there was something that she could never tell her American teachers

here is yet another example of how gurus peddle their thoughts as pure wisdom and, worse, how we the gullible public take their opinions as the final word simply because their book says so. this is esp so in the case of books on newborns, infant and toddlers. at least, the "SLEEP NAZI" is willing to roll his ideas over to say he could have been wrong. it might be okay to have the kid in the same bed after all! the family bed could turn out to be an acceptable phenomenon during our lifetime, with parents being encouraged to "bond" with their kids by co-sleeping. a simple statistical proof that Richard Ferber was not right (not the same as saying he was wrong - there is no evidence to prove it either way) in condemning co-sleeping is that in many poor countries parents have no choice but to co-sleep with their kids. this does not seem to have had any adverse effect on the kids.

btw, Mitra Kalita is an author on one or two books abt American desis. i met her a couple of years back at a book reading.

Looking for a Hot Trade? Try Indian Red Chili

How important is the link between farmer suicides, global investors, the weather and interest rates? Very crucial, if you ask Andy Mukherjee. Most talk abt Commodity Futures sounds like mumbo-jumbo (and I confess that, unsurprisingly, I don't understand much of it), but the basic idea is actually very simple - if you have a rough idea of how much you would earn in a year's time, you would tailor your expenses accordingly. Futures allow you to lock in at least a part of your earnings this way, passing the risk on to those with the appetite to take it. Frankly, it is insulting to the farmer to say that he is too unsophisticated to understand this idea. In any case, lack of sophistication is a bad excuse to let people die.

you shake me by the soul when you shake me by the hand

Parents, if you are sending your kids to the US for higher education, here is one more risk they face. This article details the "foot in the door" approach of those providing help to new arrivals. Helping new students find boarding and lodging is a good way, according to the person interviewed here, to attract someone to move from darkness to light. Note the casual way in which other gods are mentioned with a lower-case "g". As usual, it is the neo-converts who form the trojan horse. Once again, conversion is not the product of intelligent debate and conversation but of taking advantage of someone in need!

Home Front - psychological and physical readjustment of war veterans

Saw this interview on CNN with film director Richard Hankin (never heard of him before) and Iraq war veteran Jeremy Feldbusch. Connection? Jeremy stars in a movie directed by Richard on how Iraq war veterans cope injuries upon their return. Now, I am not exactly a supporter of the war, but think about this - Jeremy was doing his job, a dangerous one at that and his life has changed forever in the course of performing his job. Not just Jeremy's but his entire family's. There is more abt this powerful movie in the attached article, but it got me thinking once again on an earlier post in this blog under "an ethical dilemma" about the alternatives to war - targeted assassinations and exile!

Also, what abt war veterans who are not lucky enough to have families (and the financial resources) to support them? Think of the many Indian soldiers coming back from war to find a nation glued to TV screens that show movies and cricket matches!

Engineers strive for "better," while lawyers prepare for the worst.

It's time engineers and lawyers started communicating better, esp with each other! Chinese leaders are all engineers, while American leaders are usually lawyers. This article provides an interesting perspective on why the US and China seem to have such trouble communicating with each other. The "busing" (another terrible example of a noun becoming a verb) of protesters is a great example alternative approaches to the same problem.

Given the qualifications of the top leaders, can we also draw conclusions on the route to the top? Here are a few conjectures - (a) American President-wannabes have to talk their way to the top, while the Chinese have to make their moves more systematically! (b) Americans want their leaders to be combative, while the Chinese want their leaders to be quiet, behind-the-scenes professionals! (c) American democracy requires people who can constantly defend their actions, while Chinese communism requires leaders who let their actions spk for themselves!

Here is a paradox though - more people around the world are willing to trust an American Senator than they trust the average Chinese leader!