New Windows logo

2011 - The Year in Concerts

I attended 46 concerts and skipped 8.

February 12, Saturday - Motorhead - Burton Cummings Theatre, row 5
March 24, Thursday - The Residents - West End Cultural Centre, balcony
March 26, Saturday - The WSO: Dark Side of the Moon - The Music of Pink Floyd
April 5, Tuesday - Bruce Cockburn - Burton Cummings Theatre, row 1
April 8, Friday - Hawksley Workman - West End Cultural Centre, balcony

April 13, Wednesday - Destroyer - West End Cultural Centre, balcony
April 27, Wednesday - The Pixies - Concert Hall, row 7
May 7, Saturday - Elton John - MTS Centre,
May 15, Sunday - Front Line Assembly - Pyramid Cabaret
May 22, Sunday - Merzbow - Pyramid Cabaret

May 24, Tuesday - Anvil - Pyramid Cabaret
May 25, Wednesday - Ustad Rahat Fateh Ali Khan - Pantages Theatre
May 26, Thursday - Sepultura - The Zoo
May 29, Sunday - U2 - CanadInns Stadium
June 8, Wednesday - Supertramp - MTS Centre, floor, row 6

June 14, Tuesday - Wynton Marsalis - Concert Hall, row 2
June 20, Monday - Blonde Redhead w/ The Luyas - Pyramid Cabaret
June 21, Tuesday - Robert Plant and the Band of Joy - Concert Hall, row 1
June 22, Wednesday - The New Gary Burton Quartet - Art Gallery, row 1
June 23, Thursday - Trombone Shorty - West End Cultural Centre

June 24, Friday - Robert Glasper - West End Cultural Centre
July 4, Tuesday - Devin Townsend (Children of Bodom headlining)
July 9, Saturday - Winnipeg Folk Festival
July 10, Sunday - Lynyrd Skynyrd - MTS Centre, floor, row 2
July 27, Wednesday - Slayer/ Rob Zombie - MTS Centre, sect. 106, r 15, seat 18

August 14, Sunday - Chris Isaak - Concert Hall - row 6
September 7, Wednesday - Train (Maroon 5) - MTS Centre, floor, row 3
September 8, Thursday - Jerry Seinfeld - MTS Centre, floor, row 1
September 17, Saturday - Pearl Jam - MTS Centre, section 220, row 1, seat 11
September 24, Saturday - Bachman & Turner - MTS Centre, floor, row 1

September 30, Friday - The WSO: Live and Let Die McCartney Tribute, row 11
October 1, Saturday - Danny Michel - WECC, balcony
October 4, Tuesday - Kings of Leon - MTS Centre, general admission floor
October 5, Wednesday - Enslaved/Alcest/ Junius - WECC
October 8, Saturday - Opeth/ Katatonia - Burton Cummings Theatre, row 1

October 15, Saturday - Dan Frechette - The Folk Exchange
October 20, Thursday - Firewind - The Zoo 
October 21, Friday - Johnny Winter - Pyramid Cabaret
October 22, Saturday - Jeff Beck - Pantages Theatre, row 2
October 25, Tuesday - William Shatner - Concert Hall

November 5, Saturday - Amjab Sabir - India Community Centre
November 23, Wednesday - The Tea Party - Burton Cummings Theatre
November 27, Sunday - Randy Brecker - Art Gallery
December 4, Sunday - Devin Townsend - Pyramid Cabaret
December 8, Thurday - Prince - MTS Centre - 104, row 5, seat 10

December 20, Mark David Stallard - Joe Black Coffee Bar


Skipped shows
January 28, Friday - Loudon Wainwright III
March 5, Saturday - Cyrus Chestnutt
April 10, Sunday - Oliver Jones - Art Gallery
July 7, Thursday - The Tragically Hip - Shaw Park
August 9, Tuesday - Lyle Lovett - Burton Cummings Theatre, row 3
September 28, Wednesday - The Pains of Being Pure At Heart - Park Theatre
September 16, Friday - Braids - The Park Theatre
November 7, Monday - Matthew Good - Burton Cummings Theatre

TV shows sometime overstay their welcome

 Cast members from Breaking Bad.

I think the X-Files was among the first television shows that I was hooked on that really went on longer than it should have.  ABC's Lost followed suit, no doubt about it. As did 24 on Fox.  I'm quite a fan of serialized shows, the ones where the story continues with each episode.  The much talked about 24 movie hasn't materialized yet, which suggests that the public was burnt out on the series.

