|
|
|
|
|
Demise of the American Dream |
|
|
fifty fifty On the record by
PROFILE BY Harihar Swarup
|
Demise of the American Dream THE US goes to the presidential polls a year from now, but there is little faith in the political system, manifest in the joke doing the rounds since Silicon Valley lost its most famous son. “Now there’s no cash, no hope and no jobs.” Perhaps not a contender for the Nobel Prize in side-splitters, but it catches America’s dark mood - a year to the day before the country delivers its verdict on whether Barack Obama merits a second term in the White House.
Before every presidential election, there is talk that this one will be historic, a “watershed” to match the two that truly qualified for that title during the previous century: 1932, which ushered in Franklin Roosevelt and five decades of Democratic domination, and the Reagan landslide of 1980 that made official a conservative shift in national politics that continues to this day. The year 2008 was supposed to be another new beginning - not just in terms of the colour of the victor’s skin, but in the vista of change, youth and renewal that seemed to open up, despite the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression that swept FDR into the Oval Office. But things didn’t quite work out that way. Great hopes can breed great anti-climaxes, and so it has been with Obama. The shining promise has not been fulfilled, at least not yet: in part because of his own inexperience (he had served barely two years in the Senate when he announced his candidacy in 2007); in part because of the singular bloody-mindedness of his Republican opponents; but above all because of an economic crisis that has proved deeper and more intractable than almost anyone expected. The numerical truth was laid out last week in the latest forecasts from the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank. Growth for the next three years is unlikely to exceed 2.5 per cent - respectable but barely enough to keep pace with a growing workforce. Even assuming a double-dip recession is avoided, unemployment will still be close to 9 per cent when the election comes around, and by late 2014 will probably still exceed 7 per cent. And that improvement may well reflect an increase not in the overall number of jobs available, but in the number of Americans who have given up looking for work. Remember, too, that no president since Roosevelt has been re-elected when the unemployment rate was above 7.2 per cent. Worrying signs - increasing budget deficits, growing personal debt and a stagnation in middle-class incomes - have been around for more than a decade. But the Great Recession has brought them into glaring view, and may inspire America’s voters into a revolution of their own. Frustration and anger are today’s dominant emotions. You can measure them in the ascent of the Tea Party movement on the right, and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement on the left. Ideologically, the pair are at opposite ends of the spectrum - the former seeing government as the source of every ill, the latter demanding that government stamp out the iniquities of capitalism run amok. Compared with the OWS, the Tea Party is a relatively organised political force that now drives the Republican Party. But in a way they are two sides of the same coin. Both are exasperated with the status quo. Both loathe a system where money rules, where politicians are in the pockets of their financial contributors, and chief executives pay themselves obscene bonuses even when they have run their companies into the ground. Even more fundamentally, the Great Recession is giving the lie to bedrock assumptions of the American Dream. The right to make a fortune has always been part of that dream, but within certain parameters of fairness. Those parameters are now stretched to breaking point. Hardly a week goes by without new statistics showing how national wealth is ever more concentrated in the hands of a very few. The gulf between the very rich and the rest is now wider than at any time since the 1929 crash. Liberals blame the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003; these, however, only reinforced an existing trend, whereby technological advances rewarded the owners of capital and the superskilled, while globalisation of the labour market wiped out millions of traditional middle-class jobs in the US itself. Another vanishing assumption is that each generation will be better off than its predecessor. Today’s young Americans may well live worse than their parents, in a world where full employment in the traditional sense could be gone for good. Education, too, was supposed to be a key to eternally growing prosperity. Now Americans are constantly bombarded with evidence that their school standards are slipping dangerously behind their main Asian and European competitors. American universities, it is true, are the envy of the world - as proved by the foreign students who flock to them. But the average debt of US students has risen to more than $25,000 per head, a record, while total student borrowing now exceeds total credit-card debt. And this when the decent jobs that will allow graduates to repay their loans are dwindling. America was supposed to be the land of social mobility. In fact, studies now show that if you are born into a poor family, you have a better chance of becoming rich in Canada and several European countries than in the US. Which, in a way, leads back to Steve Jobs. Undoubtedly he was a titan of modern business, who has been compared to Thomas Edison or Henry Ford. But the grief at his death spoke to something more - a sense that a certain America had died with him, the America where a couple of kids in a garage could change the world. Such fears, of course, are wildly exaggerated. The US is still the most inventive place on earth, as testified by patents taken out, Nobel prizes won, and crazes that sweep the world - not to mention the relentless industrial espionage against the US conducted by China, Russia and others. But the sense is palpable that the 21st century will not belong to America, and that global economic supremacy is shifting across the Pacific. A less painful but still tangible contributor to the sense of decline is the ebbing power of the US abroad. Last week’s G20 summit in Cannes underlined the point. Once, Washington would have been seen as a potential rescuer of the eurozone. These days, in debt to the gills itself, the US is a virtual bystander. All eyes are on China, with its $3.2trn of foreign reserves. In military terms of course, America remains unchallenged, the world’s only superpower, alone capable of projecting massive force instantly anywhere on the globe. But Washington can no longer afford another Iraq or Afghanistan, wars that have cost over $1trn, all of it borrowed money, and with little to show for it.
