To Make the world a better place

Month: December, 2013



Just like the pearly gates of heaven where St. Peter stands to admit new arrivals, there is another one where an angel interviews those who go out to be born on earth. Each little soul has to fill in a form with the following questions:-

Which country do you want to be born in?

Theist, Atheist, Agnostic or Indifferent?

If theist, any religion preferred?

Sex: F or M?

If Normal orientation not desired, then the required Sexual Orientation: Homo, B or T?

The soul is born on earth according to whatever answers it gives the Angel.

You know this is only a silly little story I made up just now. But whether such a choice is made or not, the person being born on earth has no memory of any such decision he made at any time about his sexual orientation. He just knows what he likes and tries to be happy. To him, what he is is not what he has chosen; it is but only a given. A person born as an L, G, B or T would live happily as such; had he been born as Normal, he would have lived happily as Normal.


As a 60-year old family man, I have to observe this much:- if one applies the test of extremes and asks “what will happen if all human beings become homosexuals?”, the answer points out that homosexuality is basically untenable. Mind you, I am not saying it is a crime. I have not thought of the legal or moral aspects. I am just commenting on the biologic. The biology is that female and male interact and bring forth progeny. And the progeny, in their turn, repeat it. Thus we have come so far from the first organism that reproduced ‘sexually’. Of course homosexuality has existed in history, perhaps it exists in other species too as some people claim. But IMO the recent apparent increase in homosexuality is attributable to the breakdown of the family, therefore the disruption of the formation of the progeny into progenitors as nature needs. Hypothetically speaking, chances are that a homosexual would have been as pleased with his life had he been sent out by the Creator with the normal orientation. He/she would never know differently!

It can be hoped that the extreme condition will not come to pass, that this state of aberration will soon be corrected. But it is doubtful. There are two reasons why I doubt.


One is that there seems to be a drive to push the world into the same-sex orientation, ie: for the not-normal to become the norm. By who? We don’t know now, we might know some day. For what? Possibly to convert the entire world into worker drones who only exist for food and fun…”panem et cirences” as the ancient Roman patricians thought would be enough to keep the plebeians in line and in permanent subjugation. Food and Circus was ancient Roman. Modern world has so much more at its disposal. But with longer and ‘more fun’ life, mankind will have been taken a step down into less meaningful and fulfilling lives that nobody would be wiser about. Horrible, is it not?

What about replenishment of stock? The people behind this push may be thinking that enough workers can be ‘manufactured’ in hospitals. In all probability they will be LGBTs, something like the human version of the broiler chicken that do not reproduce naturally.

My second reason is that as broken families increase, the number of those with sexual deviations is also likely to keep on increasing. The only corrective force is the ‘family’. But as the medicine itself becomes corrupted, the sickness will prevail.


One argument counter to mine is that LGBTs are produced even in normal families. Most often what the objector means by ‘normal family’ will be merely that there will be two parents, a man and a woman, who are not divorced ever. But that does not mean that the parenting will be right or normal. A harsh father, an unloving mother, loving parents but innocently exposing their children to not-normal environmental influences – certainly these are conditions which can prevail even in supposedly normal families. Parenting is the key. What is a ‘normal family’? The definition should include ‘the ability to raise normal children who will grow up equipped to set up normal families and have their own normal children.” Wrong social conditions produce wrong parenting. That in turn produces children who may be normal in sexual orientation but may not be ‘normal’ in the ability to bring up ‘normal’ children.

As some of you may have noticed, there is a campaign going on to undermine the family. Some say a conspiracy. Some say it is a natural evolution. IMO it is high time that the LGBTs realize that they are actually being victimized, in a deeper sense, through the support that they are given. Just like a man born with a speech defect or a lame leg, what LGBTs need to be given is respect and affection, and treatment to restore their condition to the normative.


These days every newspaper carries some article pushing LGBT rights. It is amazing. Speaking from India, it seems that a poor person belonging to a backward and marginalized community will be better off becoming L, G, B or T at his speediest – he will soon have all sorts of supporters and privileges. We are following the global trend. There seems to be something or someone sitting somewhere turning a steering wheel.

Reason tells me that those who promote LGBT interests for temporary gains are hurting themselves, the LGBTs, and humankind itself, in the long run. Whatever it is, unless the LGBTs themselves sit up, take notice and act, the number of LGBT souls knocking on Heaven’s ‘OUT’ door is likely to increase.

Be prepared for future schlok! Better, act to Make the World A Better Place.







This is the view of an informed outsider. Academicians might find much to balk at, but I feel the view of the man in the street needs to be respected more. I am writing from India because the actions of the US have global impact. 

The USA’s land area is about three times that of India. Its population is about one fourth. The average US citizen owns twelve times as much air, earth and water as the average Indian. Naturally the per-capita GDP of an American must be twelve times that of an Indian. On Purchasing Power Parity basis, the per-capita GDP of an Indian is around $ 4000/, that of an American is approximately $ 51,000/. There, you have it. Twelve times 4000. is 48,000/. Off the mark by just 3000. (Frankly, I have not tested if this will hold water for other countries. So I am not proposing this as a general theory. Let professional economists see if they can make something of this)

On the other hand, what are the actual GDPs in monetary terms? Of the US it is $ 52000/, of India it is $ 1500/. The US’s is higher than the ’12 times’ ‘norm’ by $ 34,000/. There is an explanation for this.


The difference represents the greater amount of will that an American exerts on global affairs than does the average Indian. Not the ‘Red’ Indian but the ‘brown’ one from India. Historically that assertion has manifested itself in three ways:-

One is the aspiration to a greater being: bigger, healthier, wealthier and longer-living. The American man had a greater engagement with and enjoyment of the material world. The natural resources at his disposal were exploited more than by the Indian; and he innovated and invented to enhance his engagement – in both production and consumption.

