By Ryan Jobson, Guest Writer

On Sunday, the Undergraduate Assembly passed legislation to radically alter the Executive Board election process, notably recommending the direct election of future UA Presidents by the Penn student body. The bill, co-authored by current UA Chair Alec Webley and SAC Chair Natalie Vernon, must now be approved by a school-wide referendum, expected later this semester.

If you are unfamiliar with the current structure, scope, or procedure of the UA, you are not alone. In short, the UA Executive Board—consisting of the UA Chair, Vice Chair, Vice Chair of External Affairs, Treasurer, and Secretary—is currently internally appointed by UA representatives following elections each spring. The consequences of such a system are dire. Effectively, 10,000 undergraduates are rendered subservient to 33 elected members of the UA in selecting a representative of Penn students at-large. Penn remains the only Ivy League University that does not directly elect a student body President, accentuating its unfortunate inability to keep up with the curve.

For black students, this process has been especially deleterious. Historically, black students (and the minority student community more broadly) have experienced a tenuous, and at times contentious, relationship with the UA. Throughout the early 1990’s, the United Minorities Council frequently clashed with UA leadership in its efforts to attain a permanent seat on the University Council, which after the UMC succeeded in its efforts in 1997, now provides direct access to university administrators. Additionally, despite consistent efforts by minority student organizations to increase representation in the six branches of student government, the UA’s capacity to effect material changes for minority students remains questionable.

Earlier this semester, two African American sophomores, Cornelius Range and Adam Hamilton, resigned from the UA, citing a “culture [not] conducive to change” as the impetus behind their decision. Former UA representative Hayling Price, C’09, echoed their sentiment, recalling opposition to the Workers’ Rights Proposal, an expression of student support for the equitable working conditions of Penn AlliedBarton security guards. As Price notes, “It has been my experience that UA members are reluctant to directly connect larger social justice issues to those affecting the undergraduate community. These issues are often overly politicized and the body loses significant opportunities to engage in meaningful work.”

Having worked alongside members of the UA through my involvement with UMOJA, I commend the current Executive Board in its attempts to make the UA more accessible to the wider student body. The recent legislation aimed at improving minority students’ academic experiences displays the UA’s increased sensitivity toward students of color, and the revamped UA website has increased the transparency and effectiveness of student government at Penn. Still, these advances may easily regress under subsequent UA leadership, leaving Penn’s minority coalitions with no recourse to hold said leadership accountable to our respective communities.

The recent reform bill, however, offers an opportunity for the minority community to take on an active role in the election of future UA Presidents, allowing campus coalitions to endorse particular candidates based on comprehensive campaign platforms. Additionally, public debates, including one sponsored by the 5B (Asian-Pacific Student Coalition, Lambda Alliance, Latino Coalition, UMOJA, and UMC), will demand that presidential candidates directly respond to minority student concerns, a provision absent from the current election procedure.

While I admit that flaws exist in any system, and maintain that minority coalitions must continue to advocate and agitate for the interests of our respective communities, a democratically-elected UA Executive with more immediate ties to Penn’s students of color will inevitably increase the visibility of minority issues on campus. Minority student activists have demanded such visibility throughout our long history at the university, and this reform is as much a testament to them as it is to the UA.

Thus, while I urge all Penn students to support this bill once put to a referendum, I also stress that its success rests upon our concerted efforts to become more politically engaged, holding the UA accountable to our individual and collective concerns. This reform is a step, even if just one, toward alleviating the tension between minority students and student government. And for this, I am encouraged by its possibilities.

Ryan Jobson is a junior in the College majoring in Africana Studies and Anthropology. He currently serves as the Planning & Facilitating Chair of UMOJA.

by Malcolm Evans

In November, it will have been 8 months since the 787 billion dollar recovery act was passed by Congress and signed into a law by President Obama. While 8 months is not an adequate amount of time to evaluate the largest recovery act in history, one can still inquire about the effects of the bill, the main question being: has the act created jobs? The answer depends who you ask and how they define a “job.” An article titled, Stimulus: Creating jobs or not attempts to provide clarity around this question. The article does a great job of summarizing the views of the White House, Republicans and state representatives. Essentially: the White House says yes, Republicans say no and state reps seem to be leaning toward the affirmative. Things aren’t so cut and dry of course, but in evaluating the effectiveness of the bailout in regards to job creation, it’s important to keep (at least) three things in mind. First, rather than concentrating on the absolute number of jobs that have been created, let us consider the rate of jobs losses and creations. In these regards, the Recovery Act has significantly slowed the rate of job losses. Specifically, the “number of jobs lost in the third quarter averaged 256,000 per month–two-thirds less than the country sustained at the beginning of the year.” Additionally, from a micro viewpoint, several state governments seem to believe that the stimulus is helping employ their residents. Confidence in the president and the long-term potential of his policies is a big driver of employment and the overall economy. Lastly, over half of the funds apportioned for the rescue plan haven’t been spent yet. More money spent = more jobs? Not exactly, but it will certainly help.

As I watch Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff, I can’t help but yawn. Everything she says fails to captivate me. I’m not trying to be rude. The information Annie presents is very relevant and emotional in today’s society where we struggle to find ways to exist in a way that can be maintained in the long run. My problem is that I learned all of this from Jetsons: The Movie.

In 1990, Hannah-Barbara brought the Jetsons to the big screen. Kids like myself, were spellbound watching George Jetson take over a new, highly efficient Spacely Sprocket factory located on a distant asteroid. These same kids also learned a valuable lesson about sustainability as it was discovered that the factory was drilling into the home of the Grungees, the alien race inhabiting the asteroid. To make an 82 minute story short, the factory is turned over to the Grungees who can produce new sprockets by recycling old ones (I guess space traveling humans weren’t smart enough to figure that one out) and everyone lived happily ever after.

I know I reference children’s media a lot, but I do it to further dialogue and hopefully find a resolution to the wasteful habits of industry. If we can explain sustainability in such elementary terms, why can’t we make it happen? Watching Alex Steffan’s presentation on sustainable design and production, I’m struck by his statement that each generation wants its own version of prosperity. It’s true that we want to do just a little bit better than our parents. Maybe that’s why the same generation that learned a lesson by watching the Jetsons avoid the destruction of an entire race, is becoming the next generation of destroyers.

Having seen this movie, I guess I get a different definition of sustainability. To me, sustainability is a business term used to describe operating at an efficieny level that creates the greatest good for all. By “all” I’m referring to the business and its shareholders as well as the community it serves. In my mind, sustainability is a way of getting greater Return on Investment than our predescessors in a way that leaves room for the next generation to increase it even more. It doesn’t have to mean a stagnate economy.

I do find a little comfort as Mr. Steffan talks about what Mrs. Leonard refers to as the “Third World.” It seems that sustainability is possible through the “leapfrogging” and “collaboration” that Mr. Steffan describes. Simple efforts anchored in design have allowed areas with little resources to operate at levels beyond the efficiency of industrialized nations in my opinion.

So perhaps the answer to achieving sustainability is as simple as they make it seem in children’s movies. Or am a just a dreamer?

*Trey Williams*

The context of the story, purpose of the reporter and philosophy of the media outlet is coordinated to manage the choices around advocacy or objectivity in journalism. Certainly the expectation, with both formats, is that facts will be presented accurately and that conflicting viewpoints will have representation. Either extreme however, verging on propaganda with advocacy journalism and detachment in objective journalism, instantly reduces the potential for a wide spread, consistent audience appeal, in my opinion. 

Omitting or distorting information to advocate a point or under the pretense of objective reporting is certainly the most obvious way to lose an intelligent audience. The O’Reilly Factor, for instance, clearly advocates for their interpretations of conservative values, rather than the truly objective “fair and balanced reporting” they propose.

To me it’s so misleading that it’s become almost entertainment-based, and sometimes just as funny a show, as the Daily Show or Colbert Report, that sardonically deliver the news for liberal audiences. 

As long as the framework for the reports is honest and the facts are true, either reporting style can be provocative. However, it is frankly far more interesting to read stories by reporters at The Green that invite feelings about environmental issues, or to join the chase of serious business, even journalistic, ethical infractions as does the U.K.’s  Guardian or even to get a better view of the world through stories that advocate ethics in specific religions like the National Catholic Reporter or the local Jewish Chronicle. While each outlet has perhaps a primary demographic, they offer information relevant for the interests of society as a whole. 

Objective reporting is expected in news outlets with limited time and a broader audience; it doesn’t always seem designed to even expect a reaction.  When the whole story has time to be played out in a more focused way to a more particular audience, as with advocacy journalism, the issues have more room to be emotive and become more interesting.

(Colbert and O’Reilly parody themselves in this You Tube clip posted October 11, 2008 by HasanSim14 as obtained by Fox News)

CarrieS

I bleed blue and gold. As college football season approaches, I conveniently work Kelly Green into my outfit on a daily basis. Yes, anyone who’s seen my embarrassing collection of Notre Dame trademarked items knows it…I’m a domer. However, recent national press forced me to hide my colors for the first time in years.

Obama at Notre Dame commencement

News coverage of Pro-Choice President Barack Obama’s May commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame shed such a negative light on an institution I have been so proud to be a part of for years that I found myself closing my Irish eyes and burying my head in the sand. As I watched political “experts” throw their two cents into the kerfuffle, I could not help but think that objectivity in modern journalism was truly dead.

Silent Protest

“Why,” I thought “does everyone else get to have an opinion about the graduation ceremony of a handful of kids out of millions this year?” Where were the voices that truly mattered in this situation? I understand the outrage of those in the Catholic community. You can not detach Notre Dame from its roots. But why did I have to watch Pat Buchanan tell me what I should believe as a Catholic and a part of the Notre Dame community rather than someone from the 97% of graduating seniors and 73% of students overall who supported Obama’s invitation?

The only refreshing journalism I found throughout the ordeal was from fellow citizen journalists on Facebook (not all of whom shared my opinion) who had legitimate a stake in the situation. Perhaps as an alum, I can’t understand the opinions of those I see as outsiders. Perhaps I’m the one who needs to be open minded about what others might think. Did anyone else watching that coverage even care?

*Trey Williams*

I remember the 2000 coverage of Elián González. Tensions between Cuba and the U.S. were at an all-time high. Miami, my hometown, was a boilerplate of emotions. The two points of contention were keeping the boy in the U.S. with relatives or returning him to his father in Cuba. Objectivity couldn’t be more of a challenge in a mix of a politics, family and a community of exiles. The media’s appetite for coverage, from repetitive television reports to endless magazine covers, made this case one as equally appropriate for media textbooks as for immigration law. At the center of it all was a border-less boy who went from an impoverished country to a yard surrounded by cameras and reporters. Do I even have to ask if the media fueled the controversy?

Video courtesy of www.youtube.com.

The media sets the tone for what the majority of us are aware of and concerned about. For the past week, it’s been Michael Jackson. There’s an adage about what’s left out of a camera shot being as important as what’s in focus. The same applies to reporting. What hasn’t been covered in the wake of what’s been deemed newsworthy? Consider the tenants of newsworthiness — timing, significance, proximity, prominence and human interest — and how they vary from publisher to reporter to reader/viewer. In a culture that’s become so audibly opinionated — blogs, social networks, reality TV — is objectivity even a consideration anymore? There are more pundits than reporters, more infotainment than investigation.

