What would you choose?

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:23 am

Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

by garam_kuta Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:40 am

trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

Very interesting .. Mostly in parties, particularly with mixed crowd of people from diverse countries, UN type parties shall we say, I used to ask essentially the same question, in a different way ( sounding like a Japanese here)
" given a chance, in your next birth, in which country would you like to be born?".
Just to give the highlights
No indian ever replied "India".
Curiously, over 25-30 samples,on different occasions, all Brits, without an exception, almost spontaneously said " English" - I think some with an added "of course" which quizzed your brows but then almost all sounded serious. you ask "why?' most of the time the answer essentially founded on " having character" . The age group was, say between 25 to about 55 years

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:50 am

Interesting... any other country whose people all wanted a repeat act in their next birth?

We have been watching an old British series called Upstairs/Downstairs, which feels like a prequel to Downtown Abbey. As we were watching it, the wife remarked a few times what blessed lives the family had. So I asked her this question, and we ended up with different choices.

What's your choice?

by Petrichor Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:58 am

I have had a fairly privileged life despite low/middling intelligence, being born Indian. I attribute it to the fortune of being a particular caste which is really a 'macro' for a set of values, connections and coded nods to enter different portals. It was also a burden that closed other portals and forced me to confront and challenge my own performance levels in the past.

And internet!!! That is the tipping point that makes "now" such an attractive option compared to the first.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:02 pm

very interesing. at first i had ignored this thread 'cos i suspected it was started by vidya, impy or the bbb crowd.

i would like to choose 1 but i will choose 2 because i suspect most of my ancestors were very poor a 100 years ago. i have no trust in myself to generate wealth. well i do but i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:04 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:very interesing. at first i had ignored this thread 'cos i suspected it was started by vidya, impy or the bbb crowd.

i would like to choose 1 but i will choose 2 because i suspect most of my ancestors were very poor a 100 years ago. i have no trust in myself to generate wealth. well i do but i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's fragile phyiscal (fiscal) budget.

But if you choose 1, you will be born to the same wealthy family you were born into. Only choice 2 is set 100 years ago, not choice 1. Does that change your choice?

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:06 pm

trofimov wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:very interesing. at first i had ignored this thread 'cos i suspected it was started by vidya, impy or the bbb crowd.

i would like to choose 1 but i will choose 2 because i suspect most of my ancestors were very poor a 100 years ago. i have no trust in myself to generate wealth. well i do but i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's fragile phyiscal (fiscal) budget.
But if you choose 1, you will be born to the same wealthy family you were born into. Only choice 2 is set 100 years ago, not choice 1. Does that change your choice?

ok. let me think. Smile

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:08 pm

soch liya. lock kardo. i choose 1.

reason: my overriding obsession, all my life, has been india. i want to visit its past. no other place or race fascinates me as much. of course, being an indian, i am biased in my choice.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:10 pm

Born a white baby boy in the US in the late 50's to middle class educated parents. That would make me a baby boomer. I would witness crazy 60s as a partially affected kid but with parents who are still together. Be in the middle of awesome 70s. But grown up enough to not be wrapped up in weird 80s. And be on the top of game in progressive 90s. Right now I would be a semi-retired 50 something. Divorced thrice and enjoying a 30-something date on my own yatch.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:12 pm

Ok...this is some serious shyt for Friday.

So I defer.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:13 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:soch liya. lock kardo. i choose 1.

reason: my overriding obsession, all my life, has been india. i want to visit its past. no other place or race fascinates me as much. of course, being an indian, i am biased in my choice.

Yeah... I want to be born as Akbar.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:16 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:I have had a fairly privileged life despite low/middling intelligence, being born Indian. I attribute it to the fortune of being a particular caste which is really a 'macro' for a set of values, connections and coded nods to enter different portals. It was also a burden that closed other portals and forced me to confront and challenge my own performance levels in the past.

And internet!!! That is the tipping point that makes "now" such an attractive option compared to the first.

