This is a true story. On Saturday night of Christmas weekend, we were at Sag Harbor with my cousin, Narmeen. She was sleeping downstairs on the couch, and we were in the upstairs bedroom. At around 3am, I heard Narmeen clomping up the stairs. She opened the attic door across the hall and then opened the bedroom door. I looked up and asked her what she needed. She said, “Is this the Mayer’s?” I was confused and asked her in Bengali what she wanted. She responded again with the same question. At this point I realized this was not my cousin!
A random stranger had walked into the house in the middle of the night through the unlocked, front door, and was stomping around asking for the Mayers. At first, I was confused and terrified. It is frightening to have someone you don’t know standing at your bedroom door. As she went back down the stairs, I put on clothes, woke Klaus and went down after her. She was at the front vestibule – a five-foot one-inch twenty-something, with pretty blond curls, a blackberry, a dazed look and fur-collared coat. I tremulously told her she had scared us, and asked what she was doing here. Her response was vacant (almost impolite). “Is this the Mayers?” she repeated. “I think you have the wrong house”. “Oh,” she said, “it must be the next house down”. She opened the door, drunkenly stumbled on the steps, and then walked off into the darkness, with me calling behind her, “Will you be OK?” No response.
I have been mulling the circumstances of that night over the past few days. Although she was an intruder and could have been dangerous, in retrospect she was just lost. Should I have offered more assistance? Should I be worried that she will return another night? Were there others with her staking out the house? The situation reminded me of our troops in Afghanistan. As we increase the number of soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people by stomping around their homeland, are we succeeding in our mission?
James Cameron’s Avatar presents an analogous set of circumstances. A group of ex-Army soldiers working for a multi-galaxy conglomerate are recovering natural resources from the distant planet of Pandora. To ally with the indigenous population, the Na’vi, the company has hired scientists to set-up schools and learn their ways. To interact with the Na’vi, the humanistic team develops DNA replicas of the blue, 9-foot tall Na’vi. Humans interact through these avatars by digitally sending brain impulses into the clones. The ingenious method works, and select individuals are able to observe, relate and experience the Na’vi world. Unfortunately, diplomacy gives way to aggression as the corporate leaders have little tolerance for patient progress.
Cameron set out to create the greatest movie ever made. It many ways it is hard to argue with his ambition – he has achieved it. This is momentous film-making, an immersion into a bio-luminescent world strained by the onslaught of foreign forces. In 3D IMAX, the film envelopes the viewer in the world of Pandora – only smell and taste are missing. The movie’s hero views Eden anew through his avatar and discerns a connection to this world truer than to his own. Only by literally seeing through the eyes of the enemy, does he comprehend all that he has not observed before. Cameron’s gift to the audience is to bring us on this wondrous journey as well. Film-making has changed forever.
The new Clint Eastwood movie, Invictus, stars Morgan Freeman as a reincarnation of Nelson Mandela. Relating the tale of the 1995 Rugby World Cup when South Africa hosted and against all odds won the games, the story traces Mandela’s efforts to use the games as a means of unifying a post-apartheid country. Traditionally a sport supported by white Afrikaners, the President partners with the team captain Francois Piennar to encourage the players to represent the entire country and not just the white minority. Matt Damon in a slight turn from Bourne, assumes Piennar’s avatar with vigor adopting a hefty rugby frame and blond hair.
The movie is timed to be another Eastwood holiday, Oscars grab – similar to Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima in years past. The story is grand – a great leader cajoling racial acceptance through positive reinforcement, kindness and sheer charisma. Mandela proves astute political maneuvering by refusing to change the name and colors of the national rugby team despite the request of the Black majority. He recognizes that this alteration will only play further into the fears of the white minority. The gamble pays off; the Green & Gold’s are embraced by the nation as they ascend to World Cup victory. While the final win of the South African team is thrilling, the movie falters short of the goal line because the transformation from racism to pluralism occurs too easily. Even the doppelganger performance by Morgan Freeman, can’t free the film from a sense that the triumph of the team is not truly earned.
To win hearts and minds, the gesture needs to be mutual. We as Americans have an obligation to help Afghanistan, and the people need to be open to the support. Stalwart, Afrikaners did not necessarily want a Black-African run government, but the fact that they stayed in South Africa – rather than leaving for another country – showed a willingness to try. In the Na’vi world, top warriors ride on dragon-like creatures which they must tame and then partner for life. The taming requires the warrior to recognize the dragon partner, and the partner to agree to be ridden. Each wins the heart of the other.
In Afghanistan, we are increasing troops to stabilize the government and train the domestic security officers. But in the end do they really want this? The schools we are building are undoubtedly appreciated by the villagers, but does the Afghani government place value on them? Does our constant bombing in the countryside bring more comfort or fear to the residents when they hear these sounds in the middle of the night. Not having been there, I have no easy answers. But, until Karzai’s government is willing to walk in the shoes of American soldiers, and see the world through an Afghan villager’s eyes, it seems unlikely we can be successful in our mission.
Similar to my late-night visitor, I can offer my help and try to make her more comfortable and at ease. But if she herself is either too bewildered or drugged to accept the offer, then how much longer does the obligation last? For Afghanistan, President Obama has declared June 2010. This seems a reasonable timeline to end a war that we started almost a decade ago.
In the case of my unintentional guest, after we went back upstairs, ten minutes later we saw her from the bedroom window, sitting on the deck chairs and circling the house with her cell phone on. Later there is a knock at the door, and by the time we get downstairs to open it, she is gone. We didn’t hear from her again.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Some thoughts on… Losing Cachet
With the year almost complete, questions are being raised on Barack Obama’s effectiveness as a President. His poll numbers have come down from their sky-high start at the beginning of the year, and many say that his aspiring claims for change have crashed on the hard ground of political reality.
With a continuing the war in Afghanistan compounded by the elusiveness of Al-Qaeda; the domestic unemployment rate at an all time high; and belligerent negotiations with Iran over nuclear-arms control resulting in stalemate, has Obama lost some of his lofty stature and his purpose?
Tiger Woods, a mixed-race American with Black descent, has reached the pinnacle of his chosen career. His young age, boyish-good looks, and phenom golfing ability propelled him to the top of a sport that historically was a bastion for white middle-aged men. The endorsements came a-calling – Cadillac, Gatorade, Accenture. Want to be a success? Be like Tiger. His fall from grace due to marital indiscretions came even more rapidly.
The personal circumstances of his private life are irrelevant; those are his burden to bear not ours to judge. But was his Icarus-like fall due to the fact that he soared too close to the sun? Did his actions essentially bite the commercial hand that feeds him? To the extent that Tiger was representing an upright, moral, and disciplined person one could argue that his actions tarnished this image. But that’s not what he was portraying – most of his advertisements expatiated his remarkable ability to play golf. That talent has not dissipated. The company endorsements that relied on depicting a perfect man may be taken away, yet we should still admire his skills on the course for what they are – this is essentially what Tiger is staying true to. He will be ascendant again soon.
Ivan Reitman’s new movie, Up in the Air, flies at many different altitudes. At its heart, it is the story of man determining what is important in life. George Clooney plays the wandering soul, Ryan Bingham, to Oscar-winning affection. Ryan’s goal is to achieve ten-million mile status on American Airlines. His pursuit of this goal overshadows any other meaningful relationship – spouse, employment, children, home. His family is the airlines, and he is happiest when flying. As the movie tagline claims it’s “the story of a man ready to make a connection”.
Ryan’s loss of elevation is precipitated by work circumstances that ground him before achieving his goal. He is forced to deal with terrestrial matters that are much stickier than cleanly flying off to a new destination. An aerial life is impossible if you carry too much weight, and he reluctantly discovers that by keeping his head in the clouds, he has lost opportunities to acquire any baggage – maintaining a friendship with his younger sister, choosing a travelling companion to share his daily journey. We may see Ryan’s compulsive flying as a distraction or escape, and yet for him it is reality; the most important objective in his life. We can not fault Ryan’s choice to stay aloft; he recognizes that this decision comes at the price of Earthly gains.
Obama started the year flying high and has naturally faced turbulence. But his cachet has not plummeted for two reasons: he is not biting the hand that feeds him and he is staying true to his principles. He is tackling the weighty issues of his office instead of whisking himself away from conflict by keeping his head in idealistic clouds.
Listing out the accomplishments so far is impressive: wrangling landmark legislation on Health Care, negotiating targets on climate change, selecting an outstanding Supreme Court justice, winning a Nobel Prize, and placing the US back in the center of world politics.
Perhaps it is liberal guilt that we feel a need to provide an unbiased judgment on Obama’s performance for the year. Yet, I don’t remember any year of accomplishment in the past 8 of the previous administration that have been this impressive. The President may have lost some cachet after the election but he is definitely not losing acceleration.
December 23, 2009
With a continuing the war in Afghanistan compounded by the elusiveness of Al-Qaeda; the domestic unemployment rate at an all time high; and belligerent negotiations with Iran over nuclear-arms control resulting in stalemate, has Obama lost some of his lofty stature and his purpose?
Tiger Woods, a mixed-race American with Black descent, has reached the pinnacle of his chosen career. His young age, boyish-good looks, and phenom golfing ability propelled him to the top of a sport that historically was a bastion for white middle-aged men. The endorsements came a-calling – Cadillac, Gatorade, Accenture. Want to be a success? Be like Tiger. His fall from grace due to marital indiscretions came even more rapidly.
The personal circumstances of his private life are irrelevant; those are his burden to bear not ours to judge. But was his Icarus-like fall due to the fact that he soared too close to the sun? Did his actions essentially bite the commercial hand that feeds him? To the extent that Tiger was representing an upright, moral, and disciplined person one could argue that his actions tarnished this image. But that’s not what he was portraying – most of his advertisements expatiated his remarkable ability to play golf. That talent has not dissipated. The company endorsements that relied on depicting a perfect man may be taken away, yet we should still admire his skills on the course for what they are – this is essentially what Tiger is staying true to. He will be ascendant again soon.
Ivan Reitman’s new movie, Up in the Air, flies at many different altitudes. At its heart, it is the story of man determining what is important in life. George Clooney plays the wandering soul, Ryan Bingham, to Oscar-winning affection. Ryan’s goal is to achieve ten-million mile status on American Airlines. His pursuit of this goal overshadows any other meaningful relationship – spouse, employment, children, home. His family is the airlines, and he is happiest when flying. As the movie tagline claims it’s “the story of a man ready to make a connection”.
Ryan’s loss of elevation is precipitated by work circumstances that ground him before achieving his goal. He is forced to deal with terrestrial matters that are much stickier than cleanly flying off to a new destination. An aerial life is impossible if you carry too much weight, and he reluctantly discovers that by keeping his head in the clouds, he has lost opportunities to acquire any baggage – maintaining a friendship with his younger sister, choosing a travelling companion to share his daily journey. We may see Ryan’s compulsive flying as a distraction or escape, and yet for him it is reality; the most important objective in his life. We can not fault Ryan’s choice to stay aloft; he recognizes that this decision comes at the price of Earthly gains.
Obama started the year flying high and has naturally faced turbulence. But his cachet has not plummeted for two reasons: he is not biting the hand that feeds him and he is staying true to his principles. He is tackling the weighty issues of his office instead of whisking himself away from conflict by keeping his head in idealistic clouds.
Listing out the accomplishments so far is impressive: wrangling landmark legislation on Health Care, negotiating targets on climate change, selecting an outstanding Supreme Court justice, winning a Nobel Prize, and placing the US back in the center of world politics.
Perhaps it is liberal guilt that we feel a need to provide an unbiased judgment on Obama’s performance for the year. Yet, I don’t remember any year of accomplishment in the past 8 of the previous administration that have been this impressive. The President may have lost some cachet after the election but he is definitely not losing acceleration.
December 23, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Some thoughts on… Defying Augury
Obama wins the Nobel Prize for Peace – and despite his enormous self-confidence is overwhelmed and takes the accolade with humility. Alfred Nobel intended the prize to be awarded to someone who “during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
This honor is high recognition for a first-year President, and the announcement is met with mixed review – it is too early in his career; he has not demonstrated enough. Conservatives receive fresh fodder to throw trash in his direction.
But, why shouldn’t Obama receive the Peace Prize for the promise that he holds?
In the recent production of Hamlet on Broadway, Jude Law brings a swarthy swagger to the role. His Hamlet is more a predator, a crouching jaguar ready to spring, rather than an intellectual with great diction. Law’s stance with his hips slightly askance propels Hamlet’s thuggish nature – a man looking for a fight. The murder of his father, the king, by his uncle inflames Hamlet but he is unable to act. He wants to fight, but trepidation of death tempers his fury resulting in inaction.
