I admit it. I miss Michael Jackson. His music defined my youth … my twenties… my middle age.
I forget that’s he gone. And when I’m reminded, I’m saddened. I know I didn’t really know him as a person. I know that all I ever saw was the public persona he put forward. But he seemed like such a gentle soul to me. An enormously talented artist who never got the chance to grow up, to have real friends, to escape the expectations of those around him.
Michael Jackson on stage
In the months before his death, I heard the rumors that everyone else did: that he was tired, old, slow, and drugged out. But I just watched “This Is It,” the documentary made of the rehearsals for his last series of concerts, and Michael Jackson, at 50 years old, was still incredible. So so talented and so creative. He directed every note, every dance step, every nuance. And his singing and dancing — his presence on the stage — is beyond words. The man may have been eccentric, private, troubled and misunderstood, but the world has never seen a talent like him, and likely never will again.
I really miss Michael Jackson. Maybe it’s that his music takes me back to a time when I was younger and more free-spirited, but I don’t really care. I just know that, to me, the world was a better place with him in it.
Mr Sepp Blatter demonstrating how a foot may be placed in a mouth!
John Terry
Sepp Blatter, or Blabber as he is more affectionately known, is never at a loss for words, and generally good entertainment value. However, this week he surpassed himself with a pontification of pretty unsurpassing silliness about the moral values of South-Western Europe.
For those who do not follow the minutiae of British football, John Terry, Captain of the English football team, was unfortunate enough to have his name dragged through the media in connection with his adultery, or as some alleged, serial adultery. Now the question of whether it is anyone else’s business what the Captain of England does in his “private” life is an interesting one, but I am today more concerned with Blabber’s response, and two things struck me about it in particular.
Fifa president Sepp Blatter has claimed that in some countries, John Terry would have been applauded rather than sacked as national team captain for having an alleged affair.
First of all, I am puzzled as to why Blabber feels he can elect himself as spokesperson for the whole of “latin” Europe? He is a football functionary, not a moralist. I must say that had I been latin I would have found his remarks offensive. As an Italian lady was quoted as saying: “If my husband slept with my sister I would not find it in the least amusing or applaudworthy.”
Secondly, let us suppose – for the sake of argument – he was right to say that
Sepp Blatter, FIFA
latins would have applauded Terry’s behaviour. This would mean that the vast majority of European Catholics were totally and utterly hypocritical. After all, “Christians”, nominal or otherwise, still go in vast numbers to churches for weddings, baptisms and funerals, don’t they? Here in Bavaria, whenever you pass someone in the street you say “Gruss Gott.” Is Blabber really saying that all these people just take the easy bits of Christianity and laugh at the tricky stuff, like adultery, rich people and eyes of needles, treating their neighbour as thy brother and so on?
And that IS in effect what he said. Insults don’t come a lot grosser, do they? In fact, this was a DOUBLE WHAMMY. First he insulted all of Catholic Europe and simultaneously he insulted all the Anglo-Saxons by describing the furore over Terry’s philanderings as “Anglo-Saxon in nature”. And of course, the term “Anglo-Saxon” is one of fairly strong abuse, especially among the French elite. This by the way has always amused me, since most of the Germans started off as Saxons, and the Germans are very PC, whereas the British certainly are not PC, even if half of us originally CAME from Saxony!
As for adultery, well, let’s be clear, it isn’t “good”, is it? OK, “There but for the grace of God go I.” , “Let no man cast the first stone”, “Forgive and Forget” and so on, but for society it isn’t really desirable that people should treat their marriage vows as casually as Blabber seems to think half of Europe does, is it?
In Britain for a start (but we are not alone) there is the lowest level of marriages for over 100 years and very high levels of divorce, This isn’t “good” for society, is it? And of course, I’m thinking especially of the children involved.
And when you marry, you make vows. Do these now mean nothing to people like Blabber, who thinks that Catholic latin Europe would laugh at Terry’s adultery?
Well, people in positions of power and responsibility should reflect more before they speak, because many lesser mortals may make the mistake of giving their remarks a credibility they do not deserve.
And of course, the Captain of England is a role model, and – possibly unfairly – not only on the field.
As a child I was given quite a reasonable amount of freedom, and so a bicycle was my mode of transport, I was quite fit, was good at running, and in both cases did well in competition. In fact my memory of man’s first landing on the moon in 1969, was as a result of a 100 mile cycle ride that day when I got sunburnt down one side!