I also chose my real birth (lower middle class India) vs. "upper crust 100 years ago." My reasons:
- Lasik surgery, which has transformed the quality of my life.
- Internet, mobile phones, digital cameras, etc.
- World War I: Englishmen born in 1896 had a rather high likelihood of dying or being crippled before turning 25.
- My notion that the world is a much better place now than it was then.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:20 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Born a white baby boy in the US in the late 50's to middle class educated parents. That would make me a baby boomer. I would witness crazy 60s as a partially affected kid but with parents who are still together. Be in the middle of awesome 70s. But grown up enough to not be wrapped up in weird 80s. And be on the top of game in progressive 90s. Right now I would be a semi-retired 50 something. Divorced thrice and enjoying a 30-something date on my own yatch.

That's pretty good... that generation saw the best of times in this country's story. But if you had to choose between being you and being born 100 years ago to a super-rich family, which one would you pick?

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:25 pm

trofimov wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Born a white baby boy in the US in the late 50's to middle class educated parents. That would make me a baby boomer. I would witness crazy 60s as a partially affected kid but with parents who are still together. Be in the middle of awesome 70s. But grown up enough to not be wrapped up in weird 80s. And be on the top of game in progressive 90s. Right now I would be a semi-retired 50 something. Divorced thrice and enjoying a 30-something date on my own yatch.
That's pretty good... that generation saw the best of times in this country's story. But if you had to choose between being you and being born 100 years ago to a super-rich family, which one would you pick?

I will chose 1. I had a great childhood.

1896 is pre-antibiotics,Pre-insulin, and I think pre c-sections. Also if I still lived through all that, I would be in the middle of two world wars. And I would probably die before man went to moon. Sounds bleak.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:27 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:very interesing. at first i had ignored this thread 'cos i suspected it was started by vidya, impy or the bbb crowd.

by southindian Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:31 pm

trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

I think I was born in India at the right time and would still like to be born Indian in the same time to the same parents. I have seen UK, USA enough and nothing excites me, food or lifestyle for another birth in either countries.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:35 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
trofimov wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Born a white baby boy in the US in the late 50's to middle class educated parents. That would make me a baby boomer. I would witness crazy 60s as a partially affected kid but with parents who are still together. Be in the middle of awesome 70s. But grown up enough to not be wrapped up in weird 80s. And be on the top of game in progressive 90s. Right now I would be a semi-retired 50 something. Divorced thrice and enjoying a 30-something date on my own yatch.
That's pretty good... that generation saw the best of times in this country's story. But if you had to choose between being you and being born 100 years ago to a super-rich family, which one would you pick?

I will chose 1. I had a great childhood.

1896 is pre-antibiotics,Pre-insulin, and I think pre c-sections. Also if I still lived through all that, I would be in the middle of two world wars. And I would probably die before man went to moon. Sounds bleak.

My wife picked choice 2. I asked her, "you won't have antibiotics, as a woman you'd have a high likelihood (over 10%) of dying in childbirth, you can't vote and don't have equal property rights, and many of your men friends will be dead before you are 25. Would you still pick that?" She said yes, and her reason was intriguing: because she would not know any better, that all those things that seem awful to us would be normal and expected back then, and in that normal situation, she would be among the most privileged people. The only thing that made her think twice was the high death rate of young men (in war) and young women (in childbirth).

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:36 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.

if you mean "financial," that's the word you should use. strictly, "fiscal" is used only when referring to a government's revenues, which are largely derived from taxes. as far as i know, you and your family are not governments.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:42 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.
if you mean "financial," that's the word you should use. strictly, "fiscal" is used only when referring to a government's revenues, which are largely derived from taxes. as far as i know, you and your family are not governments.

I disagree...

Fiscal is a comprehensive term covering taxes, revenues, spending, deficit, etc...

Fiscal policy and not fiscal budget or fiscal revenue.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:42 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.

i LOLled, ROFLed, and ROFLMAOd sooomuchna at your viTty reference to "fiscal" as "pheejkal."

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:43 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.

i LOLled, ROFLed, and ROFLMAOd sooomuchna at your viTty reference to "fiscal" as "pheejkal."

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:46 pm

JM, you ought to write to Merriam-Webster so they can fix their dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiscal?show=0&t=1363970709

fis·cal adjective \ˈfis-kəl\

Definition of FISCAL

1: of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt <fiscal policy>
2: of or relating to financial matters
— fis·cal·ly adverb

Examples of FISCAL

the fiscal health of the university

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:51 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.
if you mean "financial," that's the word you should use. strictly, "fiscal" is used only when referring to a government's revenues, which are largely derived from taxes. as far as i know, you and your family are not governments.

