The biggest problem with today's world - too much free advice..

you hear that from every tom dick harry, lisa mary jane you come across and sometimes they feel compelled to give advise to you at no cost and expect you to oblige them in accepting and glorify them for their uncalled for, irrational and illogical advice.

if only there were taxes on such advice, and if i were collecting it, i would be a millionaire if i had just collected a cent for each word spoken.

why...

What is the purpose of our lives? This question is not a rhetoric. I am just wondering. really.. what is it that i am doing here. why the hell do i have to live, be happy, feel sad, work, be ambitious, have a career, have a family, raise kids, see them grow..and the like. Why does this work this way? why do i have to have a work life balance, why eat, why sleep?

I am not crazy or anything. but i am just wondering what the purpose of this all is? Is my existence of any purpose? My being dead or alive what difference does it make to anyone? who decided i have to be born. who decided i have to have the ability to think? who decided i have to live n number of years? if u ask the scientific guy he says its a biological reaction. the theologians would say its god's will.. well whatever be it, the purpose of my life is lost on me.

I am tired, messed up, confused, just want to escape, get out of where i am whatever i am. i feel screwed up all for no reason whatsoever.

I can for sure tell i am going nuts, but why am i going nuts like this?

I wish there were a exchange or trade bureau where you and your alter egos can exchange traits that you believe you can do without. That would be so cool wouldnt it. Like for example, i can do with a little bit more of drive when it comes to my personal life and the willingness to lose the 5 kgs i have gained since last september. at present all my energy is so channelled towards my career that i end up with leading an pretty unbalanced life. But the other side is, i am happy doing what i am doing. So should i trade my level of happiness to i dont know how i would feel with say spending 30 minutes of my time in the gym on a everyday basis, or maybe get up early and hit the gym. Is going to the gym so that you can live a 5 extra years in old age worth it..

Let me look at it rationally..If i get five years more to live, will i be happy during those five years? I dont know, maybe, maybe not. Those five years.. who is going to pay for it? well i will have to put some more money in my retirement funds which means the present value of $ i have in hand for enjoying life reduces. what value am i going to provide to this world by living 5 more years? i dont know..

so u see.. looking at it rationally, the cost of living five more years is really not worth it.. but then the something deep inside me says dumbass, u better go to the gym u lazy bum.. else u probably are losing the 5 years that u are supposed to live anyway, u are not gaining 5 years but ensuring u live those 5 years u are meant to live. but then i could possibly get hit by a car of the mrt tomorrow so why bother..

well, all these babbles aside, i do know i have to do something. i do love playing tennis, maybe i should invest in that coach and get a regular partner after all..

Another word that i have to add to my profile

Judgemental that is.. i am not talking about my profile, but the one of the traits that i must ensure that the girl my parents are looking for must not have.

The story starts like this.. u know, how my folks kinda got it out of me to put my ad on shaadi.com. well the details are in one of the older posts, but anycase, my profile is there and i have been totally blunt about myself as i usually am. I believe in being honest what can i say, my parents built in too many values into me..

And for long i kept saying no for gals my parents will find citing one reason or the other and i didnt care about the profile in shaadi.com and then my friends were u know, u must atleast try talking and then can decide. so i see these few profiles of gals and i picked a few who i thought were probably fitting the bill.. u know working, well educated.. my presumption was if someone is well educated, working is probably a little independent and is not a small town girl.. and contacted them..

a few got back, and one of them then adds me to the msn cos i sent my contact. she reads my profile, and visits this blog and then she pinged me yesterday on msn. I have tried my best to reproduce the conversation here. the lines in brackets are fyis...

she: hi

me: hi

me: who is this. do i know u? (well to be honest i didnt have any other lines in my head)

she: (silent)

me: (ok maybe she is from shaadi.com) are u ms X from shaadi.com

she: yes. i saw ur profile and also read your website.. you are tooo much for me. you should look for iit and iim girls

me: ok i didnt know alliances are made between colleges and degrees (fair enuf, is she saying she is not my type..i dunno.. let me continue and find out)

she: how come u are director at such an young age

me: (man, how can i say the story of my life in 1 line.. this is defn not working) well i worked hard and i did an mba from a good school and got lucky...