Then came the middle years … Motorbikes, cars, some running now and then, but only modest use of the bike, perhaps more recently of late, so that I can go out with the children, and a regular daily walk with the dogs. Continue reading “Reversing the trend”→
We are going through unprecedented troubled times and the way ahead looks very uncertain. The whole world could be participating in the ‘lost decade’ that Japan experienced previously.
But this article is not about doom and gloom! It is about recognising the commitment to open and honest reporting being undertaken by (at least) these three individuals. Three commentators that this author follows in admiration and awe.
Learning from Dogs has nothing like the following of James Kwak, Yves Smith and Karl Denninger but the LfD authors do have an inkling of the work involved in writing not one but often several articles each day. It is a huge commitment.
James Kwak
First James Kwak of Baseline Scenario. Simon Johnson is, perhaps, the more well-known of this duo that comprise Baseline Scenario but it is James that puts in the leg-work. Here’s a taste of a recent article from James:
Radio Stories
I spend a lot of time in the car driving to and from school, so I end up listening to a lot of podcasts (mainly This American Life, Radio Lab, Fresh Air, and Planet Money). I was catching up recently and wanted to point out a few highlights.
Last week on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Scott Patterson, author of The Quants, and Ed Thorp, mathematician, inventor of blackjack card counting (or, at least, the first person to publish his methods), and, according to the book, also the inventor of the market-neutral hedge fund.
Large chunk snipped ……
I finally got around to listening to Planet Money’s interview with Russ Roberts from December. Russ Roberts and I are pretty sure to disagree on almost any actual policy question. But what I liked about his interview was that he basically admitted that policy questions cannot be settled by looking at the empirical studies. On whether the minimum wage increases or decreases employment for example, he says that he can poke holes in the studies whose conclusions he doesn’t agree with, but other people can poke holes in the studies he agrees with. In Roberts’s view, people’s policy positions are determined by their prior normative commitments.
I don’t completely agree. I don’t think that these questions, like the one about the minimum wage, are inherently unanswerable in the sense that the answer does not exist. But I agree that empirical studies are unlikely to get to the truth, particularly on a politically charged question, because there are so many ways to fudge an empirical study. As one of my professors said, there are a million ways you can screw up a study, and only one way to do it right. But I agree with the general sentiment. We are living in an age of numbers, where people think that statistics can answer any question. Statistics can answer any question, but they can answer it in multiple ways depending on who is sitting at the keyboard.
Once again the British Broadcasting Company, BBC, has put together a spectacular television production; the epic story of how geology, geography and climate have influenced mankind. It is remarkable and fabulous viewing as you can sample in these opening minutes from the first episode on Deep Earth.
The four programmes, Deep Earth; Water; Wind; Fire, are testament to both the incredible symbiosis between mankind and the elements and how that relationship is critically balanced in a way that allows us to survive. Some of the images are truly outstanding, for example, the section on Prof. Iain Stewart exploring the Naica Cave system in Mexico.
Naica Cave system, Mexico
This theme of the balance of geological circumstances that allows, just, mankind to survive comes across time and time again in these films. For example, our relationship with fresh water which we all take completely for granted.
Have any of us really pondered how long we would survive if there was insufficient clean, safe drinking water to go around?
The programmes also reveal something of the technological prowess that mankind has achieved to allow the way these films have been produced.
So why, oh why, are we also such a stupid, stupid species – so stupid that we foul our own nest to an incredible degree.
Like most people if most western nations, for many years I had a cell phone, or a mobile phone as they are known in the UK.
I can recall a few years ago there being a scare in the UK about the microwave radiation hazard involved in using a cell phone but it certainly passed me by in terms of not really worrying about it.
Now a recent report in GQ Magazine seems to be gathering some momentum: once again, it’s about how your cell phone may be hazardous to your health. It would be too easy just to dismiss this as just another poke at a very successful technology but something about this article caused me to write this Post – make of it what you will.
Here’s an extract:
Earlier this winter, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years ago. He’s a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed to talk with me only if his name wasn’t used, so I’ll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70 percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of his intense cell-phone usage. “Not for nothing,” he said, “but in investment banking we’ve been using cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone.” When Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively. He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. “I got a sense that he was pissed off,” Jim told me. A handful of Jim’s colleagues had already died from brain cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he felt that it wasn’t a coincidence. “I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors,” Jim says. “Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways.”
