Obama gave a State of the Union speech this last week that refused to apologize, that reminded people of the truth, and that confronted his critics sometimes directly. It was a worthy speech, and did about as much as could be expected, given the difficulties of getting Republicans to extend their thought patterns beyond tax cuts for business. (The same businesses who are woefully underrepresented in the governments yearly income stream, compared to individuals.
Obama went even further, taking time out to accept an invitation from Republicans to speak with them face to face on issues. In the process of confronting their outright lies about him imposing some socialist monarchy on the country, he also managed to put the fire to the idea that he is a man dependent on teleprompters to convey deep thoughts. Those who readily accepted that caricature and lie will go on believing the lie, and look increasingly simpleminded in the process.
Questions were asked respectfully (for the most part), although some questioners took long minutes of speechifying to get there. As in the House of Commons, the questions were blunt and sometimes pointed. But Obama came right back at them, citing chapter and verse from legislation and nonpartisan government reports, appearing to be at his wonkish best.
“I’m having fun,” he said at one point.
(Christian Science Monitor)
You can watch the video here, and see Obama facing the opposition British style, and without having his own party on hand to toss him softball questions in which to regather his thoughts. I cringe at the thought of Palin even attempting to do something like this, had she been president, let alone actually attempt such off the cuff dialogue in standard interviews with critics.
Sometimes you have to think carefully and read between the lines when some conservatives (and whites) express dislike for famous black people. Tiger Woods was previously tolerated, excepted even, though grudgingly in certain quarters, as his talent far eclipsed everyone else in his field, and his lifestyle was subdued enough to not be used against him. Until now, what with his copulations across America. His recent penile (and juvenile) activities have allowed those who disliked him for being cocky (and black), to justify that dislike further. Often enough blacks in the public eye provide that ammunition, and certain people are far too willing to fortify their innate bias with that ammunition, while ignoring similar actions in non-blacks.
Of famous black people, Denzel Washington is one of the few that manages to avoid the type of casual and over-sized dislike that extends to so many others. (We might toss Morgan Freeman into the bucket as as well, as both men seem to lead subdued quiet lives out of the spotlight). Tiger was kind of in there, disliked primarily by older white golf fans who are unhappy to see Jack Nicklaus' achievements threatened, but accepted as a "good black" by most others. Until he went on his rabbit rampage across white daughter America.
But I digress, because I wanted to point out that every now and then the irksome and casual mockery and derision and dislike is well earned. In Cornel West we have a man that is generally respected and accepted by blacks (though I would debate the awareness of him among all class levels of people of either race), and accepted by a certain type of well educated liberal white person. However he is trivialized by others, by conservatives, and rightly so.
Indeed the way conservatives look at Cornel, seeing his preen and pomp and intellectual fingerpainting for what it is, is the way they are hoping the world will eventually look at President Obama when they are done shaping public opinion of him. Cornel always seems to be talking and never coming to anything profound or useful, quilting words together in a drapery that covers the fact that he has said nothing at all.
Obama is a man with far more substance and intellect, but he is in the target zone, and Republicans are making a mighty effort to tamp down any achievements so that their verbal diminution of the man will prove prophetic.
You can see some of Cornell's fluff on display in an quick interview he gave with the times. On the one hand, it's interesting to see how people live, and how he travels each weekend around the country. This would be an interesting light profile if the person in question was someone with a bit more heft. But it's Cornel West, and his flitting about the country only reinforces the idea that the man doesn't have a solid foundation. The profile reads as fluff on fluff.
Cornel West, 56, has many roles: Princeton professor, philosopher, fiery orator, civil rights activist, classical violinist and actor (in two “Matrix” movies). On weekends, Dr. West travels the country delivering lectures, being, in his own words, “a bluesman in the life of the mind, a jazzman in the world of ideas, forever on the move.”
This is the man Obama does not want to become, or be characterized as. He does not want to be a celebrated totem without weight and depth. He does not want to be seen as fickle, of flipping here and there, words on fire, accomplishments slight. A little less conversation and a little more action should be the order of the day for Obama, and for all Democrats. Otherwise, they risk being marginalized inside of a destiny they can control.
Republicans are happy. The voters of Massachusetts are insane. In a state with a habit of voting in Democrats, they opted for Scott Brown, a photogenic conservative cutout. Why now, and to what end? The usual reasons, sort of the Fox news type of reasons: that the public is angry over the status quo, angry over Obama, and angry over the direction of health care and unemployment.