Fast forward to my newer favorite shows, like Showtime's Weeds.  I can't say I'm looking forward to Weeds continuing.  The ending seemed awkward but appropriate for a show that has gone on for seven seasons already.  It should have ended while out on top.  But, about six weeks ago, I was renewed for 13 episodes in 2012.  Weeds was dramatic but also very humorous.  The hero, Nancy, just could not stop going from one awful conundrum to another.

AMC's Breaking Bad is probably the best show that I have seen in years.  After ignoring the hype, I decided to give it a try.  I was hooked instantly.  It's not a comedy-drama, just a high-stakes drama with a good guy turned somewhat bad guy to root for.  It's gritty with the main characters constantly living on the edge, living lies and living in tremendous fear.  It's the fear that keeps my adrenalin going when I watch this show.   In August, 2011, the show was renewed for a final 16 episodes, possibly to be split over two seasons.  I don't like it when they drag shows out like this, but I guess they really need time to find a solid replacement.

There are a lot of shows out there about secret agents, and most of them are pretty lame.  There's one called Persons of Interest on ABC, in which a secretive billionaire software guru taps into a massive computer surveillance system that he built for the government, to figure out when a person's life may be in danger of murder, so that he and his secret agent-type partner can stop the crime.  It's hokey but the action scenes are good.  I don't expect it to last more than one more season, though.

When I heard about the new drama called Homeland, I wasn't interested.  It was getting good reviews but the topic of hunting bad guys in post 9/11 America just didn't seem all that interesting.  I decided to give it chance, however, and was rewarded with an incredibly gritty drama, not for prime time television on a major network.  As great as it is, I wonder if they should have left it at one season.  It's been renewed for 12 episodes in 2012 (does anyone remember when televisions shows typically had 24 episodes in a year?)  Claire Danes, a film actress, is the star of Homeland, along with Damian Lewis, best known for his role as Capt Winters in the Band of Brothers HBO television series.

Gartner's Top 10 Tech Trends for 2012

These predictions are always fun and interesting.

From IT World Canada.

1. Media tablets and beyond: Bring-your-own-technology at work has become the norm, not the exception. With that come security and management challenges that IT needs to address. By 2015 media tablet shipments will reach around 50% of laptop shipments and Windows 8 will likely be in third place behind Android and Apple. The net result is that Microsoft's share of the client platform, be it PC, tablet or smartphone, will likely be reduced to 60% and it could fall below 50%, Cearley says. The implication for IT is that the era of PC dominance with Windows as the single platform will be replaced with a post-PC era where Windows is one of a variety of environments IT will need to support. In the smartphone arena, prices will fall to $75 for entry-level devices in 2012 with faster two- and four-core processors, and with bigger, brighter, higher-resolution screens, plus 3D, HD video and more sensors such as gyros, compasses and barometers driving greater features into high-end devices. While iOS dominates the tablet market today, Gartner says it expects iOS/Android will dominate the market with 80% of tablets shipped by 2015.

2. Mobile-centric applications and interfaces: Here touch, gesture and voice search is going to change the way mobile apps work in the future, Cearley says. By 2014, there will be more than 70 billion mobile application downloads from app stores every year. By 2014, at least half of the tools optimized for app store application development in 2010 will have been acquired or will have ceased to exist.

3. Social and contextual user experience: According to Gartner, context-aware computing uses information about an end user's or object's environment, activities connections and preferences to improve the quality of interaction with that end user or object. A contextually aware system anticipates the user's needs and proactively serves up the most appropriate and customized content, product or service. The tipping point here could be technology such as near-field communications getting into more and more devices. Some interesting facts here: By 2015, 40% of the world's smartphone users will opt in to context service providers that track their activities with Google, Microsoft, Nokia and Apple continuously tracking daily journeys and digital habits for 10% of the world population by 2015, Cearley says.

4. Application stores and marketplace: The key here is the rise of enterprise application stores that can develop specific apps for users. This will let IT manage and control certain apps. But embracing the idea of user choice might be a difficult concept for enterprise IT to embrace, Cearley says. Enterprises should use a managed diversity approach to focus app store efforts and segment apps by risk and value. Where the business value of an app is low and the potential risk, such as the loss of sensitive data, is high, apps might be blocked entirely.

