Hashemian Blog Web Tools, Financial Markets, Technology Tuesday, September 22, 2009 Iran Kidney Trade  I already knew that Iran is the only country in the world where the sale of the kidney is not only legal, but government sanctioned and subsidized. When I sat behind my desk to watch the documentary, Iranian Kidney Bargain Sale, I already knew what to expect - sort of. There were 2 things that affected me quite deeply: 1- The human faces and stories behind the kidney trades. 2- The tough ethical and moral questions that creep up on the viewer. Here you have two desperate and nearly hopeless people, each clinging to the hope that the other party can resolve their devastating problem. One gripped with such destitute that has decided to sell a vital organ, the other in urgent need of a kidney to regain a semblance of a normal life. As I watched the movie, I kept wavering between siding with the donor and the recipient. I would condemn the Iranian government for allowing the kidney trade, only to condone it a few moments later. This is not a simple black and white matter. It's one big gray area. Is it fair for people to sell their kidneys for as little as $3,000? Is it fair that potential recipients continue to haggle over price, as if buying a car? And yet, is it fair that some of the lives saved could have been lost without this trade? Or perhaps barring the legal trade, unscrupulous black market operators abuse and intimidate potential donors at their most vulnerable times, the way it's done in India or Pakistan? To be fair, the government does seem to have strict policies in regards to who can donate and who can receive a kidney. Among the rules, they must both be Iranian citizens (eliminating potential abuse by wealthy foreigners) and they must pass rigorous medical exams to qualify for the procedure. I would imagine that the little money the donors receive could hardly resolve their problems. In most cases they would be back at their original financial position, minus a healthy kidney. The recipients seem to benefit the most from the trade, that is if the transplants are successful. In the end I still couldn't make up my mind on whether allowing this practice was ethical. Given all the parameters, I think the kidney trade in Iran is somewhat beneficial to the society, because it does assist in saving lives. Not just the lives of the recipients, but also the lives of the donors who would otherwise be at the mercy of the black market operators. Then again my opinion couldn't possibly carry that much weight, since I haven't walked in the shoes of the people on either side of the kidney trade. kidney transplant,iran,laws Labels: financial, social <Iran Kidney Trade> // posted by rh 0 comments Friday, September 18, 2009 The Bridge  I'd heard about the documentary movie, The Bridge, and always wanted to see it. Thanks to Hulu I got to watch it last night. Based on what I had read, the producers had set up cameras around the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco, filming for the entire year of 2004. The intention was to capture jumpers. Of course they hadn't mentioned that detail on their permit application. The movie tells the stories of a few jumpers that succumbed to their deaths and one that actually survived the fall. Shots from their attempt is interspersed with interviews with families and friends. It's a powerful commentary on human frailties and struggles. Possessing a dark side of my own, I can understand why some people may decide to end their lives. What I don't understand is how their logic and reason is so completely circumvented. I must assume that for the jumpers all hope was lost and despair dominated their lives completely. What was striking is that most were young and healthy. I can understand (and support) the desire to die from an elderly patient stricken with a terminal disease, but these people had many chances to turn things around. Time was firmly on their side. I don't know, who am I to judge? Maybe we make too much of a big deal of life and living. We're all destined to be recycled anyways. May they rest in peace. golden gate,san francisco,suicide Labels: social <The Bridge> // posted by rh 0 comments Sunday, July 26, 2009 Neuschwanstein Castle  If you ever find yourself in Bavaria, southern Germany, one of the attractions you won't want to miss is the Neuschwanstein castle. The castle was built in the late 1800 by King Ludwig II but its design was borrowed from the splendid castles of the medieval period. What makes the Neuschwanstein castle a popular destination is its amazing location, perched on a hill at the base of the Alps mountains, its enormous size, and its majestic design. It seems like the king spared no expense in making sure that the castle was grand in its splendor and beauty, bringing it to the top of its class among its peers. Being a private king, the castle was off-limits to the public, but after the king's death it was opened for all to come and admire the structure. That's why on a recent visit to Bavaria, I put the castle in my list of places to visit and it didn't disappoint. The castle is about a 2-hour car trip from Munich. Once we reached the town of Fussen, we just followed the signs to the location. There's ample parking at the base and the castle is about a half hour walk up. There are also horse-drawn