Some little time ago I wrote about the word “fair”, which I tongue-in-cheek referred to as a Word of Mass Destruction (WOMD) insofar as if one REALLY put into place practices that were truly “fair” then western capitalism would break down completely. (The story of the CEO of Goldsmiths and his $100,000,000 bonus is for another day ….)
Well, my OTHER WOMD is “rationing”.
I was drawn to this topic by the words of a British minister about the desirability of introducing rationing into AIR TRAVEL. The thinking goes (and to be honest it is in fact obvious, isn’t it?) that IF we are serious about reducing climate change (a VERY BIG IF!!) then we cannot continue to hope to fly where and when we want to as in the past. For aviation is a growth industry despite the current crisis, and as people in developing economies in Asia in particular grow more prosperous they will want to travel more and more. I have seen estimates to suggest that within a decade ONE HUNDRED MILLION Chinese will be travelling to Europe EVERY YEAR.
This is of course totally incompatible with any hope of doing anything serious about climate change. The logical conclusion is that (until some boffin invents an emission-free jet) we MUST reduce flying. This is likely for most adults to be about as palatable as denying burgers and chips to British teenagers, but I really cannot see the alternative IF Global Warming is to be taken seriously (which it probably won’t be until it’s too late).
But let’s for the moment remain positive …. supposing it is decided by some courageous government (are there any?) that we must reduce flying then there are two ways to do it.
A) TAX it so highly that only the rich can afford it
B) RATION it – everyone has a quota of air miles per annum.
Now option A is the usual free-market/capitalist way. After all, Ferraris are rationed by their price; otherwise all males over 18 would have one, or in my case several. But – much as I recognize what the free market has done in terms of wealth creation – we are in a new scenario, aren’t we? Can we really hope to say that only the rich can fly? I think not, and therefore rationing is the only way to do this.
Now, there is a minority of people that abuse anything, and no doubt rationing would be abused by some, somewhere, somehow. But it is the only FAIR way to go about it, isn’t it?
In London and other big cities we are now seeing a TAX imposed on driving into the city centres. Yes, very sensible, but of course, the RICH aren’t bothered. In effect, schemes like London’s are simply a way of excluding the masses from the city centre. The same idiocy is seen on French motorways, which are becoming increasingly expensive. The rich are not bothered by the tolls but the less well-off certainly ARE and so drive on other roads which are less safe; survival of the richest …….
No, the free-market is not going to work in the Brave New World which we are entering. If you have a birthday party for your kids then EVERYONE gets an equal share of the cake. This principle is going to have to be applied in other areas of life, otherwise we are going to get serious social unrest. Besides, any other way is just not FAIR, is it?
Of course, once you concede the point on AIR TRAVEL there is – in a world of increasing populations and diminishing resources – no way of limiting the concept purely to air travel, is there?
I am just old enough to remember my Mother’s WWII ration card, which she used up to the very early 50s I believe. Will we soon start to see a modern reincarnation, and not only in carbon credits?
The debate about the Christmas Day Bomber continues. The pundits continue to define “success” in this case as finding him guilty in a court of law. They go on and on, repeating over and over again, how the evidence is so strong, how the civilian court system is so reliable, how the shoe bomber was tried in civilian court, and how a guilty verdict is virtually certain.
This is so wrong. The definition of success is not whether we find the Christmas Day Bomber guilty in a civilian court. This man intended to blow himself up on Christmas Day, and take hundreds of innocent Americans with him. The fact that he is alive today, facing a jury or a judge and possible jail time or, at the worst, the death penalty, is a mere footnote to him.
Has it occurred to anyone that if the military had interrogated the shoe bomber as the failed terrorist that he was, that the odds of the Christmas Day Bomber getting on that plane with those explosives would have been diminished? And interrogating the Christmas Day terrorist instead of shipping him off to the local prosecutor — for reasons Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has yet to articulate– diminishes the odds of some future terrorist act?
Eric Holder
We are at war!
These people attacked us as part of the ongoing war with terrorists. No one should “rest easy” because some lawyer is going to sleepwalk through a trial that may or may not successfully reach the painfully obvious conclusion that the Christmas Day Bomber is guilty! On the contrary, it makes me very uneasy that he is in the civilian court system at this point in time at all, because every moment spent reading this man his rights is a moment that could have been spent gathering intelligence from a terrorist. His punishment will come in due time. In the meanwhile, we have to extract as much information from his as we can in order to defend ourselves.
An interesting story on the BBC recently. It seems that growth is now “bad” and incompatible with reducing global warming.
