World Wants America!

New Year came not only as a good commencement for a fresh global outlook but as proper timing to start thinking what the 2008 US presidential election will bring in US leadership.

But apart from what Americans look forward to for the coming year, it might be good to listen to those from outside looking in.

In an article boldly titled, World Still Hungers for United States, Mr. Moises Naim, editor in chief of Foreign Policy, tersely lays out his optimistic thesis about America’s place in the world stage, though some harsh sniping was not spared.

Though possessed of an MSc and Ph.D degrees from MIT, Mr. Naim is Venezuelan and once served as department minister in his home country; and as reported, is well respected and serves in some prestigious Latin American organizations.

It most probably would serve us well to listen to how Mr. Naim proceeded to present his case. Here are excerpts from his insightful piece:

1. “For the next several years, world politics will be reshaped by a strong yearning for American leadership.”

2. “Of course, the America that the world wants back is not the one that preemptively invades potential enemies, bullies allies or disdains international law.”

3. “Naturally, the world also wants a superpower willing to foot the bill with a largess that no other nation can match.”

4. “Appearing too closely allied with the United States is a risky political position for elected politicians everywhere. Still, some have shown a surprising readiness to stand with America.”

5. “Many foreign leaders will therefore be willing to pay the price that comes with American leadership. They ask only that the price not include subservience to the whims of a giant with more power than brains and whose legitimacy is undermined by regular displays of incompetence, recklessness and ignorance.”

I suppose many, including here in the US, will generally like and be gracious about the complimentary statements that Mr. Naim has brought out in the open. But a more than cursory review may reveal for us a more balanced insight into how things really are.

First, has the world ever lost not only its yearning but presumption that the US ought to lead in any global concern, most especially if it involves large financial outlays and the use of military power with no possible hope of any visible recompense? I doubt it. Even in these difficult times, the US grudgingly continues its solitary role as default sheriff, deep-pockets financier, and solicitous father, to the rest of the world, whether in providing assistance of material goods and services during calamities of any nature, or using its fearsome military presence to keep the rest of the world from imploding or turning upon each other. What could possibly be the paramount self-serving logic for keeping substantial military forces in Europe, Korea, Japan, etc, if not to keep the entire world engaged and tied together, even if the result is only an uneasy and precarious peace? Granted that the resultant peace and security also bodes well for the US and its interests.

Thus, I do not see any “reshaping” of world politics but simply, more business as usual, as always, except maybe that this time some countries may be honest enough to accept their self-serving motives for allying with the US. But I doubt even that.

The second statement gives one an implied sense that the US must be perceived as some kind of recalcitrant bully disdainful of law and order, while the rest of the world is a herded flock of obeisant sheep, stubborn adherents to law and order, and avidly desirous to live in peace and harmony with each other. Do we simply push under the rug the many iniquities and unfairness that the US has had to bear from the rest of the world, at times resignedly, unloaded on it simply because it is the US, the lone superpower? Even the illegal immigrants within its borders are bold enough not only to fly the flags of their countries of origin, or openly seek public services, but even demand rights proper only to citizens. Or many radical groups or hostile countries can proclaim open season for destroying American lives and interests in any part of the globe, but be it damned if it should initiate aggressive precautionary or defensive measures to protect itself because that would be bullying. Or what is now the more PC thing to say, any retaliation would easily be labeled as asymmetric response.

If the last three statements be how to aptly describe the rest of the world, then it speaks poorly of its own leadership, with regard to its own integrity and the nobility of its actions.

Yes, we want your leadership, which translated means your material and military assistance, but we cannot really be identified with you because nobody likes you. And also, should you provide assistance to us, do not expect anything in return whatsoever. Do not expect us to do our rightful share, or tell us what we should do, or to even care what happens to you and your country. We just need your help, period. Just take care of our needs. And by the way, since half of us want to go and live in your country, no territorial borders or laws on migration should obstruct entry of those wanting to.

Now doesn’t one get the feeling that this global leadership thing is one wide one-way street? Wide and easy access for everybody else but.