carriages that can take people up the hill for a nominal fee. Parts of the castle are off-limits but visitors can still wander about the grounds as they try to imagine what living in such a structure must have been liked. There are also guided tours inside the castle in English and German. With its combination of history, natural surroundings, and architectural beauty, the Neuschwanstein castle is a treasure well worth a trip to experience. Neuschwanstein,germany,bavaria Labels: social <Neuschwanstein Castle> // posted by rh 0 comments Monday, May 25, 2009 The Morality Argument  For centuries religion has used various natural events and objects as proof of god. The Sun, the rain, storms, plants, and the stars have been essential tools in justifying the existence of god. But as science has progressed and has been able to provide answers for many tangible matters, religion has shifted its argument to the metaphysical, mainly the question of morality. The crux of the argument is that without an originator, morality could not have come to existence. In other words there is a supernatural force that guides us towards being moral and ethical, and that force is god. Indeed science is currently impotent to link morality with molecules and atoms, but one can argue that morality is the result of accumulated human experiences and a need for perfection. Centuries of human development has taught people that societies can better function based on certain rules and one can sum up such rules as morality. If god is responsible for morality, why would he dictate such behavior only in the last few millennium? And why is it that the rules of morality differ so much is various societies today? Many indigenous people around the world walk around with no clothes on. Polygamy is still widely practiced around the world. Stoning and severing limbs or heads happens in many places for even minor offences. Some consider these immoral, while others do not. And if god is the origin for everything, shouldn't he be considered as the originator of immorality as well? Isn't he the creator of Satan after all? Isn't god directly responsible for death and destruction and natural disasters and famine and disease? It seems hard to believe that without god moral people would suddenly turn into rampaging criminals, that they would abruptly turn into thieves, rapists, and murderers. I think most of us try to be good because generations of built-up experiences have taught us that civility gives much more favorable returns than chaos and anarchy. If morality is pre-programmed by a supreme being with no alternatives, then what value can be placed on forced virtue? And what good is morality if only practiced out of fear? To quote Albert Einstein, "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." god,religion,morality Labels: religion, social <The Morality Argument> // posted by rh 0 comments Monday, April 06, 2009 Facebook Backsliding  Not being much of a social person, I've never had much interest in the social aspect of Facebook, but being naturally inquisitive, I have my own account there just to kick the tires, so to speak. I think the clean design and the API library were appealing at first. But shortly after, the novelty wore off and now I barely login anymore. What I have also noticed with Facebook fans is that many have started to de-friend each other, the process of removing people from friends lists. I suppose it's the same with real life, friends and acquaintances come and go in one's life. The virtual world is probably no different. But there are a couple of subtle differences with Facebook. Firstly, when people initially joined the network they added anyone and everyone they knew, some to reconnect, others to help raise their social status ranking. Since then many have realized that they don't want to openly share aspects of their lives with everyone. This brings me to the second difference. With Facebook, a person uniformly shares his/her private posts with everyone in their list. That's hardly similar to the real world where friends are given an unspoken and unquantifiable trust ranking and even that varies depending on the subject matter. Facebook can hardly mimic that level of complexity. The end result is that many are now scrubbing their lists (much to the chagrin of those dumped unceremoniously) and have become more selective in allowing people in. That would surely lead to less traffic on the social network site. As for me, Facebook never was my cup of tea. Some old acquaintances are best left in the past, to be visited in memory or the pictures. For others, there's always email and telephone. facebook,social networking Labels: social, web <Facebook Backsliding> // posted by rh 0 comments Thursday, March 12, 2009 Ponzi Sentencing  I have to admit to a bit of sympathy for the convicted schemer, Bernie Madoff, when I saw his picture today (he pleaded guilty today). I suppose if I had lost my life's savings in his game, I wouldn't be so forgiving. There's probably something about sentencing frail old men or women that gives it an aura of cruelty, regardless of what these people were like at their height of power. Even though Madoff and other white collar criminals spend their sentences in minimum security penitentiaries and don't face the harsh times experienced by violent criminals, the fact remains