After near-escapes from death, towards the end of the play, he articulates in one of his famous monologues that he will “defy augury”. Recognizing that death is inevitable and that knowing when it will come provides minimal insight, he quells his fear of challenging his uncle, the new king, and puts behind his own prediction that he will die in the process. The epiphany readies him to live fully the life that he is leading and to take action against his uncle rather than wait on the sidelines.
In an interview this week at Columbia University which was broadcast on CNBC, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett discussed their belief in the US system of capitalism and the promise of the future. The two are the richest men in the world and are products of the uniquely American system. Gates’ success at Microsoft was driven by a passion so strong for software programming that he left Harvard to start his own company. The organization that he literally built from scratch has become one of the most transformative companies of the past few decades.
In the past ten years, this passion has been complemented by compassion to create the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation dedicated to the belief that every life on Earth has equal value. The Foundation’s unheralded approach to improving education in the US and curing the diseases of the poorest populations – malaria, TB, diarrhea – demonstrates that shocks to the conventional approach of curing diseases may result in dramatic results. The impact on global health of their investments may not be seen for another decade, but they are challenging the prognostications that some diseases are just incurable.
The Gates Foundation is a glimmer of hope to resolving the toughest health issues of the planet, and the true hero of this story is Warren Buffet. Using principles of “value investing”, Mr. Buffet has amassed a fortune by betting on companies for the long-term rather than relying on market fads or illusory signals of corporate strength. His judgment has brought great riches to himself and the shareholders of his company Berkshire-Hathaway. His ethical and intelligent approach to business transactions alongside his humble, self-deprecating wit are hallmarks of his style of business – a sharp contrast to the greed-driven, poor decision-making that led to the financial crisis.
A mark of this style was his gift of over $30 billion to the Gates Foundation three years ago, which doubled the size of the foundation and accounted for a vast proportion of Buffet’s wealth. Rather than provide the money to his children and grand-children, he decided instead to support the world’s population, giving Bill and Melinda Gates control and responsibility of his fortune. No large buildings dedicated with his name; no grand galas proclaiming his charitable contributions – a self-effacing gesture of generosity.
People say we can’t reward the Peace Prize for intentions – but why should we not when the intentions are well-guided and true.
Many of us are scared to reward people on potential because it’s difficult to discern who really will be the winners. But it’s critical for us to award and praise people who are trying to defy the conventional wisdom. These people are going against the prognostications that demand only incremental change can happen. The point is not that these people will actually make changes but that they have readied themselves and tried to change the system. The act of defiance is better than not doing anything at all. Let’s reward those that are trying to make a difference – regardless of whether their efforts bear fruit.
Obama like these other individuals– Hamlet, Gates, Buffett – is showing readiness, compassion, humility and passion in his approach to promoting peace in the world. It’s not just the end result but the trying in the face of uncertain victory. Let’s “value invest” in a man that defies the augury of a jaded world population which believes nothing can be done to change the ways of the past.
November 14, 2009
This honor is high recognition for a first-year President, and the announcement is met with mixed review – it is too early in his career; he has not demonstrated enough. Conservatives receive fresh fodder to throw trash in his direction.
But, why shouldn’t Obama receive the Peace Prize for the promise that he holds?
In the recent production of Hamlet on Broadway, Jude Law brings a swarthy swagger to the role. His Hamlet is more a predator, a crouching jaguar ready to spring, rather than an intellectual with great diction. Law’s stance with his hips slightly askance propels Hamlet’s thuggish nature – a man looking for a fight. The murder of his father, the king, by his uncle inflames Hamlet but he is unable to act. He wants to fight, but trepidation of death tempers his fury resulting in inaction.
After near-escapes from death, towards the end of the play, he articulates in one of his famous monologues that he will “defy augury”. Recognizing that death is inevitable and that knowing when it will come provides minimal insight, he quells his fear of challenging his uncle, the new king, and puts behind his own prediction that he will die in the process. The epiphany readies him to live fully the life that he is leading and to take action against his uncle rather than wait on the sidelines.
In an interview this week at Columbia University which was broadcast on CNBC, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett discussed their belief in the US system of capitalism and the promise of the future. The two are the richest men in the world and are products of the uniquely American system. Gates’ success at Microsoft was driven by a passion so strong for software programming that he left Harvard to start his own company. The organization that he literally built from scratch has become one of the most transformative companies of the past few decades.
In the past ten years, this passion has been complemented by compassion to create the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation dedicated to the belief that every life on Earth has equal value. The Foundation’s unheralded approach to improving education in the US and curing the diseases of the poorest populations – malaria, TB, diarrhea – demonstrates that shocks to the conventional approach of curing diseases may result in dramatic results. The impact on global health of their investments may not be seen for another decade, but they are challenging the prognostications that some diseases are just incurable.
The Gates Foundation is a glimmer of hope to resolving the toughest health issues of the planet, and the true hero of this story is Warren Buffet. Using principles of “value investing”, Mr. Buffet has amassed a fortune by betting on companies for the long-term rather than relying on market fads or illusory signals of corporate strength. His judgment has brought great riches to himself and the shareholders of his company Berkshire-Hathaway. His ethical and intelligent approach to business transactions alongside his humble, self-deprecating wit are hallmarks of his style of business – a sharp contrast to the greed-driven, poor decision-making that led to the financial crisis.
A mark of this style was his gift of over $30 billion to the Gates Foundation three years ago, which doubled the size of the foundation and accounted for a vast proportion of Buffet’s wealth. Rather than provide the money to his children and grand-children, he decided instead to support the world’s population, giving Bill and Melinda Gates control and responsibility of his fortune. No large buildings dedicated with his name; no grand galas proclaiming his charitable contributions – a self-effacing gesture of generosity.
People say we can’t reward the Peace Prize for intentions – but why should we not when the intentions are well-guided and true.
Many of us are scared to reward people on potential because it’s difficult to discern who really will be the winners. But it’s critical for us to award and praise people who are trying to defy the conventional wisdom. These people are going against the prognostications that demand only incremental change can happen. The point is not that these people will actually make changes but that they have readied themselves and tried to change the system. The act of defiance is better than not doing anything at all. Let’s reward those that are trying to make a difference – regardless of whether their efforts bear fruit.
Obama like these other individuals– Hamlet, Gates, Buffett – is showing readiness, compassion, humility and passion in his approach to promoting peace in the world. It’s not just the end result but the trying in the face of uncertain victory. Let’s “value invest” in a man that defies the augury of a jaded world population which believes nothing can be done to change the ways of the past.
November 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Some thoughts on… Take A Chance (On Me)
A Congressman screams, “You lie!” to the President during a Joint Session of Congress, and then ends up raising millions for his re-election campaign. It seems the weighty days when a shoe thrown at the President would get one tortured in an Iraqi prison are long gone. Now people get rewarded for their impropriety.
The groundswell of support for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) within and outside of his district is worrying. People are not necessarily reacting to the issue that Wilson found so objectionable – the inclusion of undocumented immigrants into the health care bill – but are simply objecting to the changes proposed by the administration. The fact that a proportion of the populace believes that Obama is both a fascist and communist, and so want to “take back America” is bewildering. When did we Americans become so scared of change? Why are people so determined to defend the status quo on issues like health care, carbon taxes and education?
It may be that many people remain distressed being led by an African-American President. I think it is that we have become too comfortable and that we are scared of losing the little that we have amassed.
How did Americans become so complacent that we fear change?
It would seem we were not always like this. The powerhouse duo behind ABBA, created the musical Kristina fran Duvamala in 1995. A hit in Sweden, the show has recently been translated to English and a concert version was performed at Carnegie Hall for two nights in September. A Swedish village impacted by drought displaces to the American mid-west in search of a new life and potential prosperity. This is the classic American tale re-told through a Scandinavian lens – immigration, adventure, and re-settlement in a brave new world.
The music is archetypal Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, with swelling choruses and catchy melodies enchantingly supported in the starring role by the songbird Helen Sjoholm – the voice of Agnetha Faltskog reincarnated. The show is a rousing reminder of how this country was established one family at a time. The protagonist, Kristina, crosses the oceans; establishes a homestead, rears eight children (losing one to sickness) and dies of fever in the end. The concept of picking up one’s life and livelihood and re-establishing in a new land seems so foreign now. No one takes those kinds of risks today – but almost every family in the US is descended from individuals who did precisely this.
Memphis: The Musical, opened on Broadway, yesterday on Monday, October 19. A fictional story of radio announcers from the time, it tells the story of a poor white boy (Huey Calhoun) who falls in love with R&B music and tries to introduce it to the mainstream despite the inherent prejudices of the society. Set in the 1950’s, Huey eventually gains broader (i.e. white people’s) appreciation for music that mostly was heard in speakeasy’s and “colored” bars around Memphis, but then loses it all when he is unwilling to play the politics of the music industry.
Set to the swaying and heart-pumping songs of the period, the show demands the audience’s reckoning of a racist US society, and the recognition that greatness can rise above discrimination. This is another great American story – the scrappy entrepreneur fights against insurmountable odds to gain success and fame for him and those who deserve it. The understanding that this person could lose everything at any point in the process is inherent. We innately accept the premise that high-risk is correlated to high-reward – it is interwoven into our story-telling.
Americans used to be the innovators, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs. Europeans were the stodgy ones – the “old world” where the society never changed. After five decades of being mass-marketed to, plied with designer names, and provided every creature comfort, we have ended up just as risk-averse. We like what we have now – it may not be perfect – but better than not having anything. No desire to upset the apple-cart – even though half of the produce has gone bad.
We know that risky policy adventures may lead to great outcomes, but we have become more concerned about the downside of change than the potential upside. In some sense, we are outsourcing attempts at these new ventures to countries more willing to take the calculated risks and not so complacent about their position in the world – India, China, and Brazil.
Perhaps we can listen again to the tales that founded this country and take a chance on the President’s bold moves. What do we really have to lose?
October 20, 2009
The groundswell of support for Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) within and outside of his district is worrying. People are not necessarily reacting to the issue that Wilson found so objectionable – the inclusion of undocumented immigrants into the health care bill – but are simply objecting to the changes proposed by the administration. The fact that a proportion of the populace believes that Obama is both a fascist and communist, and so want to “take back America” is bewildering. When did we Americans become so scared of change? Why are people so determined to defend the status quo on issues like health care, carbon taxes and education?
It may be that many people remain distressed being led by an African-American President. I think it is that we have become too comfortable and that we are scared of losing the little that we have amassed.
How did Americans become so complacent that we fear change?
It would seem we were not always like this. The powerhouse duo behind ABBA, created the musical Kristina fran Duvamala in 1995. A hit in Sweden, the show has recently been translated to English and a concert version was performed at Carnegie Hall for two nights in September. A Swedish village impacted by drought displaces to the American mid-west in search of a new life and potential prosperity. This is the classic American tale re-told through a Scandinavian lens – immigration, adventure, and re-settlement in a brave new world.
The music is archetypal Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, with swelling choruses and catchy melodies enchantingly supported in the starring role by the songbird Helen Sjoholm – the voice of Agnetha Faltskog reincarnated. The show is a rousing reminder of how this country was established one family at a time. The protagonist, Kristina, crosses the oceans; establishes a homestead, rears eight children (losing one to sickness) and dies of fever in the end. The concept of picking up one’s life and livelihood and re-establishing in a new land seems so foreign now. No one takes those kinds of risks today – but almost every family in the US is descended from individuals who did precisely this.
Memphis: The Musical, opened on Broadway, yesterday on Monday, October 19. A fictional story of radio announcers from the time, it tells the story of a poor white boy (Huey Calhoun) who falls in love with R&B music and tries to introduce it to the mainstream despite the inherent prejudices of the society. Set in the 1950’s, Huey eventually gains broader (i.e. white people’s) appreciation for music that mostly was heard in speakeasy’s and “colored” bars around Memphis, but then loses it all when he is unwilling to play the politics of the music industry.
Set to the swaying and heart-pumping songs of the period, the show demands the audience’s reckoning of a racist US society, and the recognition that greatness can rise above discrimination. This is another great American story – the scrappy entrepreneur fights against insurmountable odds to gain success and fame for him and those who deserve it. The understanding that this person could lose everything at any point in the process is inherent. We innately accept the premise that high-risk is correlated to high-reward – it is interwoven into our story-telling.
