A Bleak Future

I know some people. Some time back, they formed an organization. While this group isn't perfect, it does some important things that no other group does as well.

Anyway, this organization has gotten itself into a bit of debt problem.

Right now, there are about 33 people in the group, and the organization has debts of about $2.2 million. The group keeps pretty good records and are remarkably open, so they happen to know that, collectively, they earn about $1.96 million per year.

Their budget for the current year is to spend about $400,000 on various projects. Unfortunately, they are only going to collect about $318,000 in dues from their members. Pretty clearly something is going to have to be done to resolve this.

Last week, some of the leaders of the group suggested that perhaps some of the spending could be cut back a bit. As I understand it, it went something like this:

"Take a look at this $1.76 that we spend on this charity. I'm not saying that it isn't a good charity; it is. It does great work. But we are $2.2 million in debt and will add another $70,000+ this year, so this seems like something we should look at. This cut is only 0.0004% of the current budget."

Unfortunately, the membership of the group did not react... how can I put this... rationally to this suggestion.

I worry about the long-term future for this group.

"How can we negotiate with a state that wants to kill us?"

While the US is having its current drama about events that may or may not have happened at a high school party 30+ years ago, an actual important drama is brewing and being ignored.

“We’re accumulating risk in the Middle East by not getting at Iran’s proliferation,” [Brian Hook, the State Department's special representative for Iran] said. “There is something brazen about this missile behaviour, they’re not even hiding it. This sort of escalation is deeply concerning..."

"The Iranians have to decide are they a nation state or a revolution,” [The Saudi foreign minister] said, underlining that Iran had diverted virtually all its additional revenues from the removal of sanctions into its regional agenda, including support for the Houthi rebellion.

“If a missile is launched at Saudi Arabia and UAE what will be reaction be and how will we be defended?” said UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al Otaiba.

Maybe we could ask if the government can spend a few minutes considering this when they get done with their he-said, she-said partisan argument?

UAE ambassador asks how allies will defend country from Iran's missiles

Those Pacific Fans

Shot:

My own theory is that the US has never quite grasped the give-and-take character of world sport. Countries devoted to soccer, cricket and rugby play regular international fixtures; they win some and lose some, and learn to live with that.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0df0d4b8-7057-11dd-b514-0000779fd18c.html

Chaser:

Violence erupts in the streets as fans brawl at Euro 2016

http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/violence-erupts-in-the-streets-as-fans-brawl-at-euro-2016---in-pictures

Dubai's Power Future

Given that

1. the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal

and

2. Dubai plans on generating 20% of its electrical power from coal

Does this mean that in the future we could hear Arabs complain about funding religious fundamentalists in West Virginia? Hmm...

Well, we all seek our consolation where we can

Matthew Engel really, really, really dislikes America: Fool’s gold consoles unloved America (free registration required)

...a Scandinavian [journalist] sat opposite me in the press room [after the US lost the Olympic softball final to Japan]. We exchanged conspiratorial smiles: the Americans had lost and that always goes down well with everyone else at the Olympics...

American unpopularity at the Olympics is hardly new. It is a natural response to a great and sometimes overweening power. But it has grown: many sports journalists remember the we-know-bestism that pervaded the badly run Atlanta games in 1996; and the effect of George W. Bush’s presidency on America’s global standing is well-attested.

Of course, you remember that it was these same members of the US softball team that a) ran the Atlanta Olympics and b) single-handedly elected George Bush, so who wouldn't be happy that these evil young women lost. I'm surprised that Mr. Engel, a journalist of 35+ years experience and his no doubt just-as-sophisticated-unlike-us-hick-redneck-Americans colleague only smiled and didn't cackle with glee.

My own theory is that the US has never quite grasped the give-and-take character of world sport. Countries devoted to soccer, cricket and rugby play regular international fixtures; they win some and lose some, and learn to live with that.

Yep, countries devoted to soccer are world renowned for their gentle dispositions. I suppose that there is hope, as some of the European fans seem to be trying to teach our more boorish fans how to properly conduct themselves. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Others stand aghast as they try to follow the logic of NBC, the television network that is the Olympics’ chief paymaster. It is basking in a ratings triumph for these games, so I suppose they are not interested in bleats from me. The fact remains that they declined to show live both the opening ceremony and the 100 metres, the two seminal moments of the games. The desperate had to turn to the internet. Meanwhile, the remotest reaches of the world were sharing the experience.