5. The Internet of everything: The idea here is that we are building on pervasive computing where cameras, sensors, microphones, image recognition -- everything -- is now part of the environment. Remote sensing of everything from electricity to air conditioning use is now part of the network. In addition, increasingly intelligent devices create issues such as privacy concerns. Eventually IT will need some central unified management of all these devices, Cearley says.

6. Next-generation analytics: Most enterprises have reached the point in the improvement of performance and costs where Cearley says they can afford to perform analytics and simulation for every action taken in the business. Not only will data center systems be able to do this, but mobile devices will have access to data and enough capability to perform analytics themselves, potentially enabling use of optimization and simulation everywhere. Going forward, IT can focus on developing analytics that enable and track collaborative decision making.

7. Big data: Big data has quickly emerged as a significant challenge for IT leaders. The term only became popular in 2009. By February 2011, a Google search on "big data" yielded 2.9 million hits, and vendors now advertise their products as solutions to the big data challenge. The key thing enterprises have to realize is that they just can't store it all. There are new techniques to handle extreme data, such as Apache Hadoop, but companies will have to develop new skills to effectively use these technologies, Cearley says.

8. In-memory computing: We will see huge use of flash memory in consumer devices, entertainment devices, equipment and other embedded IT systems. In addition, flash offers a new layer of the memory hierarchy in servers and client computers that has key advantages -- space, heat, performance and ruggedness among them. Unlike RAM, the main memory in servers and PCs, flash memory is persistent even when power is removed. In that way, it looks more like disk drives where we place information that must survive power-downs and reboots, yet it has much of the speed of memory, far faster than a disk drive. As lower-cost -- and lower-quality -- flash is used in the data center, software that can optimize the use of flash and minimize the endurance cycles becomes critical. Users and IT providers should look at in-memory computing as a long-term technology trend that could have a disruptive impact comparable to that of cloud computing, Cearley says.

9. Extreme low-energy servers: What if you could turn 10 virtual machines in one box into 40 slow physical servers that are tiny and use very low amounts of energy? There is a call for this type of computing to handle big data. For example, thousands of these little processors could work on a Hadoop process, Cearley says. Gartner says that 10%-15% of enterprise workloads are good for this. Moving the application from 10 images to 40 slower, less capable machines will only deliver on that promise if the software will perform the same. Server technologies are going to change to handle big data.

10. Cloud computing: This topic went from No. 1 last year to No. 10 this year, but it's still an important trend. It will become the next-generation battleground for the likes of Google and Amazon. Going forward, enterprise IT will be concerned with developing hybrid private/publiccloud apps, improving security and governance, Cearley says.

Pink Floyd's The Discovery Studio Album Box Set

Pink Floyd's The Discovery Studio Album Box Set. About $180.00.

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

What you get: Remastered versions of all 14 Pink Floyd studio albums in gatefold CD cases and a 60-page book of alternative and rare artwork.

What it needs: People who purchase the box set are probably going to be hardcore fans who know all about the band, but some notes on the history of the group would have been a nice touch. A disc featuring non-album singles like Arnold Layne and See Emily Play would have made this totally complete.

Here's an album by album breakdown:

• The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

Year released: 1967

Notes: The first and only album with drug casualty/pop genius Syd Barrett. A psychedelic/space rock masterpiece.

Highlights: Astronomy Domine, Intersteller Overdrive, Bike.

5 out of 5

• A Saucerful of Secrets

Year released: 1968

Notes: Barrett was out and guitar god David Gilmour was in, joining bassist-vocalist Roger Waters, keyboardist-vocalist Richard Wright and percussionist Nick Mason on a set of material that balances the band's prog tendencies with flights into folky fantasy.

Highlights: Remember a Day, Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun, Jugband Blues.

4 out of 5

• More

Year released: 1969

Notes: The soundtrack to the French film More was released as a proper Floyd album in England.

Highlights: The Nile Song, Green is the Colour, Ibiza Bar.

3 out of 5

• Ummagumma

Year released: 1969

Notes: A double disc set featuring an album of live material recorded in 1969 and a studio album with every member getting the chance to show off a solo piece. The four live songs all surpass the studio versions.

Highlights: Careful with That Axe, Eugene, A Saucerful of Secrets, Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict.

4 out of 5

• Atom Heart Mother

Year released: 1970

Notes: The album is bookended by two meandering instrumental suites that clock in at 23 and 13 minutes respectively, but also contains one of Waters' most touching ballads, If.