I have to say that this always seemed obvious to me (and despite appearances – or indeed pretentions – I am not that clever) since IF industrial production and emissions are creating too much CO2 then it is surely obvious that more of the former will produce more of the latter. Any flaws in this argument will surely be pointed out to me pdq, but I won’t be losing any sleep – or indeed I suspect – the argument!
Well, the theory that growth is bad has now been confirmed by a scientific study ….. of course, we have learned to take some of these studies with a pinch of salt, and it doesn’t help when scientists on the “we are doomed” side sex up their findings to make their case, as was revealed just recently. I found this hilarious!! Once again, a dishonest intention to achieve ONE kind of result (boost the doomsayers’ cause) actually achieved the OPPOSITE!!! When will they ever learn?
An aerial view of the Siachen Glacier, which traverses the Himalayan region dividing India and Pakistan. Photograph: Channi Anand/AP
As for the evils of growth, I am wondering if the British Prime Minister has been informed? His entire strategy (if that is not too noble a word to use in this context) has for well over a decade been based on growth (indeed growth triumphantly trumpeted in advance as likely to be at a level far higher than it actually turns out to be) bringing in enough money to pay for his humungous over-spending.
He must be urgently rearranging his matchsticks in an effort to cook the books once again ….
And there is another side of the “no-growth” movement. YOU may very well decide that in the cause of saving the planet you will keep your consumption where it is, but – logically – that also means people in the developing world who are incredibly poor keeping THEIR consumption where IT is. That is one hard sell. Of course, YOU may then decide to REDUCE your consumption down until it meets theirs coming up ….. No? Oh well …..
The way I see it, growth is inevitable, whether it is good for the planet or not. Which is a bit of a poser if growth is going to doom us. Still, I remain an optimist – some genius will find a way out of this enigma …. but please make it soon before we grow too much!!
Our American friends may not all be aware that momentous events are taking place in London. Momentous for us, I mean ….. nothing much of what happens over here is momentous for you of course, though interesting perhaps!
We have an enquiry going on into the 2nd Gulf War , an enquiry which Premier Gordon Brown set up in an untypical
Sir John Chilcott
and in fact reckless fit of statesmanship but which looks is as if it might be the final nail in his coffin. For a whole series of witnesses are parading in front of Lord Chilcot to give their five penn’worth about the reasons for the invasion.
Now the British public is a magnificent beast, but not particularly famed for long-term memory and just when Iraq was beginning to fade a bit from the radar here it is all surging up again and reminding us what a divisive business it was and how the then government – so it is said – blatantly lied about the reasons for sending our young men to die.
Well, that it all very interesting but here is not the place to go into this enquiry in depth. I did wonder, though, how George Bush seems to have escaped any threat of an enquiry!! You folks sure do things differently over there!
No, what particularly interests me is all the talk about the “legality” of the war, but nobody has explained to me how it can be illegal to attack a mass-murdering gangster, which is all SH was. The “law” only works if ALL are involved. If someone murders our fellow-humans and sets himself up as leader then he or she can’t have recourse to “the law”, can they? You cannot hide behind legality when you murder all your opponents and hundreds of thousands of others, can you?
Now we Anglo-Saxons – and even the French – profess to believe in “democracy”, even if this sometimes throws up complete idiots as leaders (but I won’t mention any names ….) Yet we trade with despots, we take them seriously, we even kow-tow to them on occasion.
But they are just gangsters, aren’t they? Where is their legitimacy? Nobody voted them in, did they? In Sadaam Hussein’s case, there was a party conference at which his rivals were pulled out of the audience and taken away to be summarily shot. Yet this mass-murderer was supposed to be given the respect of a “leader”? We even had a British MP going out to Iraq to shake him by the hand! It is of course surreal.
The UN Charter – which all members sign up to – has clauses on human rights, freedom of speech, of assembly and all that stuff, yet a large proportion of members are dictatorships! What a humungous LIE to base the government of the world on! Yet the UN is the body that is supposed to make “international law”!! You couldn’t make it up.
So while the case for the invasion of Iraq is extremely complex and controversial, I for one will certainly dismiss any claptrap about it being “illegal”. How can it be illegal to bring down a man responsible for the deaths of over ONE MILLION of our fellow-humans, including the use of gas to destroy a whole village of 5,000 in Kurdistan?
It is often said that “the law is an ass”. Well, in this case I cannot but agree.
Learning from Dogs 