she: i am astonished (god knows wat she is thinking)

me: (time to change subject) so what do u work as?

she: what does ur sister do?

me: (hey i asked u a question.. no manners here... why does she want to know about my sister) Well she works as a lecturer/programmer and stays with my parents in india

she: why didnt u take her to singapore

me: (how does that matter here.. i am not going to tell her the story of why my sister is not with me in singapore.. thats a long story. i did ask her and parents.) well she wants to stay with my parents.

she: you should ask her and take her to singapore

me: ok (man this is ridiculous.. first she doenst spend time finding who i am and already starts giving me adivse without knowing details)

she: so have u stayed away from home for 11 years?

me: yes.. 13 years to be exact (where is she going with this?)

she: how can u be u like this ?

me: like what (what the hell is she getting at.. i am getting pissed.. what has my staying 13 years away from home for studies and work etc got to do with this? this is wierd.)

she: never mind. do u have girlfriends?

me: (yeah rite.. if i had why would i be talking to u?) No i dont have girlfriends. i have friends who are girls..

she: you are lying.. you must have..

me: (by now i have reached the limits of my patience.. this is nothing bur prejudged statements and baseless talk and a complete waste of my time) I do not lie. believe or not is upt to u. I have friends who are girls, but no one is what u would term as a lover/girlfriend (wonder how she would react if she sees my insead party snaps..hahaha had this devilish idea of passing her the links.. or maybe she already saw my tioman snaps with the wierd baloons..Arvi.. all ur fault)

she: ok.. sorry i wasted ur time

me: bye.. i dont think you are my type.. good luck. (by now i am really pissed about how judgemental people can be and about why i have to put up with all this.. all my parents fault.. who the hell cares about getting married)

You see.. what irritated me in this whole part was. This girl never told me a thing about herself. Never stops to find out who she is talking to. but jumps to conclusions on preconceived notions.

I had one mind to snap and say "hey u dont have any facts, u dont even know me and how can u be so judgemental", but then decided i dont care for nitwits who are judgemental anyway and politely pulled out saying she is not my type..

So there u go, till now, in the list of traits that i had marked included "not fussy" and "no hypocrites" and now i am adding "non judgemental". Maybe i shud follow my friends advise after all, talk to more girls and then keep adding to the list of traits.. But now i am getting doubts about my search criteria, educated and working doesnt mean they are liberal and outspoken and independent and open minded.. man i am screwed..

Whats so special about valentine's day.. i mean its just another day isnt it? What intrigues me is why is this day so special that one has to spend some X amount of dollars on flowers, or chocolates or candle light dinner? I see shops with special deals on flowers, chocolates and valentine dinners... I mean, if you really liked someone or are in love with someone, you could do these any other day just as well.. or you could do this every day if u are rich and can afford these on an every day basis.

I mean arent these just another materialistic way of expressing your love and adoration to your partner? Is love that shallow? Has the bonds of human relationship grown so shallow that your girlfriend "expects" these gifts or rather "demands" these gifts as a proof of your love? I have seen cases where the girl is so damn pissed that the guy hasnt done anything to show his love or affection. Are materialistic means the only way of showing it?

Is this just another way of massaging the egos of your partners show that she can probably show off to her friends later. If you really love your partner shouldnt such materialistic ways of expressing affection be considered stupid and degenerating? What has the world come to.. you have days for every damn thing just so that consumerism can grow. hey.. btw. tomorrow is the day after valentine's day.. shouldnt you be celebrating that with a wine and dine at some cool diner?

maybe this rational way of thinking is probably why i am spending my valentine's day in office waiting for a call from a client while spending time writing this blog...but one of my friends used to say, i am above all this...

The Coolness of using the "F" word

I am what they called a late bloomer, hell i dont even know if i have bloomed, but anyway thats besides the point. I first heard the four lettered "f" word probably in the first week of my stay at BITS Pilani. I was one of those scared stiff freshmen with a huge inferiority complex and trying to figure out my position in the small universe of pilani. you had these sophomors and seniors who were the so called cool guys the freshmen were supposed rather entailed to look up to. The first two months in campus was full of ragging and the nuances associated with becoming a Bitsian as they put it. And during the course of these first two months, depending on how "cool" you are you tend to be classified into the various categories which could be one of the following - the really cool studs, the mediocre and mundane, the ghottus and the NEPs. These traits tend to be not really distinct and one could be a mix of all the above as well depending on the situation.. in any case, one was bound to be labelled in this way after the first month or so and once labelled, its damn difficult to move up the ladder..

Now, ghottus and NEPs were bitsian slangs. a ghottu was a guy who spends all his time in the library or the hostel room reading all the books and attending all the classes. If you were one of the "cool" studs then you were to attend no classes, spend all your time with the hot gals, doing what were considered exotic things during those days including organising events, Oasis, Apogee etc and if you were really a cool stud you could become the president and make some money. The NEPs were the extreme and were left in the way side. NEP stood for Naan En Piranden which in tamil means "why was i born". Now somewhere in the middle is the mundane and mediocre and as you properly guesses i belonged to this mundane and mediocre and i tried really really hard to move to the cool stud ladder but the standards were just too high :)

Why am i talking about these cool studs and the labels, well because, you know during those days, there was this huge misconception about what is considered cool.. When i look back, i actually think i was much cooler than the bunch of cool studs but never realised it. Or maybe i was really hot that i didnt need to be considered cool.. hehe.. poor jokes aside.. one of the supposed criteria of being cool was to use the "F" word in every possible sentence that you speak.

As i said, i was a late bloomer and hence a late learner. I learnt about the F word only when i was 16. And that is damn late even considering indian standards. So u can imagine how out of place i felt in school. But i took it upon myself to ensure that i make up for the lost time. So i researched the usage of this "F" words. The "F" word took various forms depending on how one wanted to use it.. It is a verb of course and hence has many conjugations. However, i figured that we can use this word as a noun, adjective, or an adverb as well. I soon learnt the intricacies of sounding cool..

Like for instance if the coffee i was drinking had a fly in it.. i would have said " man, this coffee has a fly in it..." but if you were supposed to be cool.. you were supposed to say "Bugger.. this f***ing coffee has a f***ing fly in it bugger!!!" Now isnt that coool!!!! Or if you were talking to a friend explaining the awesome holiday you had in say Darjeeling, you were supposed to say "Man it was f***ing awesome.. I was f***ing literally in f***ing heaven.." What i realised about this word was that it was so easy to just add it any where you feel like.. it became like a filler when you are lost for words and the party who is listening can grasp the seriousness and the beauty of what you were conveying in practically the same way. The "f" word like the best invention for a totally inarticulate person to go the extra mile in conveying exactly what he wanted to convey.

Well, after i f***ing started using the f***ing "F" word in every f***ing sentence i spoke, i soon f***ing realised that i was f***ing getting really f***ing overboard. Look at that f***ing past sentence. I have f***ing used the f***ing "F word" like f***ing 6 times.. Now shouldnt I be considered a f***ing cool guy??

p.s: The author has long since stopped using the "F" word on a regular basis. He uses it only when the going gets tough or if he really wants to convey his exasperation...

Of Cartoons and Paintings

I wonder what difference my words, that probably attributes to .000001% of of billion gigabytes of information on the web, would make to this world. One really corny way to answer that will be that the ocean is not made of just one droplet.. well corny lines aside, i write cos i think this is a creative way of venting my frustration at some of what i term as hypocricies in todays world and maybe i will be able to make a difference in a few years time when my maslows needs are met. (yeah right i am selfish..dont forget i follow objectivism:)

Well anyways, of late one of the main headlines has been the cartoonists portrayal of Prophet Muhammad and back home in india, the case of Mr Hussain's nude paintings. Is this Moral Policing against the freedom of expression or is it Religious intolerance? Honestly, i have seen neither the cartoons nor Hussain's paintings and that means one can question the credibility behind my arguments.