Highlights: If, Summer of '68, Fat Old Sun.

3 out of 5

• Meddle

Year released: 1971

Notes: The band delves into some lounge, blues and pastoral folk, but offer up one of its early career highlights: the 23-minute epic Echoes, which took up an entire side upon its original release.

Highlights: One of These Days, A Pillow of Winds, Echoes.

4 out of 5

• Obscured by Clouds

Year released: 1972

Notes: The soundtrack to a French film called La Vallée. Mostly mellow and folk-oriented, it reached No. 1 on the charts in France.

Highlights: The Gold It's in the..., Wot's...Uh the Deal, Free Four.

2 1/2 out of 5

Enlarge Image

Dark Side of the Moon

• The Dark Side of the Moon

Year released: 1973

Notes: The band's commercial breakthrough that stayed on the charts from the time of its release until 1988. If music fans only have one Pink Floyd album, it's either this one or The Wall.

Highlights: Breathe, Time, Brain Damage.

5 out of 5

• Wish You Were Here

Year released: 1975

Notes: A tribute to Barrett, the album is bookended by the sprawling nine-part Shine on You Crazy Diamond. The title track can be still heard around campfires across the globe.

Highlights: Shine on You Crazy Diamond, Have a Cigar, Wish You Were Here.

5 out of 5

• Animals

Year released: 1977

Notes: A series of lengthy progressive pieces of social commentary comparing different classes of people to Dogs, Sheep and Pigs

Highlights: Dogs, Pigs (Three Different Ones), Sheep.

4 1/2 out of 5

• The Wall

Year released: 1979

Notes: Double album rock opera about the life of an alienated rock star that was made into a movie starring Bob Geldof. Earlier this week on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Waters said he would be bringing The Wall tour back to North America next year. Consider this a request to come to Winnipeg.

Highlights: Goodbye Blue Sky, Comfortably Numb, Run Like Hell.

5 out of 5

• The Final Cut

Year released: 1983

Notes: A divisive album amongst Pink Floyd fans since Wright was kicked out of the band and Waters assumed total songwriting control on another concept album, this time about war based on his father's death in WWII. Consider it The Wall Part Two.

Highlights: The Post War Dream, The Gunner's Dream, The Final Cut.

3 1/2 out of 5

• A Momentary Lapse of Reason

Year released: 1987

Notes: If The Final Cut was Waters solo album, then A Momentary Lapse of Reason is Gilmour's, but not as strong. Waters was out and Wright was back in on this album which mostly seemed like an excuse to mount a tour (resulting in an unnecessary live album).

Highlights: Learning to Fly, Dogs of War, On the Turning Away.

2 out of 5

• The Division Bell

Year released: 1994

Notes: Another excuse to tour without Waters, but at least this time they came to Winnipeg for one of the greatest stadium shows this city has ever seen. There are some good moments to be had and if anything, it's worth listening to at least once for Gilmour's great guitar work.

Highlights: Poles Apart, A Great Day For Freedom, High Hopes.

2 out of 5

Article: Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

CNN's Fareed Zakaria continues to prove why he is one of the most interesting thinkers in broadcasting today. The bottom line is that while the US political system was a model for the world to follow - in the 1800's - it is now an impediment that needs to be changed but it set up to meet the needs of fundraising and the wishes of lobby groups.

Here' s his article from the current issue of Time Magazine.

Thursday, March 3, 2011.

I am an American, not by accident of birth but by choice. I voted with my feet and became an American because I love this country and think it is exceptional. But when I look at the world today and the strong winds of technological change and global competition, it makes me nervous. Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that while these forces gather strength, Americans seem unable to grasp the magnitude of the challenges that face us. Despite the hyped talk of China's rise, most Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is still No. 1.

But is it? Yes, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy, and we have the largest military by far, the most dynamic technology companies and a highly entrepreneurial climate. But these are snapshots of where we are right now. The decisions that created today's growth — decisions about education, infrastructure and the like — were made decades ago. What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies. Look at some underlying measures today, and you will wonder about the future. (Watch TIME's video "Why Cities Are Key to American Success in the 21st Century.")

The following rankings come from various lists, but they all tell the same story. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), our 15-year-olds rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. We rank 12th among developed countries in college graduation (down from No. 1 for decades). We come in 79th in elementary-school enrollment. Our infrastructure is ranked 23rd in the world, well behind that of every other major advanced economy. American health numbers are stunning for a rich country: based on studies by the OECD and the World Health Organization, we're 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity. Only a few decades ago, the U.S. stood tall in such rankings. No more. There are some areas in which we are still clearly No. 1, but they're not ones we usually brag about. We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries. And, of course, we have by far the largest amount of debt in the world.