So, while journalists are charged as watchdogs, it’s up to the audience to judge if their sources have more bark than bite.

And, I wonder if, for fifteen-year-old Elián, America is synonymous with the flash of cameras?

-Monica D.-

Not for Assignment.

Last week the US Supreme Court ruled on the Couer vs Southeast Alaska Conservation Council case. What an environmental disaster! The net effect of this ruling is that any company in the country can dump toxic materials in a lake or river as long as the toxic dump can be classified as “fill” or slurry.

Coer Alaska, a gold mining operation, will, over the lifetime of the mine, dump over 4.5 million tons of toxic waste containing concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury into the Lower Slate Lake. This will raise the lake bed 50 feet—to what is now the lake’s surface—and will increase the lake’s area from 23 to about 60 acres. The discharge would kill all of the lake’s fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life.

The discharge from the lake would flow about 2 miles through Slate Creek into Berner’s Bay eventually.

This ruling flies in the face of the Clean Water Act which expressly states that its goal is to protect the integrity of the nation’s water so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.”

The ruling also states that the EPA’s section 402 permit (permit for the discharge of a pollutant) “authorizes Coeur Alaska to discharge water from Lower Slate Lake into the down-stream creek, subject to strict water-quality limits that Coeur Alaska must regularly monitor“. Seriously?

The argument made by the company was that this was the “least environmentally damaging practicable” way to dispose of the tailings. In other words, that’s the price of doing business. I’m not so sure. If the company wants to, it can build sludge recycling systems to properly recycle these hazardous wastes and be true to its corporate social responsibility statements. Or it can just greenwash while focusing on just the bottom line.

The question we must ask ourselves is, where does this stop, and what can we do about it? While I believe that it’s important for each of us to do what we can, in our own backyards, to be environmentally (and socially) responsible, I also believe that we need to ask our elected officials and business leaders to take us seriously and stop abusing the environment. We must ask them to stop putting in every imaginable loophole into environmental laws and regulations. We must ask them to walk the talk.

More importantly, we must do the same. And we must act before every lake and river becomes a toxic dumping ground.

I believe in environmental conservation and preservation. I believe in advocacy. And I believe that if we try, we can still find Nemo.

Victor V

“It’s never too late,” would be great lyrics for a song on my iPod these days. As I’m hitting the closing act of my fifth decade, my list of new experiences is growing quickly: learn new technology, acquire new eating habits, go back to school, get a job in a new industry, be a grandmother, and now becoming sustainable. It’s all happening to me. But no complaints here.

When I was born, there were no home versions of VCRs, let alone DVRs, or microwave ovens. I remember getting our first color television, and it certainly wasn’t flat. The idea that a home personal computer was even possible didn’t gain ground until I was in college, and we didn’t own one until our oldest child was entering first grade. If you mentioned the Internet and social media? You might have been considered a bit “teched.”  So the idea that I am the digital communications subject matter expert in my current job is amusing to me.

A year ago, if I was making a list to describe my interests and passions, sustainability would not be among them. I grew up in a small Massachusetts town surrounded by incredible natural resources. (I often long for the times when I dawdled away my summer days on an ocean beach.) It gave me an appreciation of the things that sustainability stands for. But I would have to say my experience with sustainability is more awareness than action. Civic and social responsibility (causes that include people) has always been a part of my life. From the Girl Scouts to faith-based service to others, helping people and teaching my children to help people is a foundational principle in my life.

In my new job as a communicator in the dairy industry, I interact with people who are staunch advocates for the land and their animals. They bring the perspective of generations of experience. They are concerned about food safety and our health. And they want to do what’s right. I’m excited to be able to help them bring their stories to the public.

Can we ever return to greener pastures?

Building character is what my parents called it.  Indentured servitude is what we called it.  Today I call it a lost paradise. 

My “green” perspectives are rooted in an 18-acre hobby farm in rural Minnesota where my parents transferred our suburban lifestyle when I was nine.  It included a rundown, sad-looking ranch with barbed wire wrapped around trees, snakes everywhere and mosquitoes that carried away small animals.

My parents insisted we heat the house by wood stove, grow food in the backyard and wrangle cows.  We chopped wood, broke ice in stock tanks, lived in sleeping bags and suffered frozen/bursting pipes.  My brother and I hated it. 

Today…  I long for it. 

I miss the prairie wildflowers, the groves of trees, the dry bed streams and the tall grasses.  The air was clean, the diversity stable and the soil rich.  Living in that world, I grew up strong, healthy and unafraid of hard work.  The land sustained me, and I helped to sustain it.  Not a bad working relationship. 

Now I’m back in the suburbs, living with my husband and nine-year-old son, but as a freelance marketing communications professional and master’s student, this early relationship with nature continually inspires me to look again for another great working relationship. 

Right now, I provide publication support, consulting and training to small and nonprofit business clients.  As the idea of sustainability as a business model starts to take hold, I would love some day to market that momentum and inspire my clients to be the incubators.   

But what does that sustainable, closed-end business loop look like?  What system allows business, individuals and communities to prosper in each other’s backyards?  What kind of business “eco-system” nourishes, liberates and honors the greater societal and environmental system?   

Sustainability comes in many colors, not just green.  I’m looking forward to hearing what kind of palette the class creates.  It’s an exciting subject.  What kind of working relationships are you searching for in your career or business?

Cheri L.

A franchise gone rogue raises some questions about common business sense.

A few days ago, at least two Tennessee Burger King stores posted the following statement on their signs: “Global Warming Is Baloney”.  Burger King Corporation (BKC) has since declared that the message was posted by an independent owner and operator without authorization, that it does not represent the opinion of BKC, and that it has been removed. Aside from what not to do, this marketing faux-pas can serve as a reminder, if anyone needs one, that global warming remains a politically divided issue and that corporations have responsibilities to their stakeholders – all of them.

The simplest way for businesses to steer clear of highly politicized socio-environmental issues is to focus on non-controversial, common-sense objectives, such as energy, resources, waste, toxins, clean water and clean air in their sustainability efforts. You’ll get little resistance, if you tell your stakeholders that you are reducing liability by removing toxins from the production process or that you are installing an alternative energy source with a return-on-investment of 120%. Diplomacy in business can hardly be overrated.

The problem with the Burger King stores’ signage is the message it sent to employees, patrons, stockholders and the community. Forcing the opinions of owners, directors or top-level management down the line will inevitably result in dissonance and ultimately have an impact on profitability. Some of the most successful organizations are based on learning models, they empower and educate, they factor diversity of stakeholders into their decision-making process and they recognize that there is a time for political correctness. In the corporate world, that time is always, or at least it should be.

Unfortunately, our environmental issues have become largely political, and that makes it difficult for corporations to stay out of the line of fire. The triple-bottom-line approach has proven quite successful and focusing on initial projects that significantly reduce expenditures paves the way for future developments towards sustainable and responsible practices. The political aspect of climate change appears to be managed best by shifting the spotlight to related environmental aspects. Complex scientific theories are often hard to grasp in whole by a non-scientific majority and are therefore difficult to tackle by companies whose primary business is not of environmental nature. Focusing on smaller, tangible components of the theory instead is a safe and effective strategy, in fact, the greenest corporations in the world started out that way. In case you were wondering, Burger King is not one of them.

There are Many Ways to Enter … The Best way is ” Back Door”

NEW DELHI: The Indian IT sector continues to be in the news for all wrong reasons with another leading firm Infosys coming under the government

scanner for alleged evasion of service tax worth Rs 33 crore on commission paid by the company for its global issue.

“We have issued showcause notice as the company has not paid service tax on the underwriting commission paid by Infosys towards American Depository Receipt (ADR) for the years 2003, 2005 and 2006,” said a senior tax official.

The service tax commissionerate in Bangalore issued showcause notice to the company on October 24, 2008, he said.

By sponsoring ADRs in the overseas markets, the company aimed at increasing foreign share holding in the firm.

However, the company in this regard has said the notice is not a determination of any liability and that the company has time till the first week of February to reply.

“We strongly believe that since it is a sponsored ADR program, the company had not taken any taxable services and only facilitated the issue. The services were basically taken by the selling shareholders. We will be replying in detail to the authorities in due course,” Infosys Technologies Chief Financial Officer Balakrishnan V told PTI.

Companies which sponsor ADRs do it with an intention of increasing the liquidity of its foreign-listed stocks. The move is also aimed at increasing market capital in these foreign bourses, getting the stocks to be covered by global analysts and held by well-known, long-term investors.

//

NR Narayana Murthy, Chairman and Chief Mentor of Infosys Technologies is a highly accomplished man. Even before the dawn of outsourcing, Narayana Murthy set up his own company with $250, with a bunch of friends from office. The start-up went on become one of the largest (not the largest – that slot goes to TCS) IT service companies in India. Its name has spread far and wide. Narayana Murthy and Infosys have won bagfuls of awards for performance. Infosys has fared well on the stock markets too, with rags to-riches-stories of Infosys drivers earning lakhs courtesy stock options. All in all, it’s a glory story. Infosys, the shining pinnacle of Indian corporate excellence. No one disputes any of this.

With success comes hubris. This seems to have hit Narayana Murthy too. One tends to believe that I am successful, so I must be right. Whatever I think, say and do must be right. Because if I was wrong, I couldn’t be successful, my company couldn’t be successful. So I am right. Since I am right, I have a right to lecture the world on what is right. So I write, even if it is trite.

Sorry for the forced rhyming, but this writer, for whom stock option millions is still the stuff of dotcom legend, was taken aback by Narayana Murthy’s ramblings the latest issue of Smart Manager, reproduced by Rediff.com on its website. Narayana Murthy’s article exposes his ignorance and arrogance rather than throwing any fresh light on leadership or corporate management.

The article is pompously named the Essence of Leadership. I don’t blame Narayana Murthy for the pomp. It could have been given by any well-meaning sub-editor who holds Murthy in awe. Or by the man (or woman) who arranged Murthy’s article who wanted to keep him pleased, with an eye on Narayana Murthy’s next gospel.

The article starts off with describing and defining leadership, mostly quoted from Robert F Kennedy and Mahatma Gandhi. Sadly, Murthy has started off on a wrong note. Many of the quotes in his article apply equally well to leaders of the wrong sort, which Narayana Murthy has in mind.

“Leadership is about raising the aspirations of followers and enthusing people with a desire to reach for the stars. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi created a vision for Independence in India and raised the aspirations of our people.”

So did Hitler. Or Chairman Mao.  It is good to use Mahatma’s name to justify your statement. Only, when you take Mahatma’s name, be careful that what is attributed to Mahatma or Martin Luther King does not apply equally well to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. But it does. Good leaders need not always be impeccable men. While trying to describe leadership, Narayana Murthy unknowingly puts leaders of all kinds into the same box. He fails to distinguish the ideal leadership strain that he has in mind, thereby putting great names to disrepute.

Leadership is about making people say, ‘I will walk on water for you.’ It is about creating a worthy dream and helping people achieve it.

The statement sounds more out of the Bible than from a corporate leader. Murthy to walk to water? These days, no one walks on water, except small water-borne insects. But surely that is not what Narayana Murthy has in mind. What he has in mind is that the leader should set worthy goals and get his team to reach them. Narayana Murthy uses the wrong metaphor of walking on water. Let me rephrase it for Murthy: The leader should set worthy, practical goals and take the initiative in that journey. That is not walking on water. Suppose Narayana Murthy tells his staffers tomorrow like this: “Guys, we planning to be a $100 billion company next year. Follow me.” Almost as tough as walking on water, I think. Staffers will follow him only till the gate and then flee. They would be convinced that Narayana Murthy has finally lost it.

