Driving into La Futura

Chrysler LLC is not driving into the sunset anytime soon. Yes it filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection just a couple of hours ago, and will no longer enjoy the managerial autonomy having to listen to the Italians from this point forward. But as in any business merger and acquisition, there are the blessings and the curses, except that in this case Chrysler will have to live with all the curses, and hope that in time, it can convert them into blessings, at least to some extent.
Italian carmaker Fiat is the answer to the Chrysler crisis, and perhaps a strong signal to the rest of my isolationist and protectionist minded friends that occasionally the answers to our critical problems could lay beyond our borders. From where I am sitting, it is good news for not just American automakers, but for a lot of workers, suppliers and distributors across the country.
The point was to avoid bankruptcy altogether but according the President this morning, some of the key investors weren’t interested in winning Obama’s friendship. Chrysler's $6.9 billion in secured debt is probably the tip of the iceberg, and it is fair to assume that not everyone would sign off on it. So here we are, Chrysler will have to fundamentally restructure, and the best way to articulate the sentiment is in the president’s own words. "No one should be confused about what a bankruptcy process means. This is not a sign of weakness but rather one more step on a clearly chartered path to Chrysler's revival."
For once in a long time, bankruptcy doesn’t seem like a bad thing after all. I will hate to sound like Newt Gingrich and every other Republican, but I only hope the road ahead is free of further ‘bailout bumps’. I am a big advocate for keeping American automakers afloat, and at all cost. It has a lot more to do with the direct economic impact, but also affects the national psyche on very different levels.

So far the government (which is essentially you and me), have given about $4 billion in loans into Chrysler, and plans to provide up to $8 billion more to carry the company through bankruptcy. Still, I think it is a step in the right direction.
The flip side of all this, Chapter11 bankruptcy which was supposed to make Chrysler look like a struggling K-Mart store, now makes it a formidable competitor in the global marketplace. If this Fiat ‘marriage’ succeeds, this would have created a blueprint for a new phase of economic interdependence, the chassis to a full fledged globalization.
Pardon my propaganda laden blog, the name of the game is fuel-efficiency and lower-emission technology, and at some point in your life, “you gotta do what you gotta do”
Just in case you haven’t figured the caveat to all this, the next time you drive a Chrysler, you may actually be driving a Fiat, but nothing about its appearance will change. Even if it Chrysler models start showing up a little ‘boxy’ and ‘shrunk’, you bet it will be a lot cleaner and efficient. Now that is how you get into the future.
Buy Chrysler, Buy American.
God save American jobs and God bless us all.

The 100 Days Nonsense

100 days ago President Barack Obama assumed one of the most difficult assignments on the face of the earth. Ever since that historic moment, known to many of us as Day 1, the rest of Americans have been so anxious for today, so they can handout their report card. With the media leading the way, we (most of us at least) engage in one of the most pointless exercises in the world, trying to gauge the future from a 100 days worth of work. For the sake of argument, if any company evaluated our productivity from our first 100 days on the job, most of us would have been fired 25 days into it.
There is poll after poll to judge the President. And as if to make some sensed of all the nonsense, there is the Poll of Polls.
If we never learned anything from the 2008 elections, the fact that polls are garbage measurements of the political climate should have stuck with us. A poll to evaluate a president’s work over a period of time is nothing more than a joke, something so skewed that even a caveman can score a passing grade. Like any partisan referendum, Democrats show up in favor of Obama, Republicans show up against Obama. What else is new? The surprising part of the story is how many people are putting their faith into some unscientific poll that suggests how Americans in general view the president. What is that supposed to change? Will Obama immediately swing to the left or right to appease Nancy Pelosi or Rush Limbaugh?

There are more crucial things to worry about than scorecards. If indeed we can judge a President’s success by his first 100 days, then what good will the remainder of his term be? For the sake of argument, let’s say President Obama is popular than Nixon, Clinton and Washington. Nice. He is even more popular than the two Bush’s combined. Who cares?
The funny part of this media-dominated-useless-propaganda-driven exercise is that the President is sitting somewhere with Michelle, sipping on rum and coke and not worrying about Karl Rove’s scorecard. My best guess is he has more important life changing issues to think of, and the rest of us are sitting out here passing out grades outlandish grades based on what we think the President ought to have done.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, released yesterday indicates that 63 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling his duties as president. So what? Find me one Republican who thinks the President has done an excellent job so far, and I will show you one person related to Levi Johnson (Sarah Palin’s son in law).

Another ridiculous result, three in four Americans feel Obama has the personal qualities a president should have. Just out of curiosity, what would all four Americans have done if he scored an ‘F’ in this category? Who really sits down to prepare this useless questionnaire to get a bunch of people who should be working to fill? There are people dying of swine flu across the world, millions of Americans unemployed and worried about where to turn to next, and the rest of us are fixated on making sure Obama earns an ‘A’. What many people forget is that 100 days have come and gone for all of us too, not just President Obama, the real question is what grade have you earned?

Two days ago, I received an email from a good friend asking that I fill the questionnaire to make sure Obama gets a good grade for his first 100 days. The sad part is that this is one person I respect (or respected) their judgment on many random issues, until she earned an ‘F’ for sending me the email. A long time ago I would at least open the email to see what kind of nonsense it entails; nowadays I can discern garbage from the subject line, and “Please help Obama score A” was one such junk.
Just so you know former President George W. Bush scored a ‘B’ in his first 100 days too, and after 8 years, you and I know how many people were generous enough to even hand him an ‘F’. Come 2012, if President Barack Obama is unable to turn this mess around, you can bet all these sympathetic pro-Obama graders will forget how good a student he was in his first 100 days. Personally, I think its sheer nonsense to put this 100 days assessment into overkill, and advertise it like its Hanukkah.