I'll admit, I'm just a simple redneck from eastern North Carolina, not a brilliant, sophisticated European journalist with more than 30 years experience, but what the heck, I'll try to explain NBC's logic, at least regarding the opening ceremony: The US East Coast is 12 hours behind Beijing. The West Coast is even further, 15 hours behind. So, if NBC showed the Opening Ceremony live, it would have been shown at 8:00 am Eastern time on a Friday. You know, the sort of time when many people are either already at work, traveling to work, or getting ready for work. Instead, they decided to show the Opening Ceremony at a time when most Americans would actually get to share the experience. I somehow was able to enjoy the event despite that fact that it was not live. (I wonder, does Mr. Engel refuse to listen to recorded music because he isn't sharing the experience with those who were there when it was recorded?)

The consolation for Americans is that they believe they are triumphant. The medals table is unofficial and, indeed, frowned on by the Olympic Charter, which insists the games are "between athletes . . . and not between countries". Nonetheless, its format is well established: the number of golds decides the placings, with minor medals used to settle ties. At least, it is well established outside the US.

The American media add up the golds, silvers and bronzes, giving them equal weighting, which is ludicrous. By an amazing coincidence, this puts the Americans on top, well ahead of China. The normal method has the US far behind. But guess which way plays better in Peoria?

Finally, some straight talk that we can all get behind! It is about time that someone in the media told all those silver medalists the truth: You are just the first losers! And you bronze "winners"? You suck. Only the winners in this world count. Devil take the hindmost! To hell with the Olympic Charter! The country that won the most gold is the best!

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the US press has a) honestly reported that China won more golds this year and b) always listed the countries by total medals.

I'm also a little uncertain as to why it is "ludicrous" to list them that way, but then apparently I'm just not smart enough to see this self-evident truth. Presumably, by Mr. Engel's reasoning, if country A won five gold medals, no silver or bronze and country B won four gold, 10 silver and 10 bronze, then country B should be shamed at its feeble effort - to suggest otherwise is "ludicrous".

If Mr. Engel can find that we have reversed our usual method, to console those poor devils in Peoria, bereft with grief over the opprobrium of the rest of the world, I'd be willing to accept his point.

This attitude reminds me of the ugly and small-mindedness of those Americans who wanted to rename french fries. It is petty and small for a man of his age to not only take glee in the tears of a group of young women who did nothing but be born in the wrong country, but to proudly boast of it. Mr. Engel, you say that we are "fools" - I say that I revel in the your hatred; we must be doing something right if jerks like you hate us.

Not Again Again

Has the world entered some temporal loop that is making us repeat the entire year of 2006? First round two of the Cartoon fiasco. Now this:

The majority of Americans fear the U.S. economy and national security could be hurt if sovereign wealth funds, the investment arms of foreign governments, put more money into U.S. companies, new data show...

A majority of Americans, or 56 percent, did not like that investment funds from Singapore, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have taken small stakes in banking giant Citigroup Inc.

The dumbest part: "49 percent said the funds would have a negative impact on an already slowing U.S. economy." Even taking into account that most people do not understand economics, that people can believe that investment in the US economy is harmful for economic growth is almost beyond belief.

"Americans are becoming increasingly isolationist in their thinking..." I've been saying for a while now that everything that has happened with America's foreign affairs is eventually going to make the American people say "to hell with you all" to the rest of the world, and I'm afraid that this is just the beginning of that process.

America's First Muslim Congressman Visits Iraq

Keith Ellison, America's only Muslim Congressman and a vocal critic of the war, was in Iraq over the weekend and was interviewed about the trip by USA Today:

"[The Iraqi sheikhs that he met] were very upset and concerned that al-Qaeda is misrepresenting Islam... And they were talking to me about what I can possibly do to work with them to give a clearer, more accurate picture of what Islam is all about."