Shenanigans to all that. Voters are not nearly smart enough to focus their attention on the major problems, or divine solutions to those problems. They are reflexively reacting directly to politics, and not economics or an understanding of legislation creation, or the dynamics of saving a financial system. This last one is how they can wonder what Obama has done for them economically, the reality of total collapse unseen and averted via methods they know not of. The blind (Brown) leading the blind.
I recall talking with a coworker about illegal immigration, and how some left leaning professors (redundant words I know) were offering cell phone devices to illegals so that they could better navigate difficult border crossings. My coworker's solution? Offer citizenship to anyone who comes over. She also made the argument that this would not encourage others to follow, and that these workers would continue to do the jobs Americans are unwilling to do.
Our response was that if you legalize every illegal person here, without attempting to stem the tide or restrict the numbers, a huge portion of Mexico would soon arrive on our doorstep. While the illegals coming across the border now seem like an unstoppable tide, offering legal status and citizenship would give the magnet of jobs a whole new power. Even those comfortable and wealthy Mexicans, comfy in Mexico City and other areas, would make the flight or road trip to pick up their new status. Live in Mexico, vacation in Denver.
Second, if you increase immigration to 20 million or 40 million Mexicans, you suppress wages in any industries they choose to enter. The reason Americans don't go into migrant farming, is because they don't like being treated like crap, and definitely don't like being treated like crap for a wage that you can't support a family on, and, they don't have the luxury of seeing their dollar performing above its pay grade back in Mexico.
But nevertheless, this was her solution to the problem of illegal immigration. "We will never get a wall built," she said, bowing to the political reality in her mind, and thus, "We might as well legalize them so that their income supports the tax base." And this was a very smart woman saying this.
In this world, there is no cost to accepting an infinite number of Mexicans, who, while paying taxes, are paying at reduced rates, from reduced salaries, while suppressing existing salaries of native citizens, and burdening the teetering health system with families that are larger than the standard American average. This, in a nation, that cannot finance the needs of its existing citizens that exists on a higher tax base without the help of Big Brother (the Chinese, and their surplus dollars).
That solution is an experiment worthy of much greater mental pondering.
I am sure many smart people went out to vote in Massachusetts. They voted for gridlock and know nothing-ism, and that's what they will ultimately get... nothing. No change whatsoever.
Obama threatens to make banks less promiscuous. Or rather, to choose between being promiscuous or living in the house. Goldman, as we predicted a while back, will "get out of the house" and probably drop its bank holding status. When Goldman accepted that status, and when everyone was saying that everything is different now, we refused to wear the current fashion, knowing that Goldman will evolve to the form that best suits what it knows how to do. Human nature is constant. They may not make as much money without access to cheap government financing, but they were making money hand over fist without that. It's all judo to them.
Someone got bored, and the World TV channel heats up. Not in a good way. It's seems a bit odd to see an earthquake doing major devastation in this hemisphere to those who can bare it the least, and that is what we have. Haiti has a truly vivid history, a historical history even, what with their struggles against Napoleon and slavery and powers great and greater. It was even odder to see such a devastating quake hit the island of Hispaniola and leave the Dominican Republic largely unaffected. You just imagine that if something hits the one and devastates, the other two thirds of the island should take a hit as well.
We made an attempt in our classroom (on Wednesday or so) to focus some attention in that direction, asking the kids a hypothetical question about what they would do for Haiti if they were the president of the Dominican Republic. The answers ranged from immediate and broad assistance to some rather "let them pull themselves up from the rubble by their cold, bloody, bootstraps" tough talk (from an 11 year old). With important Haitian officials dead, the question of who does what, and who imposes some order, is important.
Its effects were greatly magnified, said the UN, because the earthquake hit a densely populated capital city rather than a remote rural area, devastating so many of the organisations and people who would normally lead a rescue effort. "It meant that the civil service, police, emergency services, all the organisations which would normally have key roles in responding to a major disaster were affected," said Stephanie Bunker, of the UN office for co-ordination of humanitarian affairs in New York.
It is often hard for people to find the right balance when it comes to the difficulties of others. When do you act, because if you don't, nobody will, or when is it a recurring problem and one that repeats due to the freewill choices made by the perceived victim. Often, when it's a natural disaster, we dispense with the moral judgments and are willing to pony up. Often. Not always.