Americans used to be the innovators, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs. Europeans were the stodgy ones – the “old world” where the society never changed. After five decades of being mass-marketed to, plied with designer names, and provided every creature comfort, we have ended up just as risk-averse. We like what we have now – it may not be perfect – but better than not having anything. No desire to upset the apple-cart – even though half of the produce has gone bad.
We know that risky policy adventures may lead to great outcomes, but we have become more concerned about the downside of change than the potential upside. In some sense, we are outsourcing attempts at these new ventures to countries more willing to take the calculated risks and not so complacent about their position in the world – India, China, and Brazil.
Perhaps we can listen again to the tales that founded this country and take a chance on the President’s bold moves. What do we really have to lose?
October 20, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Some thoughts on… Transparency
An electrifying young President sweeps into office promising change. He institutes broad legislation in the first few months of tenure. He moves mountains and the Hill stands in awe. Yet, one piece of legislation bogs him down, expends his political capital and stalls future change. Bill Clinton stalled on Gays in the Military – society was not ready.
Will Obama falter the same way with Health Care?
Fevered town hall meetings, Democrats refusing to fall in line, alarming allegations of “death panels” from Sarah Palin – it has become the intractable issue of the administration. Propping up failed banks, breaking apart GM, stabilizing the economy – are all Lilliputian tasks compared to the healthcare quagmire. Even the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy may not be enough to rally politicians around this critical issue.
With Congress and the President on vacation, the issue will play out after Labor Day, a good chance for us to reflect on why the White House is losing this war.
Everyone recognizes the need. First, it is irresponsible for a developed society not to provide basic health care as a primary right for its inhabitants. Second, the current system is untenable with health care costs consuming a huge part of the nation’s GDP – resources that could potentially be used for other causes – primary school education, medical research, or climate control. So why are people so scared to implement this change when the need is so apparent?
Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 is an electrifying portrayal of a society at odds with its own residents. An alien space ship docks above Johannesburg, filled with a derelict extra-terrestrial populace that eventually take up residence in the slums of the city. Shot on-location in Soweto, the allegory of the apartheid era is front and center. The citizens of Jo-burg – both black and white – allow the foreigners to reside initially but then turn against them. The aliens’ otherness is exploited by a multi-national corporation, reviled by humans, and forgotten by the government.
The human citizenry is unwilling to extend any rights or dignities to the strangers. They are essentially left to fend for themselves; cordoned off from the rest of the populace by high walls and barbed wire. Drawn in such stark contrast, the despicability of the act is apparent, and yet the analogy to our current circumstance becomes even more deplorable. Despite the fact that aliens almost look like humans, as a society we are willing to create a second class of citizens who are allowed to live amongst us, but for whom we choose not to expend our own money to afford the same rights.
Torchwood: The Children of Earth, the third in a series of BBC shows describes a covert quasi-government team that watch over a space-time rift in Cardiff, Wales. A spin-off from the show Doctor Who, the latest installment finds the Torchwood group resisting an invasion by extra-terrestrial creatures who demand a fraction of the planet’s children. The aliens’ plot is aided by the highest levels of government who make the trade-off in order to prevent a virus being unleashed on all the people of the world.
The story characterizes society’s ethical options when weighing one evil against another. The choices are not easy and no answer is “correct”. In the show, the government decides to sacrifice the poorer and less-educated children in the country, rather than make a random allocation across all strata. The answer is reprehensible to some and acceptable to others, but where the government universally falters is by making the choices covertly. The secrecy engenders distrust, and the purposeful distractions by the government reinforce the suspicion.
Given the sweeping regulatory changes that have taken place in the past few months, with health care the country may be saying it is too much to digest in one go. This is something that people need time to process. We know there is an inherent reluctance to extend healthcare to portions of the population that some consider are either undeserving or believe will unnecessarily usurp resources.
Building on the reluctance, there is wide-spread distrust in a government program making decisions around health care provision –whether it be end of life choices or basic preventive care. People are worried that they won’t be able to get the care they want. In any legislated program, there will need to be some choices – an elderly alcoholic with cirrhosis should not be given a new liver, when that money can be used to purchase free Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines for children. So are there similar choices hidden within this bill?
Our charming 70-year old, libertarian host at a B&B in Callistoga, CA expressed both issues quite simply. She is a hard-working lady who raised five children, cares about public service and came from a working class background. Her worry was that extending services to a broader population would only lead to a waste of her tax-payer resources on unnecessary procedures.
The administration is faltering because it is not addressing these two concerns of the populace. First, why it is critical to extend primary care benefits to the entire population and second, what implications this would have on the care being provided to people who are covered today. Similar to how Obama described the implications of his tax changes, i.e. people who make less than $250,000 will not see there taxes increase, he needs to make some clear and incisive statements on the implications of this legislation.
The sheer size of the bill – H.R. 3200 – which is over 1000 pages does not make it any easier to understand the two issues. The nation is asking for some clear answers, transparency around the decision-making and some time to digest. Let’s provide this and get this important bill passed.
August 30, 2009
Will Obama falter the same way with Health Care?
Fevered town hall meetings, Democrats refusing to fall in line, alarming allegations of “death panels” from Sarah Palin – it has become the intractable issue of the administration. Propping up failed banks, breaking apart GM, stabilizing the economy – are all Lilliputian tasks compared to the healthcare quagmire. Even the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy may not be enough to rally politicians around this critical issue.
With Congress and the President on vacation, the issue will play out after Labor Day, a good chance for us to reflect on why the White House is losing this war.
Everyone recognizes the need. First, it is irresponsible for a developed society not to provide basic health care as a primary right for its inhabitants. Second, the current system is untenable with health care costs consuming a huge part of the nation’s GDP – resources that could potentially be used for other causes – primary school education, medical research, or climate control. So why are people so scared to implement this change when the need is so apparent?
Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 is an electrifying portrayal of a society at odds with its own residents. An alien space ship docks above Johannesburg, filled with a derelict extra-terrestrial populace that eventually take up residence in the slums of the city. Shot on-location in Soweto, the allegory of the apartheid era is front and center. The citizens of Jo-burg – both black and white – allow the foreigners to reside initially but then turn against them. The aliens’ otherness is exploited by a multi-national corporation, reviled by humans, and forgotten by the government.
The human citizenry is unwilling to extend any rights or dignities to the strangers. They are essentially left to fend for themselves; cordoned off from the rest of the populace by high walls and barbed wire. Drawn in such stark contrast, the despicability of the act is apparent, and yet the analogy to our current circumstance becomes even more deplorable. Despite the fact that aliens almost look like humans, as a society we are willing to create a second class of citizens who are allowed to live amongst us, but for whom we choose not to expend our own money to afford the same rights.
Torchwood: The Children of Earth, the third in a series of BBC shows describes a covert quasi-government team that watch over a space-time rift in Cardiff, Wales. A spin-off from the show Doctor Who, the latest installment finds the Torchwood group resisting an invasion by extra-terrestrial creatures who demand a fraction of the planet’s children. The aliens’ plot is aided by the highest levels of government who make the trade-off in order to prevent a virus being unleashed on all the people of the world.
The story characterizes society’s ethical options when weighing one evil against another. The choices are not easy and no answer is “correct”. In the show, the government decides to sacrifice the poorer and less-educated children in the country, rather than make a random allocation across all strata. The answer is reprehensible to some and acceptable to others, but where the government universally falters is by making the choices covertly. The secrecy engenders distrust, and the purposeful distractions by the government reinforce the suspicion.
Given the sweeping regulatory changes that have taken place in the past few months, with health care the country may be saying it is too much to digest in one go. This is something that people need time to process. We know there is an inherent reluctance to extend healthcare to portions of the population that some consider are either undeserving or believe will unnecessarily usurp resources.
Building on the reluctance, there is wide-spread distrust in a government program making decisions around health care provision –whether it be end of life choices or basic preventive care. People are worried that they won’t be able to get the care they want. In any legislated program, there will need to be some choices – an elderly alcoholic with cirrhosis should not be given a new liver, when that money can be used to purchase free Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines for children. So are there similar choices hidden within this bill?
Our charming 70-year old, libertarian host at a B&B in Callistoga, CA expressed both issues quite simply. She is a hard-working lady who raised five children, cares about public service and came from a working class background. Her worry was that extending services to a broader population would only lead to a waste of her tax-payer resources on unnecessary procedures.
The administration is faltering because it is not addressing these two concerns of the populace. First, why it is critical to extend primary care benefits to the entire population and second, what implications this would have on the care being provided to people who are covered today. Similar to how Obama described the implications of his tax changes, i.e. people who make less than $250,000 will not see there taxes increase, he needs to make some clear and incisive statements on the implications of this legislation.
The sheer size of the bill – H.R. 3200 – which is over 1000 pages does not make it any easier to understand the two issues. The nation is asking for some clear answers, transparency around the decision-making and some time to digest. Let’s provide this and get this important bill passed.
August 30, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Some thoughts on… In Memoriam
Michael Jackson’s death may be the first truly global event of the century. Other milestones come close, like 9/11 or the death of the pope, but it seems almost every household in the world felt they knew Michael Jackson, through either his music or his moves. Radio stations replayed his music, newspapers reflected on his style, and people from all walks of life paid tribute. Perhaps this is a reflection of the ubiquity of pop-culture, but it is hopefully an indication of his singular talent which was able to inspire cultures and countries across the globe.
But no one can deny that he had notoriety surrounding him as well – lamas and chimps on his lavish Neverland estate; allegations of pedophilia; finances that placed him on the verge of bankruptcy; a constantly evolving facial construction. As anyone who has experienced loss knows, our remembrances of people are mixed. So, what will we remember of the King of Pop? Perhaps pop culture can provide some insights.
The tony-award winning musical, Next to Normal, bedevils in its portrayal of a typical family plunged into incoherence by the death of a relative. The characters attempt to support each other, but the overwhelming memory of the loss consumes them alive. The music is soaring and searing, a refreshing jolt back to the early days of Rent. One can hope that the show remains driven by its strong voices and insightful lyrics rather than jarring instrumentation and overacting to which Rent later devolved.
Memory is a vivid character in the show interweaving into day to day activities. Interacting with these remembrances, the characters confront their prejudices of each other leaving little room for caution. Resolution may not arrive in a neat and tidy bow, but the angelic revelation is clear – we need to remember and recognize our grief in order to overcome it. Trying to erase painful memories only leads to other losses.
Recently re-watching Ian McKellen as aging director James Whale in Gods and Monsters, I recalled why I admire Brendan Fraser. The interaction between the characters is a touching portrait of a platonic friendship between lonely souls – one gay and one straight; a relationship combination we rarely see on the screen.
Near the end of his life, McKellen’s character is jarred by reminiscences of a disapproving family, lost love, and the glories of by-gone days. Fraser is a blue-collar aesthete with an Adonis-like physique, whose sensitivity awakens the memories. He plays the role without campiness allowing the viewer to believe the trauma faced by Whale. In the movie, memories are not active characters, but are the background sets providing context for the choices made in life. By erupting at random points, the recollections divulge the answers for past and future actions of the characters.
Pixar has done it again with their new film – Up. The movie holds true to the title, lifting the spirit of its viewers through a frothy mix of morality tale, unprecedented 3-D graphics and rollicking, adventure story. The camaraderie between a crotchety– widower and a bulbous boy-scout seeking approval heals both their wounds. With the loss of his wife, the older man has forgotten how to interact with the world. He literally holds on to her memories even though they want to fly away. The un-ending optimism of the youth is what allows him to release the weight from his shoulders and engage in the adventure surrounding him. As with many Pixar movies, especially this one, go see this with a parent or relative over 65 – the subtle messaging somehow unfolds even more elegantly.
With anyone we have lost or will lose in our lives, their past foibles will be memories that constantly recur. We can not choose what we remember – sometimes the images come at you at the oddest times – a hint of music, the smell of cooking, the color of a leaf But, we can choose to view these shortcomings as the context for circumstances they faced and the decisions they made. Choices and situations we all must confront.
The trick with these unpleasant memories is not to forget or deny them, but to face them for what they are – the mistakes of mortal, human beings. Once we can place them in context, then it is easier to let them float away like a house strapped to thousands of multi-colored balloons.
.
So with Michael Jackson, despite lingering doubts of interaction with children, I’ll remember the bell quality of his voice on “She’s Out of My Life”, his MoonDance to Billie Jean, and the departing words of his 11-year old daughter, “Daddy has been the best father I can ever imagine, and I love him so much”.
July 11, 2009
But no one can deny that he had notoriety surrounding him as well – lamas and chimps on his lavish Neverland estate; allegations of pedophilia; finances that placed him on the verge of bankruptcy; a constantly evolving facial construction. As anyone who has experienced loss knows, our remembrances of people are mixed. So, what will we remember of the King of Pop? Perhaps pop culture can provide some insights.
