I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)

Speaking about the meaning of the lyrics, John Oates has stated that while many listeners may assume the lyrics are about a relationship, in reality, the song, "is about the music business. That song is really about not being pushed around by big labels, managers, and agents and being told what to do, and being true to yourself creatively." This was done intentionally, he explained, to universalize the topic of the song into something everyone could relate to and ascribe personal meaning to in their own way. Naming "Maneater" as another example, he revealed that this was a common theme for the group's songs.[4][5]

I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)

Thanks to heavy airplay on urban contemporary radio stations, "I Can't Go for That" also topped the US R&B chart, a rare feat for a white act. It was the only record to hit number one on both the Hot 100 and then-Hot Soul charts during all of 1982.[10] The single was certified Gold by the RIAA for shipments of one million units on January 7, 1982.[11] According to the Hall & Oates biography, Hall, upon learning that "I Can't Go for That" had gone to number one on the R&B chart, wrote in his diary, "I'm the head soul brother in the U.S. Where to now?"

The song has been sampled numerous times including in "Say No Go" by De La Soul,[29] "Sunrise" by Simply Red,[30] "The Final Hour" and "Take Me to Your Leader" by MF Doom (under the King Geedorah moniker),[31] and "On Hold" by The xx.[32] Anderson .Paak has stated that Dr Dre's "Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang" was originally also going to sample the song.[33]

According to Daryl Hall, during the recording of "We Are the World", Michael Jackson approached him and admitted to lifting the bass line for "Billie Jean" from a Hall & Oates song, apparently referring to "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)." Hall says that he told Jackson that he had lifted the bass line from another song himself, and that it was "something we all do."[2][34]

Earlier this week, Bob and I got together with Song of the Day editor Stephen Thompson and Monitor Mix blogger Carrie Brownstein to talk about music from the 1980s. The question: Were the '80s really that bad? We recorded our conversation, along with a ton of memorable songs from back then. We'll put that up next Tuesday for you to hear and tell us what you think.

Plan sponsors should confirm their providers are working to revise or add the illustrations in a format that complies with the interim final rule, so that they are ready by mid-2022. Of course, if the DOL issues a final rule with transition relief in order to give plans and their providers time to comply, the implementation date could change.

I want to say a few words tonight about three important issues that are now before the Congress. We've reined in government spending, and with Gramm-Rudman we can look forward to a disappearing deficit by 1991. But there are still a few obstacles in the way on our road to a balanced budget. Rather than make the sensible adjustments we've suggested, some in Congress apparently intend to take large and dangerous cuts out of our national defense. And again we hear that constant refrain coming out of Washington: Raise taxes. Well, it's time for Congress to take a responsible approach to spending decisions. And when it comes to taxes, let's get into the spirit of the times. I've said it before, and I'll say it as often as it takes: I'll veto any tax hike that comes across my desk. Not only will we not raise taxes before I leave office, I plan to make sure we have a balanced budget amendment that puts a permanent lid on taxes and doesn't let the Government grow any faster than the economy.

So, we've made progress, but we have a ways to go on the budget. I'm glad to say, though, that we're moving on tax reform that will achieve fairness and promote growth. We're looking at a tax reform bill in the Senate that's quite simply one of the best antipoverty programs, one of the best job creation programs, and one of the best profamily bills this country has ever seen all rolled into one. I hope the House and the Senate will move quickly to bring this bill into law so America can make a fresh start in 1987 -- and even lower tax rates, even more jobs, and even stronger growth.

Q. Mr. President, your decision to tear up the SALT treaty by the end of the year has caused great consternation among the allies, among Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, among others who fear that you are creating a more dangerous world. My question is: Is this decision irrevocable? And I'd like to follow up.