Just in case you are wondering what grade I gave him, a B+.

Spect – acular Switch-aroo

I hate to sound like a genius but when I predicted two months ago that the Republican Party is not making any effort to redefine themselves, I had a feeling that I was on to something. Of course, a chunk of my analysis is based on my instinctive hunch and a discerning mind to current economic and sociopolitical events as they unfold.
So when I heard this morning that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is switching parties, from Republican to Democrat, I wasn’t too surprised. This is the kind of story you read about in the Political Science class but don’t really see that happening in real life.

So back in the Republican Party, if no one got the memo that the Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh mystique did more harm than good, this is their flashbulb moment. The sad part of the story is that the writing had been on the wall all this while.
The President Barack Obama carefully won over the moderate Republicans during his campaign and although he hasn’t shifted to the “center” like Bill Clinton did, it is safe to assert that most Americans with centrist views see where Obama is heading, and apparently they like it.The fallout will be reinterpreted to mean several things including Specter’s move to win reelection next year, because he knows that his support for President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan made him an unpopular Republican in some circles.
So what’s the big deal? The Specter switch (more like the spectacular political bomb) would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race. It means even more to Republicans following the crushing election blows in 2006 and 2008, the dwindling popularity and identity crisis. Talk about impact, the word ‘seismic’ is not an overstatement.
In the interest of full disclosure, when it comes to predictions this sort, I am just a blogger whose lucky guesses hit the mark every once in a while. If the President needed a gift to mark his first 100 days, this switcharoo couldn’t have come at a better time, on day 99.
The big winner in this spectacular switch? You guessed it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Too Soon to Panic?

The words epidemic and pandemic are quick to illicit fear, and rightly so. With reports of swine flu sweeping across the country, you will be hard-pressed to find one person who takes comfort in President Obama’s assuring remarks that we need to take the necessary precautions, BUT no need to panic.
Sorry Mr. President, 86 people are already dead in Mexico, and just with the thought that health experts had long anticipated a global flu epidemic; it is hard to brush this aside and pretend we live in the ‘untouchable U.S of A’
Travel down with me to memory lane; the last time we had an influenza pandemic, millions of people died around the world in the 1918, 1957 and 1968, and that was not too long ago. The only comforting thought is the fact that our world has evolved in technology and scientific advancements so it is fairly safe to assert that there is no reason to panic, not yet at least. Objective inside sources will tell you that these recent cases may very well be gone in a matter of days and weeks, or could very well be the trailer to a dangerous influenza pandemic. By my very optimistic nature, I am inclined to opt for the former over the latter.
I’ve had people ask on this blog if I know anything more, and my answer is that I don’t know anything beyond what the CDC is telling us. The fact is that no one really knows the answers, everyone (including the President) is just being hopeful.
Mexico is back in the news as the main center of this flu virus, and as Mexicans take heed or evacuate their cities, the rest of us are sitting here praying that the World Health Organization is not just a group of amateurs hanging out in some fancy skyscraper in New York with both hands glued to an Xbox.
Once in a while we care about who these experts are, and this is one such moment. There has been an estimated 1,400 cases since April 13, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon has assumed new powers to isolate people infected with the swine flu virus. Sounds just like a scene from a Morgan Freeman – Dustin Hoffman movie.
So, I am trying to remain calm. My friend Monique is suddenly not too sure about her pork chops stuck in the freezer, I know also that if she had invited me over for dinner, I would be asking a lot more questions than what time I need to show up. For the record, the CDC says that swine flu viruses are not transmitted by food. Properly cooking pork to an internal temperature of 160°F kills all bacteria and viruses. Pardon my cynicism but how the heck do I take their word on pork when they cant tell me anything specific about the swine flu virus itself.

The thought of swine flu cases showing up as far as Canada, France, Israel and New Zealand, makes my head ache. For people in Texas, the first line of concern is the proximity to Mexico, but the fact that there are more cases in New York than there are in Texas suggests that proximity is no leading determinant. Then what is? Good question, the answer to that also is, I don’t know. The good news in the bad news (if is sounds like an oxymoron or a paradox, it is) the fear of death is the most potent incentive to get the human species to act. Even if everyone heeds to the President’s alert for calm, a little panic is necessary to keep the rest of the usually nonchalant homosapiens on the lookout.
So back to my main point. It may be too soon to panic, but certainly not too early to take the necessary precautions. A word to the wise, as it usually is, to the north.

Just a random thought.

Another Milestone in Economic Patriotism

If I had any doubt that President Obama will stop at nothing to boost consumer confidence, no reason for that now. The ultimate ticket to America’s alleged obsession to the chronic spending spree is the credit card and the credit system. When it comes to credit cards, its availability and reasonable rates made it a lifeline for many consumers, even in the most dire of economic situations. At least a person has some form of purchasing power to resort to when all hell breaks loose; from unemployment all the way to just being broke.
Not surprisingly, when the credit crunch and subsequent tightening of credit markets kicked in, even Paris Hilton decided to rethink her lavish lifestyles and the rest of us went Amish (no pun intended). In all fairness, that is not good for national loyalty (or our allegiance to free enterprise). The word frugal is not something Americans like to use to describe their lifestyles, but the rapid increases in credit card rates and fees forced us in that direction.
Spending, debt, defaults, bankruptcies, and every other sentiment that comes with owning a credit card is truly American, the almost patriotic thing to do.
So yesterday, the President sat down with the big dogs, executives of card-issuing companies to press his case for new consumer protections. The real deal is to entice consumers to spend again, and trust me I am not whining. Personally I find it a case of fiscal ingratitude for Visa, American Express, MasterCard, Capital One and the likes of Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America to secure chunks of bailout cash from taxpayers, and be reluctant to return the favor.
The new credit card legislation clamp down on rates and fees, something the financial services are not too happy about. Why should they? Credit card companies count on exorbitant fees and consumer irresponsibility to make wild profits. I don’t want to insinuate that credit card companies are evil, even if they are, they would certainly be the necessary evil for a capitalist society like ours to function. I will never bash Obama for seeking to unfreeze the credit markets, nothing at all I applaud him for stimulating the true American purchasing sense. He is the president; I won’t expect anything less from him.