"This [the earthquake] will play right into Obama's hands," said Limbaugh. "He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community – both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. This is made to order for them."
Limbaugh also warned Americans against donating money. "Besides, we've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," he said.
We remember a passing headline that said the witch doctors in Haiti were also throwing in their two cents, which, truth be told, has a negative value in the trillions, given the state of Haiti over the years before this current devastation. The lives and leaders that we choose are important, as well the culture that we foster, so that it can be argued that this natural disaster is made worse by freewill choices across history by those in Haiti. But that is not an argument against helping, nor is it seemly for one such as Limbaugh to accuse others of politicizing tragedy when others are directly aiding the suffering, while Rush lines his roost with money from advertisers during a more interesting news cycle. Leave it to him, to defecate on the dead, and eat their corpses to feed his own appetites.
Obama is taking a hard look at taxing the bankers in some as yet unexplained fashion. This might be a mistake, given the current state of New York and their dependence on the financial services industry. This is one of those slippery slope things, and structuring it just right would be difficult; many companies would find ways to offset any reductions in income. Singling out certain industries financially while not exactly addressing the fundamental issues that caused systemic stress is not the right path, as Businessweek points out. The U.K. has attempted a variation by taxing banker bonuses, and we don't see that helping their economy in the least.
Kleinbard said the U.K. is already struggling to make its 50 percent tax on bank employee bonuses of more than 25,000 pounds ($40,400) stick. Some U.K. banks are moving to absorb the tax while London Mayor Boris Johnson frets that higher taxes may drive 9,000 bankers out of the country.
(Businessweek.com)
Unfortunately the voices of populists and armchair critics are loud, so it's better to be seen doing something, even if it's quite stupid. Obama would be better served talking health care and seeking meaningful financial oversight reform, while letting the companies focus on making money.
Other News:
Via Dealbreaker, we have Jamie Dimon speaking out against the populist rumblings over banker bonuses. The most assuring comment by the J.P. Morgan head is that "commercial real estate is a train wreck but it's already happened." It's something that the average person does not really focus on, given all the housing carnage. It would be nice to see that second foot (or first foot?) of commercial property slip by unnoticed.
Sarah Palin gets a new job in a highly structured environment. Tellingly, Fox did not really give our Populist and Chief her own show, where, she might have to engage with a wide variety of people knowledgeable in politics, history or public affairs. She will make comments. Mostly vapid ones. And mostly on the shows of smarter and more cunning hosts, like O'Reilly, who can toss her soft floaters for her to hit out of the ballpark. Don't knock her beliefs, religion, or personal background. Knock her stupidity and ignorance on issues, and the ego that allows her to think she can slide in and do political calculus with only a knowledge of basic addition.
What do you call a liberal without a car? An environmentalist. What do you call a conservative without a car? Broke. Chinese, pursuing some happier middle ground, flush with cash and not particularly focused 24/7 on carbon footprint size, are buying automobiles at a great clip. This has moved China to the front of the list as the world's largest car market, overtaking the U.S. The score? 13.5 million China -10.4 million US. That liberal we mentioned will be a bit disturbed at this, but we don't begrudge China the right to do what every country in the West has long done. Conservatives of course are disturbed too, since they still view China through a 1960's framework, and won't be happy till the Chinese shed their communist-in-appearance government, or collapse.
The Guardian tells us their market grew by 45% or so in 2009, causing a shift in focus to that market among some car makers.
This isolated stat tells us a great deal about how strong the economic reorientation of the world is, which leads us to a unrelated yet related screed put out by Jaron Lanier, an American scientist and pioneer of the virtual reality concept. His book You Are Not A Gadget will be out in a week or so, and he has a very perceptive piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he decries the move toward utopian internet conceits that present a creativity numbing collectivization as something beneficial to society. In some ways it's the last thing you might expect to hear from the mouth of a computer nerd type, if you were to pull him out of a hat of computer nerds. After all, open source and Wikipedia-like collaboration are often praised as the ideal, and it takes an astute mind to see where that kind of thing leads, not to mention what it does to existing creative endeavors.
He states:
There's a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn't proven to be true. The most sophisticated, influential and lucrative examples of computer code—like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or Adobe's Flash— always turn out to be the results of proprietary development. Indeed, the adored iPhone came out of what many regard as the most closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop on Earth.
He goes on to link this idea of collectivization and the free software as a pathway to American economic stagnation. Jaron captures this dichotomy in a way many others are far too content to ignore.