As this writer sees it: Do not think your employees are dumb and can be taken for any ride (even water ride). They are also thinking individuals. Set practical goals, not dreams that others of relatively less genius can relate to.

“A leader has to raise the confidence of followers. He should make them understand that tough times are a part of life and that they will come out better at the end of it. He has to sustain their hope, and their energy levels to handle the difficult days.”

This statement is fine, since so long, the going has been good for Infosys. Infosys never had two face two successive fiscals of poor revenues to put Murthy’s above statement to test. If Infosys had been significantly hit by the dotcom bust and the meltdown, would Murthy have been able to keep paying his employees the same salaries of the previous days and keep their morale high? I doubt it. Narayana Murthy’s gospel is all fine, since he or Infosys never had to go through the pangs of restructuring and reviving an old economy industry like steel or automobiles.  Things have been good, so I can preach! Normal people and normal companies do not always come out better at the end of tough times – often, they come out pauper.

Murthy moves to Winston Churchill to establish his case of leaders surviving adversities:

There is no better example of this than Winston Churchill. His courageous leadership as prime minister for Great Britain successfully led the British people from the brink of defeat during World War II. He raised his people’s hopes with the words, ‘These are not dark days; these are great days — the greatest days our country has ever lived.’

Winston Churchill successfully led Great Britain through World War II. Unlike Murthy’s, Churchill’s leadership, oratory and depth of knowledge was indisputable. His greatness assumes a bigger glory when we realise that he was under constant attack by critics from within and without, with doubters and warmongers all around. And yet he pulled off the war.

The mistake is in attributing Churchill’s leadership and greatness to his success. In 1942, the Wehrmacht (German air force) pounded British cities with bombs. Japan was running amuck in East Asia. France had capitulated in the first year of the War and De Gaulle had fled. Try as they might, the German navy could not cross the English Channel. Meanwhile, Nazis built the “Atlantic Wall”, a huge fence on the European coast controlled by Nazis to prevent Allied landings. How did they fail then?

Nazis failed due to a multitude of reasons, and the last reason was Winston Churchill. (1) With Pearl Harbor, the US entered the World War and the tide changed in favour of Allies. (2) Hitler, drunk with power, embarked on Operation Barbarossa, the biggest ever military campaign in history to conquer Soviet Union. About 25 million Russians died, but Stalin took the war all the way from Stalingrad (obviously!) to Nazi Berlin. Hitler’s forces bled and perished in Eastern Europe. There were no German resources left to fight Britain. (3) And with Normandy, the Europe’s liberation began, and this was led by the American Eisenhower.

Winston Churchill was a great war-time leader of Britain. But it was not his leadership that won the war. Narayana Murthy falters in attributing Britain’s victory to Churchill’s leadership in adversity. Besides, many of Churchill’s war-time (and post-war) activities have been called into question. When the war began, the Allies were against bombing civilian settlements in war countries. But once the heat built up, the Royal Air Force started destroying German towns with the same brutality as the Wehrmacht. Also, post-war, the role of Churchill and MI-5 in staging the coup of Iran (which dispatched millions of Iranians to the dictatorial clutches of the Shah) is no shining examples which mentor Narayana Murthy should be teaching his wards, right?

Never is strong leadership more needed than in a crisis. In the words of Seneca, the Greek philosopher, ‘Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men.’

This is correct. Jai Murthy. I am waiting for a crisis for Infosys to prove that Narayana Murthy meant what he said.

Compliance to a value system creates the environment for people to have high aspirations, self esteem, belief in fundamental values, confidence in the future and the enthusiasm necessary to take up apparently difficult tasks. Leaders have to walk the talk and demonstrate their commitment to a value system.

Excellent. One wonders why then there was no Phaneesh-Murthy like scandals in Tata Consultancy, Wipro or Satyam. I fail to understand the “values”, “esteem” and “aspirations” that Narayana Murthy talks about. Compliance to a value system may have its positives, but if you end up with a a jerk in your company, its your mess to handle, boss.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘We must become the change we want to see in the world.’ Leaders have to prove their belief in sacrifice and hard work. Such behavior will enthuse the employees to make bigger sacrifices. It will help win the team’s confidence, help leaders become credible, and help create trust in their ideas.

Back to poor Mahatma. He would be turning in his grave hearing all this, had he not been cremated. Please note Murthy’s “sacrifice” part. We will come to it soon.

Investors respect such organisations. Investors understand that the business will have good times and bad times. What they want you to do is to level with them at all times. They want you to disclose bad news on a proactive basis. At Infosys, our philosophy has always been, ‘When in doubt, disclose.’

Narayana Murthy here is talking only about long-term investors, like himself. The rule is not applicable to small investors who want to buy, sell, move on. Perfect investors know that for a good company, good times will follow bad times. Most ignorant investors – the type who sell in a panic when prices are falling – don’t have a clue, and there are many of them around. Good times and bad times are not the sole criteria defining the Infosys stock price. Global market indices like that of the Nasdaq have a significant bearing on Infosys’s day-to-day stock price. Narayana Murthy is more aware of this than you or me, but he refuses to disclose that!

At Infosys, we have consistently adopted transparency and disclosure standards even before law mandated it. In 1995, Infosys suffered losses in the secondary market. Under Indian GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), we were not required to make this information public. Nevertheless, we published this information in our annual report.

Meaning: We are holier than thou. And since we are the best and me its chief mentor and chairman, I am right. Better listen to me.

Now comes an interesting note. Please recall the sacrifice part in an earlier para while reading this. Read carefully, read every word:

We have gone towards excessive salaries and options for senior management staff…..Senior management compensation should be reviewed by the compensation committee of the board, which should consist only of independent directors. Further, this should be approved by the shareholders. I’ve been asked, ‘How can I ask for limits on senior management compensation when I have made millions myself?’ A fair question with a straightforward answer: two systems are at play here. One is that of the promoter, the risk taker and the capital markets; and the other is that of professional management and compensation structures.

And the reason?

One cannot mix these two distinct systems, otherwise entrepreneurship will be stifled, and no new companies will come up, no progress can take place. At the same time, there has to be fairness in compensation: there cannot be huge differences between the top most and the bottom rung of the ladder within an organisation.

Translation: Senior management’s salaries will be always under the microscope. Not mine. I am part of a different system and a higher caste of entrepreneurs. Let the shudras be shudras and the brahmins be brahmins. If you challenge my millions, entrepreneurship will crash-land, companies won’t start up, progress will be stunted. I’m keeping my millions not for myself, but in the larger interest of entrepreneurship and economy. The above-mentioned sacrifice does not apply when I am the promoter. I am the Essence of Leadership.

In conclusion, keep in mind two Sanskrit sentences: Sathyannasti Paro Dharma (there is no dharma greater than adherence to truth); and Satyameva jayate (truth alone triumphs). Let these be your motto for good corporate leadership.

May be few Infoscions (what a lovely name!) know that Narayana Murthy worked with a little-known company called Patni Computer Systems before he started Infosys. Narayana Murthy did not just leave Patni, he practically broke its back by walking away with its best talent. Rajendra Patni took long to recover from the shock.

Swearing by truth an is excellent parting shot, Mr Murthy. A few years back, I had to go to a wicked real estate agent, whose office had a poster which loudly proclaimed HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. He advised me on ways by which I could hoodwink the house-owner. Narayana Murthy’s article on the essence of leadership reads just like that.

When it Comes to Hoodwinking i am the Best you find on this Planet ……

…………

NARAYANA MURTHY: When we started Infosys in 1981, we were seven people, and we put together about USD250 at current exchange rates. We were short of money, but we were very long on hope. – on PBS

This down-to-earth man had to mortgage his wife Sudha’s jewelry for Rs. 10,000 to put some funds in the company. – ZDNet India

Established in 1981 by seven professionals who pooled in their savings of Rs 10,000 (borrowed from their wives),… india-seminar.com

IN 1981 MURTY WANTED TO START INFOSYS. HE HAD A VISION AND ZERO CAPITAL. . ….Typical of Murty, he just had a dream and no money. So I gave him Rs 10,000 which I had saved for a rainy day, without his knowledge and told him, This is all I have. Take it. – (unofficial) Sudha Murthy

Narayana and Sudha Murthy : Highly paid Professionals

Estimate of their earnings

Narayana Murthy finished his undergraduate in electrical engineering from Mysore University in 1967 and then went on to obtain a master’s degree in electrical engineering from IIT Kanpur. After that he worked at IIM Ahmedabad and then worked for a few years in France. In 1978 he was hired as the general manager at Patni Computers. My conservative estimate of his monthly earning at Patni Computers in 1981, just prior to founding of Infosys, is 6,000 to 8,000 rupees. His wife, Sudha Murthy did her graduate work at the prestigious IISc Bangalore and since 1974 worked for Telco , a Tata company. My conservative estimate of her 1981 earnings at Telco is 5,000 to 6,000 rupees a month.

Estimate of their monthly savings

Assuming gross combined income of Rs 11,000 per month, various deductions at about 3,000 rupees and their combined expenses of 3,000 rupees a month, the net savings comes to about 5,000 rupees a month. This is based on very conservative estimates.

Narayana and Sudha Murthy in the top Tier of Income

In 1981, India’s per capita income was around 1,000 rupees a year. Murthys’ combined annual income of over 100,000 rupees, placed them solidly in upper-upper-middle class – most likely very comfortably in the top one percentile of income brackets.

Summary

They seems to have been financially very well-off prior to the founding of Infosys, with the ‘claimed’ seed money of 10,000 rupees just small change for them. All these tales of hardships don’t seem to be true, in my judgement.

I take pleasure in giving. I feel that I have a reasonably good amount of money for all of which I don’t have much use. So I thought I should share it with my poorer countrymen . – Sudha Murthy, wife of Infosys’ Narayana Murthy

I have always said that the real power of money is the power to give it away. – Narayan Murthy

And then JRD turned almost a soothsayer to say, ‘If you make lots of money you must give it back to society as you have received so much love from it.’ – Sudha Murthy

The vast majority still does not have freedom from hunger, from disease and from illiteracy. Our adult literacy is only 58 percent, 26 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, 24 percent of Indians are under nourished, we have been ranked 127th out of 175 nations in the human development index. Clearly my young friends, we have a long way to go. – Narayana Murthy in a speech at IIT Mumbai

She quotes Thatthareya Upanishad to entreat her listeners to set aside a portion of the income for their educational institution, another for the poor. All this of course, after looking after one’s own family. ‘But draw a line at what you need. Take your partner’s consent. See that you do not make the receiver your dependent. Give as naturally as you eat, sleep or breathe. … But what truly helps is the passion for the work.’ No, no, compassion doesn’t mean tears and talk, she is quick to add. It is not holding meetings and getting your name in the papers. – Rediff on Sudha Murthy

Infosys Foundation: Charity that Sudha Murthy Built

‘Infosys Foundation came into being with the objective of supporting the underprivileged in our society…The Foundation Trustees comprise of Ms. Sudha Murty (an educationist, a writer and a computer engineer), Chairperson; Ms. Sudha Gopalakrishnan and Mr. Srinath Batni (Director, Infosys Technologies Ltd.). The Foundation primarily aims at improving the health, education and basic facilities, benefiting a large number of individuals and institutions.’ ( Infosys Foundation )

Follow the Money at Infosys

Since its inception in 1996, by March 31, 2004 the foundation has given grants totaling about (less than) 40 crore rupees. (From 2000 to 2004 the grant amounts were 2.80, 5.26, 3.75, 5.53 and 12.00 crore rupees respectively). At then end of 2004, the market value of Infosys was over 56,000 crore rupees. It means that it contributed less than 0.1 percent of its market value wealth to Infosys Foundation over the past 8 years.