The tony-award winning musical, Next to Normal, bedevils in its portrayal of a typical family plunged into incoherence by the death of a relative. The characters attempt to support each other, but the overwhelming memory of the loss consumes them alive. The music is soaring and searing, a refreshing jolt back to the early days of Rent. One can hope that the show remains driven by its strong voices and insightful lyrics rather than jarring instrumentation and overacting to which Rent later devolved.
Memory is a vivid character in the show interweaving into day to day activities. Interacting with these remembrances, the characters confront their prejudices of each other leaving little room for caution. Resolution may not arrive in a neat and tidy bow, but the angelic revelation is clear – we need to remember and recognize our grief in order to overcome it. Trying to erase painful memories only leads to other losses.
Recently re-watching Ian McKellen as aging director James Whale in Gods and Monsters, I recalled why I admire Brendan Fraser. The interaction between the characters is a touching portrait of a platonic friendship between lonely souls – one gay and one straight; a relationship combination we rarely see on the screen.
Near the end of his life, McKellen’s character is jarred by reminiscences of a disapproving family, lost love, and the glories of by-gone days. Fraser is a blue-collar aesthete with an Adonis-like physique, whose sensitivity awakens the memories. He plays the role without campiness allowing the viewer to believe the trauma faced by Whale. In the movie, memories are not active characters, but are the background sets providing context for the choices made in life. By erupting at random points, the recollections divulge the answers for past and future actions of the characters.
Pixar has done it again with their new film – Up. The movie holds true to the title, lifting the spirit of its viewers through a frothy mix of morality tale, unprecedented 3-D graphics and rollicking, adventure story. The camaraderie between a crotchety– widower and a bulbous boy-scout seeking approval heals both their wounds. With the loss of his wife, the older man has forgotten how to interact with the world. He literally holds on to her memories even though they want to fly away. The un-ending optimism of the youth is what allows him to release the weight from his shoulders and engage in the adventure surrounding him. As with many Pixar movies, especially this one, go see this with a parent or relative over 65 – the subtle messaging somehow unfolds even more elegantly.
With anyone we have lost or will lose in our lives, their past foibles will be memories that constantly recur. We can not choose what we remember – sometimes the images come at you at the oddest times – a hint of music, the smell of cooking, the color of a leaf But, we can choose to view these shortcomings as the context for circumstances they faced and the decisions they made. Choices and situations we all must confront.
The trick with these unpleasant memories is not to forget or deny them, but to face them for what they are – the mistakes of mortal, human beings. Once we can place them in context, then it is easier to let them float away like a house strapped to thousands of multi-colored balloons.
.
So with Michael Jackson, despite lingering doubts of interaction with children, I’ll remember the bell quality of his voice on “She’s Out of My Life”, his MoonDance to Billie Jean, and the departing words of his 11-year old daughter, “Daddy has been the best father I can ever imagine, and I love him so much”.
July 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Some thoughts on… Glee
A US President in Cairo calling for partnership with the Muslim world – this could have been a scene from a Hollywood blockbuster movie a few years ago – a cotton candy vision of utopia. Yet, B. Hussein Obama (as Ann Coulter addresses him to emphasize the foreignness) provided a shaded perspective on a tenuous topic.
Salient points of the speech:
- The Presidency would fight negative stereotypes of Muslims everywhere, and the same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America.
- Violent extremism must be confronted – all faiths reject the killing of innocent men, women, and children
- An investment of $1.5 billion would be made per year in Afghanistan and Pakistan to build schools, hospital and other infrastructure
- All US troops are to be removed from Iraq by 2012
- The US endorses a two state system in Israel requiring halting of settlements in the occupied territories and renunciation of violence by Palestinians
- A request to stop nuclear weapon proliferation throughout the Middle East including for Israel
- Recognition that the US supports the spread of Democracy globally but would not impose that ideal
- A call to Western nations to stop disguising hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism
- The promotion of equal opportunities for education for women in Muslim countries
- Establishing a partnership in economic development for public health, business development and research
The speech gained widespread acclamation, and everyone has a part with which they disagree – a mark of great oratory. The two individuals who unequivocally denounced the address were Osama bin Laden and Rush Limbaugh who called the President’s visit an “apology tour”. What perfect bed-fellows politics makes.
Given the textured arguments of the speech, a common response has been “These are just words; they need to be backed up by actions.” Obama’s heart may be in the right place, but as they say in Batman Begins “It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”
The second part of the sentiment is uncontestable – commitments made must be followed through.
As for the first part, there is some room for debate. Intention and words matter here, not only because the words are more articulate than any President, Democrat or Republican, in the past 40 years. But also the symbolism is undeniable – the most powerful Office in the world extending a welcome hand and acting as bridge between two worlds. As the fast-paced but ultimately fatigable movie Angels & Demons points out: symbols by themselves convey meaning even if they ultimately don’t lead to anything.
Similar to Nixon’s visit to China, President Obama is the only who could have carried off this remarkable event, because he is a symbol that can be trusted from both sides. The Western world believes in him by virtue of his position. The Islamic world may have skepticism but his Muslim father and upbringing, provide a believable alternative to the “axis of evil” perspectives of previous administrations.
In his own words: “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground,”
The relentless and satisfying production – Glee – is the most promising show of the Fall season. Premiering after American Idol two weeks ago, it was ostensibly a high school musical rip-off with competing cliques breaking into song. Instead the show delivers on the promise of its title – an unwavering assault on your senses until you are forced to smile. The series will continue in September, but the pilot is still available on the internet at the Fox website.
In the show, the quarterback finds that his passion for singing outweighs the taunts of his fellow players. Given his position he is the only one that can bring legitimacy to the outcasts who inhabit the glee club. Like Obama, the football jock inspires confidence from both sides of the fence – not necessarily making the two factions into friends, but engendering a belief that greater understanding is a possibility.
As the choral group from Glee sing - “Don’t Stop Believing”.
June 6, 2009
Salient points of the speech:
- The Presidency would fight negative stereotypes of Muslims everywhere, and the same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America.
- Violent extremism must be confronted – all faiths reject the killing of innocent men, women, and children
- An investment of $1.5 billion would be made per year in Afghanistan and Pakistan to build schools, hospital and other infrastructure
- All US troops are to be removed from Iraq by 2012
- The US endorses a two state system in Israel requiring halting of settlements in the occupied territories and renunciation of violence by Palestinians
- A request to stop nuclear weapon proliferation throughout the Middle East including for Israel
- Recognition that the US supports the spread of Democracy globally but would not impose that ideal
- A call to Western nations to stop disguising hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism
- The promotion of equal opportunities for education for women in Muslim countries
- Establishing a partnership in economic development for public health, business development and research
The speech gained widespread acclamation, and everyone has a part with which they disagree – a mark of great oratory. The two individuals who unequivocally denounced the address were Osama bin Laden and Rush Limbaugh who called the President’s visit an “apology tour”. What perfect bed-fellows politics makes.
Given the textured arguments of the speech, a common response has been “These are just words; they need to be backed up by actions.” Obama’s heart may be in the right place, but as they say in Batman Begins “It’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”
The second part of the sentiment is uncontestable – commitments made must be followed through.
As for the first part, there is some room for debate. Intention and words matter here, not only because the words are more articulate than any President, Democrat or Republican, in the past 40 years. But also the symbolism is undeniable – the most powerful Office in the world extending a welcome hand and acting as bridge between two worlds. As the fast-paced but ultimately fatigable movie Angels & Demons points out: symbols by themselves convey meaning even if they ultimately don’t lead to anything.
Similar to Nixon’s visit to China, President Obama is the only who could have carried off this remarkable event, because he is a symbol that can be trusted from both sides. The Western world believes in him by virtue of his position. The Islamic world may have skepticism but his Muslim father and upbringing, provide a believable alternative to the “axis of evil” perspectives of previous administrations.
In his own words: “All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground,”
The relentless and satisfying production – Glee – is the most promising show of the Fall season. Premiering after American Idol two weeks ago, it was ostensibly a high school musical rip-off with competing cliques breaking into song. Instead the show delivers on the promise of its title – an unwavering assault on your senses until you are forced to smile. The series will continue in September, but the pilot is still available on the internet at the Fox website.
In the show, the quarterback finds that his passion for singing outweighs the taunts of his fellow players. Given his position he is the only one that can bring legitimacy to the outcasts who inhabit the glee club. Like Obama, the football jock inspires confidence from both sides of the fence – not necessarily making the two factions into friends, but engendering a belief that greater understanding is a possibility.
As the choral group from Glee sing - “Don’t Stop Believing”.
June 6, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some thoughts on… Boldly Going
Memorial Day weekend commemorates US men and women who have died in service. Conducting quick internet research, I discovered a site from the Department of Defense describing the casualties of war from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).
As of May 16, 2009, the two wars have resulted in 4,967 US troop deaths. This number is large, and to understand the magnitude, I tried to compare this figure with other major US conflicts. According to Department of Defense statistics and adding both “in-theater” and “non-theater” casualties, I estimate:
Conflict (Number of Deaths)
Persian Gulf War (1,947)
Vietnam War (59,961)
Korean War (54,246)
World War II (~405,000)
World War I (~116,000)
Civil War (~365,000)
Revolutionary War (~5,000)
The bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for the country should be honored. Their efforts have helped to keep the nation safe.
In the past week President Obama and Dick Cheney have offered divergent perspectives on the ongoing maintenance of the nation’s safety in the changing international climate. The issues in contention are the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, e.g. waterboarding, and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo.
Between the President and former Vice-President’s arguments, which of the two approaches is more compelling? To make that decision, let’s choose a reasonable metric for judgment – which of the approaches would save the greater number of future American lives (both military and civilian) as well as non-US civilians?
In his speech, Obama provides his rationale for shutting down Guantanamo and for ceasing waterboarding on the grounds that it is morally the right thing to do. Delivering the speech symbolically from the National Archives, he argues that the values epitomized by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the country’s collective rule of law – is one of the strongest weapon we have to fight terrorism. By adhering to our moral authority in the world, we treat our enemies with dignity and exemplify our ideals. The pictures from Abu Grahib and the practice of waterboarding declare to the world that we don’t mind if our own troops are handled in a similar manner. We treat our neighbors as we ourselves wish to be treated.
The future safety of the American people, and the world’s people, must come from our true position of strength which is elevating to a moral high ground, rather than descending to a ‘might is right’ principle for political expediency.
The ideas from Dick Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute are in stark contrast. Delivered seconds after the completion of the President’s statements and in the midst of shopping his book deal on the Bush years, Cheney defends the previous administration’s position of a comprehensive attack strategy both domestically and internationally to eliminate the terrorist threat. Waterboarding techniques are a necessary tool for these situations, and provide valuable information to sequester enemy insurgence. These techniques are means that justify the end result: there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Although we will never know the contra positive – without Guantanamo and excessive interrogation techniques, would there still have been no terrorist attacks – the former VP is quite confident that this would be impossible.
Which of the approaches will save more lives is a personal perspective that must be answered by individual judgment. At the core is how the American citizenry wish to be treated by their leaders. Cheney’s approach is providing a patronizing argument based on keeping the public in fear – there is a big monster out there, stay in your homes (or in your underground bunker), and let us resolve the problem. It is better that the public stay unaware and in ignorance for that is bliss.
Obama’s approach is boldly going to a new frontier in leadership He is providing well nuanced arguments that clarify a defensible position, rather than broad statements of good versus evil. He trusts that by the government being more transparent, we can make our own distinctions and create fine lines, rather than believe broad brush arguments. Despite our micro-byte driven society, where information is provided in staccato bursts, he trusts that people have the ability to think through a problem, rather than be driven by fear
Similar to the Star Trek franchise, rebooted with flair by J.J. Abrams, the frontier is tackled through engagement and discussion, rather than military onslaught. The original series addressed issues of multi-cultural/ multi-species interaction through tolerance and respect – taking an ethical high-ground on race issues during the contentious 1960’s.
Obama’s moves are a calculated risk, reclaiming a moral leadership position, or in the famous words of the Star Trek opening “boldly going where no one has gone before.”
May 24, 2009
As of May 16, 2009, the two wars have resulted in 4,967 US troop deaths. This number is large, and to understand the magnitude, I tried to compare this figure with other major US conflicts. According to Department of Defense statistics and adding both “in-theater” and “non-theater” casualties, I estimate:
Conflict (Number of Deaths)
Persian Gulf War (1,947)
Vietnam War (59,961)
Korean War (54,246)
World War II (~405,000)
World War I (~116,000)
Civil War (~365,000)
Revolutionary War (~5,000)
The bravery of the men and women who sacrificed for the country should be honored. Their efforts have helped to keep the nation safe.