The Obama plan (or better yet, the Tim Geitner agenda) bans "arbitrary" interest rate increases, prohibit excessive fees and order more disclosure. The point of the debate is to bring some fairness into the ‘spending game’; it would be nice for consumers to at least have a clue of what they are signing before they actually do. For instance, collection agencies don’t skip a heartbeat to hound consumers, but a good reason why most people (including me) hate collection agencies has less to do with the agencies themselves, and more to do with the card-issuing company.

I know most people rarely think rationally before they sign their lives away, but I am sure if you told a caveman that you would charge him 50%APR, even that ridiculously hairy dude with nothing to lose will tell you to kiss them where the sun don’t shine. But in support of the president’s zeal to restore America’s greatness, he is laying the groundwork for you and I to buy more, save occasionally, and even spend what we don’t own. Nothing wrong with that, except that I was just getting used to watching TV without the interruptions of the debt-free infomercials.
I can’t assume that an illusion of congressional oversight will drastically change anything in the credit card market to encourage anyone to spend more, but at least it is reassuring to know that the President is bent on stimulating the economy from both sides of the street.
You can bet I will be in the mall this weekend to see how far I can push JPMorgan and MasterCard, all in the name nation-building.
A word to the wise, don’t be fooled by the fine prints in the proposed legislation; the rules for bad credit and horrible credit scores will still work in the same way. By all means, feel free to swipe your cards often, go ahead and blow a hole through your Amex, that may very well be the ‘American’ thing to do.

Friends in High Places

Even if you can get past the fact that the color red dominates Hugo Chavez’s fashion sense, you can’t help but admit that he is the most flamboyant leader in Latin America. Politically, even more so.
Chavez’s anti American views, and his infamous calling President Bush the devil at the U.N. crossed him out in the minds of many Americans and international observers too. The other side of the story, albeit the almost harsh one, is that Hugo Chavez’s influence in Latin America is one of the pillars that keeps the region afloat. Hence if Barack Obama plan to reach out to Latin America, via NAFTA or even CAFTA, the road will may have to go through Venezuela to accomplish anything significant. That is how we got to this interesting point in foreign policy, at the 5th Summit of the Americas, where all eyes were on the Obama-Chavez confrontation.
So they met, they shook hands (not the regular corporate America phony kind), and the rest of the world, definitely Americans are unsure how this translates into future associations and negotiations. Follow closely.
Chavez has sad a lot of inflammatory stuff over the years, but he certainly is not suggesting Obama is the “Messiah”. In the least however, sharing a smile with him insinuates a relatively positive appeal to the Obama ideals, and for that matter the new American foreign policy agenda.
In a remote connection, is this a potential energy outlet in Venezuela that would wean us off the Middle East dependency? This morning’s grapevine story is that Obama is now more popular in Venezuela than Chavez, but you can bet Chavez is loving that, because it makes him look cool too. Many Venezuelans I know would sincerely hope for a day when they wouldn’t have to defend Chavez’ rhetoric against the United States, but rather welcome a chance for productive regional cooperation.
If Obama wants to mend fences around the world, Hugo Chavez certainly was a tall one. Raul Castro wants to ‘talk’, something unheard of from the Castro camp, so maybe the imagery could mean more than body. Never mind the fact that ‘Open Veins of Latin America’ is a bestseller now, coming from obscurity since 1971.
On the flip side, what would it mean if Obama snubbed Chavez? I am sure most people haven’t pondered that side of the imagery. This certainly is the most talked about story from the Summit of the Americas, and any bad move from Obama would have probably quelled some of the goodwill he got on loan from the Italians, French and just about everyone at the G20 summit, definitely from the Russians too.
Maybe, just maybe the rest of the world genuinely see Barack Obama as the one person with clear intentions, an outsider who puts the American agenda atop his priorities, thus are inclined to at least listen to what he is selling. I listened to the President answer the question of what he has to show for all the supposed goodwill from all these leaders. Even common sense tells me that nothing will change overnight, but I genuinely respect (and concur with) his answer that most people will at least listen to us, where they would have otherwise ignored us altogether.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada on Sunday said that it was "irresponsible" for Obama to have been seen "laughing and joking" with Chavez, and he articulates his stance on the uncertainty that clouds the Venezuelan president. I completely see his point, and every other person’s who think extending a positive arm to Chavez would be opening the floodgates of hell.

