and thus my portfolio the greatest odds of making it big.
Microsoft as number two because even on their worst day, they still don't put me on the streets. It is the least risky of the three as Microsoft has the incredible market share to sustain itself.
Google as the last as there is hardly any variety and that decreases the odds of increasing my gain next to nil.
What is it going to be for you? Is it innovation or cutting edge or power and market share?
Here's my order -
1) Apple
2) Microsoft
3) Google
Apple as number one because there is constant innovation and they involve themselves in cutting edge technology, which gives them the highest probability and thus my portfolio the greatest odds of making it big.
Microsoft as number two because even on their worst day, they still don't put me on the streets. It is the least risky of the three as Microsoft has the incredible market share to sustain itself.
Google as the last as there is hardly any variety and that decreases the odds of increasing my gain next to nil.
What is it going to be for you? Is it innovation or cutting edge or power and market share?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)