Kind of reminds one a bit about Shylock’s lament (in Merchant of Venice)

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

Might not the US be wise to ask to renegotiate the “terms” under this informal, and not mutually agreed upon, global leadership thing, and plead for equal and fair treatment?

To which august body does it turn to?

Image Credit: Downloaded from Library of Congress

A Special Tribute: US Major Andrew Olmsted, R.I.P.

Major Olmsted was one among three of the first casualties in Iraq for the New Year. He was also an active blogger in his own blog, for other blogs and the Rocky Mountain News.

Olmsted, 38 years of age, died from small-arms fire when his unit was ambushed.

Why the special tribute?

Before dying, Major Olmsted starting writing his last blog post, with instructions to a friend to post after his death. Read it here. While the posthumous act itself was quite unusual, more awe-inspiring were the ideas that he committed to words for that last post.

But more significant for me were the words that came from somebody else:

“…it was important to know that Olmsted died doing what he loved to do — not just being a soldier, but posting his blogs for The Rocky and other sites.”

Now, isn’t that what life is all about? Doing what one loves to do. Regardless of the amount of time involved. Maj. Olmsted was 38.

Aside from what was mentioned in the quote above, Maj. Olmsted loved seeing his favorite baseball team win the World Series twice. And he was mighty proud of his extensive 80’s songs library, downloaded and ready to be listened to.

About the moustache? Was he going for the macho look? No, he just thought that Iraqis did not look too kindly on those without facial hair.

This fine soldier died in a war-torn country so the rest of us in the comfort of our homes and in the fullness of time can give pause and ponder on the wantonness of this soldier’s early demise.

This fine soldier died so the meek and gentle can gather thoughts and ask why with the utter uselessness of wars they are still breaking out in the world, with regularity and almost with necessity.

This fine soldier died so the rest of us can think and express ourselves in whatever way we desire, with freedom and without fear.

This fine soldier even died for those who may find dread or be squeamish about the brutally violent nature of a soldier’s job.

But as always things still fall neatly in place, since to each life there is a season.

What Is Art, again?

Maybe the above question is something we ought to ask often if only to highlight the attendant difficulties and uneasy confusion people encounter when trying to define what art is. The oft-quoted cliché that beauty is in the eye of the beholder could apply also in judging what art is, whether serious, pop, or whatever.

This untended difficulty reared its head during the last entry on my poster collection of Norman P. Rockwell works. Many critics had panned Rockwell’s works by denying him the honor of considering his work as serious art; instead that he was simply an illustrator however gifted he was as such.

And I always have a problem with such restrictive delineation because my mind has not really been able to grasp the exact parameters of what serious art really is. Should one rely strictly on the judgments of the art critics? But don’t they disagree amongst themselves? And many would go further and decry the lack of objectivity or relevance in many admired critics.

Anyway, I am not making this orphaned confusion my personal problem, because I simply follow my gut feelings and try to work up inspiring vibes about the works that appeal to what I could consider my sense of what is beautiful, tasteful, or extraordinary.

Click to read more.

Poster Collection: Norman P. Rockwell

Posters of different sizes and for different subjects have also been a popular pastime for many enthusiasts. Those enamored with films go for the very catchy, colorful, and artful movie posters that are seen in movie theatres and malls and which surely easily draw the captive attention of the onlookers. While others more into hero adulation may go for sports posters whether of racing cars and their drivers, professional sportsmen, etc. In short, there are posters and posters for most popular fancies and passions.
As for me, I was fortunate enough to have acquired over time a precious number of them (about 76) all about one subject, poster prints of the the paintings/illustrations of the late artist, Norman P. Rockwell, a very popular symbol of things Americana.

Click to read more.

US Homeowners vs. Current Housing Slump

Imperceptibly we wake up to find that the country-wide housing slump has been with us for a good part of the current year. Media has been diligent in holding this critical issue up front in our collective consciousness especially during these times of escalating political campaigns, first for the upcoming primaries and late next year, for the real thing. We ourselves cannot help but see around town, most any town in the USA, the unavoidable signs of this slump with the ominous for-sale signs strategically planted in front of many shuttered houses, both new and old.