Chavez is colorful, in every sense of the word maybe, but if Obama can at least make a ‘moderate’ out of him, I am sure he will achieve something. I have always argued that if the tactics of the past haven’t produced any results, why not try unconventional methods? All of us know that Chavez will milk this picture for the rest of eternity (the man brought his own camera crew), but that is exactly what politicians do anyway. If the shoe was on the other foot, Obama would have done the same.
I can’t blame Obama for being a straight-up guy, at least he looks like it, and the world think so too. Hugo Chavez and just about any other politician can see through the bogus smiles and empty crap, and I am tempted to believe that such an authentic gesture (completely unscripted) would signal a dawn of new relations between the Unites states and the rest of Latin America.
The point of the story is that this is an image for history, and no matter what our personal stance will be on this, Hugo Chavez wants a friend in Obama, just as much as Obama does in him. No matter the ideological differences or complexities in political tactics, friends in high places is not a bad thing after all.

A Question of Necessary Evil

Not every interrogation technique is pretty or unquestionably humane, but whether or not it is effective is an entirely different story. I am of course referring to the CIA 'torture files'. The Obama administration’s decision to release the sensitive documents is brewing heated conversations in many circles. In the least, these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ has become the subject of ideological conflicts as the current administrations seeks to make a U-turn on not just the domestic agenda, but also America’s high stakes image overseas.
Let the pro-Obama people state their case, this is just another step in the ‘show the world that America don’t torture’ game plan. Not a bad idea except that the anti-Obama faction will also be quick to spell out that you just told Bin Laden what you won’t do to him even if you should by some miracle catch him. This is one of those arguments that each side will make valid points, but perhaps the best answers will live somewhere in the middle.
The interrogation memos may have exposed one angle on national security but I will bet that there are many more wild cards in place; but that’s based on my own naïve logic. Water boarding and sleep deprivation may be a little brutal, but I am not too sure how heinous slapping terrorists is. Just in case I’m completely aloof, this is the same guy who wanted to kill you, and if you have to smack him around a couple of times to get relevant facts from him, I don’t think that is too bad an idea. I have to admit that I am not the most pious individual, so pardon my lack of unconditional compassion. Then there is the issue of keeping detainees naked and in some cases in a diaper.
Quite frankly, I don’t see the danger part here, and I certainly don’t know why this fits is the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ category. Trust me, I have seen people naked or grown men wear diapers on MTV’s jacksass, and nothing about that looked brutal. Well, I know this is a bad analogy, but you get my point. There are a few of these ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ where humiliation could turn into dehumanization, and on that premise, I see where the contention starts.

Key intelligence guys including Michael Hayden, CIA director under President George Bush, thinks that for Obama to release the files was a bad idea. It is fair to assert that the release of the ‘torture files’ could very well spark some chilling effects on the intelligence officers, knowing very well that their secrets could be front page news any day. Trust me, if I know the Washington Post will be flipping through my diary next week, I will be sure not to even write in it.
The flip side however is that the President has made it clear that it doesn’t intend on prosecuting anyone for following orders, the point here is that in order to completely move forward, the United States need to air the dirty laundry to show the rest of the world exactly what it stands for.
Believe me, I have no problem with transparency, I just have a few questions however when I imagine that the United States could have nicely discarded the same dirty laundry (by merely announcing them), rather than telling the curious world exactly how many punches to the jaw or cracks to the rib a terrorist endures under America’s watch.
Now to the tricky question. Did those supposed torture techniques make America and the world for that matter safe? I would hate to indulge in any argument for the sake questioning any president’s intent, whether Bush’s or Obama’s. My personal opinion, regardless of how hideous or heinous these extreme strategies were, no one would be talking about this if 9/11 happened again in the Bush era.
All that said, there is a good reason why I am sitting here blogging, while President Obama is making the tough calls. Something tells me he knows much more than I do, and for that matter you do. I will give him the benefit of the doubt here, in the hopes that the long term implications of such a policy far outweighs to short term flack. History will be the judge.

Just a random thought.

Music to My Ears

Outside Alicia Keys, I have never unquestionably endorsed any singer of any genre, either on this blog or in real time conversation. I hate to eat my words when a promising talent or superstar takes a plunge either with an awkward song or bad sense of style. Pardon my quirky cynicism, I know that all of us are human, and most singers occasionally produce mediocre records; hence my allegiance to Alicia Keys, alone. All the aforesaid apprehension about entertainers held true until I stumbled onto Gabbie McGee.
The site is www.gabbiemcgee.com
This is music, refreshing, masterful and pure talent. Trust me, I have heard a lot of quasi- superstar wannabe singers who will be lucky to make it past their own bathroom mirrors, let alone the big stage to reach millions. Relatively unknown, but the Gabbie McGee style is the kind you listen to a million times and still finds a way to be captivating every minute.
I bet you are wondering why such a rousing endorsement for an independent artist? Well, besides the genuine elegance and charming personality, Gabbie’s PR team describes her as Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin and Nina Simone. No 'bull', she is exactly that. All I had to hear was portions of her songs (at random), there is no denying the originality of inspiration and the sheer talent. The debut "Certified Soul" is outstanding, and that is coming from someone who has a hard time showering accolades on some of the most celebrated musical talents of the world.
According to her website her songs are that of ‘hope, faith and triumph’, I will say powerful and refreshing in every way. Besides my objective review of Gabbie McGee, please don’t ask any questions pertaining to production or distribution of her project. I am sure you enquiries will be gladly answered on www.gabbiemcgee.com . I am too biased (obviously) to rate the project, so I’ll let you be the judge. Don’t take my word for it.

PS: I am not a PR agent; I am just a dude who knows excellence when I see one. Gabbie McGee, remember that name, you will remember this blog.