The Rise of the Rest
Many of these changes have taken place not because of America's missteps but because other countries are now playing the same game we are — and playing to win. There is a familiar refrain offered when these concerns are raised: "We heard all this in the 1980s. Japan was going to dominate the globe. It didn't happen, and America ended up back on top." It's a fair point as far as it goes. Japan did not manage to become the world's richest country — though for three decades it had the second largest economy and even now has the third largest. It is also a relatively small country. To become the largest economy in the world, it would have to have a per capita GDP twice that of the U.S. China would need to have an average income only one-fourth that of the U.S. to develop an economy that would surpass ours. (See Americans who are facing long-term unemployment.)

But this misses the broader point. The Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, who has just written a book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, puts things in historical context: "For 500 years the West patented six killer applications that set it apart. The first to download them was Japan. Over the last century, one Asian country after another has downloaded these killer apps — competition, modern science, the rule of law and private property rights, modern medicine, the consumer society and the work ethic. Those six things are the secret sauce of Western civilization."

To this historical challenge from nations that have figured out how the West won, add a technological revolution. It is now possible to produce more goods and services with fewer and fewer people, to shift work almost anywhere in the world and to do all this at warp speed. That is the world the U.S. now faces. Yet the country seems unready for the kind of radical adaptation it needs. The changes we are currently debating amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (Comment on this story.)

Sure, the political system seems to be engaged in big debates about the budget, pensions and the nation's future. But this is mostly a sideshow. The battles in state capitals over public-employee pensions are real — the states are required to balance their budgets — but the larger discussion in Washington is about everything except what's important. The debate between Democrats and Republicans on the budget excludes the largest drivers of the long-term deficit — Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — to say nothing of the biggest nonentitlement costs, like the tax break for interest on mortgages. Only four months ago, the Simpson-Bowles commission presented a series of highly intelligent solutions to our fiscal problems, proposing $4 trillion in savings, mostly through cuts in programs but also through some tax increases. They have been forgotten by both parties, in particular the Republicans, whose leading budgetary spokesman, Paul Ryan, praises the commission in the abstract even though he voted against its recommendations. Democrats, for their part, became apoplectic about a proposal to raise the retirement age for Social Security by one year — in 2050.

Instead, Washington is likely to make across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending, where there is much less money and considerably less waste. President Obama's efforts to preserve and even increase resources for core programs appear to be failing in a Congress determined to demonstrate its clout. But reducing funds for things like education, scientific research, air-traffic control, NASA, infrastructure and alternative energy will not produce much in savings, and it will hurt the economy's long-term growth. It would happen at the very moment that countries from Germany to South Korea to China are making large investments in education, science, technology and infrastructure. We are cutting investments and subsidizing consumption — exactly the opposite of what are the main drivers of economic growth.

See "The End of Prosperity?"

See a graphic showing Amercia's decline.

So why are we tackling our economic problems in a manner that is shortsighted and wrong-footed? Because it is politically easy. The key to understanding the moves by both parties is that, for the most part, they are targeting programs that have neither a wide base of support nor influential interest groups behind them. (And that's precisely why they're not where the money is. The American political system is actually quite efficient. It distributes the big bucks to popular programs and powerful special interests.) And neither side will even talk about tax increases, though it is impossible to achieve long-term fiscal stability without them. Certain taxes — such as ones on carbon or gas — would have huge benefits beyond revenue, like energy efficiency.

It's not that our democracy doesn't work; it's that it works only too well. American politics is now hyperresponsive to constituents' interests. And all those interests are dedicated to preserving the past rather than investing for the future. There are no lobbying groups for the next generation of industries, only for those companies that are here now with cash to spend. There are no special-interest groups for our children's economic well-being, only for people who get government benefits right now. The whole system is geared to preserve current subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes. That is why the federal government spends $4 on elderly people for every $1 it spends on those under 18. And when the time comes to make cuts, guess whose programs are first on the chopping board. That is a terrible sign of a society's priorities and outlook. (See the recession of 1958.)