that they are locked up and taxpayers will have to foot the bills. There must be a more humane way to mete out justice with less burden on the society. For example the government could seize all their assets, strap a monitoring device on them and give them a small monthly stipend and food stamps equivalent to what people on welfare receive and then let them loose. That sort of punishment is a more humane way of treating white collar criminals and it's probably more cost effective than locking them up in some expensive institution. Their criminal records and their monitoring devices will keep them in check, while they get a taste of life as a part of the underprivileged class of people struggling to survive. madoff,ponzi scheme,criminal justice,welfare Labels: law, social <Ponzi Sentencing> // posted by rh 0 comments Tuesday, January 20, 2009 Obama  Unlike some, I have no illusions about the fact that Obama is just one man against a wall of issues that have gripped this country, thanks in part to the careless and malicious way the previous administration ran its affairs. The country is in the midst of two wars, fighting global terrorism, butting heads with the old enemy, Russia, and facing a devastating financial crisis with job losses, business failures, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies in huge numbers. Not to mention a long list of social issues like retirement programs, healthcare, affordable education, and transportation. Obama is right when he says the problems are not easy to fix and will take hard work and patience. It may take generations. For now, I salute him for having the courage and the fighting spirit to reach the Presidency. I also admire him for frequently mentioning non-believers (atheists and agnostics) in an inclusive way with people of other faiths. No, he will not be a savior nor a miracle-worker. All we can hope for is that he is honest, smart, and diligent. And in the end even if he accomplishes nothing, that's still a relative positive compared to the way this country was (mis-)led previously. obama,election,usa Labels: social <Obama> // posted by rh 0 comments Sunday, January 04, 2009 Best Valentine's Day Gift Ever  With the holiday season behind us and the data reflecting dismal sales for most retailers, the economy is probably focused on the next big spending opportunity by consumers, Valentine's day. We all know that this is basically a revenue generation scam, but there's nothing wrong with women buying something for their men this Valentine's day. So here's my suggestion, depicted below. A beautifully appointed Zenith watch from Amazon.com. At a 40% discount and only a $20 shipping cost, it'll make a perfect gift. Can you just imagine paying for standard shipping and having the package dropped off behind your door only to be dragged away by an animal or wind or something? * Image tightened-up to show all elements. amazon,watches,luxury watches,valentine's day,holidays Labels: amazon, social <Best Valentine's Day Gift Ever> // posted by rh 1 comments Friday, January 02, 2009 2009 in NYC  I don't have a great affection for loud holiday celebrations. Not that there's anything wrong with them. Mine just happens to be a subdued personality shunning large and loud crowds. But when your kids want to see the ball drop in New York City, you put your prejudices aside and take the plunge. One must experience everything at least once, with some exceptions of course. My take: it was miserable. This comes close to the concept of cruel and unusual punishment, except that people actually choose to or are chosen to do it. We actually started out late. Some accounts have people arriving at Times Square at dawn on new year's day. Our train reached the Grand Central Station around 9 PM and as we emerged from the station we were welcomed by a blast of arctic air. In fact it was one of coldest new year's eves recorded in New York City. We joined the throngs of people trying to make their way to Times Square but we soon ran into blockades and barricades set up by the police to prevent people from going any further east than fifth avenue. The police kept sending people further up to make the crossing to Broadway and we kept going until we hit Central Park. We were finally able to cross eastward and after passing security check we were stopped once again by more barricades and told that no more people will be allowed in. Cold and miserable we turned around and backtracked our way to possibly find another way in. By that time the kids just wanted to go home, but we pressed on, refueling with a couple of expensive pretzels bought from a street vendor and hot beverages in a Starbucks store with one of the longest bathroom lines I had ever seen. I pity the person who has to clean up that mess. In the end we settled for watching the ball from the corner of W 44th and 6th. Standing in the cold, pressed in the crowds for an hour, we saw the ball drop, go dark and the ensuing fireworks erupt. People cheered as best as the could in that chill, but the whole event seemed anti-climatic to me. I was just happy that kids actually saw what we came to see. As we settled in for the train ride back home, I was just happy to realize that with my duty fulfilled, I don't have to come back to this event ever again. If you are brave (or crazy) enough to want to see