
The Economist says I need sleep. Add that to the growing list:
1) My mother
2) My roommate
3) My big sis
4) My throbbing head
5) Ben Hwung

The Economist says I need sleep. Add that to the growing list:
1) My mother
2) My roommate
3) My big sis
4) My throbbing head
5) Ben Hwung
“Youth’s ambitions have shrunk. Few youngsters today want to mine diamonds in South Africa, ranch in Paraguay, climb Mount Everest, find a cure for cancer, sail around the world or build an industrial empire. Some would like to own a small, independent business, but most want a good job with a big firm, and with it, a kind of suburban idyll.”—
In light of the current economy, it scares me that kids today (did I really just say “kids today?”) might not learn what it’s like to dream big.
(From a 1951 Time magazine essay about youth born into the Great Depression, via NY Times.)
Is this true? It scares me sh*tless that I myself am one of those former dreamers turned job hunter. EFFFFFF.

Jason Polan is trying to sketch all 8,000,000+ people in the Big Apple. Ambitious? But it’s his passion.
“He rarely talks to his subjects. So if they’re tourists from Iowa or businessmen from Japan, he wouldn’t know. They are all part of what E.B. White, referring to Manhattan, called ‘the greatest human concentrate on earth.’”
It’s no secret that the distribution of wealth is inequitable in the United States across racial, regional, and socio-economic groups. But there is a distinct variance among and within America’s faiths as well. This transparency takes a look at the income levels of America’s major religious groups, as compared to the average U.S. income distribution.

“Starting on Friday, the New York City taxi ride — one of the city’s few remaining redoubts of solitude — will go communal. Up to four passengers will be able to share a yellow taxi ride, car-pool style, along three preset routes in Manhattan.”
Don’t complain, New Yorkers, at least you have the OPTION of taking cabs! Unlike LA, where you’re screwed without a car.
By Nile Gardiner
Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.
As expected, Barack Obama’s 70 minute State of the Union address focused heavily on the economy and the domestic political agenda. This was hardly surprising in the aftermath of last week’s catastrophic defeat for his party in the Massachusetts special Senate election, where the Republicans scored an historic victory. American voters are turning strongly against the president’s health care reform package as well as his big government vision for the economy, which has contributed to spiraling public debt and mounting unemployment, now standing at over 10 percent.
But the scant attention paid in the State of the Union speech to US leadership was pitiful and frankly rather pathetic. The war in Afghanistan, which will soon involve a hundred thousand American troops, merited barely a paragraph. There was no mention of victory over the enemy, just a reiteration of the president’s pledge to begin a withdrawal in July 2011. Needless to say there was nothing in the speech about the importance of international alliances, and no recognition whatsoever of the sacrifices made by Great Britain and other NATO allies alongside the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan. For Barack Obama the Special Relationship means nothing, and tonight’s address further confirmed this.
Significantly, the global war against al-Qaeda was hardly mentioned, and there were no measures outlined to enhance US security at a time of mounting threats from Islamist terrorists. Terrorism is a top issue for American voters, but President Obama displayed what can only be described as a stunning indifference towards the defence of the homeland.
The Iranian nuclear threat, likely to be the biggest foreign policy issue of 2010, was given just two lines in the speech, with a half-hearted warning of “growing consequences” for Tehran, with no details given at all. There were no words of support for Iranian protestors who have been murdered, tortured and beaten in large numbers by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s thuggish security forces, and no sign at all that the president cared about their plight. Nor was there any condemnation of the brutality of the Iranian regime, as well as its blatant sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As the example of Iran showed, the advance of freedom and liberty across the world in the face of tyranny was not even a footnote in the president’s speech. I cannot think of a US president in modern times who has attached less importance to human rights issues. For the hundreds of millions of people across the world, from Burma to Sudan to Zimbabwe, clamouring to be free of oppression, there was not a shred of hope offered in Barack Obama’s address.
Obama’s world leadership in his first year in office has been weak-kneed and little short of disastrous. He has sacrificed the projection of American power upon the altar of political vanity, with empty speeches and groveling apologies across the world, from Strasbourg to Cairo. He has appeased some of America’s worst enemies, and has extended the hand of friendship to many of the most odious regimes on the face of the earth. Judging by the State of the Union address tonight, we can expect more of the same from an American president who seems determined to lead the world’s greatest power along a path of decline.
*Note: This article is the opinion of a British journalist, not necessarily reflecting my personal opinion. I just thought it was an interesting point of view, sent to my good friend Katrina’s mom. Thanks Mrs. DeSimone!

According to this article:
“Publishing trade rag Media Industry Newsletter reports that several glossies saw a major uptick in first quarter advertisements, including Marie Claire (up 23% from last year to 255 pages), InStyle (17% to 512 pages) and Lucky (17% to 237 pages).”
Crossing my fingers and praying fervently that Condé Nast seems upticks in advertising too.

Yet again, a corporation’s evil deeds were unearthed by a curious NYT reporter. I first heard about this story over the weekend at camp, and it was mindblowing to me that a corporation could be so heartless. How could you slash perfectly wearable clothing simply to avoid a loss of profit? How many people in New York are sitting on a park bench, freezing and starving?
And this got me wondering, just how much do corporations waste annually? Goods that are usable by the destitute, goods that could save lives? Call me a bleeding heart, but if I ever have the opportunity to work at a major corporation, I hope it’s one with a philanthropic, charitable mindset. Good riddance, H&M, won’t be shopping at your stores until you release the inevitable press release detailing your humanitarian efforts.