In the past week President Obama and Dick Cheney have offered divergent perspectives on the ongoing maintenance of the nation’s safety in the changing international climate. The issues in contention are the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, e.g. waterboarding, and the closing of the prison at Guantanamo.
Between the President and former Vice-President’s arguments, which of the two approaches is more compelling? To make that decision, let’s choose a reasonable metric for judgment – which of the approaches would save the greater number of future American lives (both military and civilian) as well as non-US civilians?
In his speech, Obama provides his rationale for shutting down Guantanamo and for ceasing waterboarding on the grounds that it is morally the right thing to do. Delivering the speech symbolically from the National Archives, he argues that the values epitomized by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – the country’s collective rule of law – is one of the strongest weapon we have to fight terrorism. By adhering to our moral authority in the world, we treat our enemies with dignity and exemplify our ideals. The pictures from Abu Grahib and the practice of waterboarding declare to the world that we don’t mind if our own troops are handled in a similar manner. We treat our neighbors as we ourselves wish to be treated.
The future safety of the American people, and the world’s people, must come from our true position of strength which is elevating to a moral high ground, rather than descending to a ‘might is right’ principle for political expediency.
The ideas from Dick Cheney’s speech at the American Enterprise Institute are in stark contrast. Delivered seconds after the completion of the President’s statements and in the midst of shopping his book deal on the Bush years, Cheney defends the previous administration’s position of a comprehensive attack strategy both domestically and internationally to eliminate the terrorist threat. Waterboarding techniques are a necessary tool for these situations, and provide valuable information to sequester enemy insurgence. These techniques are means that justify the end result: there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Although we will never know the contra positive – without Guantanamo and excessive interrogation techniques, would there still have been no terrorist attacks – the former VP is quite confident that this would be impossible.
Which of the approaches will save more lives is a personal perspective that must be answered by individual judgment. At the core is how the American citizenry wish to be treated by their leaders. Cheney’s approach is providing a patronizing argument based on keeping the public in fear – there is a big monster out there, stay in your homes (or in your underground bunker), and let us resolve the problem. It is better that the public stay unaware and in ignorance for that is bliss.
Obama’s approach is boldly going to a new frontier in leadership He is providing well nuanced arguments that clarify a defensible position, rather than broad statements of good versus evil. He trusts that by the government being more transparent, we can make our own distinctions and create fine lines, rather than believe broad brush arguments. Despite our micro-byte driven society, where information is provided in staccato bursts, he trusts that people have the ability to think through a problem, rather than be driven by fear
Similar to the Star Trek franchise, rebooted with flair by J.J. Abrams, the frontier is tackled through engagement and discussion, rather than military onslaught. The original series addressed issues of multi-cultural/ multi-species interaction through tolerance and respect – taking an ethical high-ground on race issues during the contentious 1960’s.
Obama’s moves are a calculated risk, reclaiming a moral leadership position, or in the famous words of the Star Trek opening “boldly going where no one has gone before.”
May 24, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Some thoughts on… Spreading Virulence
With Swine Flu racing around the world, the spread of the virus is on everyone’s mind. The WHO has placed the global public on level 5 for the pandemic indicating that there is sustained human-to-human transmission in communities in different geographical locations. The spread of the disease has claimed 160 lives so far. But there are positive signs of prevalence declining in Mexico – the hypothesized origin of the infections.
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
As with any virus, the spread needs to be monitored and disease burden managed, to minimize infection. Luckily, accumulated experience from previous contagions has provided an effective platform for the WHO and CDC to help control the infection. As a society, we can effectively contain this particular strain of influenza, but there are other sources of political contamination spreading virulence as well.
In response to the overwhelming popularity of Obama, a few domestic voices are infecting Presidential hatred, and transmitting the messages to millions. The communication is perhaps not as deadly as A-H1N1 but noxious nevertheless. These ultra-conservative voices represent a particularly vehement strain of conservatism whose goal is exclusion of swaths of the US population and misrepresentation of current events.
On principle, the expression of these viewpoints must be supported unless they infringe on individual rights. But, could these voices be more harmful than swine flu?
Ann Coulter a self-described polemicist uses her strong Christian beliefs to defend viewpoints ranging from the need for Jews to be perfected to declaring that any Muslim attending a Mosque in Europe must have an affiliation with radical fundamentalist Islamic group. In her own words, “I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.”
Her recent statements have attempted to counter Obama’s astoundingly strong approval ratings which have been reported by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. She has argued in a column in the Washington Times that he is the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years. Her comments have been criticized for fallacy in the analysis which compares apples-to-oranges questions from different poll samplings. This is not the first time she has been criticized for spreading misrepresentations, but the damage is done amongst those who take her statements without question and accept them as accurate representations of reality.
Rush Limbaugh the conservative TV and Radio host has proved to be a good foil for the current administration. Referring to Obama as “Barack the Magic Negro” and demonstratively stating that he hoped the President would fail, he represents a strong voice of societal fear of the other. Differing from Ann Coulter’s denigration of cultures outside of Christianity, Limbaugh’s perspectives ring as exclusionary and divisive on numerous fronts. On the front page of his website, there is a pictorial commentary of the criteria for Supreme Court nomination:
Being several of the above categories myself, it is incredible to imagine that this is seen as a joke. Why shouldn’t someone from all the above categories be a Supreme Court judge as long as they are capable? Inherently it represents a belief that only rich, white and male candidates are qualified for the High Court further denigrating the diversity that our country represents.
These folks have every right to express their views, and it is our responsibility to counter when we hear them. Spreading misrepresentation and divisiveness may not be killing lives, but they are painful infections against which we need inoculation. A constructive interpretation is that these perspectives are the necessary ills needed by society to gain immunity for the next wave of challenge to the system.
May 2, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Some thoughts on… So Let It Be Written
During Passover and Easter, families celebrate the vernal season with family gatherings, unleavened bread and bunny rabbits. Growing up in a Muslim family, the holidays were not part of our customs, but there was one tradition that I created on my own – watching Cecil B. DeMille’s classic The Ten Commandments on the ABC television network.
The biblical story from Exodus, relates the tale of Moses as the promised deliverer of the Jewish people leading Abraham's followers out of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaoh and to the Promised Land. By definition, it is one of the greatest stories over told, and DeMille wastes no scene without a grand set, thousands of extras, and bravado acting. This is not a subtle, character play.
The movie’s themes are timeless – the reward of faith, the troubled questioning of a moral hero, the fight for human equality. In the end Moses, the adopted son of Pharaoh, relinquishes his privileged upbringing to follow his path towards a virtuous goal. Released in 1956 the movie was Hollywood’s prelude argument to the civil rights movement – supporting the right of an oppressed people to have equal rights in society.
An analogous situation is playing out today around the ability of gay and lesbian citizens to secure the rights of a long-term relationship under the law. But should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?
Similar to the 1960’s, society’s views on homosexuality has transformed dramatically in the past decade – in the scientific literature it is no longer considered a mental illness, and individuals are open both in their public and private spheres. Although acceptance is widespread of gay individuals, the issue of marriage between committed individuals incites a great deal of divisiveness.
There seem to be two issues: 1) recognition by the community of the long-term commitment of same-sex relationships; 2) granting of equal local, state and federal rights for same-sex couples as those automatically achieved by heterosexual couple, e.g. medical visitation rights, transfer of property rights, tax liability.
Despite judicial rulings in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and most recently Iowa, the idea of gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the US population. Intertwined with religious and societal beliefs, marriage is too difficult a label for people to accept. The solution may just be to take the word marriage out of the equation and separate the powers of the state from the church.
Instead of marriage, the Federal and State governments should create a new term, like “civil union” or “long-term partnership”, that would confer the same rights as marriage. To avoid a “separate but equal is equal” status for this new term – the government-sanctioned recognition of partnership would be the only option available for homosexual or heterosexual couples. To be “married” in the ecclesiastic sense, couples would need to have a religious or non-civil ceremony endorsed by the house of worship of their choice. The compromise may not please vocal critics on the extremes, but it achieves the two issues identified – maybe that is the sign of a palatable solution. Similar measures are already in place in France and South Africa.
The government stays out of religion and religion stays out of civil rights. To instate this change permanent, we need legislative action to support the Supreme Court rulings - the only way to ensure permanence to these actions.
In the Ten Commandments, Pharaoh could utter his rulings and they would be made into law. In our democracy we need more than justices of the Supreme Courts to provide moral guidance; we need to create laws that will uphold the status.
“So let it be written, so let it be done.”
April 12, 2009
The biblical story from Exodus, relates the tale of Moses as the promised deliverer of the Jewish people leading Abraham's followers out of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaoh and to the Promised Land. By definition, it is one of the greatest stories over told, and DeMille wastes no scene without a grand set, thousands of extras, and bravado acting. This is not a subtle, character play.
The movie’s themes are timeless – the reward of faith, the troubled questioning of a moral hero, the fight for human equality. In the end Moses, the adopted son of Pharaoh, relinquishes his privileged upbringing to follow his path towards a virtuous goal. Released in 1956 the movie was Hollywood’s prelude argument to the civil rights movement – supporting the right of an oppressed people to have equal rights in society.
An analogous situation is playing out today around the ability of gay and lesbian citizens to secure the rights of a long-term relationship under the law. But should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?
Similar to the 1960’s, society’s views on homosexuality has transformed dramatically in the past decade – in the scientific literature it is no longer considered a mental illness, and individuals are open both in their public and private spheres. Although acceptance is widespread of gay individuals, the issue of marriage between committed individuals incites a great deal of divisiveness.
There seem to be two issues: 1) recognition by the community of the long-term commitment of same-sex relationships; 2) granting of equal local, state and federal rights for same-sex couples as those automatically achieved by heterosexual couple, e.g. medical visitation rights, transfer of property rights, tax liability.
Despite judicial rulings in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and most recently Iowa, the idea of gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the US population. Intertwined with religious and societal beliefs, marriage is too difficult a label for people to accept. The solution may just be to take the word marriage out of the equation and separate the powers of the state from the church.
Instead of marriage, the Federal and State governments should create a new term, like “civil union” or “long-term partnership”, that would confer the same rights as marriage. To avoid a “separate but equal is equal” status for this new term – the government-sanctioned recognition of partnership would be the only option available for homosexual or heterosexual couples. To be “married” in the ecclesiastic sense, couples would need to have a religious or non-civil ceremony endorsed by the house of worship of their choice. The compromise may not please vocal critics on the extremes, but it achieves the two issues identified – maybe that is the sign of a palatable solution. Similar measures are already in place in France and South Africa.
The government stays out of religion and religion stays out of civil rights. To instate this change permanent, we need legislative action to support the Supreme Court rulings - the only way to ensure permanence to these actions.
In the Ten Commandments, Pharaoh could utter his rulings and they would be made into law. In our democracy we need more than justices of the Supreme Courts to provide moral guidance; we need to create laws that will uphold the status.
“So let it be written, so let it be done.”
April 12, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Some thoughts on… Paying for Performance
It’s in vogue to be bashing bankers these days. Why not? Their poor decisions are splashed on newspaper covers and highlighted by TV news anchors. Hollywood is on the bandwagon with the recent movie, The International, portraying multi-national banks as a source for “conflict banking” – funding strife in war-torn countries in order to secure financing on the debt that will inevitably ensue. Funding of weapons is passé, the real prize is the liability of payments on the country’s infrastructure.
AIG is the cause célèbre. Lavish retreats for the sales force, multi-million dollar salaries for top management, and now $165 million bonus to the staff that created the financial derivatives contributing to the company’s downfall – all funded by tax-payer bailout.
It’s easy to be angry at the foolish decision-making, but should the government try to “claw-back” these bonuses?
The recent payment is the second installment of retention bonus obligations worth $450 to the unit’s employees. AIG paid out $55 million already last year, and another $230 million is due in 2009. These payments are contractually required to be remunerated if the employee remains in the position through the year.
A confusion in terminology causes more chagrin in this case, because in fact these expenses are really not “bonuses” in the commonsense usage of the word. Waiters, service contractors, and private-sector employees receive incentive bonuses all the time. Depending on individual contribution and organizational performance, a bonus is provided at the discretion of management. Ironically, the AIG payouts are provided as long as the employees stick around in the company – regardless of how well or poorly they perform.