I believe that in both these cases are simple yet complex.. a clash of civilisations, a clash of morality and sensitivity with ones concept of freedom. The question i have is who is right here? The western concept of freedom where individual right is above all else or the traditional/Eastern concept of a society determining what is right.

I for one believe that the eastern concept of society determining morality and virtuosness is erroneous and hypocritical. The society may be democratic or autocratic but in either case, it basically is views of a select few being imposed on the views of the rest and in most cases i would like to question if the mass in the society even thinks about the problem but follow the populist sentiment which i believe is again driven by the select few. An individual has to define what is right for him and dissent can and should be expressed based on his beliefs but that does not mean that one has to impinge on the right of expression of someone else. The way of life governed by the individual rights and freedom advocated by the west leading to a highly litigative society seems to work cos there is an economic sanction on those who are not sensitive. In a perfect world this might work but again, nothing is perfect and so it is easy for me to theorise that we need a balance..

I am not wise enough to propose a solution and neither am i going to try. However, when i examine these two cases, i sympathise with the muslim world in both cases. In the first case i believe the anger against the cartoonists from the muslim world is justified but i would question the seriousness and efficacy of the populist sentiments over the past few days. In the case of Mr Hussain, i am ashamed that my relegion (hinduism) has spawned such bigots who cry shame and call for sacrifice of individual freedom in the name of social morality.

Islam has always deplored portrayal or iconising the prophet and the cartoons definitely were in bad taste. How Hinduism - a relegion where the shiva is workshipped in the linga form, a relegion where sex and art had thrived together as in khajuraho and kamasutra, finds an artists portrayal of nude gods offensive is far beyond the comprehension of my rational mind. I agree one has the right to take objection to his art, that is ones right but taking objection in the name of hinduism is stupidity and hypocritical. And the "secular" government calls for his arrest and explanation, thats an extreme, i did not elect the government to police artists, i voted for fair governance.

Hinduism, the relegion that is supposed to be the most tolerable and open is now being thrust into narrow mindedness by the so called upkeepers. I wonder what the self proclaimed upkeepers of the relegion are going to do next.

Jimi Henrix here i come

If there was anything in common with me and Jimi Henrix, it might be dope.. haha.. yeah rite i wish.. in singapore i will be beheaded.. and just for the records for those snoopers from the intelligence departments and DEAs..no i dont have dope of any kind and nor do i traffic them. and i definitely wouldnt want to die the way jimi Henrix did. i think that was a really silly way to die.

well speaking about Jimi Henrix, i have bought an acoutsic guitar. purchased it like two weeks ago in ebay for 50 Sing and got it deliverd yesterday. all those who know me might think this is another of those silly dabbles this bugger takes up. maybe.. i used to own and learn the acoustic guitar when i was in the usa, but when i left in 2002, i just gave it up.. and now since i have some supposed free time and since i made a new year resolution to do something useful rather than play Xbox, i thought why not and so there u go.. hopefully my neighbours wont complain of the excessive noise pollution..

and hey, i already can play the Am, A, E, E7, G, C and D chords..

No i havent found the special someone.. or have i? yeah watever.. u know i take prozac everyday these days cos i am shit scared of the part where you think you are at crossroads of starting or sabotaging a relationship, the part where u think u like someone but are not sure, the part where u want to tell her but are scared about rejection or just plain shy.. well at the end of it all you are so drained that you wonder why one has to go through all this.. guess no pain no gain..

ok why am i talking about this now.. well two excuses i can use, not that anyone who knows me will buy either of them, but then hey it is worth trying. one i was reading the latest national geographic that has an article on the science of love and the second one was I was checking out Calvin and Hobbes and i saw this .. http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1995/ch950205.gif Bill Waterson is really awesome..isnt he?

come on.. it aint that serious

all those who probably were reading whatever i was posting in the past few weeks must be wondering whatever happenned to this bugger..stopped all personal posts and became involved in Corporate ethics and CSR and philosophy..well i think one must have a balance.. so here is a not so serious and totally personal post..

two days back i was asked a question "what am i passionate about" and damn i didnt have an answer..

what is my passion? I like to do a lot of things but then what am i passionate about..