Crisis at the Horn

All the drama is happening in that area, the Somali coast along what is known as the “horn of Africa”. Just when anyone would think the world is making progress on terrorism front, a new breed of gangsters show up. First Al Qaeda, then a bunch on no-name extremists, and now Somali Pirates.
Of course, when the drama happens on the high seas, far away from our backyards and on television, it is increasingly tempting to ignore it as another episode of “Lost”. These modern day pirates hang out and cruise the African coasts, willing to risk anything and everything (which is essentially nothing) to profit from ransom payments. Not too industrious a way to earn several thousand dollars in a week, but the real question then becomes why someone would risk their lives to pounce on unsuspecting sailors and vessels.
Last week, the Navy SEALs ended the hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia with three fatal shots in the dark killing all three pirates aboard the lifeboat but these guys seem undeterred, which leads me to believe that they indeed have absolutely nothing to lose, even their lives. The pirates vow revenge on Americans and the French. One reason I’m convinced these guys are not a smart bunch is that no one makes criminal threats with your full name and pictures, knowing very well that you will be brought to justice one way or another. In following the events closely, I am careful not to downplay the threats and dangerous confrontations simply because it is no where near the impact a Bin Laden video tape will have.
This high jacking crisis is gradually gaining international attention, and it is almost mind-boggling to think that these high seas drama has been going on all this time. About 80 ships have been attacked in the past three to four months alone, enough for to fall in the emergency category. The problem is now hitting home, and the Obama plan is to stamp it out before is requires a full-scale navy operation. This will be a tricky operation to undertake. If this was Afghanistan or Iraq (or anywhere on dry land), you stamp out insurgents in ToraBora or Baghdad and you can at least guarantee calm for a week or two. The area in question involves the coasts of Somalia and Kenya, including the Gulf of Aden, that is roughly more than 1.1 million square miles (four times the size of the state of Texas).
I thought to myself, “Why wouldn’t the shipping companies equip their vessels with machine guns and security personnel?” Then it clicked. A corporate genius sat back and calculated that (using last years figures for example) if for about every 30,000 ships that passed through the Gulf of Aden, 42 are successfully hijacked, what are the odds that it would be theirs? Not a smart line of reasoning, but since when did businesses compromise profits over safety? There is another school of thought that argues that some companies have figured out that the paying ransom could even be cheaper than outfitting ships with a private armed security team. So that in itself is a big chunk of the problem.

Where is the Somalia government in all of this? Well, that’s where the story gets a little long winded. The short version is that the country has suffered the brunt of a never-ending civil war, the country’s forces (where available) are uninterested. Besides their national credibility, what does Somalia stand to lose if it ends up as one of the worst places in the world? Nothing.
Just as I wrote this, a so called expert reiterated my thoughts on BBC News, so you know I’m not completely delirious. One of the key reasons why the youth of any country resorts to crime, terrorism and just about any facet of anarchy to survive, is the presence of poverty and lawlessness. Both abound in Somalia, and that just makes the story a lot more complex.
How about the African Union forces? I don’t even know why I thought about the African Union, I am still waiting on their report on Darfur, until then, I can’t even trust them with tying shoe laces, let alone fighting pirates. The good news is that there is a mutual interest here for a concerted effort from the United States and the European Union nations, NATO, Russia, China and others, so that is an encouraging response to the crisis.
On a much lighter side, I am tempted to blame Hollywood and Johnny Depp for all this mess; that the Somalis are now getting around to watching ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ and taking cues from it.

Madonna Baby Drama

Who am I to say Madonna’s intentions for wanting to adopt all the children in the world is purely propaganda? Of course, the fact that she is Madonna raises eyebrows in some circles, but if the woman has a heart to truly help some of the world's underprivileged children, why would anyone stop her. Of course that is a one sided argument, if everyone can just roll into another country and pluck their children like mangos, who is to say the next celebrity to go on the baby spree wont be Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears?
Madonna is still in Malawi, fervently working on adopting a little girl. 3-year-old Chifundo "Mercy" James may be in dire need for a mother but the country understandably needs to set some parameters for adopting their children. The paramount criterion for adoption, I think should be a person’s ability to not only afford it, but a record of responsibility as a parent. For the safety of the children (and preventing them to become celebrity toys) the stipulations should be practical. There is a fine line between practical and pointless legalese. If it sounds like I am in Madonna’s corner on this, yes I am.
Malawi is not necessarily Cambodia but the average life expectancy of Malawian children is nothing close to enviable. If a celebrity wants to help a child secure a future, guarantee them more than the wheat and powdered milk, what is there to think about? Of course, discerning people wonder why by some coincidence all the adopted children by the big name pop stars happen to be black. The fact that there are millions of mother-worthy kids right here in America begs the question, what is her true her motive for the apparent Malawian affection?
I don’t intend to sidestep the legal framework of any sovereign nation, but the woman has been involved with Malawi for several years on her own free time, and under the radar. She was the brain behind the documentary, "I Am Because We Are," which shone light on the poverty, AIDS and other diseases devastating children in that country. She also co-founded a nonprofit, Raising Malawi; what more can a person do to get a couple children for keepsake? All jokes aside, I see where Save the Children is coming from, urging Madonna to let the child be raised by her relatives in her home community. Well the last time I checked, every kid in an orphanage wants a family to belong to; and my guess is if it was any average Joe, this will never be a news item (and I certainly won’t be blogging about it).

If this was the Octomom we were talking about here, you can bet I would be in front on the anti-adoption protest, but this could be Mercy’s only chance to having a loving family, excellent healthcare, education and all the perks that comes from being in the Madonna family.
Madonna is reported as saying that she hopes that one day the children will return to Malawi to help their country. Nice thought but that is still irrelevant to the argument at hand. The circus around this is unwarranted. Madonna adopted David Banda in 2006, and just the love and affection he has received should be enough grounds for Madonna to adopt all the 6 million kids in the country.
Give me a break, show me one Malawian boy who grew up in Armani diapers and steps out every morning in Gucci flip flops. That’s my point.
Madonna can adopt me anytime she wants. I will stay where I am, she can be my mother, send me a few thousand dollars every weekend, and I will make her proud with a phone call every morning. At least, she would save herself the frustration and the unecessary drama.