There may have been sound reasons for creating the types of contracts a few years ago. The white hot labor market for hedge fund bankers incented companies to create high-stake offers and allowed individuals to demand them. With a skyrocketing market, the bonuses would pay for themselves in a matter of time. With a crashing market, AIG calculates that we now need to retain these individuals more than ever, so they can get out of this mess.
There’s enough blame to go around:
- The management of AIG for creating these contracts to attract the talent
- The Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low that it created a surplus of capital in the markets
- The government and treasury who should have been aware of these payments and informed the tax-payers ahead of time
- The CEO of AIG who could have abrogated the contract in the face of dire circumstances
- The American public for being surprised that a company will be using bail-out money for its own purposes
- The Congressmen who are trying to kowtow to their constituency by finding an easy scapegoat for the financial mess
‘If we assume that we can’t change the past and that AIG’s bankruptcy will only lead to a worse financial mess, then the only solution is one that’s forward looking.
The government can impose income taxes on the bonuses, so that it retrieves the money, but this is a token display to appease the anger of the public. The retention contracts account for 0.2% of the $180 billion that the government has already given to the company. The benefits of retrieving this paltry sum for the taxpayer, is easily outweighed by the legal and systemic costs of the action. The amount of time and energy that is being diverted to resolve this fire-drill is better applied to making the toxic-asset buy-back program more successful.
A possible solution to the mess is appealing to the moral integrity of the AIG hedge-fund managers – ask them to voluntarily pay back the retention bonuses. A fundamental belief of our capitalist structure is that people should be rewarded for good performance. When the systems en-masse fails to create such a system, then it’s up to individuals to make the re-alignment. Friends, family, and the general public should ask for contrition from these individuals – don’t keep money that you don’t deserve, and instead, help fix the problems. This requires a great deal of humility amongst the individuals and requires the public to acknowledge the actions for those who comply. But it may be an efficient mechanism to resolve the issue.
Broadway’s in on the pay for performance game as well, but with a much more virtuoso presentation. The new musical, Happiness, on for a limited run through June at the Mitzi Newhouse is an ebullient musical wrapped around a morality tale. The show describes how our everyday actions and choices inevitable confront us later down the road. The true measure of how to live our lives is in the happiness we create for others and ourselves. Success along this metric is paid off in an infinite re-living of those moments; those who fail are in for a dreary trip. It is easily the best new show of the season and should receive the Tony award for best new musical immediately.
Maybe the folks at AIG should be focusing on creating some happiness in the world rather than just filling their own pockets.
March 21, 2009
AIG is the cause célèbre. Lavish retreats for the sales force, multi-million dollar salaries for top management, and now $165 million bonus to the staff that created the financial derivatives contributing to the company’s downfall – all funded by tax-payer bailout.
It’s easy to be angry at the foolish decision-making, but should the government try to “claw-back” these bonuses?
The recent payment is the second installment of retention bonus obligations worth $450 to the unit’s employees. AIG paid out $55 million already last year, and another $230 million is due in 2009. These payments are contractually required to be remunerated if the employee remains in the position through the year.
A confusion in terminology causes more chagrin in this case, because in fact these expenses are really not “bonuses” in the commonsense usage of the word. Waiters, service contractors, and private-sector employees receive incentive bonuses all the time. Depending on individual contribution and organizational performance, a bonus is provided at the discretion of management. Ironically, the AIG payouts are provided as long as the employees stick around in the company – regardless of how well or poorly they perform.
There may have been sound reasons for creating the types of contracts a few years ago. The white hot labor market for hedge fund bankers incented companies to create high-stake offers and allowed individuals to demand them. With a skyrocketing market, the bonuses would pay for themselves in a matter of time. With a crashing market, AIG calculates that we now need to retain these individuals more than ever, so they can get out of this mess.
There’s enough blame to go around:
- The management of AIG for creating these contracts to attract the talent
- The Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low that it created a surplus of capital in the markets
- The government and treasury who should have been aware of these payments and informed the tax-payers ahead of time
- The CEO of AIG who could have abrogated the contract in the face of dire circumstances
- The American public for being surprised that a company will be using bail-out money for its own purposes
- The Congressmen who are trying to kowtow to their constituency by finding an easy scapegoat for the financial mess
‘If we assume that we can’t change the past and that AIG’s bankruptcy will only lead to a worse financial mess, then the only solution is one that’s forward looking.
The government can impose income taxes on the bonuses, so that it retrieves the money, but this is a token display to appease the anger of the public. The retention contracts account for 0.2% of the $180 billion that the government has already given to the company. The benefits of retrieving this paltry sum for the taxpayer, is easily outweighed by the legal and systemic costs of the action. The amount of time and energy that is being diverted to resolve this fire-drill is better applied to making the toxic-asset buy-back program more successful.
A possible solution to the mess is appealing to the moral integrity of the AIG hedge-fund managers – ask them to voluntarily pay back the retention bonuses. A fundamental belief of our capitalist structure is that people should be rewarded for good performance. When the systems en-masse fails to create such a system, then it’s up to individuals to make the re-alignment. Friends, family, and the general public should ask for contrition from these individuals – don’t keep money that you don’t deserve, and instead, help fix the problems. This requires a great deal of humility amongst the individuals and requires the public to acknowledge the actions for those who comply. But it may be an efficient mechanism to resolve the issue.
Broadway’s in on the pay for performance game as well, but with a much more virtuoso presentation. The new musical, Happiness, on for a limited run through June at the Mitzi Newhouse is an ebullient musical wrapped around a morality tale. The show describes how our everyday actions and choices inevitable confront us later down the road. The true measure of how to live our lives is in the happiness we create for others and ourselves. Success along this metric is paid off in an infinite re-living of those moments; those who fail are in for a dreary trip. It is easily the best new show of the season and should receive the Tony award for best new musical immediately.
Maybe the folks at AIG should be focusing on creating some happiness in the world rather than just filling their own pockets.
March 21, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Some thoughts on… The General Theory
The President spoke before Congress this week and brought forward one of the most sweeping agendas for domestic and international change seen since FDR. The address outlined transformations in economic stimulus, energy dependence, healthcare reform, and education investment. The speech was as grand as the program it outlined, highlighting the country’s need to achieve against multiple dimensions in order to succeed ten years from now. (Narcissistically, the programs reflect many of the goals highlighted in the blog Raising Expectations.
To carry off the ambitious endeavor, the projected budget would create a historic level of deficit this year (greater than $1.6 trillion). But does this make sense? Should we be choosing a single area of investment where we know we can win, rather than trying to achieve against so many agendas?
By creating new centers of gravity in areas of future economic importance, Obama believes that he can attract attention to these programs and accelerate change. He is betting these compelling harbors will be magnets to steer the huge freighter of the US economy away from the current rocky coastline. The massive investments in healthcare, energy dependence and education are long-term docks. As he describes in his speech
Using the analogy of Newton’s laws of gravity – people, institutions, and objects in space are attracted to areas of greater mass. Increasing the density of a planet will result in greater gravitational pull that can change the course of surrounding objects. By creating several immense bodies of investment rather than just one, Obama is creating a constellation of entities to guide the economy into the future.
On TV, another popular show – Lost – is also playing with the laws of gravity. In summary, the show follows the story of a plane-load of survivors that crash on a tropical island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The first seasons described the back-stories of the individuals and how they got lost on the desert island. Last year (Season 5), the show turned the arc to discuss how the survivors would be found.
There are too many plot-lines to describe in a few sentences, but one of the most interesting is around the nature of the island. Initially, we were led to believe that this was an island with special powers, at the end of last season we suspect that the island might be a time machine. I am now convinced that the island actually sits outside of the event window of a large structural mass – essentially a black hole – located deep in the Earth under the island.
Einstein refined Newton’s theory by demonstrating that gravity is a warping of space-time around objects. The reason that large objects attract other objects is because they essentially “fall” through space-time. As objects move toward large gravitational bodies, time actually slows down. All of us warp space-time, but given our relatively small mass compared to the Earth or the sun, the distortion of time is infinitesimal.
Albert proved that one could time travel to the future by visiting a large gravitational mass. By getting close enough to a large gravitation force, or by accelerating to a sufficiently high speed, we can slow down our own time and then visit the future by returning to the original place we started. This is what is happening to the characters in the show. Interestingly, one of the few things that can freely move in and out from an event window is what Einstein called the only “constant” in the universe – the speed of light. (And this is really for Lost aficionados – the constant is represented by Desmond in the show). We’ll discuss skipping through time-space more in an upcoming blog on the Special Theory of Relativity.
The practical implication for us of Obama’s big investments in the economy is to follow his lead on gravitational direction. Save for the future, invest in education, and reduce our carbon footprint. Like the characters in Lost we may be in the future sooner than we think.
Writer’s Note: OK, this posting is significantly outside my knowledge zone, because I am not even close to a student of Physics. But I have been reading up a little on Relativity and corrections/ comments are always welcome.
March 1, 2009
To carry off the ambitious endeavor, the projected budget would create a historic level of deficit this year (greater than $1.6 trillion). But does this make sense? Should we be choosing a single area of investment where we know we can win, rather than trying to achieve against so many agendas?
By creating new centers of gravity in areas of future economic importance, Obama believes that he can attract attention to these programs and accelerate change. He is betting these compelling harbors will be magnets to steer the huge freighter of the US economy away from the current rocky coastline. The massive investments in healthcare, energy dependence and education are long-term docks. As he describes in his speech
“We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.”
Using the analogy of Newton’s laws of gravity – people, institutions, and objects in space are attracted to areas of greater mass. Increasing the density of a planet will result in greater gravitational pull that can change the course of surrounding objects. By creating several immense bodies of investment rather than just one, Obama is creating a constellation of entities to guide the economy into the future.
On TV, another popular show – Lost – is also playing with the laws of gravity. In summary, the show follows the story of a plane-load of survivors that crash on a tropical island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The first seasons described the back-stories of the individuals and how they got lost on the desert island. Last year (Season 5), the show turned the arc to discuss how the survivors would be found.
There are too many plot-lines to describe in a few sentences, but one of the most interesting is around the nature of the island. Initially, we were led to believe that this was an island with special powers, at the end of last season we suspect that the island might be a time machine. I am now convinced that the island actually sits outside of the event window of a large structural mass – essentially a black hole – located deep in the Earth under the island.
Einstein refined Newton’s theory by demonstrating that gravity is a warping of space-time around objects. The reason that large objects attract other objects is because they essentially “fall” through space-time. As objects move toward large gravitational bodies, time actually slows down. All of us warp space-time, but given our relatively small mass compared to the Earth or the sun, the distortion of time is infinitesimal.
Albert proved that one could time travel to the future by visiting a large gravitational mass. By getting close enough to a large gravitation force, or by accelerating to a sufficiently high speed, we can slow down our own time and then visit the future by returning to the original place we started. This is what is happening to the characters in the show. Interestingly, one of the few things that can freely move in and out from an event window is what Einstein called the only “constant” in the universe – the speed of light. (And this is really for Lost aficionados – the constant is represented by Desmond in the show). We’ll discuss skipping through time-space more in an upcoming blog on the Special Theory of Relativity.
The practical implication for us of Obama’s big investments in the economy is to follow his lead on gravitational direction. Save for the future, invest in education, and reduce our carbon footprint. Like the characters in Lost we may be in the future sooner than we think.
Writer’s Note: OK, this posting is significantly outside my knowledge zone, because I am not even close to a student of Physics. But I have been reading up a little on Relativity and corrections/ comments are always welcome.
March 1, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Some thoughts on… Oscar 2009
The Oscars are on February 22, and though the awards are not necessarily a reflection of the best films of the year, it is always a fun event. In preparation for Oscar night, everyone is encouraged to fill out the Official 2009 Oscar Ballot at: http://wk.awards.portnoy.org/ or if you are in NY come watch at our place. Remember if you do fill out the ballot, please send $10 to the pool. (I am very serious about this!) You can email me directly to get the address.
Reviews of the main contenders have already been provided in previous blogs. Slumdog Millionaire is the juggernaut for best film (and should be) while Milk could be a sly underdog. Doubt had strong individual performances but the whole did not sum. The Dark Knight was robbed of a best picture nomination
I’ll also provide my $0.02 on the other movies that were recognized this year, but I couldn’t figure out how to interweave into previous postings.
Ron Howard’s Frost/ Nixon is an ingenious retelling of the infamous Nixon interview. Several years after his impeachment, Nixon provided a set of interviews to set the record straight on his political contributions. Everyone was hoping for a formal apology on Watergate, or at least recognition of wrongdoing. The oral statement never occurred but the President’s expression at the end of the interview articulates his acknowledgement of power lost and integrity never regained. Frank Langella embodies the fallen leader in presence, tone and impact – easily the strongest best actor performance of the year.