1. i love to travel, but then am not so crazy that i can travel at the drop of a hat. well i dont think i have a hat but that shouldnt stop me from travelling anyway..

2. i love to eat good food.. but its not a passion

3. I love to read.. infact i read a lot.. i specifically like to read about history, natural history.. i can spend hours reading.. so can i call that my passion?

4. I started dabbling with photography like since pilani days.. i havea good portfolio but then i dont spend that much time taking photos these days, but then when i take my camera i love taking pictures..

5. I am into collecting masks and artefacts these days..like 2 weeks back i went to this antique shop and burnt about 350 bucks on vases and a wooden dragon and some paintings.. apparently no one except me appreciates the dragon and D has been totally critical of that piece.. i dare not call this my passion

6. I love to watch movies, but not that crazy about any particular actor or director.

7. i love to listen to music but not passionate about it or any particular group or singer or type. as long as i find whatever is playing soothing and befitting the mood i am in..

8. I like to read, think about what i read, analyse, write.. basically i love blogging.. but not sure if writing is my passion..

all in all, i have no idea what i am passionate about... Is there one such stuff on this planet that i will give up anything to do or hold. i am absolutely clueless...

Google's - Part II

Girish's response :

The Chinese government gains a lot by having the likes of Google in China. Why is Google so popular? They believe to have some of the best search/indexing technology, and not to mention their innovativeness in services provided. This summer I did an internship at Microsoft Research, where there is a big group working on MSN search (Google's competitors). You wouldn't believe -- it's no secret that much of their goals is just to keep up with Google. The web-search problem is really complicated --- how do you keep up with millions of possible requests that have to be serviced every second; well, you have a multiple server clusters, duplication of databases, fault-tolerance etc etc etc --- maintaining all this is non-trivial (sidebar: definitely no objective reality here, Kanags ;)). Bottom-line, Google's strategies and techniques are top-notch, and the rest of the industry just fights to keep up with them. For example, Google is one of the best when it comes to fault tolerance -- when a server goes down, the system can automatically shift to another cluster. Others do this too, but there's a limit -- when the fault is really high, human intervention is needed; currently, the fault tolerance in Google servers and databases are the best in the industry. So, to make a long story short, "what does it take for Chinese government to build a search engine?" -- A LOT, esp if you want Google quality. In fact, the reason Google is objecting to Bush's requests is not just because of protecting privacy; it is generally agreed in the industry and in the media, that the reason they resist is because they don't want to expose trade secrets. Others, MSN search and Yahoo, obliged to Bush; Google is the leader, and they don't want to give anything away.

"On a broader level, should companies that operate from the free world stop doing business with repressive countries?"Yes, that's my opinion. For example, Burmese military regime is terrible. They are amongst the most repressive in the world -- you have to learn about their repression and empathasize with the population to understand. If you apply economic sanctions on them, then the regime becomes weaker, and will re-think their strategy; if you acquiesce to them, you are making the more comfortable and possibly more repressive.

"people cite IBM's watson's supposed link with Hitler but isnt that again just one side of the story."Supposed?? Wake up, kanags, it's a well-known fact -- nobody including IBM denies this."The other side is that ibm's german subsidiary was taken over by the nazis in 1941."That is not the other side --- that is a consequence of dealing with a repressive regime.

"i just dont have all the facts to say that ibm's business in nazi germany was against a corporate ethics, to say it was money over integrity."What is your definition of corporate ethics? Does it even exist beyond lip-service? IBM knew exactly what the Nazis were upto, and knew exactly what their machines were used for -- damn they were in Germany setting it up as the Jew who was going to be massacared, had to say his personal information which was recorded using IBM machines. This is the most extreme form of repression -- I doubt we will ever see anything like this. If this doesn't spell it out for you, then I don't understand what you mean by corporate ethics. Get real, man!