Digital collectivism might seem participatory and democratic, but it's painting us into a corner from which we will have to concoct an awkward escape. It is strange to me that this isn't more obvious to many of my Silicon Valley colleagues.
The U.S. made a fateful decision in the late 20th century to routinely cede manufacturing and other physical-world labors to foreign competitors so that we could focus more on lucrative, comfortable intellectual activities like design, entertainment and the creation of other types of intellectual property. That formulation still works for certain products that remain within a system of proprietary control, like Apple's iPhone.
Unfortunately, we were also making another decision at the same time: that the very idea of intellectual property impedes information flow and sharing. Over the last decade, many of us cheered as a lot of software, music and news became free, but we were shooting ourselves in the collective feet.
It's good to see people thinking about this, and every time we read stats like that from China, which is becoming a source and repository for all things, our eyebrow rises in concern. The pathway out of this is not to see China's rise as evil, or something to fear, but rather a challenge by another good team. I am glad that some guy in China can for the first time can get a vehicle and drive across his country, or take a date into Shanghai to eat McDonald's. But we err to close our eyes and not make sure that Americans are holding our own competitively while being good stewards of our own assets, whether they are physical, intellectual, or the people who create both.
Other News:
The disillusion of home owners. The newspapers are forever leading people from one extreme to the other. Here, home ownership is not cracked up to be what the newspapers were telling you it was during the market peak. Way to shape shift N.Y. Times.
California comes begging. We had no idea they would seek to fulfill one of our 2010 predictions so fast. Whether they get the money from the Feds is another story.
Art Clokey, the animator who created Gumby and the stop motion animation series Davey and Goliath died yesterday. I had no idea who was responsible for those two contributions to my life, but the creations made for many happy moments, day after day.
Back in the early seventies my pocket size Gumby was one of my favorite companions. He was maybe two inches tall and whenever we were loaded into the green Dodge Dart to go from Queens to Brooklyn, or Manhattan to Queens, or across this part of the city into that part, some clone of Gumby was along for the ride. He was small, portable, and with a face always reflecting a good mood. Bendable, flexible, no drama.
We lost several of him between the cracks or under the the seats. It was a special euphoria-- gold, oil, space!-- to reach under the front seat and feel that rubber body and slide the hand back (don't cut yourself on the other junk under there) and pull an old yet newly discovered Gumby back into the light of our world. "It's mine," one or the other of us claimed. But he, it ?, was probably mine, not my sister's, since I am the one writing about him now, and the one who has a Gumby even today. (This recent clone of Gumby fell into the hands of a female coworker from a couple of years back, who went on to shun me Amish style for a period (verbal sins for insulting her future boyfriend, and calling her, inappropriately, "kiddie pool"). She found it in her heart to return him to me late last year, along with a swell Christmas gift of a scarf. I had forgotten this particular Gumby, that he was out there, hostaged, and for a while he had Stockholm syndrome and wanted to go back to her. (Or maybe I was projecting).
Clokey was also responsible for Davey and Goliath, a cartoon sponsored by Lutherans and which always featured a lesson to be learned by all. I loved the show, but hated Goliath and sometimes felt like beating him for his dopey temperament.
The cartoon was claymation like all the Christmas cartoons; we were always taught Santa was not real, but rather a happy artifice based on a historical man, and used by the godless to take the Christmas focus off of Jesus. As long as we got that clear, our father let us watch all the holiday cartoons, and without constant commentary, unlike nearly everything else.
Since Davey and Goliath was a religious program, though not from our strain of charismatic, conservative Christianity (prayer, praise music, faith healing, tongues), it was programming we could watch without fear of a "no" upon request. Other shows, like Zoom or The Electric Company or some of the later episodes of The Waltons were frowned upon. My father did not want us getting crazy teen ideas, and doing teen things, and getting all rebellious; he had done enough drugs during the 1960's to know when free thinking godless hippie shit was seeping into children's programming. The Public Broadcasting Service as mental crack, before crack existed.
Ark Clokey. Now dead and joined with the billions who have gone before. The afterlife just got more entertaining.
In a study of Australian women, researchers have stumbled on a mystery that is not really a mystery unless you have to come up with something non-offensive to explain the obvious. Beginning at ages and 18-23, and in a self reporting study, they found that women gained weight as they aged. Specifically, and after 10 years, they found that if a woman had a baby and a partner, the gain was 20 pounds. If she had just a partner, it was 15 pounds, and if she was childless and without a partner, she gained 11 pounds.