Murthy family (N.R. Narayana Murthy, Sudha Murthy, daughter Akshata Murthy, son Rohan Murthy) held about 7.5 percent of Infosys shares during this period. It means that their share of grants to Infosys Foundation was about 3 crore rupees (7.5 percent of 40 crores). Similarly, this amount is less than 0.1 percent of their 3,750 crore rupees (6.6 percent) stake in Infosys shares at the end of 2004. ( Warning PDF file (need free Adobe software to read): Murthy Family’s ownership in Infosys Technologies )

Note: For coverage on their almost non-existent contribution to charity from personal funds please follow link titled Charity: Narayana Murthy Style, at the bottom.)

3 Crore Rupees is a Lot, isn’t it?

Note: 100 lakhs = 1 crore. 10 lakhs = 1 million. 1 crore = 10 million. 1 US dollar (during April 2005) = 44 rupees. 100,000 US dollars = 44 lakh rupees. 1 million dollars = 4.4 crore rupees.
Murthy family’s share of contribution to Infosys Foundation over 8 years: 3 crore (rupees) (USD 700,000)
Average over one year: 40 lakhs (USD 100,000)

Rohan Murthy’s Cornell university tuition (one year): 13 lakhs (USD 30,000)
Over 4 years: 52 lakhs (USD 120,000)
Estimated cost of tuition, lodging and boarding over 4 years: 1 crore (USD 240,000)

Akshata Murthy’s Stanford MBA tuition (one year): 18 lakhs (USD 41,000)
Over two years: 36 lakhs (USD 82,000)
Estimated cost of lodging, boarding, tuition : 60 lakhs (USD 130,000)
Estimated cost of undergraduate education (economics) at exclusive Claremont McKenna College, California: 1 crore (USD 240,000)
Total estimated cost of educating Akshita Murthy in the USA: 1.6 crore (USD 370,000)

Median price of a new home in Silicon Valley, USA: 3 crore (USD 700,000)
Median price of a new home in Palo Alto, California (heart of Silicon valley and where Stanford university is located): more than 3 crore( USD 700,000+)
Median price of a new apartment in Manhattan, New York: 5 crore (USD 1,200,000)

3 crore divided by 100 crore Indians: 3 paisas/Indian (0.07 cents) over the last 8 years
Publicity, good will and ego-gratification: PRICELESS (USD PRICELESS)

Cost benefit Analysis of ‘Charity’

Investors: ‘The leading US companies now prefer investing in Indian companies that have defined social responsibility cells.’ – Sudha Murthy, also clarifying that the Infosys Foundation was only active in states where Infosys had set up software development centres. (The Economic Times)

Branding: Helps to attract good employees and keep attrition rate low.

‘Purchasing Goodwill’: Many customers prefer to do business with companies perceived to have social responsibilities. Government officials are receptive to new requests for more land etc.

Association with the famous: They are not going to miss out on associating their names with Tata family or Bill Gates, by mentioning them as often as possible. ‘…When asked by her colleagues as to what she (Sudha Murthy) wanted on her retirement, she could only say: ‘A black and white portrait of Jamshetji Nusserwanji Tata and another of JRD Tata in his famous blue suit.” (from Tata website on Sudha Murthy ) ‘I look forward to meeting him…the last time we met, he enquired how the Infosys Foundation was doing. (Economictimes reporting Sudha Murthy talking about Bill Gates). Oh boy!.

Political and Social Benefits: For Narayana Murthy, a possible President of India or failing that Ambassador to the USA; for Sudha Murthy possibility of becoming a future Prime Minister of India (beating that Hindi-speaking white goddess will be difficult, though. (Future potential fight between Priyanka Gandhi and Akshata Murthy for that coveted position should be interesting.)) or failing that to be simply known as the latest reincarnation of Goddesses Lakshmi, Parvati and Saraswati, all humbly rolled into one.

In summary, for Sudha and Narayan Murthy, ‘charity’ is just a small cost of doing business, with benefits much larger than the costs.

For Murthys Charity Begins at …

Home. (Surprise!)

And ends at … home. (Surprise!)

‘We didn’t want to give it all to our kids and ruin them any more than we have,’ says American Century founder James E. Stowers, who with his wife, Virginia, is No. 5 on our list. ‘If the kids have so much money they don’t even have a reason to get out of bed in the morning, we’re hurting them.’ The Stowers are leaving most of their fortune to the Kansas City (Mo.) medical center they founded. When his children drive by, Stowers jokes, ‘they look at the building and say, ‘There’s my inheritance.” … The six children of our No. 43 giver, Ann Lurie, have rejected many of the symbols of wealth, with a few of them favoring wardrobes from thrift shops. ‘If you saw my children, you would think they needed to be fed or something,’ says Lurie, who has set up foundations in each of their names so they can contribute as they choose. ‘They want to be seen as making their way in the world.’ [BusinessWeek The Top Givers : Today's philanthropists aren't leaving the good works to future generations -- they're making their mark now ]

Narayana and Sudha Murthy’s children – Akshata Murthy and Rohan Murthy – need not have any fears that their parent will leave then with almost nothing. At the end of 2004, thanks to homeward charity of their parents, they owned 50.6 and 49.6 lacks shares of Infosys respectively, making each of them worth more than 1,000 crore rupees. Moreover, the rate at which their parents are spending, or better stated – not spending, their assets, they have a virtual assurance that most of their parents money will be theirs after they are gone – currently valued at about 1,700 crore rupees.

Murthy Family Comes Ahead of Charles Feeney

Charles F. Feeney had about USD 1,600 million in assets, Murthy family has about half of it. Difference is that Mr. Chuck Feeney gave away 99.9 percent of it, leaving himself with about the remaining 0.1 percent (USD 1.5 million) ( The Secret Givers : These big-time contributors try to share their wealth while shunning the spotlight ), while Murthy family gave 0.1 percent to Infosys Foundation and were left with the rest 99.9 percent of their wealth (about 850 million dollars or 3700 crore rupees.)

Moreover, while Narayana Murthy was busy lecturing others on virtues of giving and be known as famous philanthropists along with his wife Sudha Murthy, who never missed a photo op to be seen with the underprivileged or with the rich and famous, and made sure her books are donated to libraries and ‘infoscions’ for their character building, Charles Feeney went virtually unnoticed, because he wanted it this way. What a loser!

IIT Accepts Narayan Murthy

I will be reexamining this assertion of not being able to attend IIT because of limited finances.

Is IIT education affordable?

I attended IIT Bombay from 1973 to 1978. To put expense figure in perspective, I will mention that the fresh IIT graduates in 1978 got about 700 to 1600 rupees a month in private sector jobs. After two years of job gross salary of about 1500 was common. High school teachers, made much lower. My mother, who was a teacher in a Kendriya Vidyalaya, I believe, made about 500 rupees a month in 1973.

IIT Expenses

If a decision is made not to attend a boarding school like IIT and instead go to a regional engineering college just on cost factors, it would be instructive to see where the cost could be higher in case of IIT.

IIT Tuition was 25 rupees a semester that was cheaper than 10 rupees a month I paid for my education at Kendriya Vidyalaya. That could not be a factor. Hostel rent was 100 rupees a year. First of all, this rent was below ridiculously low. Moreover, while staying at home might have been free, cost of commuting might have made this number comparable. In my view, it couldn’t be a factor.

Food expense was a problem. Hostel mess service had about 100 to 200 percent overhead. [During lunch and dinner time many workers used to appear mysteriously to partake in the meals then not to be seen till the next meal time. ;}] During the first year of my stay, I used to pay about 90 rupees a month for mess food. I think that similar food at home would have costed about 30 to 40 rupees a month. A difference of 50 to 60 rupees a month could make a big difference to the son of a school teacher. However, I recall a few IITians opting out of mess service. Some good reason for that had to be there, which Murthy obviously did have.

That was at IIT Bombay. Most likely, Narayana Murthy would have gone to IIT Madras. I don’t know about the cost of food there. But, I lived in Madras from 1980 to 1981 working for Larsen and Toubro. I was simply amazed at the low cost of food there. Seems like government had highly subsidized certain basic food. For example, in a decent restaurant near my office, I used to eat a plate of 2 idlis, with sambar and chutney, [still makes my mouth water], for 10 paisas. Masala dosa was relatively expensive – about 40 paisas. I am guessing that at IIT Madras, the difference between cost of eating at a hostel (or even in restaurants) and eating at home would been smaller than was the case for IIT Bombay.

Conclusion

Based on my limited knowledge, I have to say that Narayana Murthy’s claim of not being able to attend IIT because of stated reason of lack of finances does not seem likely. Small difference in cost factors could have been easily met by need-based scholarships given out to most meeting the financial criteria – which he would have met. Small loans were available easily. More likely the reason of Mr. Murthy not attending IIT was the lack of good JEE rank that didn’t allow Narayan Murthy to get in the electrical department, his choice, or similarly competitive departments.

Q: We hear you’ve become quite a philanthropist, that you’re making large donations with money from sales of your personal Infosys stock. Can you tell us about the money you’re giving away?
A: I’m somewhat reticent talking about it. I’d be happier skipping to another topic.
Q: Can you give us an idea of how much it is? Millions? Tens of millions?
A: Well, more, but let me not talk about it. These are topics that are best not discussed. They’re best done. (Note: I made the ‘Well, more’ part bold.)
- N.R. Narayana Murthy in an interview in New York with BusinessWeek editors including International Managing Editor Bob Dowling, Assistant International Managing Editor Christopher Power, and Asia Editor Sheri Prasso. (published in its July 19, 2000 issue)

While he earns the money, I spend it, mostly through the charity. – N.R. Narayana Murthy’s wife Sudha Murthy in a much circulated article.

Murthys and Charity

Earnings vs Wealth

What percent of their wealth they give to charity is a better indicator of people’s generosity than percent of their income. For example, Google’s cofounders are giving themselves US dollar 1 (45 rupees) annual salary; Steve Jobs of Apple computer is getting paid similar amount. (Rest of thousands of crores of rupees they are getting paid or already have in stocks.) Does this mean that when they spend 45 rupees a year on charity, they are great philanthropists because they are giving away 100 percent of their earnings? Of course, not.

Narayan Murthy and Sudha Murthy’s Income

Sudha Murthy’s income (about 50-60 thousand rupees) is spent on their household expenses. Since Infosys is a public company listed on NASDAQ, Narayana Murthy’s income is publicly available. It is around USD 50,000 per annum – or about 23 lakhs rupees. Since Mr. Murthy seems to travel a lot abroad, assuming most of it on his own money, I don’t expect much savings there. Even if I give him benefit of doubt and assume that all of his earnings is spent on philanthropy – 25 lakhs rupees a year, while a big amount for most of us, is small change for a family like Murthy’s with wealth of about 4,000 crore rupees (in form of Infosys shares) at the end of 2004. To put it in proper perspective, just the tuition for their son Rohan Murthy at Cornell (13 lakhs each year) and their daughter Akshata for Stanford MBA (18 lakhs each year ) add up to 31 lakh rupees each year – more than Mr. Murthy’s yearly income. Therefore, I will concentrate on Narayan and Sudha Murthy’s wealth in form of Infosys shares and see how they have contributed to charity.