"if there was a higher ulterior motive to get in there and make a slow change"My answer to that --- keep dreaming. I am yet to hear of a corporate entity in the history of commerce, that gives up huge chunks of revenue on moral grounds. Actually, Kanags, probably you should give me some examples -- I'm getting more and more cynical -- need some hope. And, I'm not talking about silly PR promos and lip-service. I'm talking about genuine moral concern.

"i do know that in the US, if i am not making profits, my company will be taken to task by the share holders, by the same free market system that we are so wanting to build and sustain and whatever value i am creating in the society for the betterment of people will be at risk.. So i would go into to china if i was in their position."EXACTLY!! That confirms my argument that corporate ethics is dead. Genuine corporate ethics should be willing to take losses to stand by their moral beliefs. When you give in to share-holders and profits, then you have given up. And, on the flip side, I think it is the lazy and greedy corporate that gives in so easily. I think the smarter corporate would sustain themselves despite standing by their moral beliefs -- again a reference to the "greedy algorithm" from my last post."get into china and be open about what i censor, but not agree to share private information"Nope. Google won't protect privacy info in China -- not gonna happen. If this was true, I wouldn't be complaining. This non-protection of privacy data leads to arrests of dissenters, and people who speak against the government. This has already happened thanks to Yahoo and MSN search.

**************

My take:
The world as we both agree is not a utopia. It is always a balance between good and evil. Girish, you have in the past argued that grey areas exist everywhere. I am in my arguments talking about these same grey areas. Why do u not see that what google did falls under this grey area rather than portraying it as black or white.

Note that i am not saying yes going in with arms wide open to buy and sell stuff in repressive regimes is the way to go. All i am saying is there is a balance. Sanctions in my mind is not the right way because i dont think we are achieving anything. Let us take googles technology itself, yes google is the best and chinese will not be able to use the best technology if it were not present there, but my argument is if that that country is not so backward in technology that they cant do a search engine themselves. it might not be a google but it will work and it will only return results the government wants. So u are not really solving anything by not going in. may be the so called free world massages its ego in that decision.

u might want to look at mazlows hierarchy of needs. Sanctions on the basic needs might bring a government to its needs but china is sufficient there. My opinion is sanctions in any way is not a way to go. Who suffers when there is a sanction? the repressive elite? no.. its the poor who suffer.. u sanctioned iraq for 10 years.. who sufferred? saddam or the man on the street in baghdad? the world changes at its own pace and each situation needs a different solution. and let us face it, the US law makers who are shouting their arse off about google are the same ones who gave china the MFN status in the early 90s even at the height of the T square incident. where did their social responsibility go at that time?

About IBM and Nazism, man there is no proof!. as i said i am not exonerating them nor am i crucifying them. Per laws defined in the same free world, u need to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.. i dont find one guys arguments as substantive. Maybe Watson was greedy and that is defn wrong considering what happenned, but my other side of the argument is something u never answered. What if the US turns to extreme extreme right, something worse than the Bush government, some government that declares emergency and infringes on individual rights more than what is currently done.. dont tell me it cant happen.. no one knew what nazi germany and hitler were capable of when they took power in 1933. and only in 1939 did the us declared war on germany.. do u think the corporates in the usa shud move away frm that market and not operate from the US because there is a possibility of such regime in the future thanks to Karl roves and the skewed definitions of the doctrine of morality and free world?

corporate ethics is defined by the organisations value system. Agreed there are some basic tenets of goodness defined but we both know that there is no two persons with the same value system or marality. So one man's ethics is another's greed.. isnt that always true? Yes, not cheating the stake holders is a ethics to be upheld, not going agains what you said u will do is to be upheld, not polluting the environment more than agreed upon carbon credits is to be upheld.. There are parameters within which an organisation works. Let us face it man, the world is not perfect. The anti capitalists and anti globalists, environmentalists keep shouting from there saying u are killing the planet, let us go back to stone age. on the other side u have the corporates some of which are greedy and some of which are moderate. You have these two on two sides of the scale. the question is balance. You cannot expect a world to do away with the need to run an economy and drop everything and do a mahatma gandhi (wear khadi and spin cotton and do agricultural sustainence).. that is an extreme, also one cannot expect the world to be based only on materialism and making more money... i say Choose a lesser evil for greater good and let the world have lesser moral policing.. I agree most corporate are greedy and have short term considerations in the mind and this is a serious issue which the management crowd has been debating on how to resolve and there is a whole set of initiatives under corporate social responsibility. Yes in the longer run, the stock market does pay u if u are ethical. enron is an example , world com is an example.. the stock market lost faith in these companies when the leaks happenned.. and if u take a look at the stock market, there have been cases of companies falling because of wrong practices..