The Perils of Success
Why have our priorities become so mangled? Several decades ago, economist Mancur Olson wrote a book called The Rise and Decline of Nations. He was prompted by what he thought was a strange paradox after World War II. Britain, having won the war, slipped into deep stagnation, while Germany, the loser, grew powerfully year after year. Britain's fall was even more perplexing considering that it was the creator of the Industrial Revolution and was the world's original economic superpower.

Olson concluded that, paradoxically, it was success that hurt Britain, while failure helped Germany. British society grew comfortable, complacent and rigid, and its economic and political arrangements became ever more elaborate and costly, focused on distribution rather than growth. Labor unions, the welfare state, protectionist policies and massive borrowing all shielded Britain from the new international competition. The system became sclerotic, and over time, the economic engine of the world turned creaky and sluggish. (See how Germany became the China of Europe.)

Germany, by contrast, was almost entirely destroyed by World War II. That gave it a chance not just to rebuild its physical infrastructure but also to revise its antiquated arrangements and institutions — the political system, the guilds, the economy — with a more modern frame of mind. Defeat made it possible to question everything and rebuild from scratch.

America's success has made it sclerotic. We have sat on top of the world for almost a century, and our repeated economic, political and military victories have made us quite sure that we are destined to be No. 1 forever. We have some advantages. Size matters: when crises come, they do not overwhelm a country as big as the U.S. When the financial crisis hit nations such as Greece and Ireland, it dwarfed them. In the U.S., the problems occurred within the context of a $15 trillion economy and in a country that still has the trust of the world. Over the past three years, in the wake of the financial crisis, U.S. borrowing costs have gone down, not up. (Comment on this story.)

This is a powerful affirmation of America's strengths, but the problem is that they ensure that the U.S. will not really face up to its challenges. We adjust to the crisis of the moment and move on, but the underlying cancer continues to grow, eating away at the system.

A crucial aspect of beginning to turn things around would be for the U.S. to make an honest accounting of where it stands and what it can learn from other countries. This kind of benchmarking is common among businesses but is sacrilege for the country as a whole. Any politician who dares suggest that the U.S. can learn from — let alone copy — other countries is likely to be denounced instantly. If someone points out that Europe gets better health care at half the cost, that's dangerously socialist thinking. If a business leader notes that tax rates in much of the industrialized world are lower and that there are far fewer loopholes than in the U.S., he is brushed aside as trying to impoverish American workers. If a commentator says — correctly — that social mobility from one generation to the next is greater in many European nations than in the U.S., he is laughed at. Yet several studies, the most recent from the OECD last year, have found that the average American has a much lower chance of moving out of his parents' income bracket than do people in places like Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Canada.

And it's not just politicians and business leaders. It's all of us. Americans simply don't care much, know much or want to learn much about the outside world. We think of America as a globalized society because it has been at the center of the forces of globalization. But actually, the American economy is quite insular; exports account for only about 10% of it. Compare that with the many European countries where half the economy is trade-related, and you can understand why those societies seem more geared to international standards and competition. And that's the key to a competitive future for the U.S. If Olson is right in saying successful societies get sclerotic, the solution is to stay flexible. That means being able to start and shut down companies and hire and fire people. But it also means having a government that can help build out new technologies and infrastructure, that invests in the future and that can eliminate programs that stop working. When Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal, he spoke of the need for "bold, persistent experimentation," and he shut down programs when it was clear they didn't work. Today, every government program and subsidy seems eternal.

See 10 steps that led to the financial meltdown.

See 10 big recession surprises.

What the Founding Fathers Knew
Is any of this possible in a rich, democratic country? In fact it is. The countries of Northern Europe — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland — have created a fascinating and mixed model of political economy. Their economies are extremely open and market-based. Most of them score very high on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. But they also have generous welfare states and make major investments for future growth. Over the past 20 years, these countries have grown nearly as fast as, or in some cases faster than, the U.S. Germany has managed to retain its position as the world's export engine despite high wages and generous benefits.

Now, America should not and cannot simply copy the Nordic model or any other. Americans would rebel at the high taxes that Northern Europeans pay — and those taxes are proving uncompetitive in a world where many other European countries have much lower rates and Singapore has a maximum personal rate of 20%. The American system is more dynamic, entrepreneurial and unequal than that of Europe and will remain so. But the example of Northern Europe shows that rich countries can stay competitive if they remain flexible, benchmark rigorously and embrace efficiency. (See "The World Economic Forum in Davos: A Changed Global Reality.")