Kung-Fu Panda is the sublime story of a pot-bellied hero striving to become a ninja warrior through introspection and good noodles. Borrowing from Japanese anime and the martial arts genre, the film provides a bewitching story that makes the Chinese incredulous that it was created outside the Mainland. My pick for best animated picture.
WALL-E is the tale of a trash-compactor completing his task on a post-apocalyptic Earth. A blithe spirit, he watches scenes from Hello Dolly and yearns for companionship. The Pixar animation stuns as always, but the fable falters as it moves from the robot’s search for love to a Brothers Grimm story of human fallibility. This is likely to win the best animated film Oscar, but I’m rooting for the Panda.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is well named, because I am still questioning how this Forest Gump meets Hurricane Katrina story garnered 12 Oscar nominations. It undoubtedly has excellent effects, and Brad Pitt is handsome but best picture and best actor? The allegory of a man forced to live his life backwards provides insight into the need to have a purpose for being, the inexorable whims of fate, and how love can carry across generations. But the movie bites off much more than it delivers. In the end, we’re left with three hours of southern accents and impassioned pleas to love people as they are. Brad should be ready to give up the trophy with his usual poise.
In Tropic Thunder, Robert Downey, Jr is an actor so serious in his role that he is willing to don black-face and continue in character despite the obvious fact that his movie is no longer shooting. Robert Downey is back in force after some troubled years, but his turn in Iron Man demonstrated much subtler acting, and Tom Cruise’s cameo is the real show-stealing Thunder. This year, the best supporting actor category belongs to Heath Ledger.
Surprisingly, Kate Winslet wasn’t nominated for Revolutionary Road, but she should have been. A suburban wife unable to unleash her creativity finds a solution to captivity through unbearable means. This Hedda Gabbler redux brings an upsetting update to women’s rights in the modern age. Best actress should go to Kate W. this year.
Woody Allen wrote Penelope Cruz’s part in Vicky Christina Barcelona with her in mind. Javier Bardem is dapper, svelte and charming, but Penelope’s reckless artist wife throws morality to the wind and becomes the essence of true love. A grand performance, but one of the ladies from Doubt is going to get best supporting actress in the end.
The movies I haven’t had a chance to see yet are: The Wrestler, The Reader, Rachel Getting Married and The Changeling. If you have seen them, please do add your comments and critiques. Good luck on the Oscar pool next Sunday.
February 15, 2009
Reviews of the main contenders have already been provided in previous blogs. Slumdog Millionaire is the juggernaut for best film (and should be) while Milk could be a sly underdog. Doubt had strong individual performances but the whole did not sum. The Dark Knight was robbed of a best picture nomination
I’ll also provide my $0.02 on the other movies that were recognized this year, but I couldn’t figure out how to interweave into previous postings.
Ron Howard’s Frost/ Nixon is an ingenious retelling of the infamous Nixon interview. Several years after his impeachment, Nixon provided a set of interviews to set the record straight on his political contributions. Everyone was hoping for a formal apology on Watergate, or at least recognition of wrongdoing. The oral statement never occurred but the President’s expression at the end of the interview articulates his acknowledgement of power lost and integrity never regained. Frank Langella embodies the fallen leader in presence, tone and impact – easily the strongest best actor performance of the year.
Kung-Fu Panda is the sublime story of a pot-bellied hero striving to become a ninja warrior through introspection and good noodles. Borrowing from Japanese anime and the martial arts genre, the film provides a bewitching story that makes the Chinese incredulous that it was created outside the Mainland. My pick for best animated picture.
WALL-E is the tale of a trash-compactor completing his task on a post-apocalyptic Earth. A blithe spirit, he watches scenes from Hello Dolly and yearns for companionship. The Pixar animation stuns as always, but the fable falters as it moves from the robot’s search for love to a Brothers Grimm story of human fallibility. This is likely to win the best animated film Oscar, but I’m rooting for the Panda.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is well named, because I am still questioning how this Forest Gump meets Hurricane Katrina story garnered 12 Oscar nominations. It undoubtedly has excellent effects, and Brad Pitt is handsome but best picture and best actor? The allegory of a man forced to live his life backwards provides insight into the need to have a purpose for being, the inexorable whims of fate, and how love can carry across generations. But the movie bites off much more than it delivers. In the end, we’re left with three hours of southern accents and impassioned pleas to love people as they are. Brad should be ready to give up the trophy with his usual poise.
In Tropic Thunder, Robert Downey, Jr is an actor so serious in his role that he is willing to don black-face and continue in character despite the obvious fact that his movie is no longer shooting. Robert Downey is back in force after some troubled years, but his turn in Iron Man demonstrated much subtler acting, and Tom Cruise’s cameo is the real show-stealing Thunder. This year, the best supporting actor category belongs to Heath Ledger.
Surprisingly, Kate Winslet wasn’t nominated for Revolutionary Road, but she should have been. A suburban wife unable to unleash her creativity finds a solution to captivity through unbearable means. This Hedda Gabbler redux brings an upsetting update to women’s rights in the modern age. Best actress should go to Kate W. this year.
Woody Allen wrote Penelope Cruz’s part in Vicky Christina Barcelona with her in mind. Javier Bardem is dapper, svelte and charming, but Penelope’s reckless artist wife throws morality to the wind and becomes the essence of true love. A grand performance, but one of the ladies from Doubt is going to get best supporting actress in the end.
The movies I haven’t had a chance to see yet are: The Wrestler, The Reader, Rachel Getting Married and The Changeling. If you have seen them, please do add your comments and critiques. Good luck on the Oscar pool next Sunday.
February 15, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Some thoughts on… A Tale of Two Cities
In January, we visited two Arabian cities – Dubai in the Unites Arab Emirates and Amman in Jordan. Formally, the two countries are recent creations. Jordan moved from British Rule in 1946 and was ruled by King Abdullah. The UAE was formed in 1971 out of the expiration of the Trucial States Council, when the Sheikhdoms united in the region to be governed by the Emirs.
Today, the countries are monarchies dating back to the Islamic caliphates. Yet Jordan’s written history goes back to the 2000 BCE. The countries are vibrant. Jordan has a population of 6.2 million in 2008 with a gross domestic product in purchasing power parity terms of $28 billion; UAE has a population of 4.6 million and $164B GDP PPP – a distinct per capita difference.
Yet when you visit the countries you never meet an Emirati national, whereas in Jordan you encounter locals in the streets, villages and stores. In Jordan, every one we met from the hotel security guard to the people in the stores, were all kind and welcoming. In the UAE, the population is mostly immigrants from South Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia. According to the CIA Factbook, the immigration rate for UAE is extraordinarily high at 25 migrants/ 1000 popn. Jordan has immigration as well at a rate of 6 migrants / 1000 population – much of this Palestinian. As a benchmark, despite our strong migrant population, in the US we have 3 migrations/ 1000 people.
Why is there a difference in the attitude of the locals between these two countries? Oil is an obvious answer to the exceptional economic performance, but why can you meet so many Jordanians and so few Emiratis?
The first reason may be that the Jordanians recognize the value of earning a living. Without a steady source of oil money, many Jordanians work at white collar and blue collar jobs. But the work goes beyond a source of income. There is a pride in the work that they are doing, and a purpose for a job well done. Waiter bustle around tables, gas attendants welcome you, and taxi drivers speak kindly. The people have pride in their work and in their country; and it seems that employment is not looked down upon. In Dubai, almost every sector of the economy from day laborers to business middle-men is imported. Emiratis hold top positions in domestic companies, e.g. EMAAR (real estate), Emirates (airlines), DEWA (gas and power), etc; and I would guess these appointments are influenced by the monarchy. But most of other workers are not Emirati. It would seem that the society does not take pride in a hard day’s work for their citizens.
The Jordanians also have a historic culture of engagement with the rest of the world. Located next to Jerusalem, the area is a holy land to the three Abrahamic religions. We visited the site where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and also went up Mt. Nebo where Moses led his people and viewed the Promised Land before he died. The Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea have been crossed and re-crossed for millennia by travelers and civilizations – Nabatean, Parthian, Sassanian. The need to intermingle with foreign cultures is apparent in the attitudes of villagers and city folks – people are interested in knowing where you are from and at the same time have pride in their own country. We encountered only one child who asked for money (at one of the tourist sites), otherwise people sold their goods, but had the pride not to beg – a welcome relief from India and Egypt where one is consistently accosted. In Dubai, there is a distance from strangers or foreigners. Even if you are eating at a restaurant or café and other Emiratis are present, they will rarely speak to you let alone acknowledge you. The Bedouin roots may still be strong in these interactions.
Finally, the Jordan Valley and surrounding areas are a cornucopia for agriculture. Driving through the country side we saw tomatoes, romaine, and oranges selling by the road side along with fruit/ juice stands even in the smallest villages. Such abundant land requires maintenance and fealty. One doesn’t just invest in the land and then walk away a few years later once it is used up. This practice of disposable land use may be possible in the middle of the desert where it is easy to keep moving to new areas without leaving much behind. In Jordan though once you leave the fertile valley, there are not many other areas to settle. Arable land is not plentiful in Jordan, and is practically non-existent in Dubai. Land in Jordan is protected and maintained. Dubai in some ways feels like a disposable city. Of course massive structures are being built – indoor ski slopes, the world’s tallest building, a replica of the globe in the middle of the water. But in the end, the plastic quality (or Vegas on steroids feel) makes me think that if they tire of this city the Emiratis may just move on in their limousines and build another Dubai II a hundred miles into the desert.
In the post 9/11 world, there are so many stereotypes of Arabs, and it is very difficult to characterize a region, but I think anyone would do well to visit Jordan and see a gentler-side of Arab culture.
It will be interesting to see how these cities develop over the next few decades. But I would think that for Dubai to exist as a cultural entity for the next 1000 years, it will need to adopt some of the Jordanian practices.
February 1, 2009
Today, the countries are monarchies dating back to the Islamic caliphates. Yet Jordan’s written history goes back to the 2000 BCE. The countries are vibrant. Jordan has a population of 6.2 million in 2008 with a gross domestic product in purchasing power parity terms of $28 billion; UAE has a population of 4.6 million and $164B GDP PPP – a distinct per capita difference.
Yet when you visit the countries you never meet an Emirati national, whereas in Jordan you encounter locals in the streets, villages and stores. In Jordan, every one we met from the hotel security guard to the people in the stores, were all kind and welcoming. In the UAE, the population is mostly immigrants from South Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia. According to the CIA Factbook, the immigration rate for UAE is extraordinarily high at 25 migrants/ 1000 popn. Jordan has immigration as well at a rate of 6 migrants / 1000 population – much of this Palestinian. As a benchmark, despite our strong migrant population, in the US we have 3 migrations/ 1000 people.
Why is there a difference in the attitude of the locals between these two countries? Oil is an obvious answer to the exceptional economic performance, but why can you meet so many Jordanians and so few Emiratis?
The first reason may be that the Jordanians recognize the value of earning a living. Without a steady source of oil money, many Jordanians work at white collar and blue collar jobs. But the work goes beyond a source of income. There is a pride in the work that they are doing, and a purpose for a job well done. Waiter bustle around tables, gas attendants welcome you, and taxi drivers speak kindly. The people have pride in their work and in their country; and it seems that employment is not looked down upon. In Dubai, almost every sector of the economy from day laborers to business middle-men is imported. Emiratis hold top positions in domestic companies, e.g. EMAAR (real estate), Emirates (airlines), DEWA (gas and power), etc; and I would guess these appointments are influenced by the monarchy. But most of other workers are not Emirati. It would seem that the society does not take pride in a hard day’s work for their citizens.
The Jordanians also have a historic culture of engagement with the rest of the world. Located next to Jerusalem, the area is a holy land to the three Abrahamic religions. We visited the site where Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and also went up Mt. Nebo where Moses led his people and viewed the Promised Land before he died. The Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea have been crossed and re-crossed for millennia by travelers and civilizations – Nabatean, Parthian, Sassanian. The need to intermingle with foreign cultures is apparent in the attitudes of villagers and city folks – people are interested in knowing where you are from and at the same time have pride in their own country. We encountered only one child who asked for money (at one of the tourist sites), otherwise people sold their goods, but had the pride not to beg – a welcome relief from India and Egypt where one is consistently accosted. In Dubai, there is a distance from strangers or foreigners. Even if you are eating at a restaurant or café and other Emiratis are present, they will rarely speak to you let alone acknowledge you. The Bedouin roots may still be strong in these interactions.