Havana: So Near, So Far

WHEN you think of United States foreign policy, don’t ask me why China is a ‘friend’ and Cuba is an ‘enemy’. Of course, that’s the most simplistic line of reasoning but many people (excluding me) wonder why the whole world can show up in China for the Olympic Games and Cuba is the last place an America should think of visiting. No I don’t have any plans of traveling to Cuba, not even to find a good baseball player for my struggling Houston Astros, but Cuba’s record of human rights abuses may be way less deplorable than the Chinese. Of course I don’t have any hard evidence for my reasoning, I’m pondering over the issue just as every objective America is probably doing by now.
Back down memory lane; - Fidel Castro led the 1959 revolution that overthrew Cuba's Batista dictatorship. The United States broke diplomatic ties with the nation in 1961. The next year, the U.S. government instituted a trade embargo. Believe it or not both policies have remained active until present day.
Fast forward into today, Fidel Castro, and now his brother Raul, for the United States became the ‘weird neighbors next door’. Those mean looking kids that your parents asked that you avoid at all cost but you don’t really seem to know why. So ‘weird’ American citizens don’t have the same freedoms to do business with Cuba, via commerce, tourism and anything else you can imagine. Even Cuban Americans with family back in Cuba have to send money to Mexico and Canada to a third party before it gets to their relatives in Cuba. I am sure that is inconvenient and expensive, but such had been the fate of Cuban Americans for nearly half a century.
Just in case you are guessing why the strict ‘hand of God’s judgment’ over Cuba, it probably have something to do with the principle of starving your opponent into submission. Apparently the starvation route haven’t worked too well because all the countries in Latin America have filled the void. Of course U.S. business is big business but the Castro brothers have managed to believe that half a loaf (even a quarter) is better than none, and mysteriously have survived the sanctions all this time.

So here we are in 2009, President Barack Obama is leaning towards lifting the sanctions on Cuba, something most of us didn’t think will happen in our lifetime. I can’t help but use the Chinese human rights record as a litmus paper test, and question the source of the endless scuffle with the ‘neighbor next door’. Well apart from the fact that the Chinese have us by our ‘you know what’, not much of its domestic policies are different from the Cubans. I will maintain that we clearly state what we oppose, and clarify our bone of contention. Human rights violations and democracy are two different things, entirely.

I know I am partially naïve, but what’s the point in trading with Mexico and Canada for example, if they in turn will trade with Cuba? That alone defeats the purpose, but who am I to suggest an alternative. It won’t be a bad idea to reevaluate the reason why the kids next door look as mean as we think they do, it could very well be that they have a naturally mean look. Nothing at all, ending the Cuban crisis would translate into several trivial benefits like an extra vacation spot, or major League baseball adding to their talent pool.
Why Cuba, and why now?
Well the Summit of the Americas is almost here, everyone is invited except, you guessed it. Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua plans to push for ending that isolation, and Obama’s guys will have to walk the fine line between upholding U.S. idealism and the more practical realism.
Why now? The more we think of how much United States rely on China (with all of its similarities to the weird neighbor next door) it’s about time we rethink the basis of the sanctions. If Cuba was going to be democratic, it would have been by now; and I hate to sound like a broken record but democracy is no guarantee to averting human rights abuses. So maybe the Obama strategy is to address Cuba like an equal partner at the table, instead of the retarded kid next door we can ‘punk’ into submission.

PS: I don’t know any foreign policy detail for a fact, I’m just thinking aloud here.

Are we there Yet?

The bottom I mean. Over the past few weeks I picked up a new habit (albeit a weird one), waking up in the morning and the first thing I do is to see how high or low the NASDAQ and Dow is riding.
Well, some of the days were a lot more frightening than others, but the past few weeks have been at least a lot less dismal. Things are looking up, investors now think the worst is over for banks and consumers may be spending freely again. I’m not too sure of the last part but apparently someone is convinced mainstream America that we may have lived through the worst of the 2008-09 recession.
Its 3am, and I am sitting here staring at MSNBC (when I should be snoring) and I have a sneaky suspicion that today will live up to its name, Good Friday. Perhaps the fact that nothing is happening on Wall Street today will have a lot to do with it.
Let’s put this in perspective; the fact that Wells Fargo bank reported better-than-expected results throughout the past year, whiles their compatriots Citigroup or Bank of America have struggled is no coincidence. The times have been hard across the board for everyone. Banks have strategically frozen credit, people are continually losing their jobs, and no one is paying their bills (except me of course).
The past few months have been ruthless on the mortgage front and $787billion(and change)later, no one is quite sure how far we have to go to get out of the chaos.
Of course for every downturn, there is an upturn; and for every person who suffers the brutalities of unemployment and inability to pay their bills, another person is thanking their stars for default payments. A classic example is any collection agency, filled with insensitive people(mostly) determined to add to your frustration. The tricky part for them however is that irrespective of how much pressure you mount on your debtors, no one can carve cash out of thin air.
The other interesting face of all this is something called consumer confidence, Confidence directly translates into spending. The more money people spend, the sooner the country gets back on its feet and rebound from the recession (ceteris paribus). The catch 22 is that unless you are a complete idiot, you cannot spend what you don’t have, especially in the wake of the lessons from this global financial downturn. So maybe we are the architects of our financial fate, and instead of asking how far we are from the bottom, we should be asking ourselves how soon we hope to get to the top.