First of all, this treaty, which was signed 7 years ago, was never ratified -- well, it was more than 7 years ago, I guess. But for 7 years there is supposed to have been this restraint and this observation of the -- or observance of the treaty's terms. And for 7 years this country has been doing that. The Soviet regime, for 7 years, has been violating the restraints of the treaty. We found it necessary to -- or advisable to do away with two Poseidon submarines as we launched the last Trident. But that, I had to make plain, while it did keep us within the constraints of the SALT agreement, that wasn't the reason. Had there been no SALT agreement, we would have done away with those two submarines because -- or dismantled them because of the cost and the military value of them, or lack of it.

But then what I said was that before we reached another point where this might be an issue at all, several months away, which has to do with the arming of the 131st B - 52 with a new air-launch cruise missile; and in the interim period I said that we could not go on unilaterally observing the constraints while the Soviet Union violated them and gained even greater superiority over us; and that we were going to be bound from now on by the necessity of maintaining a deterrent. We're not seeking to achieve superiority over them, but we're certainly not going to let them go on increasing their superiority over us. But I said -- because we have these several months before that moment comes up -- that we were going to do our utmost -- since they themselves have talked of arms reductions -- that we were going to do our utmost to see if we couldn't involve them in replacing this SALT treaty, which, first of all, was never ratified, as I said, but, second of all, would no longer be in power if it had been ratified, because it was stated for a limited period of time -- that, if we could replace that with a realistic program of arms reduction, which has been my goal ever since I've been here. Now we have the first Soviet leader, to my knowledge, that has ever voluntarily spoken of reducing nuclear weapons. And we want to follow up on that.

The President. I'm not going to make any comment on anyone who wants to keep this. But I did find it rather strange that some of the Senators who spoke very critically of me, without really understanding what it is that I've tried to explain about this -- some of them were Members of the Senate when they refused to ratify the treaty to begin with.

The treaty was really nothing but the legitimizing of an arms race. It didn't do anything to reduce nuclear weapons or the nuclear threat. All it did was regulate how fast and how much we could continue increasing the number of weapons. So, I was always hostile to that particular treaty because it did not reduce weapons, and that's what we're going to do. But again, as I say, the Soviets have an opportunity to meet us now with regard to some of the very things they've been proposing -- arms reduction. And we will observe the constraints to the same extent that the Soviet Union does. But we can't go on unilaterally observing this while they take off on their own with the violations that they've already made, and probably more to come.

Q. Mr. President, NASA is awaiting your decision on how to replace the Challenger spacecraft. Could you tell us tonight how you would finance a fourth orbiter? And if you can't tell us that, could you explain what's holding up your decision?

The President. Well, for one thing, we're studying the report that we've received, and there are many things that have to be decided. There is a backlog now of space cargo that is supposed to be up there. And we have the problem of determining whether we shouldn't increase the number of unmanned launchers, for many of those things, that could put them in space, and then see where we can come with the -- believe me, I want to go forward, and I think we all do, with the shuttle program. But how soon we can get to that is a question, and in the meantime should we emphasize more of the unlaunched [unmanned] to move on that backlog that we have of cargo that needs to get into space. So, I don't have an answer for you on this except that, yes, I think we should go forward with another shuttle.

The President. I couldn't and, Jerry, wouldn't comment on anything that might be further actions for us, because I don't think you could do that without informing them of anything we're thinking. And right now we have not planned for any contingency beyond aiding the contras, because we think that -- I've got to stop using that word. That was the Sandinistas' title for them, and I don't like to do anything they're doing. So the freedom fighters, we believe, with all the information that we have, that they are capable of, at the very least, applying sufficient leverage that they could bring the Sandinista government to a negotiating table for a settlement. We would prefer that over a military settlement, if that can be done. We know that there are thousands of recruits that are waiting to join the freedom fighters, and they need the weapons and ammunition and so forth for them.

The President. I certainly -- then it was a bad choice of words, because I didn't mean to do that. As I've said, he is the first Russian leader, to my knowledge, that has ever voiced the idea of reducing and even eliminating nuclear weapons. So, I must have goofed some place, because, believe me, I don't put him in the same category. 041b061a72