i dont believe corporate ethics is dead. i believe that the corporate bashers demand an extreme while not understanding and appreciating the problems and demands a corporate faces.. Run a company where u have to ensure survival of the company and pay for 60 employees and go to sleep with the thought that if u screw up these 60 guys will be out of a job.. then u know how tough it is to balance ethics and morality versus existence. it all comes down to mazlow's hierarchy of needs. no one talks of environmental issues in a developing country cos people want the basics. its only in developed countries does environmental issues come to toe fore because they have the basic needs fulfilled. it works like that.. i am not saying i will sell my value system but i have no qualms in saying that if i have to pay 6000$ bribe in india to ensure that my office is up and running fast so that i can pay these employees and create value, i will do it, even if god (if there is one) puts me in hell for that. cos thats the price i pay to ensure that i can create value. i can stay away by not paying that bribe but i am not doing justice.. one the other side, if i am asked to pay a bribe or a cut to get the business from a client i will never do that. my value system allows the former but not the latter. thats my mazlows table. u might question that both are wrong, I agree a wrong is a wrong, i am not denying that, all i am saying is i weight my wrongs against my value system.. yes u will argue that anything can be justified, sure i agree, but as i said its the question of ones value system, what is wrong for u might be right for me and thats the story..its all relativity and as morrie says conflict between the extremes it is always..

by not going in to china, google might loose market, loose to competition and in the longer run it might lead to this organisations competitiveness being threatened which means a loss of a lot of value in terms of jobs, or even the technology that was created. by not going in there you are not helping anything, china will stay the same in the short term whether google goes in or not so there is no difference. by going into china, i am not killing someone, i am not cheating someone, i am not destroying value. yes i am giving away some of my freedom of operations in following some regulations, but that is the world.. didnt the USA sign the patriot act after sep 11.. wasnt I called in for "random" checks whenever i boarded a flight(the other question is random checks happened on all flights i travelled for me), but thats a price i pay for making sure i am safe.. similarly i think googles move is a price they pay for betterment of society. In my view there is no society in this world which is not repressive one way or the other, its question of relativity again.

And by the way, do u know of these "repressions of facts" in the so called free world : France and Germany require censorship for Nazi sites, and the U.S. requires censorship based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These are local Laws. How is google following local laws in China any different?

As for the 9 dollar fall that is because of earnings were below expectations. And as for the examples of corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility goes here they are.

Merck and Mectizan:On October 21, 1987, Merck & Co., Inc., announced plans to donate Mectizan (ivermectin), a new medicine designed to combat onchocerciasis ('river blindness'), for as long as it might be needed. Merck took this action, working in collaboration with international experts in parasitology, the World Health Organization, and other agencies to reach those affected by the illness. You can find more information when do a google on Merck and Mectizan. Some insider information based on a case i studied at school. When Merck developed this drug, everyone from WHO to all NGOs refused to distribute it citing costs. Finally Merck distributed the drug itself..

‘Access to Electricity’ programs initiated by ABB as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility Activities in a few less developed parts of the world. The program was begun at Ngarambe, a village situated near the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania. Here, the program was able to bring electricity to Ngarambe and besides, the electrification project helped in the economic and social development of the village while taking care of environmental concerns. ABB used the ‘Access to Electricity’ project as a learning experience and committed itself to undertaking more such corporate social responsibility activities with the long term aim of generating stable revenues.