A glimpse of hope here; Wal-Mart Stores reported yesterday that same-store sales rose 1.4% in March and is expected profit for the first quarter. Why is Wal-Mart any practical indicator? Well, from my completely unscientific analysis, consumers don’t stop spending altogether during difficult times. They just spend smarter, look for deals and cheaper prices (even inferior quality goods), and that’s precisely where Wal-Mart comes into the picture. The logic is that the fact that K-Mart and Kroger is struggling do not mean Americans are starving at home. At least I know I’m not.
I know I’m getting antsy here but it is possible that we hit the bottom of the financial crisis last February?
Please dont quote me anywhere, I know it doesn't feel like the "top" yet, but it sure feels much better than the "bottom". That much I know.
Just a random thought.

Citizenship in Binghamton, NY

I have no intentions of making light (or poking fun) with regards to the horrendous Binghamton massacre from last week, but this story has the markings of an ACLU/La Raza summer protest in the woodworks. Senators from New York have announced a legislation that would grant “posthumous honorary citizenship” to victims of last week's shooting rampage in Binghamton.
Yes, posthumous, and that what makes the story a little humorous to the point of near-insensitive.
The legislation is not a bad idea except that those people would have probably appreciated the US citizenship much more if they had those privileges while they were alive. I would hate to sound insensitive but I bet the victims had spent all their lives hanging around the civic center for that sole purpose, only to meet their maker when they least expected. I will even stretch my imagination to presume that someone probably told them that it could take the span of their entire lives before they are granted citizenship. I genuinely hope I am wrong in that regard, but what good would posthumous citizenship do? I ask that out of sheer curiosity; I never had to worry about that process but commonsense tells me that Chuck Schumer and his senator buddies are doing that for PR reasons.

Jiverly Wong, the 41-year-old dude who shot 17 people (13 of whom died) before turning the gun on himself, may have sparked a genuine curiosity in many of us who wonder why that particular institution. Why not a bank, a restaurant or the usual stuff that frustrated people turn to? After all, the civic association might as well be a church, it helps immigrants and refugees from around the world assimilate into American culture. So why would Wong take his anger in that direction? Good question but if I knew the answer, I would be doing much more than blogging.
Senators Schumer and Gillibrand said their legislation would backdate the honorary citizenship, “so victims would be considered citizens at the times of their deaths”. What good would that do? Get to heaven quicker I suppose. That is almost as ridiculous as my college professor giving me an “A” grade in that Statistics class I hated every Monday morning four years ago.
That’s my point. If the Senators agree that the victims spent “all their lives” struggling for an American citizenship, then something ought to be done about the process as a whole, not wait for their deaths to grant them their wishes. That is why I have to ask, what does it really take to get citizenship in this Binghamton, or any American city for that matter?
The last time we heard, the Immigration and the Homeland Security office was so jam-packed with cases of all flavors that it would take up to five years for anyone to go through the citizenship process. Not really apparently. I am not sure if the immigrants and La Raza are paying attention to this story, but at least now they know one sure way to get a US citizenship;- get shot.

Fineprints in Afghan Freedom

Often when a conversation is about a culture or an attitude of any group of people, my response had been “no comment”. I say no comment not because I have no opinion on the subject, but rather that there are usually many unspoken rules and strings attached to such cultural acts. I am smart enough to know when to shut up. Once in a while, such an issue jumps onto the front pages, and you can’t help but comment, and decry the senselessness of such conduct.
Case in point, a reportedly new Afghanistan law that legalizes rape towards married women. A man can legally rape his wife in Afghanistan, no problem. What the $%&*(#?
Many years ago, scholars would be jumping out of the woodworks to explain how such “backward” attitude like raping your own wife was the characteristic of Islamic extremists? How I wish they would come back to use that same weak cop-out.
Pardon my naivety, but what would cause a man to rape his own wife (besides sheer stupidity of course)? I am attempting to refrain from injecting my personal opinion, (I think I already did) but this certainly isn’t the kind of freedom and democracy I had in mind when the president told us that we have to sacrifice our security for Afghan freedom and democracy.
In all fairness, I can’t say that I would be any less appalled if this same law was in effect somewhere in Uzbekistan, Ukraine or Lithuania (countries that don’t count on United States’ aid for their livelihoods). Even if this happened in Jordan or Syria, countries who uniquely assert their sovereignty in the face of any opposition, I would perhaps not blink as much. The last time I checked, President Hamid Karzai is getting all the funding from the United States taxpayers to reform Afghanistan and turn it into a democratic nation. Sorry to interfere with domestic policy but this is not the kind of democracy you subscribed to.

The most burning thought of all this is, how horny can a man get to rape his own wife? Take a cold shower, eat some berries, go jogging in the desert, do something useful "if the times get that hard". Rape your wife? That’s sick. I am sure there is some weirdo somewhere who would read my blog as ask if I am married. No I’m not, but I have had female friends who I love and care about so much that I wouldn’t want a bird step on their toes, let alone do anything to let her feel inferior.
I haven’t written any marriage contracts yet, but I am sure a wife is entitled to refuse sex as much as she can (although that won’t be my advice) and it is sickening to think of any nation in this age of civilization will stick to barbaric ideologies, in the name of culture. Please don’t blame this on Islam, the Prophet Muhammad no where in the Koran authorized “horndogs” to abuse their wives to satisfy sexual urges. Human rights violations aside, this is insane on many levels.

