I just saw this. It isn’t original but works. 


UK is severing itself from the rest of Europe – whatever that means. And the severing step could take over two years.

Why? Immigration. Pundits and the data supposedly show, immigration has been a net positive for UK. Given triumph of the leave campaign, one has to dig deeper into the numbers.

Though it is a net positive in aggregate, for those times it was negative, who was disproportionally impacted? One can’t just ignore the over 17million folks who voted to go; to not be part of Europe.

Churchill is rolling in his grave. Wasn’t he who called for the United States of Europe

Boris Johnson, one is the folks who spearheaded the leave campaign [along with the racist elements in UKIP], and  “student” of churchill, might have skipped that cornerstone of ideas proposed by the legendary PM. 

Common wisdom is pretty dier of the result of this vote: recession, breakup of the U.K., even of the EU.

Hope a good dose of humility is administered to the elites, and start listening to the people a little more, and lead! 

መልካም ጥምቀት


ለክርስትና ሃይማኖት ተከታዮች ወገኖች : መልካም የጥምቀት በዓል !

Performance proceeds democracy?

Mr. Friedman seems to think so.

Friedman supports the military coup in Egypt.

The logic goes, Morsi, the Islamist guy who was toppled by the military, wasn’t good for Egypt and neighbors, and the situation dictated that there was no time to spare for the next round of elections, three years down the road. Damn with the process; damn with democratic principles, if the guy ain’t good and isn’t performing as expected, he has got to go by any means necessary, is the thinking, outlined by Mr. Friedman.

Bad Choices

I was having a conversation with a person, in the lower socioeconomic scale – per her own distinction – than most, and was talking about purchasing expensive TV cable package for her grandson. And the sad part is that, she took it as a necessity. What kind of stupidity is that?

I’m pretty sure there are a whole bunch of high net worth individuals who think having a Ferrari or something is a necessity. But I would bet the poor gets screwed more, way more, on prices than the rich. Simple example of that would be prices of Groceries in low income neighborhoods, versus their equivalent in affluent ones. The poor pays way more.

In a way, no wonder the poor is poorer and the rich is richer – aside from this being the only reason – paying excessive prices for goods and services.

Bottom up

I had a chance to be with a whole bunch of Ethiopians earlier tonight. And debates ensued, as is typical of such gatherings.

The discussion revolved around, what else, Ethiopian Politics.

One thing I heard, this time around, out of the ordinary is the idea of change, not of the government, but oneself. As one of the guys explained it, it should be so that, we all look ourselves in the mirror and ask what is it that I can do to change the situation, rather than always pointing fingers at the government.

But, others said, how is it that my changing is going to make a difference when the environment is so hostile. Though, they said, changing oneself is good and dandy, it is not as much of a factor to make a change in such a scale to impact millions of lives in a country. Do a good doer, but that ain’t going to help tens of millions, they said.

Where do I fall in this discussion? I kind of like the ‘changing oneself’ idea, as part of an overall activity that needs to happen. A couple of arguments for it: a) An individual can make a difference in scale and scope that would make a sizable difference. and B) Bottom up, grassroots advocacy, is a valid one, if done properly. There are numerous examples – the American Civil Right struggle being one that come to mind right now – that validates the importance of an individual.

Looking inward isn’t a bad idea, especially, when most discussions are blaming others for all the wrongs. What is it that I can do to change situations for the better without being violent against anyone, isn’t a bad question to ask.

Bono remembers…

I have been meaning to write about this for days, and just didn’t get to it.

Here you go …

I watched an interview on Charlie Rose with Bono about his activism and a whole bunch of other topics, and 2/3rd into the interview, he, Bono, recalled the late Prime Minister Meles. He said Meles told him once, in one of their conversations, that the smartest people in Ethiopia are the farmers. Meles reasoned, if they weren’t smart, they would be dead.

Interesting take, I thought.

Corollary to that thought is probably: why are most of them are so damn poor if they were so blazin’ smart? (This is not to say all poor people are dumb or all rich folks are smart.)

Smart / not smart debates are often ugly, and stupid, when applied to groups of people. That said though, if he were to be pressed, does that road leads to self recrimination (they were smart and doing what they are suppose to do but the root of all of their problems is management, i.e. government)?

Again, I’m not saying one way or the other. Just wondering …