the ball drop, here's a short list of rules to consider based on my experience: Expect the worst but bring your best and most patient attitude. It's cold, you'll walk a lot, stand a lot, will get pushed and pulled and pressed a lot. Short fuses won't stand a chance. Stay away from drinks (soft or hard drinks). Bathroom opportunities are nearly non-existent. Dress warmly (heavy coats, hats, gloves, etc). Have something to eat. Your body needs the energy to fight the cold and the stress. Don't believe what the cops tell you when you ask them a question. They are generally courteous and friendly, but their primary task is crowd control and safety. To them you are like cattle being herded into a slaughterhouse. About the only truthful statement they will tell you is that you can't cross. Everything else is said to keep you calm and keep you hoping that you can eventually get to your destination while you're going in circles. Don't expect a surreal experience or anything. It’s just a flashing ball sliding down a pole with a bit of fireworks at the end. It's way overrated and not that exciting. Finally, if you missed the big party, don't despair. Starting this year, you can see the ball year-round. Ok, it's not the same thing as being there when the year flips over, but you'll have a front-row seat any other day. Have a happy and healthy 2009. 2009,nyc,new york city,new york,times square,new year's eve Labels: social <2009 in NYC> // posted by rh 0 comments Thursday, April 24, 2008 Religious Contextual Ads  Sometimes contextual ads can reveal interesting facts about a site and its visitors. For some time I have noticed that Google Adsense has been displaying a certain banner for a site targeting Muslims seeking marriage partners. Personally I don't mind religious ads on my site. It's all about business. I consider myself an agnostic (as in, I can not with certainty prove or disprove the existence of god or the validity of any religion,) but I have a liberal view towards faith. People should be free to choose whatever creed works for them as long as they don't force it on others. I don't know what algorithm Google employs in targeting Adsense ads, but I must assume they strive to maximize click-through rates. It's possible that many of my site's visitors are Muslims (or Moslems, as Persians pronounce it), or perhaps my middle-eastern last name, Hashemian, triggers these banners. My bet is on the latter. To the algorithm, I'm just an unknown visitor from the U.S. who happens to be visiting the site. At any rate, there must be some religious profiling at work here. I haven't seen any Christian or Jewish or Hindu-oriented ads on my site. Certainly I haven't seen anything for matching Agnostics or Atheists. If the site helps two Muslims find each other and become a couple, that's cool with me. But if the marriage produces a male child (or female, for that matter,) I only hope they resist the temptation to have their child genitally mutilated, or in euphemistic term, circumcised. islam,agnosticism,atheism,marriage,dating,circumcision,persia,iran,adsense Labels: adsense, religion, social <Religious Contextual Ads> // posted by rh 0 comments Thursday, March 08, 2007 Marriage Proposals by Email?  Maybe I'm over the hill, or perhaps being married for years has blinded me to newer dimensions of matrimonial romance. An online dating site is one thing, but an online marriage site is a completely different matter, at least to me. So imagine my surprise when I saw this Google Ad (to the right) on this very site tonight. I believe Shaadi is an Indian site. Actually the word in Persian translates to "happiness". Maybe the process of finding a bride is different in India. Perhaps this site is more frequented by parents looking for suitable spouses for their children than potential bachelors and bachelorettes. Maybe this is just a gimmicky marketing line to draw people into a dating site. Whatever the case, the site seems to be a popular one, judging by its Google and Alexa rankings. I just can’t see how one can meet a potential life-long mate online and send a proposal via an email. Well, going by the tag line, not just one proposal, but multiple ones. It's like a statistical dartboard. Throw enough darts at the board and one is bound to hit bull's eye. If I were single, I might've given dating sites a try. I'm sure in some instances people end up finding a partner through those sites. But I would hesitate using a site like this one to find a wife. This site certainly ups the ante, by purporting to take care of the whole process, save the actual vows. On second thought, many marriages are long distance these days, so maybe a site like this can handle all the details, complete with a virtual ceremony. Come to think of it, this could be an appropriate complement to a site like Second Life where a bunch of avatars get together to witness two avatars exchange their vows in a virtual chapel. They could buy a house and furnish it using Linden dollars, have a bunch of avatar kids and grow old together in virtual bliss. Who knows, divorce rates could be much lower in the land of flying sprites than that in the real world. What would the virtual divorce and prenup lawyers do with all their free time? marriage,online dating,divorce,second life,shaadi Labels: social <Marriage Proposals by Email?