American companies are, of course, highly efficient, but American government is not. By this I don't mean to echo the usual complaints about waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, there is less of those things than Americans think, except in the Pentagon with its $700 billion budget. The problem with the U.S. government is that its allocation of resources is highly inefficient. We spend vast amounts of money on subsidies for housing, agriculture and health, many of which distort the economy and do little for long-term growth. We spend too little on science, technology, innovation and infrastructure, which will produce growth and jobs in the future. For the past few decades, we have been able to be wasteful and get by. But we will not be able to do it much longer. The money is running out, and we will have to marshal funds and target spending far more strategically. This is not a question of too much or too little government, too much or too little spending. We need more government and more spending in some places and less in others.

The tragedy is that Washington knows this. For all the partisan polarization there, most Republicans know that we have to invest in some key areas, and most Democrats know that we have to cut entitlement spending. But we have a political system that has become allergic to compromise and practical solutions. This may be our greatest blind spot. At the very moment that our political system has broken down, one hears only encomiums to it, the Constitution and the perfect Republic that it created. Now, as an immigrant, I love the special and, yes, exceptional nature of American democracy. I believe that the Constitution was one of the wonders of the world — in the 18th century. But today we face the reality of a system that has become creaky. We have an Electoral College that no one understands and a Senate that doesn't work, with rules and traditions that allow a single Senator to obstruct democracy without even explaining why. We have a crazy-quilt patchwork of towns, municipalities and states with overlapping authority, bureaucracies and resulting waste. We have a political system geared toward ceaseless fundraising and pandering to the interests of the present with no ability to plan, invest or build for the future. And if one mentions any of this, why, one is being unpatriotic, because we have the perfect system of government, handed down to us by demigods who walked the earth in the late 18th century and who serve as models for us today and forever. (See how to restore the American dream.)

America's founders would have been profoundly annoyed by this kind of unreflective ancestor worship. They were global, cosmopolitan figures who learned and copied a great deal from the past and from other countries and were constantly adapting their views. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, after all, was a massive failure, and the founders learned from that failure. The decision to have the Supreme Court sit in judgment over acts of the legislature was a later invention. America's founders were modern men who wanted a modern country that broke with its past to create a more perfect union.

And they thought a great deal about decline. Indeed, it was only a few years after the Revolution that the worrying began in earnest. The letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, as the two men watched America in the early 19th century, are filled with foreboding and gloom; you could almost say they began a great American tradition, that of contemplating decay. Americans have been concerned about the health of their country for much of its existence. In the 1950s and '60s, we worried about the Soviet Union and its march toward modernization. In the 1980s, we worried about Japan. This did us no harm; on the contrary, all these fears helped us make changes that allowed us to revive our strength and forge ahead. Dwight Eisenhower took advantage of the fears about the Soviet Union to build the interstate-highway system. John Kennedy used the Soviet challenge in space to set us on a path toward the goal of getting to the moon. (Comment on this story.)

What is really depressing is the tone of our debate. In place of the thoughtful concern of Jefferson and Adams, we have its opposite in tone and temperament — the shallow triumphalism purveyed by politicians now. The founders loved America, but they also understood that it was a work in progress, an unfinished enterprise that would constantly be in need of change, adjustment and repair. For most of our history, we have become rich while remaining restless. Rather than resting on our laurels, we have feared getting fat and lazy. And that has been our greatest strength. In the past, worrying about decline has helped us avert that very condition. Let's hope it does so today.

Restoring the American Dream: Getting Back to No. 1 — a Fareed Zakaria GPS Special premieres on CNN at 8 p.m. E.T. and P.T. on March 6 and airs again at 8 p.m. E.T. and P.T. on March 12.

See "Where the Jobs Are: The Right Spots in the Recovery."

See pictures of Cleveland during the recession.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2056610,00.html

Concert Review: Motorhead/Clutch/Valient Thorr - Burton Cummings Theatre, Winnipeg, MB 2/12/11

Phil Woods, Winnipeg Free Press

Fans began lining up about 40 minutes before the doors opened, with some hoping to snag a ticket to what was rumored to be a sold out show. It was quite warm during the day, with the snow melting, but the evening chilled us to the bones and few of us seemed dressed for the cold.

I managed to buy a pre-sale ticket several weeks ago and I was happy to see one of the ticket-less fans make it. He appeared to be in his late 50s or early 60s, which might seem odd at first but not when you consider that Motorhead formed in 1975, by a then 30-year-old Lemmy (born Ian Fraser Kilmister, December 24, 1945) and they have many older fans, although the crowd was dominated with fans in their teens to 30s.