There is no reason to believe that having a partner causes metabolic changes, so the weight gain among childless women with partners was almost surely caused by altered behavior. Moreover, there was a steady weight gain among all women over the 10 years of the study.
(N.Y. Times)
The researchers scratch their heads at this point, but the truth of the matter is that women stop trying so hard. If you are married there is no incentive. You have your man. And unless he is complaining about you, or blindingly pretty himself and you are worried of losing him, you are good to go. If a baby is involved, there could be a biological/hormonal factor as well. But bottom line the pressure is off. Which is why the single women without a partner gained the least.
If you were to study men, you would probably also see a general uptrend in weight. That uptrend is probably normative, and it's the differences in weight gain (between men and women) that might be revealing. A follow-up study should compare the weight gain in single men against that 11 pound weight gain in single women.
And also if we are to factor in human nature and the self-reporting involved, we can assume the numbers are double, as women are not highly scientific about the dissemination of personal weight data. Deliberate obfuscation.
Other News:
Poor people don't know what's wrong with themselves. At least as it relates to autism. Researchers found that autism clusters in California increased with education. This was likely due to the higher rate of discovery, reporting and treatment that occurred with greater education. Education of the parents proved to be a greater factor than the environment (chemicals, etc). Which is also why Native Americans didn't see the European incursion into North America for what it would eventually become; it was a lack of education and self awareness in relation to others.
We are seven days into the New Year, and celebrating Christmas (if Orthodox), so it seems a jolly good day to do this year's predictions. We noted that our predictions last year were a bit off, with us scoring about a 2.5 out of a possible 7. We were accurate on unemployment, interest rates and the ability of Wall Street to continue to function like a mirror of itself. We were wrong in suggesting general economic mayhem leading to riots or collapse in places like Russia and South America. If anything we see evidence of that decoupling that so many people have talked of in the past, where the economic conditions in the United States are not automatically replicated (and enlarged) in other places. There is more variation now, and other nations are better prepared and more invested in the system, and managing it to their own benefit.
Our predictions:
Unemployment in the United States will drop to 8% by year's end, and GDP growth will average around 2.5% for the year.
Leading up to the elections, Republicans will focus on terrorism and what they are not, while obscuring the economic improvement. They will not gain control of the Congress despite the recent Democratic retirement announcements.
Healthcare reform legislation will pass and be signed into law; but the opposition will continue to attack the bill, hoping to win political points off the gradated implementation of the plan.
At least one state will need a Federal bailout. We have long felt that the focus of stimulus money should have been in direct grants to states to plug budgets over a two year period. Officials at the state level are better at determining what they need. We can't see New York or California working their way out, but we think New York is the more capable of the two.
Markets around the world--namely in South America and Asia--will do quite well, with 20% stock appreciation.
Obama will tackle illegal immigration and Republicans will be caught in the crossfire on this one. Democrats will be hoping to construct legislation that makes Hispanics happy (a vote grab) and Republicans will be caught between the devil (businesses) and the deep blue sea (hard right conservatives) and try to delay any votes for after November.
We hesitate to judge others when it comes to being a deadbeat and not paying all debts as quickly as possible -- let them without sin cast the first stone-- but you have to wonder what's gotten into our Icelandic friends as they sit eating their holiday hangikjöt while refusing to pay off Britain and the Netherlands. These would be the same two nations that loaned Iceland several billion dollars, and saved some 400,000 investors in Icesave, an internet banking branch of Landsbanki. Granted these "savers" in Icesave were overseas (as in continental Europe), so one can see the average Icelander perfectly willing to stiff them, and especially when you are all up in your own island feeling winter cozy what with your snacks and stuff.
The Treasury expected Reykjavik to rubberstamp the terms of repayment for the loan extended by Britain and the Netherlands at the height of the financial crisis. The loan meant that 400,000 savers with deposits in Icesave did not lose their money.
President Ólafur Grimsson stunned the world’s financial community by refusing to sign the repayment schedule into law. Instead, he said that the matter would be decided in a referendum among Iceland’s 243,000 voters.
This is bad, given the broader support in the range of $12 billion that Iceland accepted from the E.U., I.M.F. and other nations, and while they are saying they will make good on their debts, coming up with an actual method that keeps the average Icelandic citizen smiling, or cracking a smile, seems unlikely.