Murthy’s Wealth

At the end of 2004, N.R. Narayana Murthy held about 20 lakh shares of Infosys, while his wife held 58 lakh share, resulting in a market value wealth of about 1,700 crore rupees. (Akshata Murthy and Rohan Murthy held 50 lakh shares of Infosys each for a total wealth of about 2,200 crore rupees but I will exclude them from my calculations.)

Murthy Charity in 2005

April 20, 2005. By the end of March 2005, Narayana Murthy and Sudha Murthy haven’t sold a single share from their Infosys holding of about 80,00,000 shares at the end of December 2004, leading me to conclude that the Murthy couple plans to do the same in 2005 what it did in 2004 – that is give more speeches for publicity while doing almost nothing for the poor.

Murthys’ Charity in 2004 from Infosys Shares

N.R. Narayana Murthy’s Infosys Share Holding:

End of December 2004: 19,87,840
September 2004: 19,87,840
June 2004: 19,87,840 (=4 times 4,96,960 for 4:1 stock split)
March 2004: 19,87,840 (=4 times 4,96,960)
December 2003: 19,87,840 (=4 times 4,96,960)

Sudha Murthy’s Infosys Share Holding:

December 2004: 58,18,740
September 2004: 58,18,740
June 2004: 58,18,740 (=4 times 14,54,685)
March 2004: 58,18,740 (=4 times 14,54,685)
December 2003: 58,18,740 (=4 times 14,54,685)

Conclusion: In entire 2004, Narayana and Sudha Murthy contributed zero (0) rupees to charity from any partial sale of their over 1,700 crore rupees wealth in Infosys shares .

Murthys’ Charity in 2003 from Infosys Shares

N.R. Narayana Murthy’s Infosys Share Holding:

End of December 2003: 4,96,960
September 2003: 4,96,960
June 2003: 5,27,900
March 2003: 5,27,900
December 2002: 5,27,900

Sudha Murthy’s Infosys Share Holding:

December 2003: 14,54,685
September 2003: 14,58,685
June 2003: 15,495,000
March 2003: 15,495,000
December 2002: 15,495,000

Murthys did shed a few Infosys shares this year. M.R. Naranyana Murthy reduced his holding by 30,940 shares (5,27,900 – 4,96,960) and Sudha Murthy by 94,815 shares (15,49,500 – 14,54,685). All but 4,000 of this reduction in holding happened in the July to September 2003 period. Share prices on post-split basis varied from about Rs. 800 to Rs 1100 during July to September with still lower prices just prior to this period. In terms of prices prevailing during that period, it comes to about Rs. 3,200 to Rs. 4,400 per share since split ratio in July 2004 was 4 to 1.

Assuming average selling price of about Rs. 3,600, Mr. Murthy reduced his holdings by about 11 crore rupees, and Mrs. Murthy by about 34 crore rupees. How this money was spent, we are not certain. Was it used to help out relatives who surely must be expecting a lot from this couple, or was it spent on educational institutions like the IIT Kanpur, with which Mr. Narayana Murthy has in past and present associated a lot?

IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, Cornell?

Thanks to Vinod Khosla’s gift of about 25 crore rupees to IIT Delhi, Narayan Murthy might have had to at least match it in order not to be overshadowed by him. We have read about 25 crore rupees gifted by Mr. Murthy to IIT Kanapur with great fanfare. As Times of India reported: Mr murthy clearly stated, ‘money is not the constraint…take as much money as you want from me…but give all kinds of standard facilities to the students here in my institute.’ Mr murthy said that he was desirous of seeing a separate telephone connection for each student in his hostel room so that communication was no hindrance. (My guess is that ‘the objective is to make sure our institutions of higher learning regain their glory of the ’60s and ’70s’ as told by Murthy to the BusinessWeek in 2000.)

Two other pieces of news caught my eyes. One was the on August 8, 2003, IIT Bombay conferred a Degree of Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) to him and the citation read by the director of IIT Bombay ‘portrayed him as the leader of one of the most successful business ventures of the country, an entrepreneur, a visionary, and a philanthropist.’ An article on IIT Bombay’s website went on to praise him by stating: He is also a champion of quality, ethical business practices, as well as social commitment, which has earned the respect and admiration of all sections of the community, in India and all over the world. What is the current market rate for a Degree of Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) from IIT Mumbai, anybody knows?

In the second piece of news, Cornell university mentioned that Keshav K. Pingali, a computer science professor was elected as the India Professor of Computer Science, effective July 1, 2003. It also mentioned that ‘he (Keshav Pingali) is the first person to hold the chair, which has been endowed by an anonymous benefactor of Cornell in India.’ Has Murthy something to do with this annonymous donor. (For those of you who don’t know Murthy was elected trustee of Cornell and his son got admission to its computer science program. By the way a typical endowment of such kind should cost about 10 crore rupees.) Also ‘Pingali earned a bachelor of technology degree from the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, India, in 1978.

How much did Narayan Murthy Give in 2003, 2004

During the entire years 2003 and 2004, except for a few crore rupees that Murthy might have been obligated to pay to academic institutions for things like providing separate telephones connection to students at IITK, there is no evidence that he (or even his wife Sudha Murthy) contributed any significant money to charities for poor people that really needed their money. But those poor people cannot write software, and cannot give back anything to the Murthys except their gratitudes. And who needs that?

What about during earlier periods?

Narayan Murthy hinted (with modesty) to BusinessWeek editors that he has given more than tens of millions they were suggestings. 10 million dollars is about 44 crore rupees – tens of millions is multiple of that – say 100 crore rupees. Did he contribute that much to places like the IIT Kanpur prior to that interview? I doubt very much based on his recent past, their nature of publicizing even very small amounts of giving, and the fact that it is very difficult to hide a large multi-crore rupees gift at places like IIT Kanpur. There is no record of large gifts by ‘annonymous donors’ there. At Cornell university, it is a different matter, if Murthy gave any such gifts or plans to give in future. Discreetly, of course.

According to a message from the Dean of the Faculty of Computing and Information Science of Cornell university ( Cornell gets anonymous gift from India ) Cornell Trustees appointed, effective July 1, 2003, Professor Keshav Pingali, an IIT Kanpur alumnus, to an endowed ‘India Chair,’ provided by an anonymous gift to support Computer Science and to strengthen Cornell’s ties to India. Another Cornell news article stated that ‘He [Keshav Pingali] is the first person to hold the chair, which has been endowed by an anonymous benefactor of Cornell in India. The donor requested that the chair be given to a full professor in early or midcareer and that the holder travel periodically to India to lecture on computer science.’

The minimum endowment level for a full professor is 2 million US dollars (about 10 crore rupees) (See Microsoft Excel file http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/endowment.xls ) This amount will likely be higher for endowment in technical and professional areas like computer science, engineering and business.

Is Narayana Murthy (Trustee, Cornell) this Anonymous Donor

Who could this anonymous benefactor of Cornell in India’ be? There aren’t many families in India that could afford to gift such a large amount. Moreover, this person is likely either an alumni of Cornell or a parent of a child who studied or is studying at Cornell. Furthermore, obviously, this anonymous benefactor is interested in computer science programs at academic institutions. One person that comes to mind is Ratan Tata, head of Tata group. He studied at Cornell about four decades ago; is immensely wealthy and his group’s TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) is India’s biggest software exporter. Or could it be Mr. N.R. Narayana Murthy, co-founder and chief mentor of Infosys Technologies, Bangalore? His family is rich – worth about a billion dollars in Infosys shares. Moreover, Mr. Murthy’s son Rohan Murthy has been studying computer science at Cornell since 2001. In past, Mr. Murthy has given some amounts, albeit with wide publicity, as seems to be the way he likes it, to IIT Kanpur’s computer science department, where he did his master’s showing that he likes to make such gifts.

Timing

This faculty appointment was effective July 1, 2003. And so was Narayana Murthy’s election as at-large trustee to four-year term. Coincidenally, the period from July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003 was the only quarter in 2003 (and 2004) when Mr. Narayan Murthy sold stock from his vast holding of several hundred million dollars worth of Infosys stocks. The market value of the stocks he sold is estimated to be about two million dollars. Details follow.

Narayana Murthy as a Trustee

Trustee

Cornell’s Trustee Board, vested with ’supreme control’ over the university, elected N.R. Narayana Murthy to join then beginning July 1, 2003. During 2005, out of 64 voting trustees, only 9 are not Cornell alumni. Out of those 9 – 3 are Ex Officio Trustees (including George Pataki, governor of New York State), two were student-elect and are current students at Cornell, two were elected by the faculty and are residents of Ithaca, NY where Cornell University is located, one is a senior leader of the labor union AFL-CIO at New York (Cornell’s charter requires 2 trustees from labor and I imagine that finding a Cornell graduate in labor is quite difficult), and then there is Mr. Narayana Murthy, chief mentor of Infosys, Bangalore – the only non-resident of New York State and without any apparent strong bond with the university except that his son was studying there. In my view, Mr. Murthy’s situation is quite unusual.

Sale of Infosys Stock

I checked Mr. Narayana Murthy’s share holding in Infosys Technologies, at the end of each quarter of 2003 (and 2004) to get clues about his financial situation. Out of 8 quarters in this period, only during the July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003 quarter, Mr. Murthy sold some stocks and my estimate of proceeds from that sales is about 2 to 3 million dollars (about 11 crore rupees). I checked Mrs. Sudha Murthy’s stock holdings too, and in her case too, with the exception of a small number of shares sold in the the last quarter of 2003, all the rest were sold in the same time period as that for Mr. Murthy. I estimate her proceeds to be about 8 to 9 million dollars (34 crore rupees). (See my complete analysis in Narayana Murthy’s Charity ) Where did all this money go?

Cornell University?

Frankly, I think only 3 to 4 million of about 10 to 12 million dollar raised by their stock sales went to Cornell. However, it does not mean that this is the end of Murthy’s giving to Cornell. In the message from the Dean of the Faculty of Computing and Information Science of Cornell university (see the top link) it is stated that ‘Still later in March, Cornell trustee Narayana Murthy discussed the idea of a new building for CS with President Lehman, and subsequently President Lehman asked CIS for details on its idea for a new building and a possible ‘information campus’.’

Moreover, Cornell President Jeffrey Lehman and his delegation made a courtsey call to Mr. Narayana Murthy at Infosys in Bangalore in July 2004 during their trip to India. Infosys was the only business organization this delegation visited in India. In Mumbai, Jeffrey Lehman remarked, ‘Even on a first visit, I cannot help but admire the juxtaposition of a rich history and culture with a technology-driven, high-growth economy. We want to work with our friends in India.’ ( Cornell president visits Narayana Murthy (Infosys), IIT Mumbai and IISc Bangalore ) I think that Cornell is for a big kill here and I won’t be surprised if in 2005/2006, Infosys and Cornell announce some joint program named ‘Cornell Infosys Institute of Global Technological Research’ (inclusion of the word ‘global’ is almost certain) with a new building built at Cornell at a cost of around 20 million dollars (100 crore rupees) (all with Infosys’ expenses). Top dogs at IIT Kanpur and IIT Bombay will be handed a few bones so that they don’t complain much. I think Pingli will be used to lure IIT Kanpur toppers to Cornell and stories titled ‘Cornell Ruled by IIT Mafia’ will be planted in India media to make every Indian so proud again.