America’s sway is waning too even in regions where its influence was traditionally huge. The US cannot shape an Israeli alestinian peace process; it watched from afar as the Arab Spring unfolded; and, in the honest but infelicitous phrase of an Obama aide, “led from behind” in Nato’s Libya campaign. That approach may have made eminent diplomatic and financial sense. But for proponents of US exceptionalism and the country’s global calling, it was thin gruel indeed.
FLAWED SYSTEM Americans, by and large, are pragmatists and moderates. Yet they look to Washington and see only polarisation and endless feuding between two parties driven by their extremes. In the US system of divided government, politics can work only by compromise, and compromise flows from the middle ground. Yet in Washington, the centre has mostly been destroyed. The result is a Democratic Party dominated by its liberal wing, and a Republican caucus that has grown ever more conservative. Each is dug deep into ideological trenches. Americans generally favour robust argument and divided government - but not this divided. Checks and balances are all very well, but when one legislative body (the Senate) requires a vote of 60 of its 100 members for the slightest contentious legislation even to come to a vote, things, they feel, have gone too far. The Republicans’ theological aversion to higher taxes, even for the super wealthy, last week blocked a Bill that would have provided jobs for hundreds of thousands, improving the country’s ageing infrastructure.
SAVIOURS The rebellious mood also helps to explain the weird contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination: the refusal to embrace the eminently qualified Mitt Romney and the flirtation with a string of alternatives, including the erstwhile pizza magnate Herman Cain, whose appeal, it would seem, not even a sexual harassment scandal can diminish. The election is still a year off, and its outcome utterly unpredictable. In normal times, an approval rating of barely 45 per cent and polls showing 75 per cent of Americans believe the country is “on the wrong track” would spell big trouble for Obama. But, as the old sports adage runs, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. One thing, however, is sure. In this dark American moment, the stage is set for a populist. It could be the incumbent president, lashing heartless Republicans for their pandering to the rich. It could be a Republican who convinces his countrymen that Obama is leading the country to ruin. Or could a third-party candidate somehow become the outlet for the general exasperation with the status quo? Don’t write off the notion entirely. After all, the eccentric Ross Perot launched his candidacy only six months before election day in 1992, and won almost 20 per cent of the vote - in an age when America’s problems were a 10th of what they are today. One way or another, 2012 could yet be the “watershed” election that 2008 was not. —The Independent
|
fifty fifty Kishwar Desai
More and more men can choose not to play parent, if they are not so inclined — and the fact is that this is a luxury which will never be extended to women.
However, he is doing everything to make the mother and child comfortable---apart from welcoming them to share his life, 24x 7. Thus he has arranged for Ting Ting to live in a townhouse near his own home in Notting Hill and says he is delighted with the birth of the baby, dropping by to see her when he can. But as soon as the news got out that he was a proud father, Grant was found embroiled in a new relationship: this time with a German burlesque performer, Elisa Schmidt.