Aside from the politicians at the top perhaps trying to displace voter anger by letting the citizens vote via referendum on the payments to Britain and the Netherlands, one wonders if this is just a back door method to avoid moving toward E.U. membership. Somewhere, maybe, someone with some clout is saying, "Hey, if we pee on the walls, they won't let us in!" But it's more than that. They are killing their hopes of any broadly financed economic support and that will certainly delay recovery. Half of having decent credit has nothing to do with money... it's reputation, which often enough can replace money, or the need for it.
Maybe the average person does not care. After all, you are living on an island. You have geothermal baths and energy independence , a small population and plenty of fish and Bjork. You don't really need money. And if you do, you can just immigrate to the U.S. or some other place that likes really attractive people (or confuses you with the hotter people in Sweden).
*
Other News:
G Whiz! Studies on twins show the G-spot is a good friend of Santa, Harvey, and Jesus (for atheists).
The deputy chief of intelligence in Afghanistan sharply points out the lack of preparation by intelligence units, in contrast to some military units. Their focus on hunting and killing the enemy (including the use of drones) has often been at the expense of knowing the situation of the wider population. Major General Michael Flynn referred to them as "ignorant of local economics," among other critiques. This reminds us of how Rumsfield carried us into the Iraq war with a rather disengaged understanding of Iraqi civilian life. He was at odds with the State department, who might have saved us a lot of time and grief in the area of meeting the needs of a foreign population. It also reminds us of certain Christians, the highly charismatic and evangelical types and others, who often seem more focused on Satan (the ultimate insurgent), instead of the God they serve (and his goodness). In this case it would do a world of good if focused on the people in Afghanistan and their day to day, and fixated less on rooting out and destroying the easily replaceable and rotating round of terrorist leaders.
Let's talk tall buildings for a moment. The Emirate of Dubai has just completed the tallest building in the world, which they initially named Burj Dubai. The next four tallest buildings can be found in Taipei, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, and Chicago. If you were not paying attention to "tall building" development, it might come as a surprise to see so many being built, and not in the United States. If not here, you would assume that it would be a European nation with the technical prowess to complete such an engineering feat, except Europeans lack the ego and sense of childlike adventure to be impressed by tall buildings. They are the grandparents who cherish the old and longevity over the new and ridiculously unnecessary.
We suspect that the desire to rebuild the Twin Towers in New York City, an act of partial grandiosity we fully endorse, is a desire to reclaim the crown and say, "Look at us! We were first with the tallest buildings, and we can still do it!" We would be disappointed if such constructions around the world were merely tall, and without a desire to eclipse the previous tower. If you are gonna do it, do it right, and outdo the last guy.
In this day and age these towers sit almost like terrorist bait, with tongue stuck in childlike disregard daring to be slapped. But these buildings are also the stuff of hope and adventure. It's the type of construction that makes small boys the world over decide to grow up to build things, or do something they might not normally do. Like airplanes, they stop and make you pause and think of the potential of humanity. It is hard to look up at a plane in the air without pausing to realize that people are sitting in the sky, eating, drinking, annoying their fellow passenger, or pooping as they head west to east. It amazes, and these building too amaze.
In a lot of the commentary after the different articles reporting the building's completion, we've noticed a certain dismissive tone regarding Dubai's achievement. They are a nation caught in the economic downdraft, dedicated to real estate development and lacking a diverse economy. The Arizona of the world. Imagine such a building coming on line in Arizona, which has been decimated by falling home prices and halted construction. Some people's thoughts on the matter have not been pleasant. Stephen Bayley at the Telegraph (U.K.) calls it all vanity, while giving us some nice background on the builders and building design, as though vanity was invented by Dubai or that is serves no purpose.
The comments regarding Dubai have mocked their timing, made light of the achievement or displayed a certain dismissive quality, as in, how dare they use valuable resources to build such a building in the middle of recession and economic woe, and in the middle of a stupid desert. I've heard statements like that about buildings in downtown Phoenix, with the outraged never managing to think that most buildings are years in the planning and funding, and one cannot merely stop on a dime. Nor do you assume, when completing one during a recession, that that recession is etched in stone, perpetual and terminal. You plan a building and hope the good times keep up, and like the World Trade Center in New York which was constructed in tough times, eventually the world changes and catches up with the vision.