Ellison said he would assist in any way he can. He is already helping a State Department outreach effort aimed at improving the image of the U.S. in the Muslim world.

Improving the image of Muslims in the eyes of the US and the image of the US in the eyes of Muslims cannot happen soon enough. I wish him luck.

Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."

There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials....

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

"And they would respond back with smiles and waves," Ellison said. "I don't want to overplay it. There were no flowers. There was no clapping. There was no parade. But there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."

Who Said It

OK, people have been saying too many nice things about me lately, so I need to do something about that.

So, you all think that you know America, huh? OK, tell me, which of the rabid pro-war US presidential candidate said the following statements:

Demonstrating the simple-minded "for us or against us" attitude that makes people hate the US:
"Uh, every nation has to either be with us or against us. Those who harbor terrorists or who finance them, uh, are going to pay a price." (Sept 13, 2001)

In denial about how bad the situation is in Iraq:
"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure..." (Feb 19, 2005)

"...I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well. There might be occasional problems but it is not the steady drumbeat..." (Feb 19, 2005)

Tying Saddam to Al Qaeda:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..." (October 10, 2002)

You can find the answer by Googling any of those exact phrases; the first search result in each case will reveal the answer. Clearly this is exactly the kind of leadership that America doesn't need if it has any hope of winning over the Arab world.

So, who is the candidate that more Arabs would like to see get elected? Well, according to a poll of those in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Maktoob Research in Dubai discovered that Hilary Clinton is the 5-1 choice among those expressing a preference, because she "will continue where her husband left off".

Of course, in fairness "over half (55%) of the respondents who answered that they 'did not care' who was elected President stated that the candidates were all the same regarding negative policy towards the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims, and supportive of Israel".

Yep, I'm glad to see that everyone realizes that there are absolutely no major party candidates who want to completely withdraw US troops from everywhere outside the US. Or would speak out "against a July 2006 House resolution [that condemned] attacks on Israel and '[supported] Israel’s right to defend herself'".

Or one who has been "critical of Israeli use of force in the Palestinian territories" or "opposed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006".

There also are no candidates that want the "United States were to step forward aggressively..." to force a return to the 1967 borders.

15 - on pace for 30

Detroit Tigers' Curtis Granderson makes the turn at second base and makes it safely to third with his 15th triple of the season in the fourth inning of a baseball game against the Minnesota Twins Sunday, July 1, 2007, in Detroit.

I'm the biggest Detroit Tiger fan in Al Ain, so I'm very excited about how well they are playing this year. But potential more exciting is that at the half-way point of the season, their center fielder Curtis Granderson (who incidentally is a blogger) is on pace to hit 30 triples this year. Triples have become extremely rare in baseball. Since 1900, only 63 times has a player reached 20+ triples in a season, and only six of those have been since 1949; moreover, none of those six got more than 21. So nine more triples this year would make him the greatest single-season triple hitter since 1917.

Students from Qatar in the US

I found this article, Students from Qatar find time for public service during visit, really interesting. It is always interesting to see how your country is viewed by outsiders; it gives you a chance to see things through fresh eyes.

[In Qatar] needs are great, but there are not enough people with the skills and education to organize the help. "There is community service, but it's not the same," [one of the students] said. "Here everyone has a basic level of education, some basic skills."

"There are a lot of people in need here," Miss Al-Rumaihi, a Qatar native, said. "You watch TV and you don't really see that."

It never fails to amaze me that everyone (and I mean everyone - I have done this myself) seems to think that TV and movies completely misrepresent their country/ethnic group/religion but that it accurately shows others.

Miss Anis said she never really learned to work for herself at home, living a somewhat pampered life. "There we have workers who take care of things," she said, noting that even the community service was done by hired help.

"I don't read to little kids in libraries [in the United Arab Emirates]," she said. "I don't know if they even have libraries there."

I was also glad to see that they thought the people were "very friendly".

Is there trouble ahead for nursing in the Emirates?

In college, one of Bss's friends and fellow dorm RA was a nursing student. She was the first person that told me about the great nursing shortage that America was beginning to face. Later, one of our church members was a nursing professor who told us more about the problems that were coming. I was thinking about this problem and how it relates to the Emirates when I saw a couple of articles this week.