The second is a superior work ethic which translated into higher productivity. His innovations and inventions increased his productivity further through the tools – like the tractor, the telephone, the computer – that multiplied the capacity of man much more than what the Indian had.

The third is the projection of power. The American parlayed what he had into a globally present cultural influence that has largely determined the way the whole world lives now; and also translated that wealth and influence into political and military clout which in turn reinforces the cultural influence. The influence, in its turn, added premiums to the prices the US could charge for its goods and services. The Indian’s performance in this respect has been poor.


What the US needs to do now is to start a new New Deal to strengthen the three forces.

As a first step, enable the average American to regain the ability to dream the American dream of working hard and making good. It seems ‘working hard’ has been replaced by ‘pulling strings’ and ‘getting drafted into the right circles’ more. Otherwise all the hard work a man undertakes still leaves him in debt with a barely satisfactory life on hands. He will be forever in debt for his education, his car, his home.

As a second step, shift economic weightage a bit, away from leisure & entertainment and into better education, retraining and motivation of the workforce. (Well, I do not mean the normal channels of leisure and entertainment). A disciplined and skilled workforce will enhance productivity and competitiveness. Jobs in manufacturing will rise. Job drain will decrease. To support this increase in available labor in the nascent stage, create jobs through higher government spending to support infrastructure projects that improve agricultural productivity, improve transportation efficiency (achieving lower unit costs without reducing quality) and improve availability of cleaner Energy (achieving lower unit costs and higher share in total production). This will lead to more jobs, GDP growth, and higher revenues.




The result of the above two reforms will be the increase of global influence for the US. A new positive cycle of the three forces will be established. If accompanied by wiser international engagement, this positive cycle can benefit the whole world. The US will be able to import more from other countries, and correspondingly export more of what it is good at.

Everybody will be happy. Wall Street gets more investment opportunities. People get more jobs and higher spending power. Government gets more revenue and balances the budget. The brighter ones get to live the American dream. The rest of the world gets more business. It is win-win for all. Peace and prosperity indeed!

So YOU S. of A., it is possible for you to make the world a better place. It is time to act.Think of these before tapering and QE.



Jacob J. Mappilacherry




Dear Mothers,

As the father of a student, I am struck by the shooting at Centennial, Colorado. It strikes a raw nerve because it happened only a few miles from the sites of two other horrendous shootings. All shootings and killings are bad, but in schools?! In this age of the instant news, the pain is felt acutely even as far away as India. The tendency of Indian social behavior to take after life in the US makes me ask a few questions of American mothers.

The American Dilemma:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Right. So the pro-gun people are against bans or licensing. Understandable. The government should see that people behave, they say

But the concerns on the other side are more pressing. The massive use of legal drugs (Charles Krauthamer writes that medicines and the health industry make one sixth of the US economy), illegal drugs and alcohol has affected the psychological wellbeing of people. The competitive pressure of the race for survival affects their ability to cope. Single-parent families and foster-foster parents worsen the situation. Civilization, ie: civil-ization, suffers. The orderly process of a married-for-life heterosexual father-and-mother duo nurturing their children with love and care, developing their characters, and bringing them up as well-rounded personalities who can face life confidently – the family, in short – has nearly disappeared. The business scenario is such that it does not inspire much confidence. Parenting and growing up have become very difficult acts to accomplish.  

This is further complicated by the violence on TV and the horror books and movies…and you have a perfect recipe for disaster in the form of mental breakdowns as the Hard Disk of an overloaded computer crashes now and then. Breakdowns? It is like those computers were not even put together well to begin with.

Now, can gun control be avoided in a country where a large percentage of people belong to the psychologically challenged class?

A Middle Course:

The obvious answer is that, in consideration of US history and the current social scenario (high crime rates, psychos abroad, a big population of guns in the wrong hands), a ban on gun ownership should not be imposed now. But there should be a process of licensing under which strict background checks should be mandatory for gun shop owners and gun buyers. It means actually only those with criminal records or medication history will be denied ownership of guns. So the sellers and makers of guns will not lose much business. Nor will the fraternity of gun users lose any worthy member.

Many civilized countries have such laws. Why not in the US? Why do not mothers lobby for it?

A Bigger Dilemma:

Civilization progresses with the female push. Possibly a mother trying to prevent her sons from killing each other over mating rights started the institution of marriage. Possibly a young wife wanting her children brought up smarter than other children started the institution of lifelong monogamy and family. It is the gentler female who would think these up first than the aggressive male who could not afford to blink and back off in life’s man-to-man confrontations. 

I am asking you now, American women. What are you going to do about your present social culture which has left the family in tatters, jeopardized the safety of your children, and  threatens even the birth of your grandchildren?

I know many in India are watching and waiting for your cues.

Best wishes,


Jacob J. Mappilacherry








The ongoing unemployment situation demands a new look at the way the world’s economy is being managed.




Dear friends, ordinary folks East and West,

Academics and professionals usually get into a rut of ideas. Over a period of time it retards their ability to think originally. They merely continue further along the rut even when circumstances call for a radical change of thinking. 

Larry Summers, One-time US Treasury Secretary and noted Harvard economist, asserts that it is dangerous for Western economies to depend on the progress of India and China to sort out the West’s own economic problems. He is right. But when he seeks to assert that all economies are bound to crash at some point and that India and China will not be able to maintain their high growth rate for long, I think he is fundamentally wrong.

In case of both the developing and the developed countries, he is basing his arguments on financial statistics past and…

View original post 350 more words