Dubai has gotten its own comuppance from its neighbors in Abu Dhabi. They had to rely on them for a financial bailout and in a kind of public punishment, the leader of Abu Dhabi found it appropriate to rename the building. Nobody told Dubai that the bailout included naming rights on their crowning achievement. So like the Sears Tower answering to the name Willis, the Burj Duba will now answer to the name Khalifa.
That's kind of what happens when you don't handle your business. Other people get to control you, and define you. In the long run though, we think the building will be considered "worth it" and we suspect that terrorists will focus on the OTHER tall buildings around the world, and preserve their own little jewel in the dessert. It is no small achievement to make something so grand, and we should pause in a moment of awe and let them have their moment to shine. For tomorrow we all die.
And any man who knows a thing knows, he knows not a damn, damn thing at all,
And everytime I felt the hurt and I felt the givin' gettin' me up off the wall,
I'm just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I'm just gonna take a minute and let it breeze,
I'm just gonna take a minute and let it ride,
I'm just gonna take a minute and let it breeze,
How did Mandela get the will to surpass the everyday,
When injustice had him caged and trapped in every way,
How did Ghandi ever withstand the hunger strikes and all,
Didn't do it to gain power or money if I recall,
It's to give; I guess I'll pass it on,
Mother thinks it'll lift the stress of babylon,
Mother knows, my mother she suffered blows,
I don't know how we survived such violent episodes,
I was so worried, and hurt to see you bleed,
But as soon as you came out the hospital you gave me sweets,
Yeah, they try to take you from me,
But you still only gave 'em some prayers and sympathy,
Dear mama, you helped me write this, by showing me to give is priceless.
{Chorus}
All I can say is the worst is over now,
We can serve the hard times, divorce is over now,
They try to keep us out, but they doors is open now,
My nigga Akon is gettin awards for covers now,
This is K'NAAN, and still reppin' the IS (?)
Comin' out of Mogadishu and still draped in the mess,
And no matter how we strong, homie,
It ain't easy comin out of where we from, homie.
And that's the reason why, I could never play for me,
Tell 'em the truth, is what my dead homies told me,
Oh yeah, I take inspiration from the most heinous of situations,
Creating medication out my own tribulations.
Dear Africa, you helped me write this, by showing me to give is priceless.
{Chorus}
Nothing is perfect man, that's what the world is,
All I know is,
I'm enjoying today.
You know, 'cause it isn't everybody that you get to give.
{Chorus}
An interesting previous interview with the artist can be found here, and we post some of that below:
DJ Booth: We’ve got you on the phone for a reason: we want to find out more about you and what this album has to offer, but I want to dig a little deeper first. Somalia, the country that you are from, is synonymous with strife and extreme poverty. What are your immediate thoughts when you hear Americans complaining about the current economic climate of the country, knowing what you know about yours?
K’naan: It’s kind of a blessing and a curse for people, when these sort of things happen. Truly, I can appreciate the difficulty that these kinds of things cause – no one wants to have these sort of issues at their front door – but America has always been under kind of a false sense of security, and because of the majesty of how industrialization built up this nation, you have this sense of, “Well, nothing can really go wrong here.” I think that is not truly human. That kind of thing takes the humanity away from people. People need to know that there are risks, people need to feel the pressure of things, people need to know that things can fall apart, and that is when we create the best of ourselves, when we redefine our humanity and our art and our perspectives. I think it’s a good perspective shift.
Here is one of those situations we talked about where people want a solution, but really don't. We want terrorism stopped, but we don't want to be profiled, screened or inconvenienced. The dichotomy extends to detainees from Guantanamo.
Obama has come under criticism for sending some Guantanamo detainees back to Yemen, where the influcence of Al Queda is only growing. Obama is continuing a policy from the previous administration, but also trying to keep his promise to close the Cuban prison that was a lightening rod for U.S. criticism around the world.
President George W. Bush first authorized the transfer and release of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to such places as Yemen and Saudi Arabia toward the end of his term. President Barack Obama has continued that policy, deciding in December to release six Yemeni detainees back to their home state.
and
However, blocking the release of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to countries like Yemen could jeopardize the Obama White House's longstanding promise to close the military prison during his first term.
The administration has already overshot its 2009 deadline to shutter the camp, in part because it has failed to shore up support for its proposal to house some of the prisoners in domestic facilities. That debate is likely to intensify in the coming weeks as the White House learns more about the plot to bomb Flight 253 over Detroit.