I saw them in 2000 and 2005 at the same venue, but they sounded worse this time around. Seeing the legendary Motorhead at this stage of its career, the tail end, is such a treat that the audience doesn't let the lack of excellent sound quality or Lemmy's vocals get in the way. They paid to see the loudest, most uncompromising band in all of music, let alone metal, and Motorhead deliver an experience unlike any other band. Surprisingly, one of the opening bands, Clutch, actually sounded better.

The show kicked off with Lemmy stating like he did the time they were here in 2005, "We are Motorhead and we play rock 'n' roll." This led to the first song, "We Are Motorhead," the title track of their 2000 album. The sound seemed muddy but I had hoped that it would improve over time. It was only marginally better throughout the show.

After playing the second song, the classic "Stay Clean" from 1979's Overkill, guitarist Phil Campbell (born May 7, 1961) asked the audience to raise their hands if they wanted the band to play louder. Naturally, the crowd roared their approval and responded instantly. Whether or not the show was louder, I couldn't tell as I had earplugs in. Seeing the world's loudest band is both a treat but also a serious risk to your hearing. There's no doubt many fans were on the verge of deafness for several hours later, but I learned my lesson a long time ago about preserving my hearing.

Lemmy joked about pitching the new album, their 20th, by pointing out the banner for The Wörld Is Yours below the drum kit before tearing into arguably that album's most accessible song, "Get Back In Line." I was quite disappointed that they skipped the album's first track, the brilliant "Born To Lose." I had assumed that they would have plugged the new album more, but they didn't. I was also quite surprised that Lemmy made no mention whatsoever of the new documentary about him, Lemmy, which had a limited theatrical release and is out on DVD and Blu-ray February 22, 2011.

Just like the last time I saw them, the group tried to turn the melodically superb "I've Got Mine" into the crowd pleaser that it should be. But once again, it didn't sound anywhere near as it does on album or in the live video. Lemmy joked that the 1983 song from Another Perfect Day was older than most of the fans in the audience and it seemed to not resonate as well with as some of the older, more straightforward classics.

The 85-minute set wasn't by any means dominated by its best known material. To do so, the group would have had to play for over two hours easily. I really missed great tracks like "We Are The Road Crew," "Iron Fist," "Orgasmatron," "Love Me Like A Reptile," and "Deaf Forever," among others. I didn't care for some of the material from the last few albums, but to each his own.

Drummer Mikkey Dee (born Micael Kiriakos Delaoglou, October 31, 1963) has been in the band since 1992 and made his name as a sensational musician with the Dutch metal band King Diamond. Lemmy had actually asked Dee to join Motorhead as far back as 1985. During this and previous shows, Lemmy described Dee as the "greatest drummer in the world." While that honour might go any number of people, like Neil Peart, there's no doubt that Mikkey Dee fits in superbly with Motorhead.

I respect the fact that Valient Thorr and Clutch were a bit different from most other bands, but I would not likely go see either headline. The guys in Valient Thorr need a shave. Clutch clearly aped Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused" on one of its songs. The singer (Neil Fallon) has a strong bluesy sound.

Would I see Motorhead again? Probably, just because if this wasn't the last time the band will play Winnipeg, next time, if there is a next time, would likely be it, since Motorhead tend to play here once every five years and Lemmy is 65 and not getting any younger.

Setlist:

We Are Motörhead (We Are Motörhead - 2000)
Stay Clean (Overkill - 1979)
Get Back In Line (The Wörld Is Yours - 2011)
Metropolis (Overkill - 1979)
Over the Top (Bomber - 1979)
One Night Stand (Kiss of Death - 2006)
Rock Out (Motorizer - 2008)
Guitar Solo
The Thousand Names of God (Motorizer - 2008)
I Got Mine (Another Perfect Day - 1983)
I Know How To Die (The Wörld Is Yours - 2011)
The Chase Is Better Than the Catch (The Ace of Spades - 1980)
In the Name of Tragedy (Inferno - 2004)
Drum Solo
Just 'Cos You Got the Power
Going to Brazil (1916 - 1991)
Killed by Death (No Remorse - 1984)
Ace of Spades (The Ace of Spades - 1980)
Encore:
Overkill - (Overkill - 1979)