Many years ago, I was made to believe that the Taliban was the most inconsiderate group in Afghanistan, and that their absence will birth new freedoms for all Afghans, apparently women weren’t part of the deal. The interesting part of the story is that United States is not new to this kind of political U-turns. Even Saddam Hussein was once an ally until he flipped the script. Déjà vu allover again.

For the sake of the sanity of our humanity (and my tax dollars), I know it’s not my place to tell someone how to live their lives; whether they beat their children with sledgehammers, or rape their wives. BUT I have every right to tell the person who just took $15billion of United States taxpayers’ money that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Assistance for democratic reform comes with a price tag, and the United States is grudging paying that with soldiers sacrificing their lives everyday in Kabul. The other end of the spectrum is stipulations and prerequisites, and inexcusable laws like this is certainly cause for social outrage.
My random thought.

G20 – A Few Good Men?

Depending on which version of the news you end up watching, the world leaders’ meeting is coming along just fine, or the unruly protestors are venting their anger at the United States for being the architect of this global financial meltdown. These are two connected stories woven into a single premise, but we cannot afford to discredit the protestors simply because of their disorderly methods.
The main story here though, is that the G20 summit is the platform for the “big shots” to discuss plans to tackle the current economic crisis. G7, G8, all these G’s, and we still end up in this giant mess. The Group of 20 is the world's most powerful countries that together represent 85% of the global economy. It includes both major industrial powers such as the United States and Germany, and emerging economic powers such as Brazil and China. That’s just a little background for the sake of throwing out useless facts.
In light of the ongoing financial meltdown, they look more like the Gangsta 20, hence the directed resentment from the “ordinary people” in the streets of London. The ordinary people are frustrated about the extremities of capitalism and greed, the cause of this crisis, but if anyone can fix the problem, my guess is that a concerted global effort can do the trick. And that is precisely where the G20 comes in.
So why should we get our hopes high? No one is suggesting you do, but since the Bretton Woods era, there hasn’t been any substantial effort to keep the financial system in check. The result was a breeding ground for sophisticated scams and loopholes, like Bernie Maddoff, Enron and to a lesser extent Lehman Brothers, among others. Advocates of socialism and communism will be quick to use the dismal pictures for propaganda purposes, but capitalism remains the most potent engine for generating wealth. That also is my educated assertion.
The aims of the summit start from a “coordinated action to revive the world economy”, “efforts to prevent a future crisis by strengthening the international regulation of banks” and “a blueprint for future reform of the world financial system”. That is a lot of stuff to hash through over a relatively short time frame. But time is certainly not a luxury these world leaders can afford, something has to be done, and done quickly.

President Obama made it clear that his core agenda is to woo other countries to cut interest rates even further and initiate their own version of a stimulate package. I have to add that yesterday’s cameo appearance to the Buckingham Palace was sheer fluff, having to redesign the financial framework, banking institutions, credit crunch and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is where the real work begins.
The G20 summit hopes to get all the major countries on the same page, and the rowdy protestors want to let the world leaders that no one will sit back and callously watch our fortunes and investments vanish into thin air.

At the end of the day, no one knows exactly what broad agreements will emanate from the summit, but any concrete initiative is better than none. Who knows, maybe the Group of 20 architects of the financial disaster can pull off one good solution. I remain optimistic, as usual.In the meantime, the images at the London office of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of England will be the grim reminder that people frustrated with the “system” will do just about anything to let their voice be heard.
I like to think Gordon Brown, Sarkozy, Obama and the rest of the crew are not the bad guys; they may very well turn out to be the few good guys left in this equation.
BUT that is just my random thought.

Immigration Drama in the Making

For obvious reasons anytime we hear of immigration cases, our mind just turn south to the border with Mexico. There is plenty of controversy in that direction, but there is one more spewing far from El Paso and Arizona. President Barack Obama's Kenyan aunt lost her bid for asylum more than four years ago, and a judge ordered her deported. Instead, Zeituni Onyango stayed, living for years in public housing. The case is back in the headlines now, and auntie Onyango will become the punch line one way or another.

You know the Republican watchdogs have assigned a hundred people to spend their lives excavating every single detail of this case for FOX News. I have no inside information to this story, but La Raza and the ACLU are sitting back scheming their summer immigration propaganda, and how this Onyango case shapes up will be the perfect impetus to state their case.
Of course, Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place, although the outcome of this case might probably have nothing to do with him. That is what the White House will want the rest of us to believe but definitely no how the rest of us will interpret it. If Onyango leaves, her life may very well be never the same in Kenya(even in danger), but if she stays, even dumbest person on two feet can connect the dots, and will lead to President Obama. How likely is it that the President’s aunt will be deported? Very unlikely but I am old enough to know that this is America, and anything is indeed possible.
According to inside sources, the Onyango request is being reconsidered under a “little-used” provision in U.S. immigration rules that allows denied asylum claims to be reheard if applicants can show that something has changed to make them eligible. “Little used” because the eligibility requirements might as well be going to the moon. An initial hearing is scheduled today in a U.S. Immigration Court in Boston.

The moral of the story is that we are headed to an immigration showdown, with President Obama at the center, and for an entirely different reason. Immigration enforcement agencies and immigrant advocacy groups agree on one thing, that the President cannot be completely objective on immigration, perhaps just the reassurance the over 25 million undocumented immigrants were counting on. I don’t have any particular interest in the story except that it makes for an interesting political chess match, with very fascinating repercussions.
If this story ended up in Hollywood, it would easily be the “Curious Case of Zeituni Onyango”.
Just a random thought anyway.