Not. In. My. Backyard. We don't want the detainees sent home, because if we send them there, they will come back here and kill us all. We don't want the detainees on U.S. soil, because, then they are here and they will kill us all even faster (and possibly date our daughters while biding their time for mass destruction). These desires by Americans leave the administration with the option of making everyone unhappy. Hence if you are Obama, you are best off doing what you promised to do, for the reason you promised to do it.
A farm family loses money in milk farming, goes organic and barely breaks even. Since salaries would be factored into that bottom line, at least they are making a living doing something they love and providing something that we need. The real focus of the coop should be on marketing and increasing demand, since there are clearly too many producers of milk and no one farmer is going to make the total sacrifice of leaving the business to strengthen the whole. They should be looking at DeBeers and their methods (well, the non-monopolistic and legal methods).
An increase in demand is a necessity for the success of a long term organic market. But you have to applaud the small entrepreneurs who take a gamble, investing time and back breaking work to pursue a dream.
You know you really can't win when it comes to making laws that solve entrenched problems. Our big problem... no not our big problem... our recurring problem, is one of terrorism. The solution to the problem is not any one thing, but a bunch of procedures working in tandem. This would include full body scans, more precise and escalated profiling, and greater coordination between intelligence agencies. Also, our watch list/no fly list system clearly creates a loophole big enough to fly a plane through.
Republicans are busy latching onto to this issue to obscure steadily improving economic numbers, as they would love to have the election be all about terrorism and foreign policy. They are experts at sounding tough when it comes to terrorism and obscuring the lack of difference between Obama's actions and those of previous administrations.. The only distance between them is Guantanamo and the procedures for resolving the status of captured terrorists and militants. In all else Obama has been quite vigorous, but Republicans are not inclined to let a political opportunity slip.
But it's a long, long way to election and their strategy depends on economic decline and terrorist success. Cynical.
Solutions to the actual problem remain hard to implement because of the American tendency to think two opposing thoughts at the same time. In this case, "protect me from terror" and "don't do anything that violates my civil rights or convenience."
Mega-multimillionaireRush Limbaugh left the hospital in Hawaii upbeat, stating, "I don't think there's one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine... just dandy." No word on whether or not he was taking pain killers.
(The best health care that money can buy)
In other news, Tiger Woods states that "I can't understand why regular guys have a hard time getting really hot women to sleep with them. In my experience American women are the kindest, hottest, and most generous women ever."
It's the pretend start of a new decade (as opposed to the often argued January 1, 2011) and we decided to look back on the predictions we made last January at 2009's start. It was our first attempt at prognostication and apparently we are quite skilled at being bad at it.
Our seven predictions were that 1) Russia's economy would implode, 2) oil would stay below $50 per barrel, 3) interest rates would rise, 4) unemployment would hit 10%, 5) South American markets would deteriorate, 6) the dollar would weaken against the Euro with the Middle East creating a replacement currency and 7) Wall Street would reconstitute itself in its own image.
At approximately $80/barrel (NYMEX Crude), and up from a low of around $33 in February, oil prices moved higher in 2009. The firming up of prices made it easier for Russia to weather the difficult economic environment. Their economy contracted about 8%, and that included layoffs, factory closings and the loss of a chunk of their currency reserves. But all that was in line with the situation around the globe. Since Russia is bound to oil for revenue, it's no surprise that the two predictions went off the deep end together. Interest rates also did not rise in the United States and we were way off in thinking that people would pull money en masse out of the dollar, or that alternative currency parking schemes would develop. Wrong. Likewise there was no major negative activity in South America along the lines of what we thought might happen, and some of their investment markets faired well.
What did we get a bit right? The December unemployment number is not in, but it will probably stay in the 10% range, so we pretty much hit it on the head. Also, we would give ourselves some points for Wall Street emerging with its same old habits and tendencies intact. The predictions that somehow "everything has changed" proved, as always, nonsense. People in the middle of a storm see nothing but the storm. But human nature does not bend. People do not stop pursuing money in whatever method proves feasible. We also got the direction of the dollar against the Euro correct, with little action by any nations in the Mid East to create alternatives to existing currencies or reserve currencies.
Out of seven possible points, we give ourselves 2.5... right on unemployment, right on Wall Street, and right on the dollar, but not the alternative currency portion.
Hopefully we will do better with the 2010 guesses, which follow in a later post.