IIT Kanpur too

Seems to me that most of the remaining funds went to IIT Kanpur (not sure about the timing), (rumored) about 5 million dollars (25 crore rupees) for the construction of a new building, and (confirmed) about 2 million dollars for IIT Kanpur’s Research I Foundation. ‘One of our alumni, Mr. N R Narayana Murthy, Chairman, Infosys, has created the Research I Foundation for the department with an endowment of Rs. 10 crores (2 million dollars).’ Its board consisted of, N.R. Narayana Murthy; Professor Sanjay G Dhande, Director, IIT Kanpur; Head, Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kanpur; Professor V Rajaraman, Honorary Professor, SERC, IISc ; Professor Rajeev Motwani, Stanford University; Professor Keshav Pingali, Cornell University.

My note: Note the inclusion of professor Keshav Pingali, Cornell University on this board. It is the same Professor Pingali who was elected to the ‘anonymous’ benefactor endowed India Chair at Cornell.

And the Poor?

For the poor of the world: Sorry, they have no money left for you. However, as you know well by now, Narayan Murthy (and of course, divine Sudha Murthy) think of you all the time. Sudha Murthy, especially has been influenced by Tata, Buddha, Gandhi (Mahatama not Sonia), Bill Gates and others. My guess is that after Mr. Murthy’s bank check cleared, he was allowed to speak at Cornell and in his distinguished lecture Thursday, Oct. 16, at Cornell to overflow audience, in one of three Cornell President Jeffrey Lehman’s Inauguration Day lectures, as reported by Susan Lang in her Murthy challenges Cornell to counter corporate greed and address world problems during Inauguration of Jeffery Sean Lehman he stated:

‘The gap between rich and poor countries has doubled in the past 40 years. … There are 1.2 billion people in this world who live in extreme poverty, on income of less than $1 per day. About one billion people lack access to safe drinking water. … Can we be catalysts in wiping the tears off the eyes of the poorest of the poor? Can the Cornell chime bring solace not just to the chosen few on this campus but to a forlorn child in the remote lands of Africa? … How can we address the myriad problems that cripple the development of mankind as a whole?’

Nagawara Ramarao Narayana Murthy like his divine wife Sudha Murthy does strongly believe in giving. Giving speeches, that is.

I have always said that the real power of money is the power to give it away. – Narayan Murthy

The vast majority still does not have freedom from hunger, from disease and from illiteracy. Our adult literacy is only 58 percent, 26 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, 24 percent of Indians are under nourished, we have been ranked 127th out of 175 nations in the human development index. Clearly my young friends, we have a long way to go. – Narayana Murthy in a speech at IIT Bombay

I come from a religious family where education is important, money is not; charity is important, holding is not… – Sudha Murthy

I take pleasure in giving. I feel that I have a reasonably good amount of money for all of which I don’t have much use. So I thought I should share it with my poorer countrymen . – Sudha Murthy, wife of Infosys’ Narayana Murthy

And then JRD turned almost a soothsayer to say, ‘If you make lots of money you must give it back to society as you have received so much love from it.’ – Sudha Murthy

I am trustee of this money and not the owner. I always thought this money belongs to someone else. The money goes to someone else. – Sudha Murthy

Narayana Murthy and the art of hypocritical writing Infosys chief mentor and chairman Narayana Murthy puts world leaders to shame  in his ramblings about leadership.  In the process, he exposes his own ignorance too. A Dancewithshadows analysis // // // // BY JM NR Narayana Murthy, Chairman and Chief Mentor of Infosys Technologies is a highly accomplished man. Even before the dawn of outsourcing, Narayana Murthy set up his own company with $250, with a bunch of friends from office. The start-up went on become one of the largest (not the largest – that slot goes to TCS) IT service companies in India. Its name has spread far and wide. Narayana Murthy and Infosys have won bagfuls of awards for performance. Infosys has fared well on the stock markets too, with rags to-riches-stories of Infosys drivers earning lakhs courtesy stock options. All in all, it’s a glory story. Infosys, the shining pinnacle of Indian corporate excellence. No one disputes any of this. With success comes hubris. This seems to have hit Narayana Murthy too. One tends to believe that I am successful, so I must be right. Whatever I think, say and do must be right. Because if I was wrong, I couldn’t be successful, my company couldn’t be successful. So I am right. Since I am right, I have a right to lecture the world on what is right. So I write, even if it is trite. Sorry for the forced rhyming, but this writer, for whom stock option millions is still the stuff of dotcom legend, was taken aback by Narayana Murthy’s ramblings the latest issue of Smart Manager, reproduced by Rediff.com on its website. Narayana Murthy’s article exposes his ignorance and arrogance rather than throwing any fresh light on leadership or corporate management. The article is pompously named the Essence of Leadership. I don’t blame Narayana Murthy for the pomp. It could have been given by any well-meaning sub-editor who holds Murthy in awe. Or by the man (or woman) who arranged Murthy’s article who wanted to keep him pleased, with an eye on Narayana Murthy’s next gospel. The article starts off with describing and defining leadership, mostly quoted from Robert F Kennedy and Mahatma Gandhi. Sadly, Murthy has started off on a wrong note. Many of the quotes in his article apply equally well to leaders of the wrong sort, which Narayana Murthy has in mind. “Leadership is about raising the aspirations of followers and enthusing people with a desire to reach for the stars. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi created a vision for Independence in India and raised the aspirations of our people.” So did Hitler. Or Chairman Mao.  It is good to use Mahatma’s name to justify your statement. Only, when you take Mahatma’s name, be careful that what is attributed to Mahatma or Martin Luther King does not apply equally well to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. But it does. Good leaders need not always be impeccable men. While trying to describe leadership, Narayana Murthy unknowingly puts leaders of all kinds into the same box. He fails to distinguish the ideal leadership strain that he has in mind, thereby putting great names to disrepute. Leadership is about making people say, ‘I will walk on water for you.’ It is about creating a worthy dream and helping people achieve it. The statement sounds more out of the Bible than from a corporate leader. Murthy to walk to water? These days, no one walks on water, except small water-borne insects. But surely that is not what Narayana Murthy has in mind. What he has in mind is that the leader should set worthy goals and get his team to reach them. Narayana Murthy uses the wrong metaphor of walking on water. Let me rephrase it for Murthy: The leader should set worthy, practical goals and take the initiative in that journey. That is not walking on water. Suppose Narayana Murthy tells his staffers tomorrow like this: “Guys, we planning to be a $100 billion company next year. Follow me.” Almost as tough as walking on water, I think. Staffers will follow him only till the gate and then flee. They would be convinced that Narayana Murthy has finally lost it. As this writer sees it: Do not think your employees are dumb and can be taken for any ride (even water ride). They are also thinking individuals. Set practical goals, not dreams that others of relatively less genius can relate to. “A leader has to raise the confidence of followers. He should make them understand that tough times are a part of life and that they will come out better at the end of it. He has to sustain their hope, and their energy levels to handle the difficult days.” This statement is fine, since so long, the going has been good for Infosys. Infosys never had two face two successive fiscals of poor revenues to put Murthy’s above statement to test. If Infosys had been significantly hit by the dotcom bust and the meltdown, would Murthy have been able to keep paying his employees the same salaries of the previous days and keep their morale high? I doubt it. Narayana Murthy’s gospel is all fine, since he or Infosys never had to go through the pangs of restructuring and reviving an old economy industry like steel or automobiles.  Things have been good, so I can preach! Normal people and normal companies do not always come out better at the end of tough times – often, they come out pauper. Murthy moves to Winston Churchill to establish his case of leaders surviving adversities: There is no better example of this than Winston Churchill. His courageous leadership as prime minister for Great Britain successfully led the British people from the brink of defeat during World War II. He raised his people’s hopes with the words, ‘These are not dark days; these are great days — the greatest days our country has ever lived.’ Winston Churchill successfully led Great Britain through World War II. Unlike Murthy’s, Churchill’s leadership, oratory and depth of knowledge was indisputable. His greatness assumes a bigger glory when we realise that he was under constant attack by critics from within and without, with doubters and warmongers all around. And yet he pulled off the war. The mistake is in attributing Churchill’s leadership and greatness to his success. In 1942, the Wehrmacht (German air force) pounded British cities with bombs. Japan was running amuck in East Asia. France had capitulated in the first year of the War and De Gaulle had fled. Try as they might, the German navy could not cross the English Channel. Meanwhile, Nazis built the “Atlantic Wall”, a huge fence on the European coast controlled by Nazis to prevent Allied landings. How did they fail then? Nazis failed due to a multitude of reasons, and the last reason was Winston Churchill. (1) With Pearl Harbor, the US entered the World War and the tide changed in favour of Allies. (2) Hitler, drunk with power, embarked on Operation Barbarossa, the biggest ever military campaign in history to conquer Soviet Union. About 25 million Russians died, but Stalin took the war all the way from Stalingrad (obviously!) to Nazi Berlin. Hitler’s forces bled and perished in Eastern Europe. There were no German resources left to fight Britain. (3) And with Normandy, the Europe’s liberation began, and this was led by the American Eisenhower. Winston Churchill was a great war-time leader of Britain. But it was not his leadership that won the war. Narayana Murthy falters in attributing Britain’s victory to Churchill’s leadership in adversity. Besides, many of Churchill’s war-time (and post-war) activities have been called into question. When the war began, the Allies were against bombing civilian settlements in war countries. But once the heat built up, the Royal Air Force started destroying German towns with the same brutality as the Wehrmacht. Also, post-war, the role of Churchill and MI-5 in staging the coup of Iran (which dispatched millions of Iranians to the dictatorial clutches of the Shah) is no shining examples which mentor Narayana Murthy should be teaching his wards, right? Never is strong leadership more needed than in a crisis. In the words of Seneca, the Greek philosopher, ‘Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men.’ This is correct. Jai Murthy. I am waiting for a crisis for Infosys to prove that Narayana Murthy meant what he said. Compliance to a value system creates the environment for people to have high aspirations, self esteem, belief in fundamental values, confidence in the future and the enthusiasm necessary to take up apparently difficult tasks. Leaders have to walk the talk and demonstrate their commitment to a value system. Excellent. One wonders why then there was no Phaneesh-Murthy like scandals in Tata Consultancy, Wipro or Satyam. I fail to understand the “values”, “esteem” and “aspirations” that Narayana Murthy talks about. Compliance to a value system may have its positives, but if you end up with a a jerk in your company, its your mess to handle, boss. As Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘We must become the change we want to see in the world.’ Leaders have to prove their belief in sacrifice and hard work. Such behavior will enthuse the employees to make bigger sacrifices. It will help win the team’s confidence, help leaders become credible, and help create trust in their ideas. Back to poor Mahatma. He would be turning in his grave hearing all this, had he not been cremated. Please note Murthy’s “sacrifice” part. We will come to it soon. Investors respect such organisations. Investors understand that the business will have good times and bad times. What they want you to do is to level with them at all times. They want you to disclose bad news on a proactive basis. At Infosys, our philosophy has always been, ‘When in doubt, disclose.’ Narayana Murthy here is talking only about long-term investors, like himself. The rule is not applicable to small investors who want to buy, sell, move on. Perfect investors know that for a good company, good times will follow bad times. Most ignorant investors – the type who sell in a panic when prices are falling – don’t have a clue, and there are many of them around. Good times and bad times are not the sole criteria defining the Infosys stock price. Global market indices like that of the Nasdaq have a significant bearing on Infosys’s day-to-day stock price. Narayana Murthy is more aware of this than you or me, but he refuses to disclose that! At Infosys, we have consistently adopted transparency and disclosure standards even before law mandated it. In 1995, Infosys suffered losses in the secondary market. Under Indian GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles), we were not required to make this information public. Nevertheless, we published this information in our annual report. Meaning: We are holier than thou. And since we are the best and me its chief mentor and chairman, I am right. Better listen to me. Now comes an interesting note. Please recall the sacrifice part in an earlier para while reading this. Read carefully, read every word: We have gone towards excessive salaries and options for senior management staff…..Senior management compensation should be reviewed by the compensation committee of the board, which should consist only of independent directors. Further, this should be approved by the shareholders. I’ve been asked, ‘How can I ask for limits on senior management compensation when I have made millions myself?’ A fair question with a straightforward answer: two systems are at play here. One is that of the promoter, the risk taker and the capital markets; and the other is that of professional management and compensation structures. And the reason? One cannot mix these two distinct systems, otherwise entrepreneurship will be stifled, and no new companies will come up, no progress can take place. At the same time, there has to be fairness in compensation: there cannot be huge differences between the top most and the bottom rung of the ladder within an organisation. Translation: Senior management’s salaries will be always under the microscope. Not mine. I am part of a different system and a higher caste of entrepreneurs. Let the shudras be shudras and the brahmins be brahmins. If you challenge my millions, entrepreneurship will crash-land, companies won’t start up, progress will be stunted. I’m keeping my millions not for myself, but in the larger interest of entrepreneurship and economy. The above-mentioned sacrifice does not apply when I am the promoter. I am the Essence of Leadership. In conclusion, keep in mind two Sanskrit sentences: Sathyannasti Paro Dharma (there is no dharma greater than adherence to truth); and Satyameva jayate (truth alone triumphs). Let these be your motto for good corporate leadership. May be few Infoscions (what a lovely name!) know that Narayana Murthy worked with a little-known company called Patni Computer Systems before he started Infosys. Narayana Murthy did not just leave Patni, he practically broke its back by walking away with its best talent. Rajendra Patni took long to recover from the shock. Swearing by truth an is excellent parting shot, Mr Murthy. A few years back, I had to go to a wicked real estate agent, whose office had a poster which loudly proclaimed HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. He advised me on ways by which I could hoodwink the house-owner. Narayana Murthy’s article on the essence of leadership reads just like that. BY JM Auto news for auto freaks! iDrive.in DWS community! / Cricket blog DWS F1 News Latest Stories in Society Crime Environment News Culture A salesman vs an entrepreneur Slum demolitions and the false choices of Shekhar Gupta Miss Universe 2005 gallery Precious heritage: National Museum in Delhi Wild Nature Susan Miller and popular astrology NR Narayana Murthy and the art of bluster Peeping Toms! Why do they do it? Prince Charles to mary Camilla Parker Bowles FWD: Jhelo this stuff! Latest Stories in SocietyArchived Society stories