I disagree...

Fiscal is a comprehensive term covering taxes, revenues, spending, deficit, etc...

Fiscal policy and not fiscal budget or fiscal revenue.

the main point is that one would use "fiscal" only when speaking of a government's financial affairs.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:52 pm

sorry, i totally misunderstood the question. i should have clicked on vidya, impy or bbb crowd's post instead.

but ya, i would like to be born today and not 100 years ago in any country or race.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:55 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.
if you mean "financial," that's the word you should use. strictly, "fiscal" is used only when referring to a government's revenues, which are largely derived from taxes. as far as i know, you and your family are not governments.

i like to use fiscal in DiPPhHeRRaaAnT DiPPhHeRRaaAnT ways. your problem?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:06 pm

trofimov wrote:JM, you ought to write to Merriam-Webster so they can fix their dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiscal?show=0&t=1363970709

fis·cal adjective \ˈfis-kəl\

Definition of FISCAL

1: of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt
2: of or relating to financial matters
— fis·cal·ly adverb

Examples of FISCAL

the fiscal health of the university

that secondary definition corrupts the meaning of "fiscal"; merriam-webster should get rid of it.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:10 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
trofimov wrote:JM, you ought to write to Merriam-Webster so they can fix their dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiscal?show=0&t=1363970709

fis·cal adjective \ˈfis-kəl\

Definition of FISCAL

1: of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt
2: of or relating to financial matters
— fis·cal·ly adverb

Examples of FISCAL

the fiscal health of the university
that secondary definition corrupts the meaning of "fiscal"; merriam-webster should get rid of it.

Merriam-Webster doesn't define second as always synonymous with secondary. When you write to them about the second definition of fiscal, perhaps you want to ask them to fix that as well.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:very interesing. at first i had ignored this thread 'cos i suspected it was started by vidya, impy or the bbb crowd.

i was merely jocking vidya. check your pm -- making amends there.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:19 pm

trofimov wrote:My wife picked choice 2.

what, not the politically overcorrect "the wife" anymore?

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:29 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
trofimov wrote:My wife picked choice 2.
what, not the politically overcorrect "the wife" anymore?

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:01 pm

trofimov wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
trofimov wrote:My wife picked choice 2.
what, not the politically overcorrect "the wife" anymore?

lmao @ emoticon. i will ask admin to add it to the emoticon list. or, better still, i will put it poll.

by nevada Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:03 pm

What if your parents were given a similar choice? what would they choose?

a. have the same middle class Indian life and give birth to you
b. be wealthy, titled nobles in England and give birth to a white kid

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:09 pm

Good question! I should ask them sometime.

by FluteHolder Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:43 pm

You cannot choose. You (your soul's qualification) and your parent's qualification decides where and to whom you are born:)

I am not saying this. Thirumular ((Rashumun's favorite) the supposed NI poet/saint) who came to SI and settled there, wrote this long ago.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:01 pm

trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

if i am imagining, its unfair to ask me to restrict myself to only 2 choices. also, i dont understand your 1st option.

the last part esp...'several years ago' you said born at same time in same place, to same parents, several years ago...
what does this mean? how many years ago?

are you saying that born as i am now Vs born rich in england? uppli is right. this is too complicated for a friday.

by Idéfix Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:12 pm

seven wrote:are you saying that born as i am now Vs born rich in england?

Yes, that is the question. Born exactly as you were in reality, versus born super-rich in England a hundred years ago.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:22 pm

trofimov wrote:
seven wrote:are you saying that born as i am now Vs born rich in england?
Yes, that is the question. Born exactly as you were in reality, versus born super-rich in England a hundred years ago.

i choose 1 then. i dont't like cold weather and cannot imagine not getting to take bath everyday...ohnoo and other scary things like diseases etc other ppl mentioned.

the other option will have to be VERY attractive for me to pick it.

by Nila Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:36 pm

I would choose liberation from the cycle of birth and death and prefer to be not born at all.

Anyways, for the sake of the hypothetically chosing - I would opt for option one and try to make it to the perfection. Things would've been beautiful if my ancestors and teachers followed what they preached. Not being judgemental considering the consequences and circumstance they have been through. If I had to face similar stuff, I would've been failed miserably.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:54 pm

Ekadasi wrote:I would choose liberation from the cycle of birth and death and prefer to be not born at all.