With a world-wide shortage of nurses, richer countries are importing them from elsewhere:

Everyone needs nurses. Almost every country is scrambling to find and keep them. The result is a trickle train that transports nurses to more money and better working conditions, from poor countries to richer ones that lure them.

"I know there are a lot of organizations where the pressures are, ‘Get the workers in. I don’t care how you get them, get them in,’ " said Cathy Druce, RN, a nurse recruiter at Harrison Hospital in Bremerton, Wash[ington (state), USA]. "It’s very much dog-eat-dog." The train essentially stops in the United States. "In America, they pay top salaries."

So among the nurses leaving for America are Canadians (it is especially easy for Canadian nurses to work in the US, because they "can enter the United States on the TN visa passed under NAFTA, available only to citizens of Canada and Mexico. It’s easier than obtaining a green card." (previous link). So now, some hospitals in Calgary have now begun recruiting nurse here in the UAE as well as elsewhere.

Now it is possible that these nurses are Emiratis, but it seems more likely that these are expat nurses. I know that there are a lot of Philipino nurses here ("The top six countries that employ Filipino nurses are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, Taiwan, Ireland and the United States.") and other nationalities as well. Also, the US will now allow Philipino nurses to take their license exams in the Philippines, which will make it even easier for them to move to the US to take jobs.

Add in the factor of possible citizenship^* (available in the US, Canada, etc but not in the GCC) to the higher salaries that the West offers, which the shortage should increase further, and it would seems likely that those nurses with a choice will choose to go west. This would seem to mean that the Emirates will have to import their nurses from those countries with less rigorous training.

---

* I say this because of an interesting conversation I had once with a naturalized American citizen. This person told me that there are many cases of one brother going to the UAE and another going to Canada or the US. The one in the Emirates works for many years, saves a lot of money, and then at retirement returns home. The one in the West works many years, saves a lot of money, and then is given the chance to become a citizen of the new country.

(NB: I am not criticizing the Emirates for not offering citizenship to expats. I am merely pointing out that in a global economy, especially one in which it is a seller's market, such things will be considered by potential employees.)

Poll About America

So I have been thinking about the BBC poll that I posted about at the community blog so more. It seems like this poll perfectly captures so of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude that America faces.

Take the world total of these three questions:

Handling of   |  Approve    |    Disapprove
=================================================
Iraq          |     19      |        74
Iran          |     28      |        61
North Korea   |     29      |        54

Say what you will, the US has handled all three of these situations very differently. In Iraq, when the UN refused to grant a resolution authorizing force, the US attacked relatively unilaterally. In Iran, the US has worked with the UN and IAEA to impose sanctions and have inspections. In Korea, the US negotiated an agreement that the North Koreans broke, and since has refused North Korea's demands to negotiate one-on-one, insisting that the other regional powers participate as well.

I am certainly not smart enough to know what the right thing to do is in any of those situations. I'm also sure that there are people out there who don't mind North Korea and Iran developing nuclear weapons or Saddam and his sons remaining in power (operating under increasingly ineffective sanctions that were only hurting the Iraq people and scheming to have sanctions lifted). Those people are not going to be won over by anything that the US would have done in these three situations. But if you assume that all three of those situations are bad, then what exactly was the policy that the US could have chosen that would meet with your approval?

Misunderstanding

I think that the question that this American blogger asks is pretty interesting: If people around the world hate America so much, why do so many want to go there?

I think that I know the answer: He is misunderstanding what people dislike. It isn't the living conditions in America that they dislike, they would like to experience that. It is the foreign policies of the government that they dislike.

I think that Americans, because we are a democracy, have a much harder time separating the people from the government. Since we have chosen the government that we have, it is a reflection, however imperfect, of our views. So we expect that the same will be true of other nations. But in large parts of the world, people have no say in the government policies, and so they think that hold a person responsible for the actions of their government is wrong.

Things I miss and don't miss #2

Things I miss from America:
1. My family. But only two weeks until they get here!
2. Kool Aid
3. Graham Crackers
4. Szechuan Garden

Things I don't miss:
1. Cursing in public
2. Body piercings

See Entry #1