Because we pulsate more than just lifeless numbers in statistics, many of us find ourselves emotionally wallowing in the dreary consequences and in fearful straits of the eventual outcome of this slump. Remember the stats bare that most homeowners have families living with them. And most homeowners, whether under the shadows of a looming default or foreclosure, or those who negotiated their mortgages prior to the housing boom peak, or even those who currently hold their homes free and clear, would invariably be affected by what this lingering slump could inflict on the housing markets in the long run.

For those of us who have been homeowners for a while, we have some calming experiences to lean on in making our personal assessments of the current predicament. In 1990 we also witnessed a similar general housing downturn which lasted for a year or two. But we got over that and by 2005 the housing boom was in full bloom anew, in spite of the unimaginable turn of events in the intervening years – the crashing tech bust in 2000 and the ensuing financial letdown caused by the devastating events of 9/11.

As early as 2005, 68.9% of all housing units in the US were occupied by their owners. And the current housing slump is definitely hitting hardest from within that favored group. Divided racially, Whites (Europeans) hold the highest percentage in homeownership at 75%, while Asians trailed behind at 60%. And it should be noted that the other races are not far behind, both African Americans and Hispanics both registering close to 50%.

Clearly by 2007 homeownership had breached the 70% level and regardless of the eventual outcome it has become a singularly significant accomplishment for families latching on to the American dream.

We can now debate ceaselessly what brought about the many challenges in the housing markets, whose visibly glaring results have been the record defaults and foreclosures and family dislocations. Included in the mixed bag of causes has been the following: the easy money brought on by a host of factors, very lax and lenient lending practices, and the two capital human sins of greed and fraud. And throw in there the inaction and/or delayed responses by federal regulators in trying to stem that fast-rising trend that was heading toward what many adjudge as a speculative bubble.

Hindsight speculations, indiscriminate finger-pointing, or inveterate hand-wringing, and etc. will definitely not amount to much for those who are already in the throes of losing their precious homes many of whom were beneficiaries of sub-prime and other exotic mode of lending. And early corrective actions will benefit even those credit-worthy homeowners who will start to see values in their neighborhoods diminishing because of rushed or pressured sales, or even foreclosure auctions. Thus the cascading loss of equity in homes will begin to dry up a good source of increased consumer spending, a critical factor in continued economic growth.

And we are also learning of the spillover effects of this slump into initially, the support industries complementing housing construction like the flooring, carpet, tiles, and landscaping sectors. And in the long run to consumer confidence and spending. And thus ultimately, the broader economy would be affected.

But on the other side, we can continue to be hopeful and there are many encouraging signs pointing toward this direction. The US economy is still very vibrant and growth-oriented, productivity still at enviable levels. And while the slump in housing lumbers on, the broader economy at least is not beset with other potentially-catastrophic weaknesses that might impact on its ability to deal squarely with the housing slump. Even the recurring fears of a recession are being hotly debated on both sides, so it is still a toss-up as to whether we are experiencing the onset of one or not.

Thus while the housing slump has been with us for a long enough time, the broader economy continues to be on even keel, which is unequivocally a good sign. And already, corrective actions in the real estate markets are being felt. 30-year fixed mortgages are back in style while long-term interest rates continue to be attractive and affordable. True, resets in mortgage interest will continue to be a factor for the ensuing years for most of those loans under variable rates, which some estimate could stagger to a total of 1 trillion dollars worth. Again, we are hopeful the US economy can ride this over, over and above dark predictions such as that we have not seen foreclosures this much and this many, coupled with widespread home prices downswings, since the depression years of the 20’s.

Update:

One may wonder what the connection is between Narvik in faraway and cold Norway and the troubled housing slumps in sunny California and Florida. This should explain a bit how extensive the ripples are caused by the latter. And reveals somewhat who the rest of the international players that are involved in all this.