Anyways, for the sake of the hypothetically chosing - I would opt for option one and try to make it to the perfection. Things would've been beautiful if my ancestors and teachers followed what they preached. Not being judgemental considering the consequences and circumstance they have been through. If I had to face similar stuff, I would've been failed miserably.

EkDesi:

Don't you know it is Friday ?

by Propagandhi711 Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:50 pm

same as now: black guy from the waist down and full 100% sexified

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:01 pm

i would choose late 19th century britain simply because of the exciting things that happened in 20th century physics in europe. i would have loved to be part of all that. india was mostly in the scientific backwaters with the exception of a few people like c.v.raman, bose, and meghnad saha.

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:06 pm

just asked this to d'ter. her answer - i can't imagine a life w/o technology, although all those exquisite dresses of 19th century would be cool.

by bw Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:06 pm

trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

#2 - i love watching british period dramas and if i can live that life, why not! and oh, i may get to meet darcy! make it 1796 just for that.

by Kris Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:26 am

trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

>>>>> #1- In fact I had been born as #2, I would have wished I had had #1's life. I would have openly expressed my regret thusly ' Mummy, Daddy, why cahn' I have nOt beeen born in Indier? I hate the bloody food heah and my jaws hurt from speaking English like this. Besides, this Arabeller you have been trying to set me up with has quite ghastly teeth, I am afraid'

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:31 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:just asked this to d'ter. her answer - i can't imagine a life w/o technology, although all those exquisite dresses of 19th century would be cool.

Really? Those corsets and huge billowing umbrella skirts couldn't be comfortable at all. Why, I don't think women could dress themselves up at all without help.

by Kris Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:39 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:soch liya. lock kardo. i choose 1.

reason: my overriding obsession, all my life, has been india. i want to visit its past. no other place or race fascinates me as much. of course, being an indian, i am biased in my choice.

>>>Ditto for the most part.

by Kris Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:59 am

Kris wrote:
trofimov wrote:Imagine that you had the ability to choose the time and place of your birth and your parents. But you can't choose any arbitrary time, place, or set of parents. You have two specific choices:

1. You can be born at the same time, in the same place, to the same set of parents, that you were born to several years ago.

2. You can be born in the year 1896, somewhere in England, to a rich aristocratic family, say to the Earl and Countess of Grantham from the television series Downton Abbey.

In both scenarios, you would be born with the same set of mental and physical attributes you have now. The only difference is that if you choose option 2, you will be born a white person, so it won't be all weird with white parents and Indian kid in 1896.

Now, which would you choose? In other words, if you could choose to be born into the highest levels of the privileged aristocracy of the richest country a hundred or so years ago, would you choose that over your own times?

>>>>> #1- In fact I had been born as #2, I would have wished I had had #1's life. I would have openly expressed my regret thusly ' Mummy, Daddy, why cahn' I have nOt beeen born in Indier? I hate the bloody food heah and my jaws hurt from speaking English like this. Besides, this Arabeller you have been trying to set me up with has quite ghastly teeth, I am afraid'

>>>> On a serious note, I have had a pretty good run with the the cards that were dealt me-- middle class Indian family, exposure to things which gave me choices, a dad who by example showed the importance of being a person of substance and parents who did not circumscribe their children's lives completely and allowed for self-development. With that and the move to a country that offered opportunities, I can't but choose #1.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:57 am

Neither.

by Captain Bhankas Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:08 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i would have been denied the opportunities because of my family's hand to mouth pheejkal (fiscal) budget.
i LOLled, ROFLed, and ROFLMAOd sooomuchna at your viTty reference to "fiscal" as "pheejkal."

ahem...

to the OP - option 2. reason? wealth.

by Uppili Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:16 pm

Kris wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:soch liya. lock kardo. i choose 1.

reason: my overriding obsession, all my life, has been india. i want to visit its past. no other place or race fascinates me as much. of course, being an indian, i am biased in my choice.

>>>Ditto for the most part.

I would like the same ....with one exception. I will walk JUST a little faster out of the US Consulate by 2 seconds. That 2-second delay brought me to the US and changed the direction of my life and those of my descendents.

by Sponsored content