Home

Politics

Religion

Media

Biz

Society

Tech

Travel

Books

Intl. Autos

Automobiles

About Us

Feedback

Links

There are as many different types of consumers of local food as there are different types of urban farmers and different types of food grown. Consumers with different needs can all benefit from urban farming. Three farms on the Kansas City Center for Urban Agriculture farm tour explain this perfectly. Kurlbaum’s Heirloom Tomatoes, J-14 Agricultural Enterprises and the Troostwood Youth Garden and provide food for many different kinds of people. 

Kurlbaum’s heirloom tomatoes are sold locally at McGonigal’s, Brookside Market, and many Kansas City restaurants including Michael Smith’s in the crossroads, Café Trio in midtown and Webster House downtown. By selling to many different places Co-owner Liz Kurlbaum can have better control over the price and feed a larger group of people.  While this urban farmer chooses to sell their product mostly to restaurants, Joe Jennings at J-14 Agricultural Enterprises has a different approach.

Jennings has developed a community based CSA where potential customers can pay 300$ for up to 500 pounds of produce. Extra food is taken to elderly community members, including some in nursing homes. Jennings also uses some of the food grown for his family.

The Troostwood Youth Garden is the only place that fresh vegetables are available in the busy Paseo Blvd. neighborhood in Kansas City.  This local produce can be bought there Monday through Saturday before dark. Troostwood feeds the community as well as educates them about the importance of eating healthy and knowing where food really comes from.

These different urban farms show that everyone can eat well with the help of urban farmers. Whether someone is eating at a restaurant, buying a large supply of food for their family, or trying to find something fresh in a busy neighborhood, urban farming is helping people enjoy food that is local, healthy and delicious.

~ Tyler Waugh, Group 4 blog post

Farmer’s market photo credit.

What is a Victory Garden?  A Victory Garden is a kitchen garden planted to relieve food shortages. Victory gardens were very commonplace during World War II.  World War II began in September 1939 and by January 1940 the United States began rationing food.  The government asked people to plant gardens to support the troops.  By growing their own food, it freed up commercially farmed fruits and vegetables for troops overseas.

By 1943 over 20 million Victory Gardens had sprung up throughout the United States in backyards, empty lots, even on rooftops in the city. As people began growing their own food canning became very popular so produce could be used outside of the growing season. The result? The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that during the war almost 10 million tons of fruits and vegetables were harvested at home and in the community.

My great grandmother had a victory garden and grew enough vegetables to supply fresh produce to some of her neighbors that were working in a defense plant.  She even built a root cellar where she kept potatoes, onions and canned vegetables and fruits to use during the winter months. She continued planting gardens and harvesting the bounty until her death at the age of 80.

When WWII ended the government stopped promoting Victory Gardens.  For many decades urban agriculture and home gardens fell by the wayside.  Driven by the economy many people are turning to home gardening this summer to supplement their diets. The recent revival of Victory Gardens leaves one question – have you decided what you’re planting this summer?

-Megan Richards, Group 1 – blog post

Photo credits: Fridge and Tunnel, Farms and Fields Project, Clemson

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how two of my favorite coffee shops use polystyrene cups, one of those making the switch very recently. It was this latter coffee shop where I talked with a barista about their use of polystyrene cups.

A few months ago, this coffee shop was serving drinks in paper cups with java jackets. The owner of the shop stopped buying java jackets, and as any avid coffee drinker would know, the feeling of holding a hot cup of morning joe in a paper cup with no java jacket is definitely uncomfortable. “People were taking two cups,” the barista said. For the sake of saving money, and preventing people from taking two cups for every drink, they switched to the polystyrene cups.

“I was getting cussed at by customers” after the switch, she said. So she typed up a polystyrene fact sheet that’s posted on the shop’s register. It says polystyrene is 95% air and is recyclable, among other points. But is the fact sheet misleading, considering polystyrene is not biodegradable and hardly any students who frequent the shop would actually recycle their cup?

“It was one of the hardest decisions I’ve had to make working here,” the barista said about making the switch. But she said after looking into polystyrene, it wasn’t “any worse” than doubling up on two paper cups or using a paper cup and a java jacket.

The barista seemed open to discuss other environmental options, and really sympathized with customers’ defiance of their new cups. She said the coffee shop would have a new owner soon, and would possibly switch back to paper cups and java jackets then.

In the meantime, serving in polystyrene cups has shown a more environmentally friendly trend emerging from this shop’s customers.

“If we used paper cups, no one would bring their own cup,” the barista said. “No one wants to use foam, so everyone is bringing their own cup now.”

— Jessica Sain-Baird

This post is a follow-up to my post, “How much responsibility should your coffee shop have?” Thanks to Fillmore Photography for the image.

Warm, puffy, flakey, and covered in powdered sugar. Beignets were one of the very few traditional southern Louisiana foods I’d eat as a vegetarian. Luckily, it’s placement in the French Quarter kept the original Cafe Du Monde (home of the best beignets in NOLA) site relatively safe when Katrina blew through in 2005. Beyond the Quarter was another story. Those without homes were also without food, even with aid coming in from around the globe. FEMA also kept those people in the local food industry (and, indeed, food is one thing New Orleans knows well) willing to use those skills to feed the hungry from doing so in the months that followed. 

Not only did the storm ruin the coastal population’s food supply, but it also hurt the food suppliers. Seafood has always been a major industry in southern Louisiana, with the state being America’s biggest shrimp producer. However, Katrina severely damaged an industry that was already beginning to hurt from foreign shrimp imports. So that, while NOLAs restaurants are making a slow comeback, other food industries in the area are having a harder time. Individuals are struggling as well, with the current economy hurting already overtaxed food banks.

As the storm came and went I watched on TV; in the time since, I’ve watched in anger as the government left southern Louisiana on it’s own. I visited New Orleans for the first time, post-Katrina, in July 2008; we went through the Upper and Lower 9th Wards and into St. Bernard Parish. Many houses still had water lines on them and spray paint, where they were checked for bodies. Many businesses and government offices are still closed. Many people are still awaiting government assistance. Although it’s been years since I lived in southern Louisiana, my parents still do and, even if I’d never lived there I’d be hard pressed to not be struck by how much still needs doing, over three years later. While tourism has helped the restaurants, many individuals still await their own housing and a table for family meals. 

~ Mary Beth

Photo credits: Beignets, Marked house

Looking out from the cave in Jalisco Ridge at the impossible journey migrants crossing the border must make.

I was in a place where no human should be, and yet evidence of human suffering surrounded me. In front of me, the Sonoran desert extended as far as I could see—rolling mountains and ravines covered with low brush and waving ocotillos—deceptively beautiful. Yet beside me, under my feet, all around me were remnants of human desperation. There were dirty, crumpled blankets; wrappers and cans; water bottles and flasks. There were discarded jeans, soiled maxi pads. There were open bottles of glue—sniffed to keep pain and hunger away. There were bras dangling from tree branches—on display as rape trophies.

I was standing where, only a night or two before, a large group of undocumented migrants making the crossing from Mexico to the United States had rested. We had stumbled upon the cave cut into the edge of Jalisco Ridge, a place so remote it could be the end of the world. We had stumbled upon a beautiful, terrible hell.

Human debris left by migrants on the trail.

It was a visceral example of how current policy forces people into into opposition with an extreme environment. No one would intentionally destroy a place this beautiful, except if desperate. And anyone in this desert is desperate.  They are desperate for work, desperate for a better life, desperate to rejoin friends and family in the still mystical El Norte. They are so desperate at the hands of economics and politics that they will attempt to cross this no-mans land.

The desert is cruel. In twenty-four hours, temperatures reach both extremes— hypothermia or hyperthermia can kill you. So can a rattlesnake or a scorpion. The desert gives no water—and it is physically impossible for a person to carry enough water to make it across. Since the early nineties, US Border Patrol has focused on closing all routes into the country save access through the desert.  The strategy “prevention through deterrence” was instituted during the Clinton administration. The hope was that the desert would deter migrants. It doesn’t—it kills them. More than 47% of the Mexican undocumented migrants currently in the United States have arrived since the year 2000.  But a migrant is 3 times more likely to die during their crossing than they were in the early nineties.  This year, volunteers have discovered 183 bodies. Many more will remain unfound. Many more will die.