Read about J&J's costly but efficient recall program when Tylenol got laced with cyanide. company could have held the line that the contamination happenned outside its manufacturing process as it was established but thats not CSR.

Look at some of HSBC's CSR initiatives.

These are just some i know of. Of course, I can also cite a list of Corporate Social Irresponsibilities by corporations examples include the case of Ford's Pinto, to Nike's labor policies etc to name a few. I do agree that the number of cases of CSIR are more than CSR as management is constantly caught between the need to make short term profits versus greater good and my stance is one cannot expect a black and white path or demand a black and white path. the road is going to be grey. What i see however in the world today is cynicism, which i believe is a besetting sin of those who claim to be upholding "morality" and "virtuosness".

Google's googly or was it China's?

Just when i finish writing an article about ethics and capitalism, google, one of the organisations that i held in high regard because of its strict privacy policies and ethics, whose esteem rose further when they asked the Bush government to go screw themselves in not releasing information that is private, bends over backward for the chinese.

There are definitely two sides of arguments to this whole deal. One side of me says Corporate code of conduct and ethics has once again put up for sale!!! Google's argument that by getting into China albeit giving up what they held core, they are providing a service that people lack and in time they will open up. I believe that it is just a play of words hidden inside which lies the truth which is "I want a share of the market, to hell with ethics". This is entirely in agreement with the what reporters without borders say or what even Girish's arguments in his post. Although i do understand where he is coming from and agree with most points, i have my reservations.

Now let us look at the other side of the coin. The easiest wash off will be oh btw, google already owned a good chunk of baidu, the home grown chinese search engine so this is nothing new, but that doesnt tell the whole story. Agreed, if all the non mainland based search engine companies come together and self sanction then maybe the chinese government will have to agree. But then what is the government gaining by letting these companies in? If i am going to enforce sanctions, the chinese government will think different.. they are not iraq. What will it take for them to float a government linked corporation within china which launches a search engine that is totally regulated by the government? absolutely nothing.. what will the world say then.. oh yes.. fine, the chinese have their own search engine...we know that they are repressive anyway, they are not using any of the western "Free" world companies or programs so hell with them.. wouldnt that be the reaction?

On a broader level, should companies that operate from the free world stop doing business with repressive countries? Is that the solution to everything? people cite IBM's watson's supposed link with Hitler but isnt that again just one side of the story. The other side is that ibm's german subsidiary was taken over by the nazis in 1941. one can find both sides of the argument in wikipedia. i am not absolving ibm neither am i crucifying them. i just dont have all the facts to say that ibm's business in nazi germany was against a corporate ethics, to say it was money over integrity. in a similar vein, what if in one of the "free" countries that these companies operate from decide to go extreme right and become pseudo repressive, will the companies move their corporate office someplace else? is that what one should expect.. we already know the supposedly free world is a pseudo free world driven by litigative society where everyone is as confused about individual rights as they are about gun control.

I do not know if the decision to go into china with these self imposed restrictions from google was motivated by a need to capture market and increase revenues or if there was a higher ulterior motive to get in there and make a slow change.. i am not a board member and i do not know the answer. but if i were a board member, i do know that in the US, if i am not making profits, my company will be taken to task by the share holders, by the same free market system that we are so wanting to build and sustain and whatever value i am creating in the society for the betterment of people will be at risk.. So i would go into to china if i was in their position. from the ethical stand point, yes staying away is the easy job, i can say yeah they are repressive so i wont go there. But i could be brave and decide to do the google.. get into china and be open about what i censor, but not agree to share private information. Google could have done a better job in conveying to its stake holders on its reasoning behind the decision than leave it so unclear. I think it is a brave decision, its a decision that probably tries to create greater good by agreeing to a lesser evil at present because if we believe that the world is moving forward to a place where there will be greater freedom and respect of individual rights, when that transition happens, Chinese will be ready to enjoy that. it is a decision that is probably the bext given the circumstances in both commerical and policital/ethical aspects.

In a lighter vein, maybe the chinese are forward thinkers after all, they are getting their subjects ready for a freer world one step at a time..