Most of this behavior, of course, is mystifying for ordinary folk like you and me : why have children if you cannot spend time with them? But perhaps, for Mr Grant, who has made a career out of appearing confused, it is yet another glorious step forward in a personal life that has always teetered dramatically between respectability and ignominy. Mr Grant was recently "spotted exchanging hot kisses in the back of a Berlin taxi" with Ms Schmidt. Not exactly the behavior of a brand-new dad ! And one can safely assume that, at that precise moment, the fate of Ms Tinglang Hong was rather far away from his mind. Neither was Mr Grant at the hospital when the baby was born-he was at a political conference. It is also remarkable that men like him move seamlessly from girlfriend to girlfriend, all of whom apparently maintain a fierce loyalty towards him. Both Elizabeth Hurley and Jemima Khan remain good friends with Mr Grant, and from all accounts even the hapless Ms Hong has so far not created any fuss that she was left holding the baby while he waltzed off with a new love. He is trying to "appear" to be sensitive and kind and caring---ever the renaissance man ---even while he is trampling over all conventional expectations ….Thus his growing number of critics maintain that Mr Grant should be forced to shoulder more of his responsibility as the father of the child. But, on the other hand, the calm fashion in which the young Ms Ting Ting has behaved in this entire episode is also quite remarkable. She is thrilled with the birth of her daughter, whose Chinese name apparently means "Happy Accident"---though she will also be called Jessica. Ting Ting’s mother, Liu Minchun, was a manager in a factory and later ran a hotel. From some media reports the less-than-retiring Ting Ting arrived in the UK in 2003, collecting a fairly normal degree in hotel management (perhaps inspired by her mother's career) and later ran an import-export business from her flat. A previous boyfriend remembers her quite fondly as being funny and witty---though a little fond of designer labels. Ms Ting Ting was obviously also quite interested in the starry world of celebrity, as she began frequenting a bar in Chelsea called Brinkleys, which is the watering hole for many well-known names. And as, luck would have it, it is also frequented by Hugh Grant. Soon she joined an exclusive golf club ( with a reported entrance fee of 40,000 pounds ) where Mr Grant was also a member and began to learn the game, reportedly saying that she also walked around the course and just watched him play as well. And then, of course, it seems that they were involved in a rather well-guarded, though "fleeting" relationship. To Ting Ting's credit till Bamboo (as her daughter is reportedly nicknamed ) was born, there was no mention of her in the tabloids, and she so far has not tried to encash in on her story, even though now it is swirling around in the press. She is also aware that Mr Grant now has another woman in his life. And so, when the news of the baby's birth broke---all that Mr Grant's office would concede was that the birth was "not planned" and that he was "delighted". Again -in this very modern arrangement, Mr Grant has not tried to deny that he is the father of the child, and there have been no heated rebuttals or unseemly calls for a paternity test. In fact this rather cool management of a situation, which in the old days would have led to a real fracas and a public spat---has left Mr Grant's critics frothing at the mouth. Mr Grant's "Happy Accident" has clearly upset those who cannot bear the insouciance of his eternal bachelorhood.
|
|
On the record by Shobha S. Krishnan, staff physician at Columbia University's Barnard College Health Services in the US, shot to fame recently with her path-breaking publication on the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), one of the most widespread sexually transmitted infections in the world. In the US, it affects 6 million new cases each year while in India it leads to one female death every minute on account of cervical cancer.
In her book titled, "HPV Vaccine Controversy: Sex, Cancer, God and Politics", Krishnan makes a compelling case for countries to use the available HPV vaccines recommended for girls and boys before they turn sexually active. With India having suspended the trials of the two available vaccines - one developed by Merck and the other by GSK - in the wake of ethical and safety concerns, Krishnan, also founder of the Global Initiative against HPV and Cervical Cancer (GIAHC), strongly defends use of the vaccines, which, she claims, can save the lives of 80,000 Indian women every year. Why is HPV such a huge cause of concern worldwide, more so in developing countries like India? HPV is among the most widespread sexually transmitted viruses both men and women can have. At least 50 percent of all sexually active people will be infected with the HPV in their lifetimes. While 90 per cent infections resolve on their own, others persist and can be life threatening if not detected and managed. What is the controversy around the HPV vaccine all about if its safety and efficacy has been tested and documented ? The controversy really is about ideology versus scientific development. Critics of the vaccine believe that administering children with an HPV vaccine might lead to enhanced sexual activity among youths and undermine family values. They also say it might create a false sense of security among children that they have been protected against a dreaded STI once they have been vaccinated. But the fact is we actually have enough evidence to support the safety and effectiveness of HPV vaccines and recommend them for children. This vaccine will potentially reduce the occurrence of the second leading cause of cancer in women around the world. Canada and Australia have included this vaccine for use. In India, trial of HPV vaccines donated by GSK and Merck and funded by the Gates Foundation was suspended last year after seven tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat died during the trials. Are safety concerns around the vaccines not real? Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil has been out for five years and 35 million doses of the vaccine have been administered. The Centre for Diseases Control (CDC) which recommended the vaccine in the first place, has been monitoring any adverse effects which show up six weeks after the vaccine has been administered. To date, we have found no link between the vaccine and adverse effects though some side effects like swellings have been reported. What is the CDC's argument behind recommending vaccines for children even when controversies continue to surround their use? HPV is a silent disease and may cause no external symptoms. But 70 pc cervical cancers are caused by HPV 16 and 18 while 90 per cent of anogenital warts (an STI) are caused by HPV 6 and 11. All these strains can be prevented by the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. In my book, I have presented evidence of the vaccine being a cost-effective intervention. Let us remember, cervical cancer is the only cancer that's preventable with safe, inexpensive methods. Safety systems can be built into the programme of vaccine use. You said most HPV infections get resolved automatically. Why do others like HPV 16 and 18 stay? What are the risk factors? Tobacco use is a major risk factor. People who have HPV and who smoke are at 2.5 times higher risk of getting cervical cancer than those who have HPV and don't smoke. Smoking releases carcinogens that weaken immunity. In a country like India where 70 pc of the people live in villages, what is the easiest way to detect cervical cancer? A Pap Smear Test is a must and it is a very simple test that can be easily administered in any location. The Government must build the capacity by roping in NGOs interested in strengthening the screening network for cervical cancer.  |
|
PROFILE BY Harihar Swarup Born in Madhya Pradesh, sixty-three-year-old Mishra is a member of Gandhi Peace Foundation and editor of the Foundation's magazine 'Gandhi Marg', and also a founding member of 'Centre for Environment and Food Security'(CEFS), established in 2001 in Delhi. Mishra has written two books, "Aaj Bhi Khare Hain Talab" ( Ponds are still priceless) and "Rajasthan Ki Rajat Boondein" ( Radiant Raindrops of Rajasthan). They are considered pioneering works in the field of water conservation. In "Aaj Bhi Khare Hain Talaab", he documents the life and work of several individuals and communities across the country, in setting up water harvesting and management systems through lakes and tanks. The book has been translated into as many as 19 languages. In "Rajasthan Ki Rajat Boondein", he has documented myriad ways in which people of western Rajasthan have harvested and managed water over centuries, through work of utmost dedication, painstaking detail and community-led action. These systems have survived the test of time, and are present in most villages and towns of the desert state even today. He works to preserve rural India's traditional rainwater harvesting techniques. Anupam travels through water-starved India, studying rain-water harvesting methods and learning from the people. He presents his findings to NGOs, development agencies and environmental groups, digging into centuries of indigenous wisdom that has found water for drinking and irrigation even in extremely arid landscapes through wells, filter ponds and other catchment systems. "In Mishra lives a spirit of quiet service, that once existed freely in our politics and our activism, a spirit that has been completely excised from one sphere and remains gravely threatened in other", says an environmental activist while paying a tribute to Mishra's single-minded campaign. Over the past three decades, he is said to have created a silent but permanent revolution. He has shown that water security or insecurity are products of both nature and culture. There can be water scarcity in high rainfall regions and conversely, adequate water in low rainfall regions like the Rajasthan desert. His work on the indigenous water systems of Rajasthan inspired the water conservation movement of Tarun Bharat Sangh, which received the Magsaysay award in 2001. He has been promoting use of indigenous knowledge to solve water problem via preservation, maintenance and regeneration of ponds, water management and rain harvesting. Water harvesting has become important because Glaciers, which melt to provide water in north India, have been disappearing fast. Indians are also switching to more westernised diet, which has enormous impact on water usage. Currently 90 per cent of India's water usage is used for agriculture even as demand for industrial water and water for commercial use is also growing.
|
||
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
HE is the tousle-haired actor who has had some of the most high profile girlfriends : Elizabeth Hurley and Jemima Khan. Yet, he, like George Clooney seems to have a phobia about commitment. And now Mr Grant has proved it once again by having a baby with a Chinese girlfriend, Ms Tinglang Hong (also known as Ting Ting ). 
ONE of the recipients of the Jamnalal Bajaj Award this year, Anupam Mishra, is an activist with a difference. He has made the fight against a possible water famine his life's mission. Pointing out that future wars will be fought for both oil and water, Mishra reminds his audience that by the year 2020, most of the major Indian cities are expected to run dry. With the country's population likely to surge to 1.5 billion by 2050, the situation is turning grim by the day, he warns.