Finally, the Jordan Valley and surrounding areas are a cornucopia for agriculture. Driving through the country side we saw tomatoes, romaine, and oranges selling by the road side along with fruit/ juice stands even in the smallest villages. Such abundant land requires maintenance and fealty. One doesn’t just invest in the land and then walk away a few years later once it is used up. This practice of disposable land use may be possible in the middle of the desert where it is easy to keep moving to new areas without leaving much behind. In Jordan though once you leave the fertile valley, there are not many other areas to settle. Arable land is not plentiful in Jordan, and is practically non-existent in Dubai. Land in Jordan is protected and maintained. Dubai in some ways feels like a disposable city. Of course massive structures are being built – indoor ski slopes, the world’s tallest building, a replica of the globe in the middle of the water. But in the end, the plastic quality (or Vegas on steroids feel) makes me think that if they tire of this city the Emiratis may just move on in their limousines and build another Dubai II a hundred miles into the desert.
In the post 9/11 world, there are so many stereotypes of Arabs, and it is very difficult to characterize a region, but I think anyone would do well to visit Jordan and see a gentler-side of Arab culture.
It will be interesting to see how these cities develop over the next few decades. But I would think that for Dubai to exist as a cultural entity for the next 1000 years, it will need to adopt some of the Jordanian practices.
February 1, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Some thoughts on… Inaugurating Realism
The first African-American President of the US; an administration elected with the most number of votes; a withdrawal of troops from Gaza by Israel; the most disliked Presidency’s final day. January 20th 2009 was historic on so many dimensions, that the word “historic” seems almost trivial -- there is a feeling we are living in a fairy-tale.
Two million people came to the freezing Washington Mall to witness the peaceful transfer of power from a hobbled administration to one bringing new hope and change for the country. The picture of the former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, pushed around in a wheel-chair was emblematic of a fallen administration – history will tell if it can regain stature.
The elation felt by the nation and the world is well earned. We all want to feel good about our country again and to reshape the future towards the possibilities we each envision. And yet, President Obama’s speech wasn’t the feel good message that people thought it would be. It was sobering, tempered, pointed.
So was the inaugural address not inspirational enough and too much of a downer? Let’s look at what was actually said.
At the very beginning there is stark acknowledgment of the economic, military, and foreign relations challenges facing the nation, and a blunt statement to stop looking for whom to blame and start repairing the issues.
Everyone can help to ameliorate the situation, whether or not they are recognized for doing so.
In a scathing indictment to the W. era, there is a recognition that the war on terrorism is not an excuse to divert our attention to these challenges.
There is a statement that we all have an obligation to solve these problems, and we can not rely on just the government to fix the issues.
And finally, a promise that any solution to the economic, military and foreign relation challenges must extend to the poorest populations of the country and the world.
This is a call to action as inspirational as JFK’s inaugural speech “Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for the country”. The reason that it may seem like a downer is because we are not living out a Bollywood ending.
Over the past eight years, we were fed euphoric doses of cotton-candy truth – a declaration that we were “Mission Accomplished” on the Iraq war back in 2003; a system of “orange” level security alerts where we never see green or blue. This heightened reality reflected some truth, but like any TV show or movie, belied a false sense of comfort. By eating this candy in our virtual movie theater or living room, we tacitly accepted that other dimensions of our system would be ignored – declining levels of primary education, dilapidated trust of our fellow countries, over-reliance on foreign oil. But the candy tasted really good while we watched the show.
We ate that cotton candy willingly. But now that the show is over and the lights are on again, we are presented with some vegetables and protein and told to face the real world. We have to work hard and correct the course of the country and the world we have been ignoring for so long. The awakening is painful; the detoxification jarring.
As difficult as it is to swallow, the message is clear. “The world has changed, and we must change with it… this is the price and the promise of citizenship”
January 23, 2009
Two million people came to the freezing Washington Mall to witness the peaceful transfer of power from a hobbled administration to one bringing new hope and change for the country. The picture of the former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, pushed around in a wheel-chair was emblematic of a fallen administration – history will tell if it can regain stature.
The elation felt by the nation and the world is well earned. We all want to feel good about our country again and to reshape the future towards the possibilities we each envision. And yet, President Obama’s speech wasn’t the feel good message that people thought it would be. It was sobering, tempered, pointed.
So was the inaugural address not inspirational enough and too much of a downer? Let’s look at what was actually said.
At the very beginning there is stark acknowledgment of the economic, military, and foreign relations challenges facing the nation, and a blunt statement to stop looking for whom to blame and start repairing the issues.
“Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms…On this day we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of
purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end
to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out
dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Everyone can help to ameliorate the situation, whether or not they are recognized for doing so.
“Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor – who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”
In a scathing indictment to the W. era, there is a recognition that the war on terrorism is not an excuse to divert our attention to these challenges.
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and out ideals”
There is a statement that we all have an obligation to solve these problems, and we can not rely on just the government to fix the issues.
“For much as the government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which the nation relies.”
And finally, a promise that any solution to the economic, military and foreign relation challenges must extend to the poorest populations of the country and the world.
“…a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The
success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross
domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity.”
This is a call to action as inspirational as JFK’s inaugural speech “Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for the country”. The reason that it may seem like a downer is because we are not living out a Bollywood ending.
Over the past eight years, we were fed euphoric doses of cotton-candy truth – a declaration that we were “Mission Accomplished” on the Iraq war back in 2003; a system of “orange” level security alerts where we never see green or blue. This heightened reality reflected some truth, but like any TV show or movie, belied a false sense of comfort. By eating this candy in our virtual movie theater or living room, we tacitly accepted that other dimensions of our system would be ignored – declining levels of primary education, dilapidated trust of our fellow countries, over-reliance on foreign oil. But the candy tasted really good while we watched the show.
We ate that cotton candy willingly. But now that the show is over and the lights are on again, we are presented with some vegetables and protein and told to face the real world. We have to work hard and correct the course of the country and the world we have been ignoring for so long. The awakening is painful; the detoxification jarring.
As difficult as it is to swallow, the message is clear. “The world has changed, and we must change with it… this is the price and the promise of citizenship”
January 23, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Some thoughts on… Bringing in the New
With the promise of a new year comes the thrill of making resolutions, which are typically cast aside by the end of February. In the spirit of creating messy resolutions that attempt success on multiple dimensions, what are some things I am hoping to achieve this year?
Deleveraging Happiness. One of the morals of the current economic fiasco is that American individuals and companies must deleverage their financial debt. American companies have been borrowing debt on their balance books to finance activities which led to overextension and overvaluation. Individuals have acquired credit with minimal savings to obtain houses and goods which they can’t afford. And now, the government will have to issue debt to purchase a bailout of the economy. At the end, these actions can only be accomplished globally if others are willing to save and lend the money.
We all need to borrow at some point but the intrinsic promise of that desire is the ability to pay off the debt in the future. But now cash is once again king. Banks that before were keeping minimal stores of cash on their books, are now building up assets. Producing and creating services to sell them rather than borrow for greater acquisition is the old mantra that is new again.
Applying this philosophy to a personal level, I am going try and deleverage my sources of happiness. We are all seeking the elusive source of contentment. Some find it by traveling to a beach resort, others by purchasing new clothes. Rather than relying on other people or things to provide satisfaction, I am going to seek my own fulfillment. I am not looking to become ascetic, but to bring joy to myself and others around me through my own actions. Clark Gersner in his musical You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown based on the Charles Schultz comic strip points out, “Happiness is anyone or anything at all that is loved by you.”
Exporting Pride. In the past few years, the US’ standing in the world has fallen. On numerous measures this is true – investment in education, reduction in greenhouse gases, access to minimal health care. Visiting other countries abroad, one pronounced dimension is our moral standing. We were viewed internationally as a country that had realized great promise. Presidential visits were regaled affairs and boulevards were named after them – Palermo, Italy (John F. Kennedy); Bordeaux, France (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). We imported bright minds to attend universities and held our position as a country allowing any immigrant to become part of the American dream.
Similar to how a leader can be shunned by others for a lapse in principles, we have lost respect amongst our allies. But that trust can be restored, but it is not the duty of the Administration alone. All of us living in the country should have a responsibility for exporting our pride in the US to the people of other nations. To conduct this sincerely, we need to characterize what we are actually proud of – the historical resiliency of the US economy, the long-standing ability of our political system to self-correct, the dedication to public service of the citizenry, the excellent choices of Obama for his cabinet – and communicate those ideas.
We all want to believe in our country. The conveyed pride is not based on unchecked nationalism, or susceptibility to political spin, but a genuine consideration for why we wish to live in this country. Everyone who lives here is an ambassador for the country.
Investing in Family and Friends. With stocks in a tumble and the market willing to place large amounts of money in treasury bills that provide 0% interest, i.e. letting the Government just hold your money for a fee, it’s difficult to know where to spend. So why not invest with the people you know and trust?
This isn’t just financial investment – although helping to pay for your sister’s education or buying your friends dinner is never a bad thing – but about emotional and spiritual investment as well. Creating occasions to be with friends and expending effort to support their activities may be the most profitable venture you can make. Personally, I am going to make an effort to see our direct family more than once this year. This may seem a scant, but actually quite difficult given dispersion through Denmark, California, Dubai, India and DC.
OK, ok, so the last part of the resolution is a cop out, since there is a one-dimensional goal to achieve, but sometimes a little simplicity isn’t so bad (as long as we don’t retreat there). So what are you willing to initiate with the new year?
January 4, 2009
Deleveraging Happiness. One of the morals of the current economic fiasco is that American individuals and companies must deleverage their financial debt. American companies have been borrowing debt on their balance books to finance activities which led to overextension and overvaluation. Individuals have acquired credit with minimal savings to obtain houses and goods which they can’t afford. And now, the government will have to issue debt to purchase a bailout of the economy. At the end, these actions can only be accomplished globally if others are willing to save and lend the money.
We all need to borrow at some point but the intrinsic promise of that desire is the ability to pay off the debt in the future. But now cash is once again king. Banks that before were keeping minimal stores of cash on their books, are now building up assets. Producing and creating services to sell them rather than borrow for greater acquisition is the old mantra that is new again.
Applying this philosophy to a personal level, I am going try and deleverage my sources of happiness. We are all seeking the elusive source of contentment. Some find it by traveling to a beach resort, others by purchasing new clothes. Rather than relying on other people or things to provide satisfaction, I am going to seek my own fulfillment. I am not looking to become ascetic, but to bring joy to myself and others around me through my own actions. Clark Gersner in his musical You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown based on the Charles Schultz comic strip points out, “Happiness is anyone or anything at all that is loved by you.”
Exporting Pride. In the past few years, the US’ standing in the world has fallen. On numerous measures this is true – investment in education, reduction in greenhouse gases, access to minimal health care. Visiting other countries abroad, one pronounced dimension is our moral standing. We were viewed internationally as a country that had realized great promise. Presidential visits were regaled affairs and boulevards were named after them – Palermo, Italy (John F. Kennedy); Bordeaux, France (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). We imported bright minds to attend universities and held our position as a country allowing any immigrant to become part of the American dream.
Similar to how a leader can be shunned by others for a lapse in principles, we have lost respect amongst our allies. But that trust can be restored, but it is not the duty of the Administration alone. All of us living in the country should have a responsibility for exporting our pride in the US to the people of other nations. To conduct this sincerely, we need to characterize what we are actually proud of – the historical resiliency of the US economy, the long-standing ability of our political system to self-correct, the dedication to public service of the citizenry, the excellent choices of Obama for his cabinet – and communicate those ideas.
We all want to believe in our country. The conveyed pride is not based on unchecked nationalism, or susceptibility to political spin, but a genuine consideration for why we wish to live in this country. Everyone who lives here is an ambassador for the country.
Investing in Family and Friends. With stocks in a tumble and the market willing to place large amounts of money in treasury bills that provide 0% interest, i.e. letting the Government just hold your money for a fee, it’s difficult to know where to spend. So why not invest with the people you know and trust?
This isn’t just financial investment – although helping to pay for your sister’s education or buying your friends dinner is never a bad thing – but about emotional and spiritual investment as well. Creating occasions to be with friends and expending effort to support their activities may be the most profitable venture you can make. Personally, I am going to make an effort to see our direct family more than once this year. This may seem a scant, but actually quite difficult given dispersion through Denmark, California, Dubai, India and DC.
OK, ok, so the last part of the resolution is a cop out, since there is a one-dimensional goal to achieve, but sometimes a little simplicity isn’t so bad (as long as we don’t retreat there). So what are you willing to initiate with the new year?
January 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)