Inferno.

There is an old Indian legend that the desert caves are inhabited by witches.  I could feel her presence in that cave. She was angry.  She was angry that someone had entered her sacred space. She was taking bloodthirsty retribution.

You could say Jagroop Singh is succeeding. He has 65 times as many cows as he did just one decade ago. Of course, back then, he only had one cow.

He is now making far more money, though. He receives 15 rupees for every litre of milk — three times what he made just two years ago. The milk, he sells to Nestle India, whose nearby factory blasts it into a powder and sells it abroad.
But Singh, among others, has stopped growing grain. And thanks to droughts and the subsequent rice shortage, grain prices have skyrocketed. 

In a capitalist economy, increased efficiency = increased profit, and increased profit = improved lifestyle. This is the central guiding principle. By that standard, India, whose economy is growing 9% a year, is succeeding.

But in the agricultural sector, India's growth has declined, from 4.7 per cent between 1992-1997 to just 1.5 per cent between 2002-2006. And see, therein lies the rub. In places like India and China, more people have more money. They live in the cities, and naturally, they expect to eat more diverse food, food that is usually imported.

They have no grain, so they live off the grain of others. Americans pulled a similar trick in the housing market, when they bought up sub-prime mortgages using loans that were beyond their means to repay. In both cases, the idea is that future growth will make up the difference.

And in general, it has! US gross domestic product has risen constantly  for years, and along with it, inflation.  The idea that our production might flatten out... or drop... is unthinkable! That's why it's called capitalism, after all- our job is to convert resources into capital, and use that capital to encourage further growth. 

But, can we realistically expect this growth to continue forever? Singh may find himself with 65 bony cows, and not enough grain to feed them!

The wise man, they say, lives within his means. Capitalism pushes for growth at all costs, even if those costs are beyond your means. Can that possibly be wise?  

Justin Leverett no longer sleeps.  

Every time I walk into my favorite coffee shop downtown, I am greeted with a tiny sign explaining why it uses polystyrene cups.

Expanded polystyrene is mostly just air, it says, and is recyclable. A few months ago, another favorite coffee shop of mine made the switch from paper cups to polystyrene cups. This shop has even adopted the same friendly sign that reminds customers that no, polystyrene is nothing to be afraid of.

But polystyrene — a.k.a. styrofoam — is more harmful than that. It isn’t biodegradable at all and it’s tough to find polystyrene recyclers. 

It’s easy to understand why polystyrene is a popular material for businesses — it’s cheap (no additional cup sleeves) and does the trick (keeps hot drinks hot, cold drinks cold).

Santa Cruz County in California banned polystyrene products last year because of waste problems. Should every city — or green-minded coffee shop — be as proactive against this material?

I’ve tried to offset the use of polystyrene by my favorite coffee shops by bringing my own mug (I’ve never been to a cafe that didn’t give a discount for this!), or keeping any polystyrene cup I get coffee in and reusing it once or twice.

It isn’t just that my favorite coffee shops use polystyrene, though — it’s the fact that they try to defend it by making it seem harmless.

Does your favorite coffee shop use polystyrene cups? Or would you refuse to buy drinks there, at least when you’re on the go, if they did? And why do some businesses even try to still defend polystyrene?

— Jessica Sain-Baird

Thanks to kwanie for the picture.

Cocaine. It’s the drug of choice for uptown socialites, swanky power brokers and runway darlings. For many it is a status symbol, the chicest of highs.

In reality it is an ecological symbol of destruction. Every step of the cocaine production process involves environmental devastation. Every gram of cocaine destroys four square meters of rainforest, causing soil erosion, landslides, and species extinction. Colombia’s rainforests are home to approximately 10 percent of the world’s species and more than 51,000 species of plants. The Amazon alone creates 15 percent of the world’s oxygen supply. Will a blizzard of cocaine production freeze out this fragile life force?

Chemicals used to process the raw coca leaves, diesel, kerosene, sulfuric acid, acetone, and carbide are often dumped into rivers and streams, polluting vital water sources and killing aquatic species.

Colombia produces 60 percent of the world’s cocaine supply each year. And despite the “efforts” of the US drug policy, it isn’t slowing in the slightest. The UN reported  a 27 percent increase in coca growth from 2007 to 2008.

Coca offers the best livable wage to Colombian farmers who create a paste from its narcotic elements. Traffickers pay little more than the cost of production supplies, which are often paid for on credit. These traffickers then turnaround and make a huge profit by selling processed cocaine in the US and Europe. In the meantime, the farmers must grow more and more coca to pay their debts and keep food on the table.

And there are countless causalities who are gunned down by drug lords and petty street criminals. South American traffickers work directly with Mexican cartels, pushing the war zone farther north. This intricate web of violence has now spread to 230 US cities.

Cocaine destroys people, from the rich who snort it up their rhinoplastic noses to the poor Colombian farmers who slave over it.

What does it say about Americans, whose status symbol is a shackle that threatens to pull us from our high and sink us all?

-Mackenzie

video courtesy of youtube

image cred

I’m so glad my TV got fried during that electric storm.

Now I don’t even have to cross paths with that horrible excuse for “entertainment” on the History Channel: Ax Men.

You know, that show that paints loggers as these heroic, last frontiersmen who brave the elements of nature for their high-risk job.

What a bunch of crap. Ax Men no more promotes American heroism than Stephen Colbert actually supported George W. Bush.

Do you know what the catch for this season is? It’s a competition between five logging companies in the Northwest to see which one can tear down the most trees. Yeah, real heroic, guys.

Here’s what the show fails to mention:

• More than 1.2 billion people across the world rely on forest resources to survive.
• About 70 percent of the planet’s plants and animals live in forests. Some forests – such as the old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest where our friends the Ax Men are so happily chucking away – are the only places where certain animals live.
• Every two seconds, a forest the size of a football field is cut down – now for our viewing pleasure. Eighty percent of the planet’s ancient forests are gone forever.
• Because of the vast number of harvested trees, deforestation contributes 20 percent to 25 percent of all carbon emissions.

But the craziest thing about all this is?

Most of the information I cited is on the History Channel Web site.

Here’s an organization that loyally promotes deforestation, but has an entire Earth at Risk package describing the main factors of the earth’s destruction, highlighting deforestation as one of them. The channel also cites global warming as the cause of two “Mega Disasters” that could wipe out large portions of the human population.

I mean, are these people idiots? Do they actually watch what they expect us to? Is this some sad attempt to “show both sides of the story”?

Or is it a way to justify the money they make by destroying the earth?

I’ll let you be the judge. But as I said, I’m just happy I don’t have a TV.

Which one is it, History Channel?

-AlyV

Thanks to YouTube (2) for the videos.

Thanks to Brockernation for the picture.

Uploaded to Flickr.com on September 28, 2008 by Wild-Jungleman

By himself, Obama cannot clean up the environment, stop global warming, or create a single green job.

Stop for a second and really take this statement in. It may seem obvious, but with all the demands competing for Obama’s attention, an outsider might think US citizens have forgotten the basics of US Civics 101.

Pop quiz: what is the president’s job? Between signing statements and executive orders, we may have forgotten that it’s not the president’s job to make laws but to make sure they are being followed. His job is to make sure the laws are being “executed,” hence the “executive” branch.

Today, our president is our chief economic adviser who talks with the media about spending more money that we can possibly conceptualize. But just because he isn’t a legislature, that does not mean he can’t help the environmental movement.

Take his power as commander and chief of the military. Obama has the power to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan but instead is sending 17,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and staying at least one more year in Iraq.

The environmental damages caused by war may be obvious. But the real killer is all the money we are spending abroad when we have so many problems at home. The congressional budget office estimates that we will spend 2.6 trillion dollars fighting these wars by the end of 2010.

It all comes back to spending and what we choose to spend our money on. Look at how much we spend on defense as opposed to energy. Look at how much we spend on education compared to health care. If we taught people how to eat healthy and prevented our ground water and food supply from being contaminated, would we need to spend so much on health care years down the line? If we spend a trillion dollars on wind turbines, would we really need to fight wars over oil?

For two years, I lived in what Treehugger calls “a well-kept secret.”

That is, a home or building that uses geothermal energy.

My decision to live in Dennis E. Rieger Scholarship Hall on the University of Kansas campus didn’t have anything to do with their use of geothermal energy. But it did teach me that even organizations as large and notable as the University can make good choices about energy use.

Geothermal energy works by pumping water into the Earth. Whereas surface temperatures change dramatically throughout the seasons, the temperature underground doesn’t. Water comes back “cool” in the hot summer days, cooling your home. Water comes back “hot” in the winter, warming your home.

More than 1 million homes in the United States use geo-exchange systems, according to Treehugger, and for every million homes like it, CO2 emissions are reduced by 9 billion pounds. Geothermal energy emits little to no greenhouse gases.

Ken Stoner, director of student housing at the time, said the geothermal energy system cost about $70,000 to $90,000 more than a standard energy system. But the University expected the energy-efficient system to pay for itself in about seven years.

All of these positives are leading to more and more buildings using geothermal energy.

Instead of avoiding talking about renewable energy, be it solar, wind or geothermal, more people and organizations should “try it before they knock it.”

Living in a scholarship hall run by an energy efficient heating and cooling system didn’t even faze me. Yes, our energy was reliable. Yes, the heating and cooling worked great.

‘Green’ living doesn’t have to be uncomfortable or strange — it can just be a matter of using what Mother Nature has given you and using it to your advantage. And that doesn’t need to be a secret.

— Jessica Sain-Baird

Thanks to YouTube for the video.

Illegal immigration is about so much more than taking jobs away from Americans.

At any time, there are between 12 million and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to the Census Bureau’s best guess. Most hold jobs Americans consider too lowly to do – jobs like those in agriculture.

Illegal immigrants usually work as seasonal workers, picking oranges in California or harvesting cranberries in Maryland. It’s no secret that illegal aliens work for cheap.

But as much as people complain about lower wages making job competition fruitless, it’s the cheap labor of immigrants that helps put food on the tables of most Americans, and most of the world.

Industrialized agriculture provides a large majority of the food for the world, so they employ a ton of people, some being illegal immigrants. Let’s think about what would happen if the America were to completely stop the influx of illegal immigrants.

• Big Ag would lose its stake-holdings in American agriculture, leading to an increase in the need and development of local farms.
• The surge in local farming would decrease the methane, carbon dioxide and the rest of the pollutant cocktail that comes transporting food thousands of miles away or herding millions of pigs into tiny spaces.

But …

• Food production would plummet.
• The cost of food would skyrocket.
• Millions of people wouldn’t have access or be able to afford food.
• Starvation and undernourishment would affect thousands more than the 900 million people already suffering from lack of adequate food.
• The U.S. economy would go into the tank.

So, stop illegal immigrants, give Americans more jobs, reduce emissions and increase local farming? Or grant them amnesty and a chance to improve their lives, continue to feed Big Ag and risk the earth’s sustainability?

Is there a right choice?

-AlyV

Thanks to Guinness Wench and More Marin for the pictures.

Thanks to You Tube for the video.