> // posted by rh 1 comments Sunday, January 21, 2007 Lotto Mystery  I dabble occasionally in Lotto and most of the time I forget to check my numbers until a couple of weeks after the drawings. What’s the point of being punctual? They're all losers anyways. At least I can stretch the fantasy-time by delaying the number-checking. Playing Lotto is a matter of fortuity for me. If I am at a store and I happen to see the Lotto counter as I happen to pass by it and the attendant happens to be free and I happen to have a couple of dollar bills or a few quarters I want to unload, and the jackpot happens to be enticing enough, I might give it a shot. I understand all about criticizing those who only play when the jackpot exceeds $100 million or something. It's not like I'm a snob and turn my nose up to a $100 grand or even $20 for that matter. It's just that part of playing Lotto is the fantasy of winning big and never having to worry about money. Sorry, but a million bucks isn’t what it used to. I find it just too pathetic to fantasize about a measly million. And a million dollar Lotto pot is hardly a million anyways. On a 21-payment deal and after taxes and other fees are done nibbling at it, you’d be lucky to get $30k per year. That's like working full-time making $15 an hour – not bad but this isn’t fantasy material. But no matter how much the jackpot is, it must hurt to find out too late that you were a winner and didn't act fast enough to claim your loot. That is exactly what's about to happen on a Connecticut Lotto ticket whose numbers came up on Feb, 14, 2006. Every now and then when I surf on to the CT Lotto site to check my weeks-old numbers (so I can toss my tickets with the confidence of a loser), I see the message about the $3.5 million unclaimed jackpot. Could it have been my ticket? I play the CT Lotto occasionally and I'm sure I've lost tickets before. I doubt it's mine though, but whoever owns that ticket doesn’t have much time to make that claim. Chances are that whoever the winner is, he/she is totally unaware of this. Maybe she tucked away the ticket and then passed away or had a stroke. Or maybe it was left in the back pocket of someone's jeans and got tossed into the washer and disintegrated. Or perhaps fell out of the owner's wallet onto the street and got battered by cars and the weather. Or maybe it was a going away gift for someone visiting Katmandu and the visitor decided to take up a primitive one-year residence at the base of a Himalayan mountain. I like to think the ticket's owner is just planning on surprising everyone by showing up at the claims office at the last possible moment. That might generate some extra income like going on talk show circus, getting a book deal, or even starting a blog. Who can survive on a mere $3.5 million these days? Here's the unclaimed jackpot page: CT Lottery - Classic Lotto - February 14, 2006 Jackpot Ticket lotto,jackpot,unclaimed lotto Labels: social <Lotto Mystery> // posted by rh 1 comments Sunday, November 19, 2006 PS3 and the culture of impatience  Judging by video games today, we have certainly come a long way. I remember my first video game. I must have been about 13 or 14 when we bought it at a tag sale. It was one of those consoles that you hooked up to the TV and it pretty much offered a crude black and white ping pong game that you could play against the console or an opponent sitting next to you. Plain joysticks slid two sticks up and down on the screen and a square ball bounced back and forth over a thick line bisecting the screen. I played that game countless times against a wall or on occasion, my sister. I think that console is still somewhere in the bowels of the house where my parents still live. My fascination with that game, or any video games for that matter, is no longer there but I can understand the excitement a kid (or an adult) might have for video games today, but only to a point. What amazes me the extent some people go to obtain a video game, a book, sports or concert tickets, or whatever these days. Are these items that important or that time-sensitive that require so much sacrifice? Perhaps I don't see the urgency the same way some people do. Take the PS3 as an example. Do people really need the console so bad that they are willing to camp out for days to be one of the first to have it? We all know what will happen to these video games in a not too distant future. The novelty will wear off and eventually they will end up in the attic or some storage room, just like my old video game. Then most likely they will find their way to a landfill. I was browsing eBay the other day and noticed a final bid of $15,000 for a PS3. Probably a bogus bid, but I think $3,000 was in line with how much a PS3 could fetch on eBay. To me, even the $600 retail price tag seemed outrageous. But then again, I guess I just don’t comprehend the exaggerated passion and zeal some people have for something as commonplace as a video game. I hope I never comprehend it. video games,ps3,playstation 3,sony,ebay Labels: ebay, social <PS3 and the culture of impatience> // posted by rh 0 comments

Links Technorati Profile TMCnet.com ARCHIVES 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009

هاشمیان.com

 Home

 Blog

 Web Tools
Usage

 News

 Articles

 FAQ

 About

 Contact

 Financial Markets Book
Read Complete Book

Search Amazon: