Credit to Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic caucus leaders for holding it together enough to get the health care bill to the floor. They needed every single Democratic vote to get to 60, and they did. That only gets them into the woods, though, not out of the woods. There are likely to be several balky Democratic votes for cloture, to end the debate, unless they get amendments they want--some of which could cripple the bill's effectiveness. Help from the only Republican who seems even to be considering cooperation, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, seems unlikely as well, unless she gets her way.
Three thoughts on breaking the possible roadblock:
1) The nuclear option--to change the filibuster rules to say, 51 votes for cloture--requires only a simple majority. It's a good threat to make some Republicans agree to cloture or compromise, because otherwise they lose their leverage.
2) Deal: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is the balker with the most to lose or gain, because she's the one with a tough re-election coming up in 2010--give her a spot on the conference committee. She only gets to vote on resolving differences between the bills, but there will be plenety, and it will give her a chance to take a high profile and get some bone Arkansans want. The others may profit from her precedent.
3) I'm sure the hypotheticals of the reconciliation approach--in which the bill would be presented (in a single bill, or as multiple bills) as a fulfillment of budget requirements, which is exempted from the 60-vote cloture rule--have been discussed with the parliamentarian and Reid knows exactly what would get through. I'm no expert, but if the bill has enough budget-beneficial effects spread through it, a lot of it would.
It's not time to give up the p.o. w/opt-out (po-woo) provision yet, but in the end, I'd be satisfied with an up-or-down vote, then taking it out. Then we'd know who the insurance tools are, and they'd be drummed out of most Democratic funds.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tax Policy Recommendations
I'm totally unconvinced by those shills for Big Business who argue for lower corporate taxes or continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, particularly their notion that this is how one helps the recovery and the reduction in unemployment.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
One Year On
There has been a spate of articles about Obama's first year as President. Let's leave aside the fact that his inauguration was January 20, so one-year assessments are premature; as Jonathan Alter pointed out in his piece on the subject in Newsweek, Election Night in 2008 began the Obama Era, and his team was on the move (and the Bushites on the move out) from that day.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Banking on Capital Requirements
The search for blame on the banking crisis which carved out our Great Crater has now passed on to the next phase: what to do next? Thank goodness for that, but so far I haven't seen much in the way of good ideas.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Jagged Little Pill: Review for Amazon
Pure Estrogen High
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
"We all had our reasons to be there/We all had a thing or two to learn/We all needed something to cling to/So we did";
and the second chorus:
"We all had delusions in our head/We all had our minds made up for us/We had to believe in something/So we did".
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Offyear Election View
As I write, the polls have closed in Virginia, but no result has been announced in the governor's race. New Jersey's polls will close soon.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Pull Me, Pashtu!
The above title is a bit of a lame, Spoonerist pun on Dr. Doolittle's two-headed hoofed beast, the pushmi-pullyu. Right at the outset, I apologize to one and all.
As the announcement of President Obama's strategy decision on the war in Afghanistan approaches, and the atrocities of the Taliban multiply daily, I'm wrestling with the two-headed monsters of the strategy: Is U.S. escalation giving our enemies exactly what they want, and if so, would that mean that it's necessarily wrong? Or, to put it another way, is this a case where each side is playing Rope-a-dope with the other?
On the Taliban side, the Rope-a-dope concept is that the more we are sucked into the fight, the more chance they can have to win the sympathy and support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are almost all from the Pashtu group, to which a plurality of Afghans belong (it's the largest group, though not a majority). In the non-Pashtu areas, they are generally loathed; in the Pashtun areas, from what I can see, the majority of people are on the fence: they don't long for a return of the bad old days of Taliban rule, but they are not enamored of the current regime, either. In all parts, the US/NATO forces are viewed as undependable interlopers, not yet as occupiers looking to set up shop permanently.
Moving in more forces, and inevitably also the foreign civilians who provide support for them, can change that dynamic over time in the direction the Taliban would want, making us look more like colonizers. It is true that the counterinsurgency strategy would increase contact between us and the locals, though if it's done right the quality of those interactions would be improved. The question, then, revolves around whether we have the ability and persistence to pull it off, and I can't be too optimistic about that one.
Our version of the Rope-a-dope would be a fallback approach if counterinsurgency doesn't work the way we planned. It starts from the premise that we will never gain strategic success fighting guerrilla warfare. When we are the ones in the outposts, surrounded by hostile territory that is readily infiltrated, they only fight us on those occasions when they can get numerical and tactical superiority: we'd re-create the chase against the Vietcong that was so frustrating to us. What happened at the end of the Vietnam War, after the US had pulled out, and it was clear we weren't coming back, was the Communist armies came out of the jungles, well-armed, and defeated the South Vietnamese in conventional battle.
If that happens in Afghanistan, we'll still be around, and we'll bomb the hell out of them. Like in 2001, only more thoroughly and definitively. It will just be too bad for the local population, though; I don't see us, after all this effort, pulling out and turning over the country to the hostiles. The current issue of The Nation, for all the sane arguments they make for exit, ignores that reality. The opponents of escalation, or even continuation, may have all the arguments, but they are all in vain: cut-and-run is not going to happen.
The strategy that the Obama administration seems to have settled upon (see the article leaking it in yesterday's New York Times, which includes a convincing level of detail, and which I would expect had been confirmed by multiple administration sources) would allow the Taliban free movement around the settled areas which our enhanced force levels will protect. They'd have their shadow Sharia in many rural areas, particularly in the Pashtun south, while we would presumably be able to control the Northern areas without beefing up force levels too much. In terms of its design, it's a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. It's a strategy that seems to reduce the likelihood of total defeat to a minimum without overreaching. It will also seek to deny the dichotomy between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The only question is, when does it end? and I'm afraid of the answer to that one.
I had advocated a more clearly identified and limited area in which to offer the Taliban their turf on a peaceable, autonomous basis. Frankly, I think the problems with my suggestion are two: 1) we can't trust them to keep the peace, and they couldn't trust our side, either (they would suspect a trap, and in a way, it would be); and 2) our side doesn't have sufficient control over the territory to ringfence them properly.
I find the Times leaked article and strategy totally credible. The details certainly need to be worked out, and also apparently more precision in the force levels required (which were not in the leaked report). The timing planned for Obama's announcement allows his emissaries to hold back on any promise of increased support for the Karzai government until the runoff election is completed Nov. 7, so as to gain their best efforts to conduct a visibly fair contest.
As the announcement of President Obama's strategy decision on the war in Afghanistan approaches, and the atrocities of the Taliban multiply daily, I'm wrestling with the two-headed monsters of the strategy: Is U.S. escalation giving our enemies exactly what they want, and if so, would that mean that it's necessarily wrong? Or, to put it another way, is this a case where each side is playing Rope-a-dope with the other?
On the Taliban side, the Rope-a-dope concept is that the more we are sucked into the fight, the more chance they can have to win the sympathy and support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are almost all from the Pashtu group, to which a plurality of Afghans belong (it's the largest group, though not a majority). In the non-Pashtu areas, they are generally loathed; in the Pashtun areas, from what I can see, the majority of people are on the fence: they don't long for a return of the bad old days of Taliban rule, but they are not enamored of the current regime, either. In all parts, the US/NATO forces are viewed as undependable interlopers, not yet as occupiers looking to set up shop permanently.
Moving in more forces, and inevitably also the foreign civilians who provide support for them, can change that dynamic over time in the direction the Taliban would want, making us look more like colonizers. It is true that the counterinsurgency strategy would increase contact between us and the locals, though if it's done right the quality of those interactions would be improved. The question, then, revolves around whether we have the ability and persistence to pull it off, and I can't be too optimistic about that one.
Our version of the Rope-a-dope would be a fallback approach if counterinsurgency doesn't work the way we planned. It starts from the premise that we will never gain strategic success fighting guerrilla warfare. When we are the ones in the outposts, surrounded by hostile territory that is readily infiltrated, they only fight us on those occasions when they can get numerical and tactical superiority: we'd re-create the chase against the Vietcong that was so frustrating to us. What happened at the end of the Vietnam War, after the US had pulled out, and it was clear we weren't coming back, was the Communist armies came out of the jungles, well-armed, and defeated the South Vietnamese in conventional battle.
If that happens in Afghanistan, we'll still be around, and we'll bomb the hell out of them. Like in 2001, only more thoroughly and definitively. It will just be too bad for the local population, though; I don't see us, after all this effort, pulling out and turning over the country to the hostiles. The current issue of The Nation, for all the sane arguments they make for exit, ignores that reality. The opponents of escalation, or even continuation, may have all the arguments, but they are all in vain: cut-and-run is not going to happen.
The strategy that the Obama administration seems to have settled upon (see the article leaking it in yesterday's New York Times, which includes a convincing level of detail, and which I would expect had been confirmed by multiple administration sources) would allow the Taliban free movement around the settled areas which our enhanced force levels will protect. They'd have their shadow Sharia in many rural areas, particularly in the Pashtun south, while we would presumably be able to control the Northern areas without beefing up force levels too much. In terms of its design, it's a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. It's a strategy that seems to reduce the likelihood of total defeat to a minimum without overreaching. It will also seek to deny the dichotomy between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The only question is, when does it end? and I'm afraid of the answer to that one.
I had advocated a more clearly identified and limited area in which to offer the Taliban their turf on a peaceable, autonomous basis. Frankly, I think the problems with my suggestion are two: 1) we can't trust them to keep the peace, and they couldn't trust our side, either (they would suspect a trap, and in a way, it would be); and 2) our side doesn't have sufficient control over the territory to ringfence them properly.
I find the Times leaked article and strategy totally credible. The details certainly need to be worked out, and also apparently more precision in the force levels required (which were not in the leaked report). The timing planned for Obama's announcement allows his emissaries to hold back on any promise of increased support for the Karzai government until the runoff election is completed Nov. 7, so as to gain their best efforts to conduct a visibly fair contest.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Racial Protest Puts Us On the Map
This Associated Press article about a local hotel owner and his troubles with outraged Hispanic protestors, which ran in USA Today in the Travel News section, was no news to us. We've been watching the protestors for months (first reference in The Taos News was in its August 19 issue).
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
Obama Approval Rating: What Gives?
If we look at Rasmussen, Obama's got a little more disapproval than approval. If we look at Gallup, there's about 15 percent more approval than disapproval.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
West Wing 101
Criminally "dumb", not Criminal
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
p.o. news
Sen. Harry Reid is planning to announce today that the version of the Senate bill that he will bring to the floor will include a public option, with the form of option being a negative one for the states (i.e., they can "opt-out" of offering it to their publics), and, I believe, negotiated rates on reimbursement and an expanded eligibility for Medicaid (Medicare for the poor). Republicans will universally deride this compromise offering as creeping socialism, but, creep that I am, I will support it (if it's what I said it will be).
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Friday, October 23, 2009
CO2: It's Just a Shame
I've seen some ads on TV recently to the effect that "Carbon dioxide is not pollution", and the more aggressive claim, "CO2 is Green". Now, there's no doubt that this is a disingenuous attempt to poleaxe our legislative attempts to control greenhouse gases, sponsored by companies with bad intentions, bad faith, and bad science. Still, I think they have it at least half-right.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
This Jobless Recovery
We seem to have found the quickest way across the Great Crater, but we've lost a good number of our passengers en route. It's no surprise that the economy can "grow" without giving Americans any net job gains. In my post in June, I predicted that the economy might make nominal gains for awhile before there were any net gains in jobs, and that gains in jobs might continue for awhile before the unemployment rate would decrease (due to the gradual return to the market of job-seekers). Well before that, I suggested that unemployment will still be an issue in the election of 2010.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
The National Point Spread Game
It's the NFL, of course. Like many a red-blooded American male, I have a system for deriving bets against the point spread of NFL games (and I would certainly respect any American female's doing so, too). I would claim it's a good one; it sure makes sense to me, anyway.
NFL games are the best ones to bet point spread. My system starts to kick in about week 6 or 7 (where we are now), and does not work past about week 12 (when it's more about competing for playoff spots, and some teams are motivated and some not). During this period, teams have played enough games, and should have played a good-enough mix of weak and strong teams, to have a fairly good estimate of average points scored and against.
I hate systems that produce a recommended bet in every game. Mine generally, but not always, identifies three or four games where the point spread seems out of line with what it should be. So I recommend those bets. Very simple.
This week, one game has no line (according to "Glantz-Culver"), Buffalo at Carolina. I guess a QB is doubtful--my system wouldn't even notice, but I'm grateful if they take it off due to some random variable. The one I'd say "no line" on is the New England "at" Tampa Bay, which is being played in London. This is an extremely weird one--a very good team against a terrible one, on a neutral field far, far away. The main variable would seem to be how much Tom Brady cares to run up the score for an interested but dispassionate crowd. I handicapped it as though there were no home team, and I'm glad my point spread estimate came close to the posted one, as I wouldn't want to bet it either way.
Rather than give away my proprietary information, I will illustrate the system by putting my rep on the line with real picks. We'll give ourselves an imaginary $5000. I will bet $2000 this week, as follows:
To avoid taking up too much space on the blog, I will post results and future weeks' predictions (whenever I feel like doing them) as comments to this post. I have to say, I like these picks!
NFL games are the best ones to bet point spread. My system starts to kick in about week 6 or 7 (where we are now), and does not work past about week 12 (when it's more about competing for playoff spots, and some teams are motivated and some not). During this period, teams have played enough games, and should have played a good-enough mix of weak and strong teams, to have a fairly good estimate of average points scored and against.
I hate systems that produce a recommended bet in every game. Mine generally, but not always, identifies three or four games where the point spread seems out of line with what it should be. So I recommend those bets. Very simple.
This week, one game has no line (according to "Glantz-Culver"), Buffalo at Carolina. I guess a QB is doubtful--my system wouldn't even notice, but I'm grateful if they take it off due to some random variable. The one I'd say "no line" on is the New England "at" Tampa Bay, which is being played in London. This is an extremely weird one--a very good team against a terrible one, on a neutral field far, far away. The main variable would seem to be how much Tom Brady cares to run up the score for an interested but dispassionate crowd. I handicapped it as though there were no home team, and I'm glad my point spread estimate came close to the posted one, as I wouldn't want to bet it either way.
Rather than give away my proprietary information, I will illustrate the system by putting my rep on the line with real picks. We'll give ourselves an imaginary $5000. I will bet $2000 this week, as follows:
o) Take Minnesota, 4-point underdog at Pittsburgh ($300);The over/under bet on NFL is also a reasonably good one (I'd advise staying away from that one on NBA games like poison). My bets for this week are the following:
o) Take Kansas City, 4 1/2-point underdogs at home vs. San Diego ($600); and
o) Take Philly, 7-point underdog at Washington ($600).
o) Bet under on Indy at St. Louis vs. 46 points combined ($400);
o) Bet under on Atlanta at Dallas vs. 42 points ($400);
o) Bet over on New Orleans at Miami vs. 47 points ($200).
To avoid taking up too much space on the blog, I will post results and future weeks' predictions (whenever I feel like doing them) as comments to this post. I have to say, I like these picks!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
2000-2009: Ten Favorite Rock Albums
OK, I'm not an official rock critic or professional in the music business: I don't get tons of CD's sent to me, and I don't hear about everything. I just know what I like, and something about why I like it.
I'm one who would normally insist that the decade we're in started in 2001 and ends on December 31, 2010*, but I'm willing to ignore this for a series of posts reviewing highlights of "the decade". I know I'm in a tiny minority and most people think mine's a quibble. I only reserve the right to add some items produced in 2010 to the current decade's best, if appropriate.
So, if this is indeed the last quarter of the last year of this decade, where are the usual pieces about the highlights of this decade? I haven't seen or heard one yet; maybe they're coming (I know these issues have a long lead time, so the intrepid paid journalists are probably slaving away putting these pieces together, and I just don't know about it.) In that case, I'm happy to get out in front.
Somehow, I don't think so, though. The problem is, this decade has pretty much been s--t. Remember back to the 2000 election campaign and what a disappointment it was, exceeded then by the election itself and its revolting aftermath. Then, a short breath and September 11, then a brief period when we sucked it up, followed by even worse events. The 2004 election--what a drag! The only redeeming event of the decade, really, was the 2008 election (OK, previewed by the '06 one), and it was in the middle of an economic disaster. The Era of Good Feelings from Obama's election is over, lasting about six months. Those who think we're out of this funk are fooling themselves. I suppose every decade has its nostalgic follow-up, usually 20-30 years later, and this one might have its fans down the road, but it's pretty hard right now to celebrate it.
The second problem with a best album review is that the rock album now appears to be in really big trouble. This might be the last decade where the concept proposed in the title would even make any sense. At the end of the oh-tens, all we'll need to do is go to the stats for the top 10 video downloads--not much suspense about that, though they may be good ones. Recognizing the pendulum swing--in vinyl terms--back to the 45 from the LP, two of my faves are collections by various artists, but at least there's some unifying theme in them. I'm looking for conssistent quality throughout the albums I'm picking, but I ended up settling for a couple really strong tunes and decent quality through the rest.
Having listed all my caveats, it's time for the actual list. The order isn't clear or important, but I'm pretty certain about number one:
Honorable Mention: Garbage, "Bleed Like Me" (not their best, but might deserve better); Warren Zevon, "The Wind" (nice swansong); Bob Dylan, "Love and Theft" (his best--so far--of the decade, but far short of "Time Out of Mind" or "Oh Mercy" from the '90's); Sleater-Kinney, "One Beat" (impressive energy); Modest Mouse "Good News for People Who Like Bad News" (if you're new to their off-putting sound, don't give up on it); Radiohead, "In Rainbows" (two terrific songs); Thievery Corporation, "The Cosmic Game" (pleasant-to-nice, but no deep impressions); Killers, "Hot Fuss" ("Mr. Brightside" is good, but like most of their stuff, there's angst toward no identifiable purpose); Gnarls Barkley, "St. Elsewhere" (one terrific song, and a couple others that are pretty good); Katy Perry, "One of the Boys" (good, clean, bisexual fun). And, what the heck, Neil Young, "Living with War--In the Beginning" (never thought I'd have him listed among my favorites).
Please don't suggest The White Stripes, The Strokes, or Portishead. I'm not doing drab and mopey. I should probably give a better look at TV on the Radio, though.
I'm one who would normally insist that the decade we're in started in 2001 and ends on December 31, 2010*, but I'm willing to ignore this for a series of posts reviewing highlights of "the decade". I know I'm in a tiny minority and most people think mine's a quibble. I only reserve the right to add some items produced in 2010 to the current decade's best, if appropriate.
So, if this is indeed the last quarter of the last year of this decade, where are the usual pieces about the highlights of this decade? I haven't seen or heard one yet; maybe they're coming (I know these issues have a long lead time, so the intrepid paid journalists are probably slaving away putting these pieces together, and I just don't know about it.) In that case, I'm happy to get out in front.
Somehow, I don't think so, though. The problem is, this decade has pretty much been s--t. Remember back to the 2000 election campaign and what a disappointment it was, exceeded then by the election itself and its revolting aftermath. Then, a short breath and September 11, then a brief period when we sucked it up, followed by even worse events. The 2004 election--what a drag! The only redeeming event of the decade, really, was the 2008 election (OK, previewed by the '06 one), and it was in the middle of an economic disaster. The Era of Good Feelings from Obama's election is over, lasting about six months. Those who think we're out of this funk are fooling themselves. I suppose every decade has its nostalgic follow-up, usually 20-30 years later, and this one might have its fans down the road, but it's pretty hard right now to celebrate it.
The second problem with a best album review is that the rock album now appears to be in really big trouble. This might be the last decade where the concept proposed in the title would even make any sense. At the end of the oh-tens, all we'll need to do is go to the stats for the top 10 video downloads--not much suspense about that, though they may be good ones. Recognizing the pendulum swing--in vinyl terms--back to the 45 from the LP, two of my faves are collections by various artists, but at least there's some unifying theme in them. I'm looking for conssistent quality throughout the albums I'm picking, but I ended up settling for a couple really strong tunes and decent quality through the rest.
Having listed all my caveats, it's time for the actual list. The order isn't clear or important, but I'm pretty certain about number one:
o) Green Day, American Idiot. I don't think there's even a close competitor for #2. Hardcore punks or metal fans view it as too melodic or soft, and as pop it's much too emotionally forceful, but for me it's power pop with purpose. It may be the last successful concept album (it put impossible expectations on this year's GD release, "21st Century Breakdown"), but it proved, once again, why an artist would bother trying.
o) Bright Eyes, I'm Wide Awake It's Morning. There's no question about Conor Oberst's talent; the only question is how will it best come out and be enjoyed. For me, this is the best expression yet from him, in terms of both good variety (one of Oberst's hallmarks is how he covers the waterfront despite starting from a clear folkie perspective) and consistent quality. Here you'll also find what I think is his most honest self-referential piece, "Landlocked Blues", featuring some beautiful backup vocals from Emmylou Harris, which is clearly about his struggle with fame at an early age.
o) Steve Earle, Jerusalem. True Earle fans will point out other releases by him that are more raw, more authentic, whatever; this is the only one that grabbed my attention and kept it. I'll admit that's mostly because of the political content.
o) Gomez, In Our Gun. I'm afraid my list from just 1997-1999 would be far superior to this one, and Gomez had two albums in that period that I'd rate above this one. In Our Gun, though, has good variety, some good jamming tunes (I saw them live during this release's tour), less of those annoying "Sha-la-la's" than their later stuff, and a good quota of Ben vocals.
o) Coldplay, Viva la Vida. In these late days, they surpassed their previous peak, "A Rush of Blood to the Head". Good for them! Typical of their better efforts, there are several good songs appealing to different folks: I like the rueful title cut best.
o) soundtrack album, Garden State. Apparently these were just tunes that the movie's star and director, Zach Braff, was humming at the time. A couple good ones from the Shins, and from Iron and Wine, Thievery Corporation, a few more obscure groups, and an oldie from Simon and Garfunkel. Compared to my favorite soundtrack from the '90's, "Until the End of the World", we're talking about a better movie here.
o) Mars Volta, "De-Loused in the Comatorium". The title gives a good feel--ickily incomprehensible, possibly gibberish. Frankly, the only word I can understand from the entire work's lyrics is "exoskeleton"--or is it "exoskeletal"?--either way, it's a good word. Thrilling guitar leads, frenetic drumming, exuberant energy--whatever it's all about.
o) King Crimson, "Happy With What You Have to be Happy With". I found this one recently, in Costa Rica--although dated 2008, it appears to be a re-release of material from 2002 or 2003. Now that we are living out 21st-Century Schizoid Man, it is good to still find Robert Fripp out there working. The usual mix of unbelievably gorgeous and unbelievably loud and obnoxious, just the kind of schizoid mix I like.
o) U2, "All That You Can't Leave Behind". A narrow call over both this year's "No Line on the Horizon" and "How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb". All three have better consistency than their previous work (excepting "Achtung, Baby!", of course). "All That" has better anthemic hits than the other two. U2's new tour is supposed to be called "Outer Space": Welcome back!
o) various artists, "Future Soundtrack for America". This was sent to me free in 2004 for a contribution to moveon.org.("All profits to non-profit progressive organiations working to involve more Americans in our political process...") A grab bag of offerings with mildly anti-Bushite political overtones from the famous and obscure. Best are the offerings from David Byrne, will.i.am, and Death Cab for Cutie (respectively, "Ain't Got So Far to Go", "Money", and "This Temporary Life"). A good notion, four years too soon, and I wonder if it's still available to purchase.
Honorable Mention: Garbage, "Bleed Like Me" (not their best, but might deserve better); Warren Zevon, "The Wind" (nice swansong); Bob Dylan, "Love and Theft" (his best--so far--of the decade, but far short of "Time Out of Mind" or "Oh Mercy" from the '90's); Sleater-Kinney, "One Beat" (impressive energy); Modest Mouse "Good News for People Who Like Bad News" (if you're new to their off-putting sound, don't give up on it); Radiohead, "In Rainbows" (two terrific songs); Thievery Corporation, "The Cosmic Game" (pleasant-to-nice, but no deep impressions); Killers, "Hot Fuss" ("Mr. Brightside" is good, but like most of their stuff, there's angst toward no identifiable purpose); Gnarls Barkley, "St. Elsewhere" (one terrific song, and a couple others that are pretty good); Katy Perry, "One of the Boys" (good, clean, bisexual fun). And, what the heck, Neil Young, "Living with War--In the Beginning" (never thought I'd have him listed among my favorites).
Please don't suggest The White Stripes, The Strokes, or Portishead. I'm not doing drab and mopey. I should probably give a better look at TV on the Radio, though.
*Logically, think of how the first millennium A.D. must have begun with year 1, not year 0, and must have ended at the end of 1000. Then, logically, we have 1001-2000, and 2001-3000 is the current, third millennium. Go ahead and apply that to centuries, then decades.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sports Notes October
First thoughts here on this topic for this month have to be about baseball. If you don't know why, I won't tell you, but the hint would be: Reggie Jackson.
The first round of playoffs has provided great clarity to the postseason scenarios. It might have been clear only in hindsight, but the first-round playoffs, as usual, were one-sided.
Three of the four first-round losers were clearly not ready for postseason competition. The Cardinals had a team as good as any on paper, featuring two of three best starting pitchers in the league this year (Wainwright, Carpenter, and the SF Giant Lincecum are the clear favorites for the Cy Young), but they came into the postseason on a serious down note, and they couldn't change it around. The Red Sox didn't look fearsome at all and lost meekly in the first two games with the Angels, then got nosed out in the third.
Minnesota really had one chance against the Yankees, after coming in to their series out of breath from a sprint to the finish and a feverish one-game playoff win over the Tigers: ride their emotional high and somehow overcome a huge disparity in talent. In the first game, that theory lasted about five innings, when the Yanks came back from a 2-0 deficit and took a commanding lead. In Game 2, they had their chances, but faced a grim reality in the ninth: closer Joe Nathan's track record against the heart of the Yankee lineup (Teixeira, ARod, and Matsui) was tragic, and the Yanks had a clear psychological advantage based on a May series in which they won three straight games from the Twins in the ninth. Sure enough, Nathan couldn't get the job done. In Game 3, Twins' manager Ron Gardenhire tried a different approach in the top of the ninth, down 2-1: he changed pitchers four times, each until fourth guy Nathan facing only one hitter. The other three guys couldn't get the third out, and Nathan gave up a two-run single to Jorge Posada which pretty much clinched it.
One losing team--the Colorado Rockies--showed up ready to compete. They went down due to a result that could never have been expected based on regular season performance. Constantly maligned (especially by phickle phillie phans) closer Brad Lidge outperformed his Rocks' counterpart Huston Street. Lidge had one of the worst regular season full-season performances in the modern history of closing relievers, while Street had been nearly untouchable, both before and after his late-season injury. It basically came down to two successful confrontations between Lidge and Colorado cleanup hitter Troy Tulowitzki (one popout in Game 3, one miserable strikeout in Game 4) and a failed one between Street and Phillies cleanup hitter Ryan Howard. Major redemption for Lidge, who was perfect in 2008 save opportunities all the way through the team's Series victory, and for Charlie Manuel for sticking with him despite heavy criticism.
This doesn't mean Manuel won't go to Pedro Martinez in some critical late-inning situation in the next round, or better yet, in the Series. The NLCS series between Philadelphia and Los Angeles would appear to favor the Phils now that Lidge has seemingly recovered his balance. I have to say that I owned Lidge for my Rotiss team down the stretch, and he repeatedly seemed to have his control back--until he didn't. The Dodgers' punch is underrated, and I'm looking for the return of Hiroki Kuroda to provide a hidden weapon at some point in the series. My prediction is that he will appear in Game 6 with decisively positive results.
Still, I don't see either NL staff having good enough arms to shut down the Yanks, whose hitting is pretty terrifying, and their starting pitching is now good enough, with their preseason additions of Sabathia and Burnett. I'm rooting for mankind's last, best hope, Nature's Better Angels, the feel-good choice of 2009, Los Angeles de Anaheim. I'm afraid it's them, or the deluge.
Quick NBA Preview
NBA teams can basically be divided into those who are hoarding money for the summer 2010 free agent bidding season, featuring LeBron James, and those who know they aren't in the bidding. The Phoenix Suns must be in the latter category, as they traded their aging star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers, giving them one last chance to convince LeBron he can ever win a championship in his home city.
Exciting as next offseason might be, there's still a season to play. In the revitalized Eastern Conference, the question has to be: Can anyone stop the Cleveland Cavaliers, now that Shaq has come to get LeBron's back? The 2008 champion Celtics are getting old faster than even Shaq, but may still have one more good playoff run left in their legs. Last year's Eastern champs, the Orlando Magic, have a good case to make with the NBA's best center, Dwight Howard, and Jameer Howard back: Howard had emerged as a top point guard with a rapidly improving outside shot last year until a serious injury; the team made a great run with him not fully recovered last year. I would still bet that Shaq can do for LeBron what he did for Dwayne Wade with Miami in 2007 and that the two can ride herd in the East.
In the West, it's very simple: Is there any reason to doubt that LA will repeat? I look hard because I seek to find one, and there are some very good teams, to be sure. As contenders, I like San Antonio's move to bring in Richard Jefferson and make sure there will be a third scoring option after Duncan and Parker, no matter the health of Manu Ginobili; New Orleans' improvement by trading for center Emeka Okafor, who will do well as a third option after Chris Paul and David West; and Portland's continuing rise around Brandon Roy and Chris Oden. Still, Kobe sits high on his throne with his "chamberlain", Phil Jackson, and it will be tough to dislodge them.
A Cleveland-LA Championship series would be an all-time ratings smash, hopefully one which will not be anticlimactic, like last year's Lakers wipeout of the Magic.
The English Game
I insist that "footie" not be confused with "the English vice". For the first time in a long, long time, the English "national" team looks to be a real contender for the World Cup.
Qualifying for next year's tourney in South Africa is in its final stages; if I've got it right, 23 of 32 spots will be fixed by the end of this week, with the remaining nine determined by head-to-head playoffs (one will come from a mighty Bahrain-New Zealand re-match, one looks like a straggling survivor from Uruguay or Ecuador vs. Honduras or Costa Rica, three from among African group runner-ups, and the other four from European group runner-ups, possibly including significant soccer nations like Russia, Portugal, or France).
Meanwhile, three teams have particularly distinguished themselves in European qualifying: Spain, Netherlands, and England. The first two teams have so far won all their games, while the southern Brits lost only last weekend, after they had clinched their spot (but the English press still went ape over the loss). You'd have to add as serious contenders defending champs Italy, which perennially lays as low as possible until crunch time after the first round, and, of course, Germany, which never loses until the final eight. I will also be watching Serbia and Slovakia, two teams which have performed in the qualifiers and may be auditioning for the upstart European semifinalist role which I associate with Croatia.
That being said, history clearly indicates that a non-European team will probably win (the rule being that a European team wins when the finals are held in Europe, and the inverse). As always, Brazil would seem the most likely candidate for that role. Paraguay has impressed in qualification and won't be taken lightly. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a horror show under Diego Maradona's clownish coaching, but no one doubts they have the horses to make a run--if they make it,and they could still blow it. Their star player, Leonel Messi, might be ready to upstage even Maradona if given the chance. Finally, the US and Mexico are both earnestly seeking to rate as legitimate threats--I can believe they could pull an upset or two, at least. The US team suffered a major loss in the lead-up to their last qualifying match vs. Costa Rica (we're in; they're not quite)--emergent striker Charlie Davies was seriously injured in an auto accident, and it may be difficult for him even to make the tourney next summer.
In the English Premier League, at least for this two-week break, we can once again exclaim: Chelsea Rules OK! The Blues gained a huge 2-0 win a week ago against their nemesis, Liverpool, while Manchester United dropped a point behind by managing only a 2-2 draw against improved Sunderland. The race looks to me at this point like a two-team fight to the finish, Chelsea and ManU, with four or five teams scrambling for third and fourth (the usual Liverpool and Arsenal, joined by Manchester City, Tottenham, and possibly Aston Villa or Sunderland). The first key showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United is only weeks away (at home, Nov. 8), so it's most important our key guys stay healthy now.
The first round of playoffs has provided great clarity to the postseason scenarios. It might have been clear only in hindsight, but the first-round playoffs, as usual, were one-sided.
Three of the four first-round losers were clearly not ready for postseason competition. The Cardinals had a team as good as any on paper, featuring two of three best starting pitchers in the league this year (Wainwright, Carpenter, and the SF Giant Lincecum are the clear favorites for the Cy Young), but they came into the postseason on a serious down note, and they couldn't change it around. The Red Sox didn't look fearsome at all and lost meekly in the first two games with the Angels, then got nosed out in the third.
Minnesota really had one chance against the Yankees, after coming in to their series out of breath from a sprint to the finish and a feverish one-game playoff win over the Tigers: ride their emotional high and somehow overcome a huge disparity in talent. In the first game, that theory lasted about five innings, when the Yanks came back from a 2-0 deficit and took a commanding lead. In Game 2, they had their chances, but faced a grim reality in the ninth: closer Joe Nathan's track record against the heart of the Yankee lineup (Teixeira, ARod, and Matsui) was tragic, and the Yanks had a clear psychological advantage based on a May series in which they won three straight games from the Twins in the ninth. Sure enough, Nathan couldn't get the job done. In Game 3, Twins' manager Ron Gardenhire tried a different approach in the top of the ninth, down 2-1: he changed pitchers four times, each until fourth guy Nathan facing only one hitter. The other three guys couldn't get the third out, and Nathan gave up a two-run single to Jorge Posada which pretty much clinched it.
One losing team--the Colorado Rockies--showed up ready to compete. They went down due to a result that could never have been expected based on regular season performance. Constantly maligned (especially by phickle phillie phans) closer Brad Lidge outperformed his Rocks' counterpart Huston Street. Lidge had one of the worst regular season full-season performances in the modern history of closing relievers, while Street had been nearly untouchable, both before and after his late-season injury. It basically came down to two successful confrontations between Lidge and Colorado cleanup hitter Troy Tulowitzki (one popout in Game 3, one miserable strikeout in Game 4) and a failed one between Street and Phillies cleanup hitter Ryan Howard. Major redemption for Lidge, who was perfect in 2008 save opportunities all the way through the team's Series victory, and for Charlie Manuel for sticking with him despite heavy criticism.
This doesn't mean Manuel won't go to Pedro Martinez in some critical late-inning situation in the next round, or better yet, in the Series. The NLCS series between Philadelphia and Los Angeles would appear to favor the Phils now that Lidge has seemingly recovered his balance. I have to say that I owned Lidge for my Rotiss team down the stretch, and he repeatedly seemed to have his control back--until he didn't. The Dodgers' punch is underrated, and I'm looking for the return of Hiroki Kuroda to provide a hidden weapon at some point in the series. My prediction is that he will appear in Game 6 with decisively positive results.
Still, I don't see either NL staff having good enough arms to shut down the Yanks, whose hitting is pretty terrifying, and their starting pitching is now good enough, with their preseason additions of Sabathia and Burnett. I'm rooting for mankind's last, best hope, Nature's Better Angels, the feel-good choice of 2009, Los Angeles de Anaheim. I'm afraid it's them, or the deluge.
Quick NBA Preview
NBA teams can basically be divided into those who are hoarding money for the summer 2010 free agent bidding season, featuring LeBron James, and those who know they aren't in the bidding. The Phoenix Suns must be in the latter category, as they traded their aging star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers, giving them one last chance to convince LeBron he can ever win a championship in his home city.
Exciting as next offseason might be, there's still a season to play. In the revitalized Eastern Conference, the question has to be: Can anyone stop the Cleveland Cavaliers, now that Shaq has come to get LeBron's back? The 2008 champion Celtics are getting old faster than even Shaq, but may still have one more good playoff run left in their legs. Last year's Eastern champs, the Orlando Magic, have a good case to make with the NBA's best center, Dwight Howard, and Jameer Howard back: Howard had emerged as a top point guard with a rapidly improving outside shot last year until a serious injury; the team made a great run with him not fully recovered last year. I would still bet that Shaq can do for LeBron what he did for Dwayne Wade with Miami in 2007 and that the two can ride herd in the East.
In the West, it's very simple: Is there any reason to doubt that LA will repeat? I look hard because I seek to find one, and there are some very good teams, to be sure. As contenders, I like San Antonio's move to bring in Richard Jefferson and make sure there will be a third scoring option after Duncan and Parker, no matter the health of Manu Ginobili; New Orleans' improvement by trading for center Emeka Okafor, who will do well as a third option after Chris Paul and David West; and Portland's continuing rise around Brandon Roy and Chris Oden. Still, Kobe sits high on his throne with his "chamberlain", Phil Jackson, and it will be tough to dislodge them.
A Cleveland-LA Championship series would be an all-time ratings smash, hopefully one which will not be anticlimactic, like last year's Lakers wipeout of the Magic.
The English Game
I insist that "footie" not be confused with "the English vice". For the first time in a long, long time, the English "national" team looks to be a real contender for the World Cup.
Qualifying for next year's tourney in South Africa is in its final stages; if I've got it right, 23 of 32 spots will be fixed by the end of this week, with the remaining nine determined by head-to-head playoffs (one will come from a mighty Bahrain-New Zealand re-match, one looks like a straggling survivor from Uruguay or Ecuador vs. Honduras or Costa Rica, three from among African group runner-ups, and the other four from European group runner-ups, possibly including significant soccer nations like Russia, Portugal, or France).
Meanwhile, three teams have particularly distinguished themselves in European qualifying: Spain, Netherlands, and England. The first two teams have so far won all their games, while the southern Brits lost only last weekend, after they had clinched their spot (but the English press still went ape over the loss). You'd have to add as serious contenders defending champs Italy, which perennially lays as low as possible until crunch time after the first round, and, of course, Germany, which never loses until the final eight. I will also be watching Serbia and Slovakia, two teams which have performed in the qualifiers and may be auditioning for the upstart European semifinalist role which I associate with Croatia.
That being said, history clearly indicates that a non-European team will probably win (the rule being that a European team wins when the finals are held in Europe, and the inverse). As always, Brazil would seem the most likely candidate for that role. Paraguay has impressed in qualification and won't be taken lightly. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a horror show under Diego Maradona's clownish coaching, but no one doubts they have the horses to make a run--if they make it,and they could still blow it. Their star player, Leonel Messi, might be ready to upstage even Maradona if given the chance. Finally, the US and Mexico are both earnestly seeking to rate as legitimate threats--I can believe they could pull an upset or two, at least. The US team suffered a major loss in the lead-up to their last qualifying match vs. Costa Rica (we're in; they're not quite)--emergent striker Charlie Davies was seriously injured in an auto accident, and it may be difficult for him even to make the tourney next summer.
In the English Premier League, at least for this two-week break, we can once again exclaim: Chelsea Rules OK! The Blues gained a huge 2-0 win a week ago against their nemesis, Liverpool, while Manchester United dropped a point behind by managing only a 2-2 draw against improved Sunderland. The race looks to me at this point like a two-team fight to the finish, Chelsea and ManU, with four or five teams scrambling for third and fourth (the usual Liverpool and Arsenal, joined by Manchester City, Tottenham, and possibly Aston Villa or Sunderland). The first key showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United is only weeks away (at home, Nov. 8), so it's most important our key guys stay healthy now.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obama's Nobel
The surprise announcement that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize has caught everyone off guard, even in the White House, which apparently had no clue it was coming.
The prize committee has said that they are giving it to Obama because he has introduced a new emphasis on negotiation of issues between states and on nuclear non-proliferation. Both are true, and worthy, but the award is frankly a bit premature. He should have won it in a couple more years, when he had accomplished more.
The award is never repeated, so I think Obama should try to make some others look good and win their own award, like the Palestinians and Israelis, some Iranian who will discontinue the development of nuclear weapons, or an Afghan Taliban who will cross over and make a move toward peace.
By the way, the award brings $1.5 million, and Obama's donating his to charity. One wonders which charity.
The prize committee has said that they are giving it to Obama because he has introduced a new emphasis on negotiation of issues between states and on nuclear non-proliferation. Both are true, and worthy, but the award is frankly a bit premature. He should have won it in a couple more years, when he had accomplished more.
The award is never repeated, so I think Obama should try to make some others look good and win their own award, like the Palestinians and Israelis, some Iranian who will discontinue the development of nuclear weapons, or an Afghan Taliban who will cross over and make a move toward peace.
By the way, the award brings $1.5 million, and Obama's donating his to charity. One wonders which charity.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
US' Strategy in Afghanistan
I have to weigh in on Pres. Obama's review of strategy in Afghanistan and the resulting decision on troop commitment there.
Unlike the Obama Administration, I do not have armies of Pentagon brass and Congress trying to pull me one way or the other, nor intelligence experts of various levels of credibility feeding me contradictory data, so I have had a fairly easy time coming to a conclusion. In fact, I did so and posted my recommendations a month and a half ago--see "How Afghanistan Can Win" in my post "Khartoum to Kabul". I stand by that post, but will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit more on it.
The Mind of the Taliban: Real Evidence
There has been one particularly relevant update in my database since then, the piece in Newsweek's October 5 issue titled "The Taliban in Their Own Words". I would give a link to it, but it seems Newsweek has already dropped it from its website; I recommend tracking down the issue and reading it, if you have not done so.
First, I have to say that I am in awe of the courage of the reporters who went behind enemy lines and interviewed the six unit-level commanders whose words make up the story (the reporters' names are Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau). To me, this is Pulitzer Prize-quality stuff, if one considers what happened to Daniel Pearl when he started getting too close to the story on the other side (he was beheaded). In editor Jon Meacham's notes, he suggests the most dangerous part of the task for Yousafzai (the lead interviewer)was traveling from Kabul's airport into town, shortly after the road had been bombed; that suggests that his contacts with the Taliban were so secure that he didn't feel in imminent peril of his life the whole time he was interviewing them--I find that kinda hard to believe, but more power to him. Consorting with the enemy it may have been, but the purpose--to understand our foe--was worthwhile for all of us.
So, what have we learned from what the Taliban are saying? Here are my key takeaways:
Let's Get Specific
In my last post, I reacted against those Americans who foolishly asked, "How Can We Win in Afghanistan?" by saying, first, we can't, and second, let's think about what's best for Afghanistan. If, however, we take a look at this from the US' national interest, the first point to emphasize is that what happens in Pakistan is much more important than any result--good or bad--in Afghanistan. The one exception to that rule is that we have our troops in Afghanistan, that their fate is hugely important, and that our forces are unlikely to be invited into Pakistan in any significant numbers. So, the objective is to use our forces wisely, from the Afghanistan side, and ultimately get them out of that hellhole safely.
The first question, then, is: How can what we do in Afghanistan help lead to success in suppressing our foes in Pakistan? The answer, it would seem, would be to beef up our military capabilities in Eastern Afghanistan, between Kabul and the Pakistan border. As the Pakistani forces begin now to take on the hostile enclave of Waziristan, we should make sure their hammer blows can strike the "anvil of evil" without the bad guys slipping away.
Second, as I've said before, I'm not one to put the blame for Afghanistan's weaknesses on its President, Hamid Karzai. I don't think he's responsible for the recent ballot box stuffing, and he had little choice but to ally himself with those corrupt provincial warlords who opposed the Taliban. His rule has never gone much beyond Kabul--we've just become acutely aware of that fact recently. If one of our conditions for increased assistance to Afghanistan is improved performance from Karzai--and it should be one--then we really can't much more of him than a) his efforts to have a clean recount, and a clean runoff if the recount requires it; b) that he ease out his brother, supposedly the drug kingpin of Kandahar; and c) that he keep on trying, in spite of great personal danger and incredibly long odds. It seems to me that's asking a lot, already.
Third, as another condition for the ramp-up (tipping my hand a little, here), NATO needs to stand up and be counted. We need to increase our military strength in the eastern part of the country, but NATO has to fill the void some in the rest of the country. They can't be looking to slip out the back door while we're marching through the front one. I would like to see something from our new best friend, France, and maybe from Turkey (that one, I admit, I'm not sure about: xenophobia runs deep and wide in this part of the world, and I don't know if Turks would be about the same as getting the Russians--i.e., a p.r. disaster--or better, or worse. Maybe in the northern part?) I've read the Turks are the best military forces in NATO, apart from our own. We should set up a NATO school of counterinsurgency skills in Kabul (or somewhere else), and get our allies and the Afghan Army officers to attend: maybe they'll learn something that they can even use somewhere else in the future. We cannot, should not, must not, have to do this all on our own, and frankly, I'm not sure this is the last war of this kind we're going to have to be involved with, even if GWOT is in the dustbin of history.
Finally, I don't know Afghan geography well enough to say exactly where, but I still say we should set up a zone for Taliban fighters who want to give it a rest. All prisoners from the fighting go there (after any interrogation), and free entry to any other Taliban and their families who agree to lay down their arms (exit would be a tougher hurdle). Sharia rule OK! there, they can worship as they please, imprison their wives, whatever (but no poppy exports). The characteristics of this Taliban Autonomous Zone would be: not on the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway, far from Pakistan, a couple of peaceful, fertile valleys--someplace where the Karzai regime already is a non-factor--with mountains, preferably impassable, around them. Something like Utah for the Mormons; in time they could even become civilized and give up polygamy.
Bottom line is, I would give McChrystal the 40,000 more troops he wants, but only half of them should be American. And ours would have a strict time limit. The Afghan war has a seasonal quality; it basically shuts down in the winter, the forces build up in the spring, and the battles climax in tne late summer and fall. We should give the Afghans two years of increased forces, starting next spring with a sharp drawdown planned for the winter of '011 (that's "oh-eleven" and into the spring of '012). By election day 2012, the Obama Surge should be over. And, as in Iraq, out.
Unlike the Obama Administration, I do not have armies of Pentagon brass and Congress trying to pull me one way or the other, nor intelligence experts of various levels of credibility feeding me contradictory data, so I have had a fairly easy time coming to a conclusion. In fact, I did so and posted my recommendations a month and a half ago--see "How Afghanistan Can Win" in my post "Khartoum to Kabul". I stand by that post, but will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit more on it.
The Mind of the Taliban: Real Evidence
There has been one particularly relevant update in my database since then, the piece in Newsweek's October 5 issue titled "The Taliban in Their Own Words". I would give a link to it, but it seems Newsweek has already dropped it from its website; I recommend tracking down the issue and reading it, if you have not done so.
First, I have to say that I am in awe of the courage of the reporters who went behind enemy lines and interviewed the six unit-level commanders whose words make up the story (the reporters' names are Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau). To me, this is Pulitzer Prize-quality stuff, if one considers what happened to Daniel Pearl when he started getting too close to the story on the other side (he was beheaded). In editor Jon Meacham's notes, he suggests the most dangerous part of the task for Yousafzai (the lead interviewer)was traveling from Kabul's airport into town, shortly after the road had been bombed; that suggests that his contacts with the Taliban were so secure that he didn't feel in imminent peril of his life the whole time he was interviewing them--I find that kinda hard to believe, but more power to him. Consorting with the enemy it may have been, but the purpose--to understand our foe--was worthwhile for all of us.
So, what have we learned from what the Taliban are saying? Here are my key takeaways:
o) The Taliban have no love for the Arabs of Al Qaeda, whom they disparagingly refer to as "the camels"; as I suggested in my previous post, the Taliban resent that their leaders' willingness to host them in 2001 caused them to lose power in Afghanistan, and they are not likely to repeat that mistake;
o) Militarily, we can beat the Taliban almost anytime they mass to battle us--the flight to Pakistan in 2001 was not a strategic retreat for them, but an all-out rout, and we had a lot less troops in Afghanistan at the time than we do now;
o) The life of a senior commander in the Taliban is "short, nasty, and brutish"--all the superiors/recruiters these guys referred to have been taken out;
o) That being said, we will never wipe them out through military force, nor are they likely to give up their struggle anytime soon, because
o) These commanders, at least, are fully committed to their cause, impossible to buy out, and earnestly seek to re-impose Islamic rule; and
o) They believe time is on their side, and they are winning this time. There is more than a little revenge in their mix of motivations.
Let's Get Specific
In my last post, I reacted against those Americans who foolishly asked, "How Can We Win in Afghanistan?" by saying, first, we can't, and second, let's think about what's best for Afghanistan. If, however, we take a look at this from the US' national interest, the first point to emphasize is that what happens in Pakistan is much more important than any result--good or bad--in Afghanistan. The one exception to that rule is that we have our troops in Afghanistan, that their fate is hugely important, and that our forces are unlikely to be invited into Pakistan in any significant numbers. So, the objective is to use our forces wisely, from the Afghanistan side, and ultimately get them out of that hellhole safely.
The first question, then, is: How can what we do in Afghanistan help lead to success in suppressing our foes in Pakistan? The answer, it would seem, would be to beef up our military capabilities in Eastern Afghanistan, between Kabul and the Pakistan border. As the Pakistani forces begin now to take on the hostile enclave of Waziristan, we should make sure their hammer blows can strike the "anvil of evil" without the bad guys slipping away.
Second, as I've said before, I'm not one to put the blame for Afghanistan's weaknesses on its President, Hamid Karzai. I don't think he's responsible for the recent ballot box stuffing, and he had little choice but to ally himself with those corrupt provincial warlords who opposed the Taliban. His rule has never gone much beyond Kabul--we've just become acutely aware of that fact recently. If one of our conditions for increased assistance to Afghanistan is improved performance from Karzai--and it should be one--then we really can't much more of him than a) his efforts to have a clean recount, and a clean runoff if the recount requires it; b) that he ease out his brother, supposedly the drug kingpin of Kandahar; and c) that he keep on trying, in spite of great personal danger and incredibly long odds. It seems to me that's asking a lot, already.
Third, as another condition for the ramp-up (tipping my hand a little, here), NATO needs to stand up and be counted. We need to increase our military strength in the eastern part of the country, but NATO has to fill the void some in the rest of the country. They can't be looking to slip out the back door while we're marching through the front one. I would like to see something from our new best friend, France, and maybe from Turkey (that one, I admit, I'm not sure about: xenophobia runs deep and wide in this part of the world, and I don't know if Turks would be about the same as getting the Russians--i.e., a p.r. disaster--or better, or worse. Maybe in the northern part?) I've read the Turks are the best military forces in NATO, apart from our own. We should set up a NATO school of counterinsurgency skills in Kabul (or somewhere else), and get our allies and the Afghan Army officers to attend: maybe they'll learn something that they can even use somewhere else in the future. We cannot, should not, must not, have to do this all on our own, and frankly, I'm not sure this is the last war of this kind we're going to have to be involved with, even if GWOT is in the dustbin of history.
Finally, I don't know Afghan geography well enough to say exactly where, but I still say we should set up a zone for Taliban fighters who want to give it a rest. All prisoners from the fighting go there (after any interrogation), and free entry to any other Taliban and their families who agree to lay down their arms (exit would be a tougher hurdle). Sharia rule OK! there, they can worship as they please, imprison their wives, whatever (but no poppy exports). The characteristics of this Taliban Autonomous Zone would be: not on the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway, far from Pakistan, a couple of peaceful, fertile valleys--someplace where the Karzai regime already is a non-factor--with mountains, preferably impassable, around them. Something like Utah for the Mormons; in time they could even become civilized and give up polygamy.
Bottom line is, I would give McChrystal the 40,000 more troops he wants, but only half of them should be American. And ours would have a strict time limit. The Afghan war has a seasonal quality; it basically shuts down in the winter, the forces build up in the spring, and the battles climax in tne late summer and fall. We should give the Afghans two years of increased forces, starting next spring with a sharp drawdown planned for the winter of '011 (that's "oh-eleven" and into the spring of '012). By election day 2012, the Obama Surge should be over. And, as in Iraq, out.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Lose Some...Win Some
It wasn't so surprising that the International Olympic Committee didn't award the 2016 Summer Games to Chicago, even after the visit of President Obama and the First Lady. What was surprising was that it was the first of the four finalists to be eliminated, in the first round of voting.
In my post yesterday, I missed one important fact: Rio de Janeiro had been one of the finalists for the 2012 games (finally awarded to London), and had been preparing their bid for four years since. The challenges to put the games on in 2016 will still be massive, but I congratulate the plucky Brazilians for their accomplishment.
Chicago will have to decide if it wants to go through the gauntlet again for the future. The Windy City has not hosted the games, though they were just a couple hundred miles away in St. Louis in 1904. Rio's unlikely bid derived legitimacy from the fact that there has never been an Olympics hosted in South America, while Obama's visit justput it on the same level with the visit of King Juan Carlos of Spain (for Madrid), President Lula of Brazil, and the new prime minister of Japan for Tokyo. No shame in losing, just in not trying one's best.
Score One for Engagement
A potential victory of much more profound significance came out of talks in Geneva yesterday. Representatives of the "five permanent members of the Security Council", plus Germany and led by the European Union's Javier Solana, met directly with Iran's designated negotiators on the nuclear issue this week and came out of it announcing that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit--within two weeks--the secret facility near Qom which Iran acknowledged recently.
Further, and more remarkably (because a voluntary move by Iran, not compelled by any treaty obligations), Iran agreed to transfer the majority of its enriched uranium to Russia, from which it would be prepared for safe use in a medical facility in Tehran.
This agreement--if fulfilled, and that's a big 'if'--would set the clock back significantly from the "18 months and counting" until it's been estimated that Iran could detonate a nuclear device, or until the US or Israel (with US backing) would move militarily to stop such a move. It could lead to more, again if the Iranians follow through on their promises. Today's news reportssuggest that some of the Iranians didn't get the memo, or perhaps got a new one saying to feign ignorance of what was agreed. So, progress is not assured; however, the Obama strategy of engagement (as well as his gambit with Russia by resetting some parts of our relationship on a more favorable basis) is beginning to bring some benefit.
We're stil waiting to hear the Israelis' reaction, but former US Ambassador to the UN, the Bushite John Bolton, wasted no time in establishing his mala fides. Bolton, a person for whom the term "diplomat" is accurate from a career perspective but totally inaccurate in practice, criticized Obama for getting "ensnared in negotiations with Iran". It would be so much better, one concludes that Bolton thinks, to just bomb them and "connect the dots"--Iran being the nation between Iraq and Afghanistan where we don't yet have a military front.
If the point is that Iran's regime has not exactly demonstrated its legitimacy with this year's presidential elections, I take the point, and we should a) take every opportunity to point that out to the Iranians, thus weakening their moral position (very important to them, from what I can see) and b) avoid any meeting between putatively re-elected President Ahmadinejad and Obama (Khamenei would be the guy, and only once there is some firmer progress on the negotiations).
The Iranians are chess players; there are generally several layers to their moves. They needed help with their medical facility, they probably wanted to buy some time themselves, what with their domestic issues, and there may be other facilities which are still hidden (and thus possibly more enriched uranium than we know about). The existence of the secret Qom facility was known to the US, which had not told the IAEA about it, but Iran revealed its existence--somewhat casually, as a "peaceful research facility" though it is buried in a mountain within a Revolutionary Guard base--when they knew that we knew. I think they are beginning to see that our side has some folks who think a few moves ahead, too.
In my post yesterday, I missed one important fact: Rio de Janeiro had been one of the finalists for the 2012 games (finally awarded to London), and had been preparing their bid for four years since. The challenges to put the games on in 2016 will still be massive, but I congratulate the plucky Brazilians for their accomplishment.
Chicago will have to decide if it wants to go through the gauntlet again for the future. The Windy City has not hosted the games, though they were just a couple hundred miles away in St. Louis in 1904. Rio's unlikely bid derived legitimacy from the fact that there has never been an Olympics hosted in South America, while Obama's visit justput it on the same level with the visit of King Juan Carlos of Spain (for Madrid), President Lula of Brazil, and the new prime minister of Japan for Tokyo. No shame in losing, just in not trying one's best.
Score One for Engagement
A potential victory of much more profound significance came out of talks in Geneva yesterday. Representatives of the "five permanent members of the Security Council", plus Germany and led by the European Union's Javier Solana, met directly with Iran's designated negotiators on the nuclear issue this week and came out of it announcing that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit--within two weeks--the secret facility near Qom which Iran acknowledged recently.
Further, and more remarkably (because a voluntary move by Iran, not compelled by any treaty obligations), Iran agreed to transfer the majority of its enriched uranium to Russia, from which it would be prepared for safe use in a medical facility in Tehran.
This agreement--if fulfilled, and that's a big 'if'--would set the clock back significantly from the "18 months and counting" until it's been estimated that Iran could detonate a nuclear device, or until the US or Israel (with US backing) would move militarily to stop such a move. It could lead to more, again if the Iranians follow through on their promises. Today's news reportssuggest that some of the Iranians didn't get the memo, or perhaps got a new one saying to feign ignorance of what was agreed. So, progress is not assured; however, the Obama strategy of engagement (as well as his gambit with Russia by resetting some parts of our relationship on a more favorable basis) is beginning to bring some benefit.
We're stil waiting to hear the Israelis' reaction, but former US Ambassador to the UN, the Bushite John Bolton, wasted no time in establishing his mala fides. Bolton, a person for whom the term "diplomat" is accurate from a career perspective but totally inaccurate in practice, criticized Obama for getting "ensnared in negotiations with Iran". It would be so much better, one concludes that Bolton thinks, to just bomb them and "connect the dots"--Iran being the nation between Iraq and Afghanistan where we don't yet have a military front.
If the point is that Iran's regime has not exactly demonstrated its legitimacy with this year's presidential elections, I take the point, and we should a) take every opportunity to point that out to the Iranians, thus weakening their moral position (very important to them, from what I can see) and b) avoid any meeting between putatively re-elected President Ahmadinejad and Obama (Khamenei would be the guy, and only once there is some firmer progress on the negotiations).
The Iranians are chess players; there are generally several layers to their moves. They needed help with their medical facility, they probably wanted to buy some time themselves, what with their domestic issues, and there may be other facilities which are still hidden (and thus possibly more enriched uranium than we know about). The existence of the secret Qom facility was known to the US, which had not told the IAEA about it, but Iran revealed its existence--somewhat casually, as a "peaceful research facility" though it is buried in a mountain within a Revolutionary Guard base--when they knew that we knew. I think they are beginning to see that our side has some folks who think a few moves ahead, too.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Olympics: Vote Chi...and Rio!
President Obama is making a one-day stopover in Copenhagen to lend his support to Chicago's bid to host the Summer Olympics in 2016. Chicago is one of four finalists, along with Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, and Tokyo. Rio and Madrid were said to be the early leaders in the highly-politicized, somewhat parochial voting by the International Olympic Committee, but Chicago's star has risen at the expense of Madrid's, and now it is thought that it may be close between Rio and Chicago.
Rio's bid is extremely ambitious, costing an estimated $14 billion (Tokyo's would no doubt be the cheapest, as it hosted the Olympics in 1964, but that fact--that they hosted fairly recently--would count against it). Brazilian President Lula da Silva is also in Copenhagen and is making a strong plea for the first Olympic games in South America (in terms of Third World countries Seoul, S. Korea, which hosted in '88, might have an argument, though somewhat weaker than 2008's Beijing).
Brazil is doing well these years and has the right to bid for an international coming-out party such as Beijing's. I would suggest that the fact that Chicago's bid is for an estimated cost of "only" $4 billion would make it a better candidate, one with less risk for choice. Obama's strong international popularity will work for Chi-town's case, and apparently the swing group will be the African states (let's say he might help with those, too).
What the condition of the US economy will be in 2016, and whether it will need the boost Olympics bring (and preparation for it, as well) is anyone's guess.
Perhaps Brazil could win a vote now for 2020, which would give it more time to successfully complete what would be a huge effort to prepare the city. A better comparison that Beijing might be Athens' Olympics of 2004, which was a difficult prep.
I have been to Rio a couple of times--it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, so it would be a spectacular site for the Olympics. The fact that it would be winter during the normal time of the summer Olympics is not actually a problem--it would be temperate then, whereas it would be intolerably hot in their summer (December-February). Rio is a city that is much larger than most people realize, and it has enormous, widespread favelas (slums) which will need to be isolated from the Olympic competitors' experience (if not their sight--mostly they're on the huge, steep hills found throughout the city). That--making the city safe from criminal influences coming from the favelas--would be just one of the major challenges; transportation (they have enormous traffic jams, and little public transport) would be another. I think it's worth it, but they could use the extra four years.
Rio's bid is extremely ambitious, costing an estimated $14 billion (Tokyo's would no doubt be the cheapest, as it hosted the Olympics in 1964, but that fact--that they hosted fairly recently--would count against it). Brazilian President Lula da Silva is also in Copenhagen and is making a strong plea for the first Olympic games in South America (in terms of Third World countries Seoul, S. Korea, which hosted in '88, might have an argument, though somewhat weaker than 2008's Beijing).
Brazil is doing well these years and has the right to bid for an international coming-out party such as Beijing's. I would suggest that the fact that Chicago's bid is for an estimated cost of "only" $4 billion would make it a better candidate, one with less risk for choice. Obama's strong international popularity will work for Chi-town's case, and apparently the swing group will be the African states (let's say he might help with those, too).
What the condition of the US economy will be in 2016, and whether it will need the boost Olympics bring (and preparation for it, as well) is anyone's guess.
Perhaps Brazil could win a vote now for 2020, which would give it more time to successfully complete what would be a huge effort to prepare the city. A better comparison that Beijing might be Athens' Olympics of 2004, which was a difficult prep.
I have been to Rio a couple of times--it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, so it would be a spectacular site for the Olympics. The fact that it would be winter during the normal time of the summer Olympics is not actually a problem--it would be temperate then, whereas it would be intolerably hot in their summer (December-February). Rio is a city that is much larger than most people realize, and it has enormous, widespread favelas (slums) which will need to be isolated from the Olympic competitors' experience (if not their sight--mostly they're on the huge, steep hills found throughout the city). That--making the city safe from criminal influences coming from the favelas--would be just one of the major challenges; transportation (they have enormous traffic jams, and little public transport) would be another. I think it's worth it, but they could use the extra four years.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Safire's Star Dims
We note the passing of longtime New York Times columnist William Safire.
He was a conservative in the best sense: concerned about the conservation of liberty, non-dogmatic in many areas.
His columns which were most enjoyable were those "On Language" in the Magazine, focusing on words and phrases, the history of their use, and pointing out unusual and erroneous usage.
He is also remembered for his job, prior to the Times, working as a speechwriter for the Nixon Administration. He invented potent Agnew speech phrases like "effete corps of impudent snobs" (referring to antiwar protestors) and "nattering nabobs of negatism" (about critics of the Administration).
Yes, he was a battler, and on the wrong side, but he showed a sense of honor. And he left that dishonored administration before it was publicly exposed through Agnew's corruption, Nixon's foul-mouthed tapes, and the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
He could also be extremely clueless. He never seemed to get over the end of the Cold War--you could rely on him to take the view that was most suspicious of Russia afterwards, no matter the identity of its leadership or the circumstance.
I was one of many who called him out for an egregious and inexplicable error in a reference in December '05:
He was a conservative in the best sense: concerned about the conservation of liberty, non-dogmatic in many areas.
His columns which were most enjoyable were those "On Language" in the Magazine, focusing on words and phrases, the history of their use, and pointing out unusual and erroneous usage.
He is also remembered for his job, prior to the Times, working as a speechwriter for the Nixon Administration. He invented potent Agnew speech phrases like "effete corps of impudent snobs" (referring to antiwar protestors) and "nattering nabobs of negatism" (about critics of the Administration).
Yes, he was a battler, and on the wrong side, but he showed a sense of honor. And he left that dishonored administration before it was publicly exposed through Agnew's corruption, Nixon's foul-mouthed tapes, and the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
He could also be extremely clueless. He never seemed to get over the end of the Cold War--you could rely on him to take the view that was most suspicious of Russia afterwards, no matter the identity of its leadership or the circumstance.
I was one of many who called him out for an egregious and inexplicable error in a reference in December '05:
I was somewhat appalled to decode the following sentence from your Sunday Magazine piece called "Whitelist":
Worm first appeared in the context of evilware in a 1975 sci-fi novel by John Dunner.
What shocked me was not that you would have offered up the reference, which I think is a fine one, but that your fact-checkers would miss the obvious error in the name of the author, John Brunner.
You owe the author a specific mention of the book in which "worm"is introduced, Shockwave Rider, one of the classic novels of sci-fi. Personally, I'm a fan of The Sheep Look Up, which comes pretty close to describing this year's natural disasters and the public reaction to them.
I would have liked to see some more in-depth discussion of the various biological analogues used in computer lingo about "malware". Besides the "Virus" and "tapeworm" (the full name of Brunner's concept), and the ubiquitous "bug", there are also references to sexual intercourse. And, to the nonliving world of personnel mines. Could be quite a colorful follow-up.
P. O.'d,, but Not Dead Yet
Two amendments to add a public option to the Baucus version of the health care reform bill failed in the Finance Committee (which Baucus chairs) yesterday. A "robust" p.o. (I use small letters, as opposed to "P.O.'d") amendment from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), which would give the new offering the level of discounts Medicare has for two years, fell by a 15-8 vote (all 10 Republicans, and 5 Democrats voting against), after a five-hour debate. Soon after, an amendment proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) which did not have that aggressive provision, fell by a 13-10 vote.
The three Democratic Senators who voted against the Schumer proposal were Baucus, Kent Conrad (N.D.), and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) There will be a movement to demonize those three, and possibly to a lesser extent Sens. Carper (Del.) and Nelson (Fla.), who voted against the Rockefeller amendment but for the Schumer proposal. I don't like their votes, but I'm not quite ready to condemn them just yet.
Yesterday's votes mean that the bill which will be reported out of the Finance Committee will not have a p.o. in it (it will have money to support Conrad's pet co-ops, though), but that does not mean the end of the story. Strong p.o. supporters, like Rockefeller, Schumer, and Tom Harkin (Iowa) came out of the session encouraged by the vote and by the debate.
Unfortunately, the debate was not televised live, but from the snippets I saw of the debate, I would be encouraged, too. The arguments against the proposal sounded lame and unconvincing--for example, Orrin Hatch (Utah) complained that we'd be turning health care over to "the folks who destroyed the banks and the auto companies". I hate to give you the news, Orrin, but the private banking and auto companies who were destroyed did that all by themselves--the government is just coming around to pick up the pieces and try to put them back together. The proponents had all the good arguments on their side: more competition, challenging the health insurers' harmful practices, and the fact tha the p.o. is no entitlement program--it would be a self-sustaining, optional offering. If it's a weak one, it would be no threat to the private insurers, and thus insignificant.
The debate will go to the Senate floor, and the search will continue for a formula that can get enough Democratic votes to make it a winner--51 might well be enough, but they will try to get to 60 first. It was clear from the p.o. supporters that they will bring an amendment to the floor, and they claim to expect it to succeed. My condemnation will be for any Democrats who go against the p.o. in the floor vote, if it fails there; it will be fierce, and it will be backed up with my wallet. With regard to 2010, I've become a single-issue voter.
Clearly, a trigger approach will not do at this point; the p.o. will take time to gear up, and it is unclear how widely it will be available. A trigger approach means private insurers will be able to gouge the public more time--it implies they will not improve their methods.
On a discussion later that day on Jim Lehrer's Report on PBS, a freshman Democrat from Colorado made an interesting point: the Republicans could kill the public option if they got on board. If they continue with their unyielding opposition to the proposed legislation, the resulting bill--and there will be a bill--will be more unfavorable to them.
The three Democratic Senators who voted against the Schumer proposal were Baucus, Kent Conrad (N.D.), and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) There will be a movement to demonize those three, and possibly to a lesser extent Sens. Carper (Del.) and Nelson (Fla.), who voted against the Rockefeller amendment but for the Schumer proposal. I don't like their votes, but I'm not quite ready to condemn them just yet.
Yesterday's votes mean that the bill which will be reported out of the Finance Committee will not have a p.o. in it (it will have money to support Conrad's pet co-ops, though), but that does not mean the end of the story. Strong p.o. supporters, like Rockefeller, Schumer, and Tom Harkin (Iowa) came out of the session encouraged by the vote and by the debate.
Unfortunately, the debate was not televised live, but from the snippets I saw of the debate, I would be encouraged, too. The arguments against the proposal sounded lame and unconvincing--for example, Orrin Hatch (Utah) complained that we'd be turning health care over to "the folks who destroyed the banks and the auto companies". I hate to give you the news, Orrin, but the private banking and auto companies who were destroyed did that all by themselves--the government is just coming around to pick up the pieces and try to put them back together. The proponents had all the good arguments on their side: more competition, challenging the health insurers' harmful practices, and the fact tha the p.o. is no entitlement program--it would be a self-sustaining, optional offering. If it's a weak one, it would be no threat to the private insurers, and thus insignificant.
The debate will go to the Senate floor, and the search will continue for a formula that can get enough Democratic votes to make it a winner--51 might well be enough, but they will try to get to 60 first. It was clear from the p.o. supporters that they will bring an amendment to the floor, and they claim to expect it to succeed. My condemnation will be for any Democrats who go against the p.o. in the floor vote, if it fails there; it will be fierce, and it will be backed up with my wallet. With regard to 2010, I've become a single-issue voter.
Clearly, a trigger approach will not do at this point; the p.o. will take time to gear up, and it is unclear how widely it will be available. A trigger approach means private insurers will be able to gouge the public more time--it implies they will not improve their methods.
On a discussion later that day on Jim Lehrer's Report on PBS, a freshman Democrat from Colorado made an interesting point: the Republicans could kill the public option if they got on board. If they continue with their unyielding opposition to the proposed legislation, the resulting bill--and there will be a bill--will be more unfavorable to them.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Obama Scores Against Stiff Defense
Pres. Obama announced yesterday that he is scrapping the Bushite plan for Missile Defense systems based in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to repel the threat of missile attack from "Iran".
This is the kind of good decision-making that we expected from Obama, and we want to be among the first to hail it. I have been going on about this one for about two years now. Obama's decision extracts an unnecessary thumb from the eye of the Russians, who never really believed that it was anything other than a clumsy effort toward encirclement of them. It may well pay off in some assistance from them with regard to reducing the threat of Iran's developing nuclear weapons.
But that is not, and should not, be the main point. This is elimination of an unnecessary defense system that does not promise to defend anyone from anything anytime soon, if ever. Instead, Obama continues to play the missile defense game, but in a smarter way, with mobile systems, which might be able to defend Israel from Iranian attacks (a much more plausible concern than Iran's attacking Central Europe).
Officially, the Czech and Polish governments will be upset. Their notification of the change may not have been handled in the most diplomatic way. I'll bet that majorities of their citizens (unlike their governments' leadership, which currently tends toward the extreme right) understand and approve of the decision, though.
This is the kind of good decision-making that we expected from Obama, and we want to be among the first to hail it. I have been going on about this one for about two years now. Obama's decision extracts an unnecessary thumb from the eye of the Russians, who never really believed that it was anything other than a clumsy effort toward encirclement of them. It may well pay off in some assistance from them with regard to reducing the threat of Iran's developing nuclear weapons.
But that is not, and should not, be the main point. This is elimination of an unnecessary defense system that does not promise to defend anyone from anything anytime soon, if ever. Instead, Obama continues to play the missile defense game, but in a smarter way, with mobile systems, which might be able to defend Israel from Iranian attacks (a much more plausible concern than Iran's attacking Central Europe).
Officially, the Czech and Polish governments will be upset. Their notification of the change may not have been handled in the most diplomatic way. I'll bet that majorities of their citizens (unlike their governments' leadership, which currently tends toward the extreme right) understand and approve of the decision, though.
Health Care Update
Paul Krugman had it about right: the Baucus bill is inadequate as it stands, but it can be improved enough to make it worthwhile.
To paraphrase him, three improvements are needed:
1) The employer mandate section is hopeless, penalizing employers for the number of employees getting subsidies to help pay for their insurance. This needs to be replaced with a simple "pay or play" provision--either employers pay in for group insurance, or pay into a pool to help their employees get it.
2) There is not enough money in the bill for subsidies for the poor to get insurance--the result would leave the society far short of universal coverage.
3) The provisions to increase competition on insurance--the co-ops--are inadequate. I believe they would help in some rural areas, but for the typical urban dweller, a public option is needed.
If these don't come up, or if it goes in the demagogic other direction, focusing on political culture wars about abortion, illegal immigrants, and malpractice insurance, the bill will die. And should. There will be another, though...
Updates from the Peanut Gallery
The new figures from the Lewin Group, an independent study group (though sponsored by United Healthcare) are that about 20 million Americans would take up a public option--as it came out of the House committees, i.e., after the provisions which would give it the same mandated discounts medicare enjoys. This down from 100 million; it's a good balance between truly providing competition and crowding out the private insurers (which most people don't want).
Finally, I just finished reading a long, incisive piece in The Atlantic by David Goldhill (called "What Washington Doesn't Get About Health Care--Here's How to Fix It" on the cover, but titled "How American Health Care Killed My Father" at the head of the article). Basically, he calls for the elimination of "comprehensive" health insurance (including for Medicare!) and scares the beejesus out of the reader. Not even single-payer could save us, and none of what's on the table would do much. Don't read it, even though it's packed with accurate information--his subtitle should be something like "Save America $1.6 million and Kill Yourself--Today!" It's that depressing.
Don't Blame Sen. Bingaman
Our Senator Jeff Bingaman should not be tarred with the Baucus brush (Bauchanalia?), though he was one of the infamous Gang of Six (along with "Coops" Conrad, "Frosty" Snowe. "Crass" Grassley, and Enzi "Face"). Bingaman was the well-meaning orthodox liberal in the group, trying to uphold progressive values, though not always succeeding. He has not endorsed the Baucus formulation as it stands, though commending the effort, and has announced he will support the public option in an amendment to be proposed before the full Committee (where it may well pass).
Here is his statement on the release of the Baucus draft.
To paraphrase him, three improvements are needed:
1) The employer mandate section is hopeless, penalizing employers for the number of employees getting subsidies to help pay for their insurance. This needs to be replaced with a simple "pay or play" provision--either employers pay in for group insurance, or pay into a pool to help their employees get it.
2) There is not enough money in the bill for subsidies for the poor to get insurance--the result would leave the society far short of universal coverage.
3) The provisions to increase competition on insurance--the co-ops--are inadequate. I believe they would help in some rural areas, but for the typical urban dweller, a public option is needed.
If these don't come up, or if it goes in the demagogic other direction, focusing on political culture wars about abortion, illegal immigrants, and malpractice insurance, the bill will die. And should. There will be another, though...
Updates from the Peanut Gallery
The new figures from the Lewin Group, an independent study group (though sponsored by United Healthcare) are that about 20 million Americans would take up a public option--as it came out of the House committees, i.e., after the provisions which would give it the same mandated discounts medicare enjoys. This down from 100 million; it's a good balance between truly providing competition and crowding out the private insurers (which most people don't want).
Finally, I just finished reading a long, incisive piece in The Atlantic by David Goldhill (called "What Washington Doesn't Get About Health Care--Here's How to Fix It" on the cover, but titled "How American Health Care Killed My Father" at the head of the article). Basically, he calls for the elimination of "comprehensive" health insurance (including for Medicare!) and scares the beejesus out of the reader. Not even single-payer could save us, and none of what's on the table would do much. Don't read it, even though it's packed with accurate information--his subtitle should be something like "Save America $1.6 million and Kill Yourself--Today!" It's that depressing.
Don't Blame Sen. Bingaman
Our Senator Jeff Bingaman should not be tarred with the Baucus brush (Bauchanalia?), though he was one of the infamous Gang of Six (along with "Coops" Conrad, "Frosty" Snowe. "Crass" Grassley, and Enzi "Face"). Bingaman was the well-meaning orthodox liberal in the group, trying to uphold progressive values, though not always succeeding. He has not endorsed the Baucus formulation as it stands, though commending the effort, and has announced he will support the public option in an amendment to be proposed before the full Committee (where it may well pass).
Here is his statement on the release of the Baucus draft.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama and the U.N.: Pt. 2
Pres. Obama visits the United Nations next week. In addition to a speech to the General Assembly (see this post for what I think he should say), he will chair a session of the Security Council devoted to the topic of nuclear weapons.
What goes on behind the scenes at the U.N. is always much more significant than what happens in the public appearances, though. Obama's visit will be an opportunity for diplomacy-by-proxy with China, Russia, and India on such topics as countering North Korea's aggressive moves, keeping Iran's nuclear developments under control (under threat of additional sanctions), and coming ujp with something positive in the conference on climate change in Copenhagen later this year.
Worst Notion of 2009: Nomination
In its September 7 issue ("Understanding Teddy"), Newsweek gave voice to one of the worst intellectual ideas of this era--"nuclear optimism". An article titled "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb" should be satire, or comedy, and, to honor the memory of Stanley Kubrick and my favorite movie, "Dr. Strangelove", should not argue with a straight face for the value of keeping nuclear weapons around. But that's what the article's author, Jonathan Tepperman, does--at great length.
Tepperman promises that a "growing and compelling body of research suggests...the bomb may actually make us safer." Not just the US safer, given the other nations which have it--everybody. The closest thing to any research in the article are suggestions that the participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and in the India-Pakistan skirmish over Kashmir in 1999 (when both countries had the bomb) were rational enough to realize that both sides would lose in a nuclear exchange. Well, duh!
The suggestion is not just that Obama can not succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons from the world during his administration--OK, we can all agree that's probably true--but that he should not even suggest their elimination as an objective. The suggestion instead is that we should trade--permanently--a small chance of nuclear war for a larger chance of preventing conventional wars among major powers. In support of this thesis, he points out that nuclear weapons haven't been used on inhabited territory in 64 years, and that there have been no major wars between nuclear-armed nations during that time, either.
Intellectually, he would have an argument if he could prove that there are no circumstances under which a nuclear-armed nation would use them. However, if that were true, they wouldn't be such a good deterrent, would they? And, there is the fact that they WERE used 64 years ago. If you told me there was only a 10% chance they would be used in the next 64 years, I'd still say we can't afford the risk--if we can figure out how to get rid of them.
That's actually the sticking point in total elimination of nukes; the last part, when the few remaining weapons would be permanently disarmed. At that time, there might be a temptation for some nation to cross back over the threshold in order to obtain a decisive, if temporary, advantage. There probably would have to be some international agency, with the highest level of security and protection from the world's great powers, that would have to maintain a deterrent against cheating, because it's simply not that hard for an advanced country to bring them back at any time.
There's one or two good suggestions Tettenbaum makes, things we should do regardless of the long-term objectives (which are and should remain: nonproliferation, progressive reduction, and removal of the hair-trigger). The notion of "nuclear forensics", which would make the origin of any nuclear materials transparent, is a good one that would help ensure against a nuclear power surreptitiously acting through others, like a terrorist group, or improperly disseminating nuclear materials to other countries (as Pakistan did in the '90's). Second, there is benefit in all major nations knowing everyone's capabilities, or lack thereof, which would prevent blackmail, unpleasant surprises, or unknown dangers. (Apparently South Africa had the bomb and gave it up?)
The bottom line for me remains this: those nations which have nukes should have obligations, and they should be substantial and continuing ones. Those that don't agree to them should be punished harshly. When the downside is sufficient, the upside won't look so attractive to nations like iran or North Korea. Just ask the Japanese--they understand the downside very well.
What goes on behind the scenes at the U.N. is always much more significant than what happens in the public appearances, though. Obama's visit will be an opportunity for diplomacy-by-proxy with China, Russia, and India on such topics as countering North Korea's aggressive moves, keeping Iran's nuclear developments under control (under threat of additional sanctions), and coming ujp with something positive in the conference on climate change in Copenhagen later this year.
Worst Notion of 2009: Nomination
In its September 7 issue ("Understanding Teddy"), Newsweek gave voice to one of the worst intellectual ideas of this era--"nuclear optimism". An article titled "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb" should be satire, or comedy, and, to honor the memory of Stanley Kubrick and my favorite movie, "Dr. Strangelove", should not argue with a straight face for the value of keeping nuclear weapons around. But that's what the article's author, Jonathan Tepperman, does--at great length.
Tepperman promises that a "growing and compelling body of research suggests...the bomb may actually make us safer." Not just the US safer, given the other nations which have it--everybody. The closest thing to any research in the article are suggestions that the participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and in the India-Pakistan skirmish over Kashmir in 1999 (when both countries had the bomb) were rational enough to realize that both sides would lose in a nuclear exchange. Well, duh!
The suggestion is not just that Obama can not succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons from the world during his administration--OK, we can all agree that's probably true--but that he should not even suggest their elimination as an objective. The suggestion instead is that we should trade--permanently--a small chance of nuclear war for a larger chance of preventing conventional wars among major powers. In support of this thesis, he points out that nuclear weapons haven't been used on inhabited territory in 64 years, and that there have been no major wars between nuclear-armed nations during that time, either.
Intellectually, he would have an argument if he could prove that there are no circumstances under which a nuclear-armed nation would use them. However, if that were true, they wouldn't be such a good deterrent, would they? And, there is the fact that they WERE used 64 years ago. If you told me there was only a 10% chance they would be used in the next 64 years, I'd still say we can't afford the risk--if we can figure out how to get rid of them.
That's actually the sticking point in total elimination of nukes; the last part, when the few remaining weapons would be permanently disarmed. At that time, there might be a temptation for some nation to cross back over the threshold in order to obtain a decisive, if temporary, advantage. There probably would have to be some international agency, with the highest level of security and protection from the world's great powers, that would have to maintain a deterrent against cheating, because it's simply not that hard for an advanced country to bring them back at any time.
There's one or two good suggestions Tettenbaum makes, things we should do regardless of the long-term objectives (which are and should remain: nonproliferation, progressive reduction, and removal of the hair-trigger). The notion of "nuclear forensics", which would make the origin of any nuclear materials transparent, is a good one that would help ensure against a nuclear power surreptitiously acting through others, like a terrorist group, or improperly disseminating nuclear materials to other countries (as Pakistan did in the '90's). Second, there is benefit in all major nations knowing everyone's capabilities, or lack thereof, which would prevent blackmail, unpleasant surprises, or unknown dangers. (Apparently South Africa had the bomb and gave it up?)
The bottom line for me remains this: those nations which have nukes should have obligations, and they should be substantial and continuing ones. Those that don't agree to them should be punished harshly. When the downside is sufficient, the upside won't look so attractive to nations like iran or North Korea. Just ask the Japanese--they understand the downside very well.
Like a Rug
In our confessional society, there are few transgressions that are not fixed by a sufficiently-sincere-looking admission of guilt and regret. That assumes that a lawsuit or criminal case is not involved, of course. This may be changing, though...
The movement to penalize Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina for his boorish "You lie!" exclamation during Pres. Obama's health care speech seems to have some legs. Maureen Dowd basically accused him of racist motivation, and his fellow S.C. Rep. Jim Clymer, a leader in the Democratic caucus, wants to introduce a motion in the House to censure him for his misconduct. This after Wilson made direct, personal apologies to Obama and V.P. Biden and after both publicly forgave his behavior.
If there was a hint of a racist lash in Wilson's "refusal to accept the legitimacy of an African-American President", the backlash was a huge inflow of money for his campaign chest. So, this is the re-backlash. Clymer takes Wilson to task for intentional confrontational behavior in the past, like having a rowdy town hall meeting in Clymer's district.
The purpose of the re-backlash is to hound him from public life, and here I'd have to say that the ends would justify some extraordinary means. A censure motion does not have to pass in order to do vast harm, but it can also backfire. I would suggest that a pattern of behavior needs to be justified, or that Wilson is in fact a sociopathic liar, to prevent him being able to make a PR campaign as a victim of some misguided PC notions and come out of this thing stronger than before.
The movement to penalize Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina for his boorish "You lie!" exclamation during Pres. Obama's health care speech seems to have some legs. Maureen Dowd basically accused him of racist motivation, and his fellow S.C. Rep. Jim Clymer, a leader in the Democratic caucus, wants to introduce a motion in the House to censure him for his misconduct. This after Wilson made direct, personal apologies to Obama and V.P. Biden and after both publicly forgave his behavior.
If there was a hint of a racist lash in Wilson's "refusal to accept the legitimacy of an African-American President", the backlash was a huge inflow of money for his campaign chest. So, this is the re-backlash. Clymer takes Wilson to task for intentional confrontational behavior in the past, like having a rowdy town hall meeting in Clymer's district.
The purpose of the re-backlash is to hound him from public life, and here I'd have to say that the ends would justify some extraordinary means. A censure motion does not have to pass in order to do vast harm, but it can also backfire. I would suggest that a pattern of behavior needs to be justified, or that Wilson is in fact a sociopathic liar, to prevent him being able to make a PR campaign as a victim of some misguided PC notions and come out of this thing stronger than before.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I'm with O
I didn't get to see President Obama's speech on health care reform last night until the replays. My comments about it in a moment. One thing I noticed when I got back and logged on (through CNN) was that there was a short, three-page document that outlined "the President's plan". Today's reports feature the text of his speech, and all the buzz around it, but nowhere today can I find a reference to this document, which I consider absolutely essential.
In it, President Obama makes very clear the key points he wants in the bill--they are presented unambiguously (even if the financial targets may be a big stretch). I was wrong, and Obama has come around to a mandate for all individuals to take insurance--but in the context of choice that includes a public option, subsidies for individuals, and, apparently, a waiver for those who can still not afford it.
I am still seeing editorials that say: which plan? where is the plan? Yes, it is a three-pager of talking points, not fully-drafted legislation, but this is a plan I endorse in its entirety--unlike the draft Baucus plan, which has many unacceptable proposals. I want to see this plan endorsed immediately by the full Democratic delegation, which will force the Republicans to play ball, to get their pet peeves (like malpractice reform, or a specific--but unworthy and unlikely--denial of coverage to illegal immigrants) included.
I believe his speech was a game-changer, in this sense: nobody who says they want to "scrap it all and start over" will be a participant in the discussion anymore. There will be a bill, it will start with the 80% of the policy that is agreed upon, and the rest, as Barney Frank says, will be "a negotiation". The public option may be given up, but only when other conditions which require it--like the individual mandate, the Exchange, and the limits on rates for pre-existing conditions or age-based rates--are properly controlled. Again, I can accept that, as long as there is a recorded floor vote on a public option.
The bill will contain some of these negotiated elements if they can get enough Republican support to make sure 60 votes will back it in the Senate (they'll need at least one, with Kennedy's seat vacant). Otherwise, a version that is closer to the House version with less of these negotiated elements will pass--as much as can get by the Senate parliamentarian for being germane to budget reconciliation--with 51 votes or more.
Again, keep this document of Obama's plan for future reference as the bill emerges onto the Senate floor.
In it, President Obama makes very clear the key points he wants in the bill--they are presented unambiguously (even if the financial targets may be a big stretch). I was wrong, and Obama has come around to a mandate for all individuals to take insurance--but in the context of choice that includes a public option, subsidies for individuals, and, apparently, a waiver for those who can still not afford it.
I am still seeing editorials that say: which plan? where is the plan? Yes, it is a three-pager of talking points, not fully-drafted legislation, but this is a plan I endorse in its entirety--unlike the draft Baucus plan, which has many unacceptable proposals. I want to see this plan endorsed immediately by the full Democratic delegation, which will force the Republicans to play ball, to get their pet peeves (like malpractice reform, or a specific--but unworthy and unlikely--denial of coverage to illegal immigrants) included.
I believe his speech was a game-changer, in this sense: nobody who says they want to "scrap it all and start over" will be a participant in the discussion anymore. There will be a bill, it will start with the 80% of the policy that is agreed upon, and the rest, as Barney Frank says, will be "a negotiation". The public option may be given up, but only when other conditions which require it--like the individual mandate, the Exchange, and the limits on rates for pre-existing conditions or age-based rates--are properly controlled. Again, I can accept that, as long as there is a recorded floor vote on a public option.
The bill will contain some of these negotiated elements if they can get enough Republican support to make sure 60 votes will back it in the Senate (they'll need at least one, with Kennedy's seat vacant). Otherwise, a version that is closer to the House version with less of these negotiated elements will pass--as much as can get by the Senate parliamentarian for being germane to budget reconciliation--with 51 votes or more.
Again, keep this document of Obama's plan for future reference as the bill emerges onto the Senate floor.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Program for the Big Night
President Obama's speech to Congress is coming up tomorrow night (Wednesday). There are many ways he could play this critical public appearance, but I think the following is what he will say, and then what I think he should add:
Obama can not threaten to veto a bill that does not have a public option in it. That will reinforce the stalemate that has already developed. Instead, he will praise the concept of the public option, but emphasize all the other worthy aspects of a potential bill, many of which are essentially agreed upon.
He will not ask for much from Republicans, except to contribute any ideas to achieve the goals he will describe. The bipartisan effort of the Gang of Six Finance Committee Senators is fizzling out, without any real agreement, and with a draft bill that's a non-starter: a mandate to buy, no mandate for employers to provide insurance, and no public option. That draft does have money for health co-ops, which I see as another useful alternative, but no substitute for a properly-constructed public option. He will implicitly endorse the legislative strategy of using the budget reconciliation waiver to the 60 vote requirement in the Senate, which at this point looks like the only way anything real can be accomplished. And, it seems, a lot can be accomplished that way.
I would add one note: Candidate Obama was not in favor of requiring all--by law--to take insurance. I don't think he will support the concept now, either, opting for cleverly-designed incentives (such as reduced prices for pharmaceuticals, tax credits conditioned on taking, and keeping, catastrophic care insurance) rather than coercion. People tend to forget his stance--which was quite distinct from Candidate Hillary Clinton's--in their analysis of the issue and what Obama will require in the health care legislation.
What he should do is insist that such a public option--I would suggest one that is designed to be mildly profitable (the profits going toward Mediare/Medicaid), one that is allowed to negotiate better rates with hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceuticals (just as private insurers can do), one that is available to all Americans, one that does not penalize for pre-existing conditions but rewards individuals for specific healthful behaviors, one that scales premiums for the size of deductible, so that it can be a catastrophic-illness only policy or something much more expensive and providing fuller coverage, and finally I recommend that the captive insurer AIG be enlisted to provide distribution support for it--such an option needs to be brought to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote at some stage in the legislative process.
Nothing less would be a change to business as usual; a floor vote for a public option is a requirement for us to believe in this change--even if it loses. Then we'll know which Senators deserve our support--and which deserve to get their support from the insurance lobby.
Obama can not threaten to veto a bill that does not have a public option in it. That will reinforce the stalemate that has already developed. Instead, he will praise the concept of the public option, but emphasize all the other worthy aspects of a potential bill, many of which are essentially agreed upon.
He will not ask for much from Republicans, except to contribute any ideas to achieve the goals he will describe. The bipartisan effort of the Gang of Six Finance Committee Senators is fizzling out, without any real agreement, and with a draft bill that's a non-starter: a mandate to buy, no mandate for employers to provide insurance, and no public option. That draft does have money for health co-ops, which I see as another useful alternative, but no substitute for a properly-constructed public option. He will implicitly endorse the legislative strategy of using the budget reconciliation waiver to the 60 vote requirement in the Senate, which at this point looks like the only way anything real can be accomplished. And, it seems, a lot can be accomplished that way.
I would add one note: Candidate Obama was not in favor of requiring all--by law--to take insurance. I don't think he will support the concept now, either, opting for cleverly-designed incentives (such as reduced prices for pharmaceuticals, tax credits conditioned on taking, and keeping, catastrophic care insurance) rather than coercion. People tend to forget his stance--which was quite distinct from Candidate Hillary Clinton's--in their analysis of the issue and what Obama will require in the health care legislation.
What he should do is insist that such a public option--I would suggest one that is designed to be mildly profitable (the profits going toward Mediare/Medicaid), one that is allowed to negotiate better rates with hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceuticals (just as private insurers can do), one that is available to all Americans, one that does not penalize for pre-existing conditions but rewards individuals for specific healthful behaviors, one that scales premiums for the size of deductible, so that it can be a catastrophic-illness only policy or something much more expensive and providing fuller coverage, and finally I recommend that the captive insurer AIG be enlisted to provide distribution support for it--such an option needs to be brought to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote at some stage in the legislative process.
Nothing less would be a change to business as usual; a floor vote for a public option is a requirement for us to believe in this change--even if it loses. Then we'll know which Senators deserve our support--and which deserve to get their support from the insurance lobby.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Illegal Sports Betting Notes
Why can Americans bet on sports results in Las Vegas, but nowhere else? (OK, there's the rest of Nevada, if you call that somewhere...)
I read somewhere that the Federal law permits an exception for four states. Nevada is one, Delaware another, and I don't know the other two. Delaware recently decided to allow sports betting, but their law was thrown out by the U.S. Courts for some reason.
I would suspect the heavy hand of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid protecting his state, except for one thing: though his hand is heavy, his reach is short--it doesn't even extend very far among the Senators of his own party, much less the courts.
I support the idea of allowing all states to permit sports betting within their states, excluding amateur sports (that would not exclude men's college football or basketball, which are pro in all but name). States could derive much-needed revenue from taxing the profits of the legalized bookie operations. Yes, this is a "stupidity tax", but if it were applied to education (like the lottos and Powerballs) or health care, it would be utilizing stupidity for a good cause.
I think the general Federal aversion to sports betting (excluding Nevada and maybe, if they can get the rules right, three other states) goes back to some betting scandals in the '50's and '60's which took some players down. The laws don't prevent the temptation, or the occasional slip-ups, they just enrich the illegal bookies.
Meanwhile, the online bookies are required to be offshore, and to make good-faith efforts to prevent US persons from participating. These provisions are easily evaded (I won't say how), but I don't do so. Somehow, though, Intrade (which allows legalized betting on non-sports results, which I'm signed up to watch but not play) invited me to work with them. I decided it was some sort of scam and declined.
Event-Specific Notes
I wanted to check the lines on the U.S. Open tennis tournament now in its third day. Ladbroke's (the #1 UK operation; blocked for Americans) had odds on matches that day, even by set, and other nonsense, but didn't have the tournament-championship odds for the men when I checked--I don't know why, but I went to William Hill (#2 in the UK) and they had them. Scaling down the win percentages calculated from the odds to make them add to 100%, you get these: Federer 39, Murray 22, Nadal 11, Djokovic and DelPotro 7.5 each, Roddick 7, Tsonga 2, Soderling 1, Others 4.
Comments on those: Murray's is probably too high because of Brit money, but there is some smart opinion backing him (Agassi and Brad Gilbert, from the TV broadcasters, if I'm not mistaken); Nadal is believed to be unable to run and thus play his game, so that's also probably too high; Federer looks great, but the chances seem about right, as there are several real challengers this year. So, from those odds, I only like the odds on Roddick (he may have been off his Wimbledon form lately, but should rally with the crowd behind him--as it was, he was only a few millimeters behind Federer at Wimbledon) and Soderling (who's proved he can beat anyone if he's hot, and that he has no nerves).
Women's odds (from Ladbrokes, again scaled to 100%--these were taken down after Venus' near-death experience and before Safina's, but they don't seem to have changed anyway): Serena 24, Venus 14, Dementieva 9, Azarenka 8, Clijsters 8, Sharapova 7, Safina 7, Jankovic 5, Kuznetzova 4, Ivanovic (already out), Zvonareva, and Wozniacki 3 each; Stosur 2, Pennetta 1, Bartoli 1, Others 3.
From those quotes, I like bets on Clijsters, Sharapova, Jankovic, and Stosur. And a big one on Serena, of course: I'd say she's more like 50-50 to win it.
English Premier League (also from Ladbrokes, again scaled to 100%): Chelsea 38, Man U. 28, Arsenal 14, Liverpool 10, Manchester City 5, Tottenham 3, Aston Villa 1, All other 1.
None of those quote are crazy. There's a decent chance Man City could organize all their new mercenaries and make a late run for it, but otherwise the only realistic conideration is the usual top 4, and I wouldn't quibble with the relative likelihood of those.
Man U., as three-time defending champs, should deserve the favorite spot, but the loss of Ronaldo is, in fact, a huge blow to their chemistry (as was the shellacking they got from Barca in the Champions League final). Chelsea was threatened by outsiders with big bucks (like Man City, which went after John Terry very hard), but remained largely unscathed, and they look pretty good so far this year. I'd put some money on Chelsea, but really only because they're my team, and I'd put a small flyer on Man City--if they were to pull it off, I'd want some of that action, and I've gotten over my allergy to backing "the best teams money can buy" since Roman Abramovic came to Chelsea.
I draw the line before the Yanks and BoTox, though, of course.
For the record, let's bet an imaginary $2500 as follows: $500 on Roddick @12:1, $100 on Soderling @50:1, $200 each on Sharapova (10:1), Clijsters (8:1), and Jankovic (12:1), $800 on Serena @15:8; $400 on Chelsea @5:4, and $100 on Man City at 14 to 1. The odds quoted here are the ones on the websites, and thus not "fair", but I like their taste just the same.
I read somewhere that the Federal law permits an exception for four states. Nevada is one, Delaware another, and I don't know the other two. Delaware recently decided to allow sports betting, but their law was thrown out by the U.S. Courts for some reason.
I would suspect the heavy hand of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid protecting his state, except for one thing: though his hand is heavy, his reach is short--it doesn't even extend very far among the Senators of his own party, much less the courts.
I support the idea of allowing all states to permit sports betting within their states, excluding amateur sports (that would not exclude men's college football or basketball, which are pro in all but name). States could derive much-needed revenue from taxing the profits of the legalized bookie operations. Yes, this is a "stupidity tax", but if it were applied to education (like the lottos and Powerballs) or health care, it would be utilizing stupidity for a good cause.
I think the general Federal aversion to sports betting (excluding Nevada and maybe, if they can get the rules right, three other states) goes back to some betting scandals in the '50's and '60's which took some players down. The laws don't prevent the temptation, or the occasional slip-ups, they just enrich the illegal bookies.
Meanwhile, the online bookies are required to be offshore, and to make good-faith efforts to prevent US persons from participating. These provisions are easily evaded (I won't say how), but I don't do so. Somehow, though, Intrade (which allows legalized betting on non-sports results, which I'm signed up to watch but not play) invited me to work with them. I decided it was some sort of scam and declined.
Event-Specific Notes
I wanted to check the lines on the U.S. Open tennis tournament now in its third day. Ladbroke's (the #1 UK operation; blocked for Americans) had odds on matches that day, even by set, and other nonsense, but didn't have the tournament-championship odds for the men when I checked--I don't know why, but I went to William Hill (#2 in the UK) and they had them. Scaling down the win percentages calculated from the odds to make them add to 100%, you get these: Federer 39, Murray 22, Nadal 11, Djokovic and DelPotro 7.5 each, Roddick 7, Tsonga 2, Soderling 1, Others 4.
Comments on those: Murray's is probably too high because of Brit money, but there is some smart opinion backing him (Agassi and Brad Gilbert, from the TV broadcasters, if I'm not mistaken); Nadal is believed to be unable to run and thus play his game, so that's also probably too high; Federer looks great, but the chances seem about right, as there are several real challengers this year. So, from those odds, I only like the odds on Roddick (he may have been off his Wimbledon form lately, but should rally with the crowd behind him--as it was, he was only a few millimeters behind Federer at Wimbledon) and Soderling (who's proved he can beat anyone if he's hot, and that he has no nerves).
Women's odds (from Ladbrokes, again scaled to 100%--these were taken down after Venus' near-death experience and before Safina's, but they don't seem to have changed anyway): Serena 24, Venus 14, Dementieva 9, Azarenka 8, Clijsters 8, Sharapova 7, Safina 7, Jankovic 5, Kuznetzova 4, Ivanovic (already out), Zvonareva, and Wozniacki 3 each; Stosur 2, Pennetta 1, Bartoli 1, Others 3.
From those quotes, I like bets on Clijsters, Sharapova, Jankovic, and Stosur. And a big one on Serena, of course: I'd say she's more like 50-50 to win it.
English Premier League (also from Ladbrokes, again scaled to 100%): Chelsea 38, Man U. 28, Arsenal 14, Liverpool 10, Manchester City 5, Tottenham 3, Aston Villa 1, All other 1.
None of those quote are crazy. There's a decent chance Man City could organize all their new mercenaries and make a late run for it, but otherwise the only realistic conideration is the usual top 4, and I wouldn't quibble with the relative likelihood of those.
Man U., as three-time defending champs, should deserve the favorite spot, but the loss of Ronaldo is, in fact, a huge blow to their chemistry (as was the shellacking they got from Barca in the Champions League final). Chelsea was threatened by outsiders with big bucks (like Man City, which went after John Terry very hard), but remained largely unscathed, and they look pretty good so far this year. I'd put some money on Chelsea, but really only because they're my team, and I'd put a small flyer on Man City--if they were to pull it off, I'd want some of that action, and I've gotten over my allergy to backing "the best teams money can buy" since Roman Abramovic came to Chelsea.
I draw the line before the Yanks and BoTox, though, of course.
For the record, let's bet an imaginary $2500 as follows: $500 on Roddick @12:1, $100 on Soderling @50:1, $200 each on Sharapova (10:1), Clijsters (8:1), and Jankovic (12:1), $800 on Serena @15:8; $400 on Chelsea @5:4, and $100 on Man City at 14 to 1. The odds quoted here are the ones on the websites, and thus not "fair", but I like their taste just the same.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Khartoum to Kabul
I just watched the classic 1966 film, "Khartoum", starring Charlton Heston as British freelance General Charles "Chinese" Gordon (and no less than Laurence Olivier as his nemesis, the Mahdi). The movie is a semi-historical epic on the sack of Khartoum in 1895, Gordon's martyrdom, and the difficulties of maintaining a far-flung, overstretched empire in that period. It's got me thinking...
How Afghanistan Can Win
I'm getting a little tired of our military geniuses telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. That kind of myopia is probably the only real similarity between the Afghan conflict and our war in Vietnam.
We can't win in Afghanistan, though we can hope to avoid getting massacred there, like the British in the 1850's, or being chased out at gunpoint, like the Soviets in 1990 (it was their Vietnam, and it was bad enough to help put the kibosh on the Soviet state).
There is really no way that the Taliban can be defeated militarily, and the sooner we realize that, the better. We can "clear and hold" more ground than we have, if we put in more troops, but the more we put in, the less likely we are to get the outcome we want. There isn't going to be a triumphant march through a flower-strewn Kabul bearing Osama Bin Laden's charred corpse, much as it might thrill us.
First of all, he's long gone from Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think he'll come back. That would appear to be Pakistan's problem now (another day's discourse). Second, while we have the best forces in the world, the Afghans are easily good enough to fight us indefinitely, if they choose to. And they will do so, if it becomes a matter of us trying to impose rule on them. Just like when the Soviets tried it.
Third, the Taliban are not the central locus of international terrorism, though they seem to be learning the modern insurgency game very well, the longer we hang around. They committed a major error when they allowed Al Qaeda to operate out of their Afghanistan--their traditional hospitality, gone wrong--and I'm quite sure they know it; it caused them to lose the 90% or so of the country they had painstakingly gained control of. They're not even nationalists, really; they are traditional tribal people with pan-Islamic dreams (like the Mahdi).
We should look at them the way Lincoln looked at the slavers in the South, prior to the secessionist wave leading to the Civil War. We should help the Karzai regime (or its successor) contain them, prevent their expansion, and they will eventually die out as the anachronism they are. Let them come back, and give them a good chunk of the country--one far from Pakistani mischief-makers, away from the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway--and put a fence around it. Nothing comes in or goes out (especially the poppies!), unless it's people leaving their antique thraldom. Inside the Taliban Autonomous Zone, though, they can teach what they want, imprison their daughters (for their own good, of course), chop off hands, whatever.
It's the only way to get peace, and that's what the Afghans want. Otherwise, this thing could drag on for decades (more). After the election gets settled, Holbrooke needs to sit down with Karzai, tell him the limits of American involvement (hint: by 2012, we've got to be below the 47,000 or so Americans we had there when Obama's administration started; this will line up very well with what Karzai wants, too), and figure out how we can make this thing work for the Afghan people.
It's Practically a Slander
The current Newsweek* has on its back page the rhetorical question,"Did Britain Wreck the World?" I call it rhetorical, though they do answer it: "By Jove, it certainly seems that way." That's sarcasm, mockery, but they go on to blame--with a seemingly straight face--the British Empire for "most of today's festering conflicts". They give seven cases: Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Nigeria. In some, those bloody Brits split up countries and caused their problems, in others they combined different ethnic groups and made them.
Look, I'm no apologist for the English (really, I'm not), but this is ridiculous. First, their meddling didn't seem to doom the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand so badly--or, if those are too distant, then look at Singapore, Malaysia, or Ireland--all countries where things were certainly mucked up by the Brits in the 20th century (like all the cases they cited), but they've been able to recover. Actually, India's done pretty well for itself since independence, considering. And I think Egypt was a British colony, too--a lot more of the time than Iraq, Sudan, or Somalia--not that it's perfect or anything. And I'm certain that there were some problems between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors when the residents of Great Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshipping trees: ever hear of David and Goliath?
The Last Empire
Thus was entitled a great set of essays by Gore Vidal, postulating a thesis of American imperialism. Now, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Veedal (as Lily Tomlin used to say it, back in the day, on Laugh In!), but I think he's got this one wrong. With all respect to him, we don't have a clue how to run an empire, never did--not nearly as well as even the British!
When you look at it, the Last Empire is actually probably about the same as the First Empire: It's China. OK, maybe today's empire is a bit more extensive, with a different capital city. I think it's pretty clear when you look at Xinjiang, Tibet, or suzerains like Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan (they wish), maybe even North Korea. It's not that hard to co-exist with the Emperor if you're not a subject: kowtow, and provide tribute. There is the thorny question of assimilation, though: what was it the Borg said (besides "resistance is futile", which certainly also applies)?
As for the US, we're too far away to be considered a part of their domain (not so with Russian Siberia, though, which could become a real problem if the current phase of Beijing engineers gives way to a more warlike imperial court). We have served to replenish the imperial treasury, so we can go on our merry way--globalization was a tactic, they played it very well, but they're really much more concerned with keeping the peace at home. No?
*They don't deserve a link for this one; besides, if they're going to be so lazy as to put out an issue dated "August 24 & 31"...
How Afghanistan Can Win
I'm getting a little tired of our military geniuses telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. That kind of myopia is probably the only real similarity between the Afghan conflict and our war in Vietnam.
We can't win in Afghanistan, though we can hope to avoid getting massacred there, like the British in the 1850's, or being chased out at gunpoint, like the Soviets in 1990 (it was their Vietnam, and it was bad enough to help put the kibosh on the Soviet state).
There is really no way that the Taliban can be defeated militarily, and the sooner we realize that, the better. We can "clear and hold" more ground than we have, if we put in more troops, but the more we put in, the less likely we are to get the outcome we want. There isn't going to be a triumphant march through a flower-strewn Kabul bearing Osama Bin Laden's charred corpse, much as it might thrill us.
First of all, he's long gone from Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think he'll come back. That would appear to be Pakistan's problem now (another day's discourse). Second, while we have the best forces in the world, the Afghans are easily good enough to fight us indefinitely, if they choose to. And they will do so, if it becomes a matter of us trying to impose rule on them. Just like when the Soviets tried it.
Third, the Taliban are not the central locus of international terrorism, though they seem to be learning the modern insurgency game very well, the longer we hang around. They committed a major error when they allowed Al Qaeda to operate out of their Afghanistan--their traditional hospitality, gone wrong--and I'm quite sure they know it; it caused them to lose the 90% or so of the country they had painstakingly gained control of. They're not even nationalists, really; they are traditional tribal people with pan-Islamic dreams (like the Mahdi).
We should look at them the way Lincoln looked at the slavers in the South, prior to the secessionist wave leading to the Civil War. We should help the Karzai regime (or its successor) contain them, prevent their expansion, and they will eventually die out as the anachronism they are. Let them come back, and give them a good chunk of the country--one far from Pakistani mischief-makers, away from the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway--and put a fence around it. Nothing comes in or goes out (especially the poppies!), unless it's people leaving their antique thraldom. Inside the Taliban Autonomous Zone, though, they can teach what they want, imprison their daughters (for their own good, of course), chop off hands, whatever.
It's the only way to get peace, and that's what the Afghans want. Otherwise, this thing could drag on for decades (more). After the election gets settled, Holbrooke needs to sit down with Karzai, tell him the limits of American involvement (hint: by 2012, we've got to be below the 47,000 or so Americans we had there when Obama's administration started; this will line up very well with what Karzai wants, too), and figure out how we can make this thing work for the Afghan people.
It's Practically a Slander
The current Newsweek* has on its back page the rhetorical question,"Did Britain Wreck the World?" I call it rhetorical, though they do answer it: "By Jove, it certainly seems that way." That's sarcasm, mockery, but they go on to blame--with a seemingly straight face--the British Empire for "most of today's festering conflicts". They give seven cases: Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Nigeria. In some, those bloody Brits split up countries and caused their problems, in others they combined different ethnic groups and made them.
Look, I'm no apologist for the English (really, I'm not), but this is ridiculous. First, their meddling didn't seem to doom the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand so badly--or, if those are too distant, then look at Singapore, Malaysia, or Ireland--all countries where things were certainly mucked up by the Brits in the 20th century (like all the cases they cited), but they've been able to recover. Actually, India's done pretty well for itself since independence, considering. And I think Egypt was a British colony, too--a lot more of the time than Iraq, Sudan, or Somalia--not that it's perfect or anything. And I'm certain that there were some problems between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors when the residents of Great Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshipping trees: ever hear of David and Goliath?
The Last Empire
Thus was entitled a great set of essays by Gore Vidal, postulating a thesis of American imperialism. Now, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Veedal (as Lily Tomlin used to say it, back in the day, on Laugh In!), but I think he's got this one wrong. With all respect to him, we don't have a clue how to run an empire, never did--not nearly as well as even the British!
When you look at it, the Last Empire is actually probably about the same as the First Empire: It's China. OK, maybe today's empire is a bit more extensive, with a different capital city. I think it's pretty clear when you look at Xinjiang, Tibet, or suzerains like Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan (they wish), maybe even North Korea. It's not that hard to co-exist with the Emperor if you're not a subject: kowtow, and provide tribute. There is the thorny question of assimilation, though: what was it the Borg said (besides "resistance is futile", which certainly also applies)?
As for the US, we're too far away to be considered a part of their domain (not so with Russian Siberia, though, which could become a real problem if the current phase of Beijing engineers gives way to a more warlike imperial court). We have served to replenish the imperial treasury, so we can go on our merry way--globalization was a tactic, they played it very well, but they're really much more concerned with keeping the peace at home. No?
*They don't deserve a link for this one; besides, if they're going to be so lazy as to put out an issue dated "August 24 & 31"...
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Hail the Fallen Lion
Ted Kennedy's death brings to a close one of the great careers in the Senate, one of the top ten all-time in both longevity and significance.
The Senate is an institution which is very resistant to change and to rapid results of any kind; repeated blows on the anvil are required to make anything of the hot metal piece coming from the forge. Teddy The Hammer was good at that--his legacy in the Senate is marked by consistency, persistence, and the other required element--certain re-election at will.
Kennedy had more than his share of sins to answer for: his penance was staying the course in the Senate and staying true to his causes, on which he represented his family's long-standing, orthodox liberal stances, and his resulting public image is large, gnarly, and sufficiently shiny, like one of those modern-day bronze sculptures with rough features.
Teddy was never quite at the level required for Presidential politics, as his disastrous 1980 campaign to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter showed.
As the untimely death of Mufaza in The Lion King brought danger to his heir and an unworthy immediate successor, there will be someone put into the position in haste, who will not last. The next Kennedy to occupy the seat will emerge sooner or later, we can be sure. Possibly Caroline, who seemed interested in Hillary's seat that was given to another? I think if she took the trouble to run for it, she could win, even if her residency in Massachusetts is questionable or non-existent: sort of a reverse Bobby Kennedy-into-the-Senate-from-NY maneuver.
My prediction just weeks ago that Kennedy and Robert Byrd would rise from their deathbeds to break cloture and secure the public option has, unfortunately, already been proved wrong. I still think their names will memorialize a piece of health-care reform legislation this year. The general thinking is that it will be the whole bill, though with the current thinking that only "reconciliation" bills on health care will get through the Senate this year (budget reconciliation, not at all reconciliations with Republicans), there may not be any single great bill, and it may be done piecemeal. I would still propose that Kennedy's name be featured on the section relating to the public option, which needs his beyond-the-grave support more than any other part.
The Senate is an institution which is very resistant to change and to rapid results of any kind; repeated blows on the anvil are required to make anything of the hot metal piece coming from the forge. Teddy The Hammer was good at that--his legacy in the Senate is marked by consistency, persistence, and the other required element--certain re-election at will.
Kennedy had more than his share of sins to answer for: his penance was staying the course in the Senate and staying true to his causes, on which he represented his family's long-standing, orthodox liberal stances, and his resulting public image is large, gnarly, and sufficiently shiny, like one of those modern-day bronze sculptures with rough features.
Teddy was never quite at the level required for Presidential politics, as his disastrous 1980 campaign to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter showed.
As the untimely death of Mufaza in The Lion King brought danger to his heir and an unworthy immediate successor, there will be someone put into the position in haste, who will not last. The next Kennedy to occupy the seat will emerge sooner or later, we can be sure. Possibly Caroline, who seemed interested in Hillary's seat that was given to another? I think if she took the trouble to run for it, she could win, even if her residency in Massachusetts is questionable or non-existent: sort of a reverse Bobby Kennedy-into-the-Senate-from-NY maneuver.
My prediction just weeks ago that Kennedy and Robert Byrd would rise from their deathbeds to break cloture and secure the public option has, unfortunately, already been proved wrong. I still think their names will memorialize a piece of health-care reform legislation this year. The general thinking is that it will be the whole bill, though with the current thinking that only "reconciliation" bills on health care will get through the Senate this year (budget reconciliation, not at all reconciliations with Republicans), there may not be any single great bill, and it may be done piecemeal. I would still propose that Kennedy's name be featured on the section relating to the public option, which needs his beyond-the-grave support more than any other part.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Letter to "Prius Diary, First Anniversary Edition"
We submitted this honest assessment to the Times this morning.
When we bought our 2003 Prius (aqua blue--bring it back!), the improvement in our gas mileage would in no way pay for the increased cost. We did the math, but wanted to let our wallet speak for our support for the concept.
The hybrid technology is a significant improvement, and the ability to combine various power sources and re-use the kinetic energy from braking is something that will end up changing our world.
In the meantime, we would rate the car as a moderate success: it was not rugged enough for the bad roads here in Taos (particularly the skinny tires), and the gas mileage in town was only 35-40 mpg (the highway mileage was 55 or so, as advertised). We had one major problem in the first year, with the auxiliary battery (which starts the car and its computer systems, and is not rechargeable): after going through a gauntlet of check, re-charge, and re-check, Toyota did come through and gave us a new lithium-ion battery (value reputedly some $3000!) which fixed the problem.
We viewed our oldie hybrid as a collector's item, and one that would actually increase in value. How sad, then, when it was totalled recently in a one-car encounter with a utility pole at about 15 mph.
The federal government should renew for the Prius the credit given for other hybrids: Toyota should not be penalized for the popularity of this model.
When we bought our 2003 Prius (aqua blue--bring it back!), the improvement in our gas mileage would in no way pay for the increased cost. We did the math, but wanted to let our wallet speak for our support for the concept.
The hybrid technology is a significant improvement, and the ability to combine various power sources and re-use the kinetic energy from braking is something that will end up changing our world.
In the meantime, we would rate the car as a moderate success: it was not rugged enough for the bad roads here in Taos (particularly the skinny tires), and the gas mileage in town was only 35-40 mpg (the highway mileage was 55 or so, as advertised). We had one major problem in the first year, with the auxiliary battery (which starts the car and its computer systems, and is not rechargeable): after going through a gauntlet of check, re-charge, and re-check, Toyota did come through and gave us a new lithium-ion battery (value reputedly some $3000!) which fixed the problem.
We viewed our oldie hybrid as a collector's item, and one that would actually increase in value. How sad, then, when it was totalled recently in a one-car encounter with a utility pole at about 15 mph.
The federal government should renew for the Prius the credit given for other hybrids: Toyota should not be penalized for the popularity of this model.
A Bountiful Season
This has been the best growing season I've ever seen in Taos. I'd say it's true since I've first visited here fifteen years ago, though I might've missed something, but it's certainly true since we moved here in 2003.
Far and away. The late spring rains and relatively mild spring frosts have produced a bumper year for everything: first the cherries, then the apricots--my God, the apricots!--now, even the apples, pears, and plums. The Indian plums (generally inedible by humans, except boiled with lots of sugar to make jam) are everywhere--on the Pueblo lands, they're brilliantly crimson. Here in town, where there's more shade, so the sun is less than the 12 hours or so solid out in the open, they are not quite ripe yet. Peaches have been great, too, but they take more water and so mostly come from the valleys below, or from Colorado.
Nobody's complaining here--why would they? Instead, the discussion is about the meaning of this great season in the larger context, if there is one. Take, for example, the piece by Linda Kemper Fair in the Horse Fly of August 15, who shifts in mid-article as quickly as the weather changes
(practically daily, this time of year) from sunny praise of "The Divine Season" to thunder and rain and the politics of global warming.
Of course, we don't know whether this year is simply an outlier--there's plenty of reason to think so--or a harbinger of some permanent change. If we are going to get rain, and lots of it, every May/June, well, there are certainly worse fates. It would be a concern if we traded our winter snows for more reliable greening every summer, only because it would gut the ski season, and presumably thus the tourist trade, which might cut down the building of second homes and eliminate our one reliable source of income: building second homes and making real estate deals around that trade.
On the other hand, if the Upper Rio Grande changes and the downstream lands don't (there's no evidence that Santa Fe or Albuquerque is wearing the green like us), then they'll be coming up to visit us en masse in the future, the way the seem to be doing this summer. That means record traffic jams, people getting mightily annoyed with the town's lazy-fare approach to traffic management, and we'll be the new Espanola: A Town to Endure Driving Through! (start making the signs now)
Another sign of change, and not for the good, is the new football field with its shiny bleachers and colorful Astroturf (puky green, except for the Halloween-ish Taos Tigers' black and garish orange in the end zones). Personally, I can't believe the Horse Fly has come out in favor of this one, though it must be refreshing for their moribund sports department this time of year that there's actually some interest in the football team. What's the justification, anyway, besides money to spend and it's too hard to keep the grass green (or at least it used to be, before this year?)
Far and away. The late spring rains and relatively mild spring frosts have produced a bumper year for everything: first the cherries, then the apricots--my God, the apricots!--now, even the apples, pears, and plums. The Indian plums (generally inedible by humans, except boiled with lots of sugar to make jam) are everywhere--on the Pueblo lands, they're brilliantly crimson. Here in town, where there's more shade, so the sun is less than the 12 hours or so solid out in the open, they are not quite ripe yet. Peaches have been great, too, but they take more water and so mostly come from the valleys below, or from Colorado.
Nobody's complaining here--why would they? Instead, the discussion is about the meaning of this great season in the larger context, if there is one. Take, for example, the piece by Linda Kemper Fair in the Horse Fly of August 15, who shifts in mid-article as quickly as the weather changes
(practically daily, this time of year) from sunny praise of "The Divine Season" to thunder and rain and the politics of global warming.
Of course, we don't know whether this year is simply an outlier--there's plenty of reason to think so--or a harbinger of some permanent change. If we are going to get rain, and lots of it, every May/June, well, there are certainly worse fates. It would be a concern if we traded our winter snows for more reliable greening every summer, only because it would gut the ski season, and presumably thus the tourist trade, which might cut down the building of second homes and eliminate our one reliable source of income: building second homes and making real estate deals around that trade.
On the other hand, if the Upper Rio Grande changes and the downstream lands don't (there's no evidence that Santa Fe or Albuquerque is wearing the green like us), then they'll be coming up to visit us en masse in the future, the way the seem to be doing this summer. That means record traffic jams, people getting mightily annoyed with the town's lazy-fare approach to traffic management, and we'll be the new Espanola: A Town to Endure Driving Through! (start making the signs now)
Another sign of change, and not for the good, is the new football field with its shiny bleachers and colorful Astroturf (puky green, except for the Halloween-ish Taos Tigers' black and garish orange in the end zones). Personally, I can't believe the Horse Fly has come out in favor of this one, though it must be refreshing for their moribund sports department this time of year that there's actually some interest in the football team. What's the justification, anyway, besides money to spend and it's too hard to keep the grass green (or at least it used to be, before this year?)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
You Cannot Keep If You Cannot Get...
...Them Honest
We are talking about the health insurance companies, of course.
Even the Republicans acknowledge that premiums for health insurance, denial of coverage for those covered, and the expansion of the cherry-picking out of people with pre-existing conditions are all out of control. Young people view health insurance as a simple rip-off, in which no care is purchased: you just pay and they take. That's why universal coverage cannot be attained until this mindset is altered, and it must be through a dramatic demonstration of People Power.
The American people are skeptical of the health care reform initiative because they are not convinced that Congress will tame the insurance companies' application of greed to the detriment of our health. That is why the "public option" is so critical: it is the test we require to see if the legislators are sincere about reform.
It is true that a system in which coverage could not be denied for any pre-existing condition, nor excessive premiums imposed, would be a very different situation than the current one, even without a competing public plan. It is difficult for us to believe, though, that such a condition could arise without there being loopholes, caveats, or fine print that would end up playing us for fools--bankrupted, or worse--once again. Our distrust is that deep.
Last Saturday The New York Times ran a fascinating editorial by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. It was fascinating to me because it captured many of the key points I made in my previous posting on this subject: "Is the Public Option Negotiable?" but it got the conclusions terribly wrong.
Points that he correctly addressed include the following:
Thaler asks his readers to perform a thought experiment and try to come up with some area in which the government successfully competes with private industry. He discusses the Post Office vs. the private companies UPS and FedEx (not very originally, as Obama had made a similar argument, for reasons I will never quite understand) and concludes that the government can not compete on level terms.
First, I will admit most companies choose UPS or FedEx "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight", as the ads say. That's OK if you have a big enough budget, but most people can stand for the package to take a couple of days, and then the Post Office is much cheaper. (At least around here.) Proving what, exactly?
Or take another example, flood insurance for the home. There are actually two, non-competing types of flood insurance: the one for properties that will never be flooded--you can get private insurance for those--and the one for places that have a history of flooding, or are on barrier islands. That one you'll only get through the Federal program--the private guys won't touch it. I don't want to get into the policy implications, which are absolutely awful, but it just goes to show: private insurance is for those who don't need it, or will pay extra. When you're talking about health insurance, those rules don't apply. The flood is coming for all of us, and it's not just the rich who need protection.
OK, Thaler admits, there is Medicare, a Federal program that competes quite successfully, but that has different rules, and the public option will have marketing and administrative costs that are different. Actually, that's where the captive insurance company AIG should come into play, with its huge distribution resources, but I'm not sure the world is ready for that one--an insurance company so much in hock to the government it would betray its own industry lobbying strategy!?
Thaler draws the conclusion that the public option is "neither necessary nor sufficient" for health care reform. He has that half right: it really isn't sufficient, but it is necessary, even if he's correct that not that many will take it up. (Initially, anyway.) He advises Republicans to go along with it, if it is sufficiently limited, and Democrats to let it go: I'd say neither are going to take that advice, which is something he should know with his professed knowledge of economics and behavioral science.
It's the PUBLIC Option, Stupid
This can only be settled in one way: publicly. The six Finance Committee senators have to develop a "fair" framework for a public option to compete, that title of the bill has to come to a vote in the Senate, and we will take names: who's with us, and who's with the insurance companies? I don't think a single Democrat would dare to vote against it, and the sixty votes would be found: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd will somehow make it to the floor to vote for that one, and the public option will be renamed the Kennedy-Byrd Plan in honor of their fortitude. It will, eventually, be successful, and the Republicans will be despised, or ignored, for having opposed it so single-mindedly (or nearly so).
I think the Republicans among the Six probably have figured this out, so they have had to dig in their feet to keep anything like a public option coming out of committee. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Like it or not, Obamadmin, this will be the litmus test to see if there is still something that can be called Change We Can Believe In. Or even Change In Which We Can Believe!
We are talking about the health insurance companies, of course.
Even the Republicans acknowledge that premiums for health insurance, denial of coverage for those covered, and the expansion of the cherry-picking out of people with pre-existing conditions are all out of control. Young people view health insurance as a simple rip-off, in which no care is purchased: you just pay and they take. That's why universal coverage cannot be attained until this mindset is altered, and it must be through a dramatic demonstration of People Power.
The American people are skeptical of the health care reform initiative because they are not convinced that Congress will tame the insurance companies' application of greed to the detriment of our health. That is why the "public option" is so critical: it is the test we require to see if the legislators are sincere about reform.
It is true that a system in which coverage could not be denied for any pre-existing condition, nor excessive premiums imposed, would be a very different situation than the current one, even without a competing public plan. It is difficult for us to believe, though, that such a condition could arise without there being loopholes, caveats, or fine print that would end up playing us for fools--bankrupted, or worse--once again. Our distrust is that deep.
Last Saturday The New York Times ran a fascinating editorial by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. It was fascinating to me because it captured many of the key points I made in my previous posting on this subject: "Is the Public Option Negotiable?" but it got the conclusions terribly wrong.
Points that he correctly addressed include the following:
o) The public option must be required to break even (I'd go further and say it should be required to make a modest profit, thus helping with our future Medicare funding problems);
o) Subsidies for the poor to get insurance can not be given preferentially to the public option program over the private insurers;
o) The public option program can not use the same mandated discounts that Medicare uses (this was a provision the Blue Dogs in the House insisted upon before allowing the House bill to go forward, and its absence would be a deal-killer in trying to get many doctors to participate in the program); and
o) Given these limitations, many will choose to keep the insurance they have now, the conclusion being that the public option, thus limited, would not destroy the private health insurance industry, contrary to the claims of its opponents.
Thaler asks his readers to perform a thought experiment and try to come up with some area in which the government successfully competes with private industry. He discusses the Post Office vs. the private companies UPS and FedEx (not very originally, as Obama had made a similar argument, for reasons I will never quite understand) and concludes that the government can not compete on level terms.
First, I will admit most companies choose UPS or FedEx "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight", as the ads say. That's OK if you have a big enough budget, but most people can stand for the package to take a couple of days, and then the Post Office is much cheaper. (At least around here.) Proving what, exactly?
Or take another example, flood insurance for the home. There are actually two, non-competing types of flood insurance: the one for properties that will never be flooded--you can get private insurance for those--and the one for places that have a history of flooding, or are on barrier islands. That one you'll only get through the Federal program--the private guys won't touch it. I don't want to get into the policy implications, which are absolutely awful, but it just goes to show: private insurance is for those who don't need it, or will pay extra. When you're talking about health insurance, those rules don't apply. The flood is coming for all of us, and it's not just the rich who need protection.
OK, Thaler admits, there is Medicare, a Federal program that competes quite successfully, but that has different rules, and the public option will have marketing and administrative costs that are different. Actually, that's where the captive insurance company AIG should come into play, with its huge distribution resources, but I'm not sure the world is ready for that one--an insurance company so much in hock to the government it would betray its own industry lobbying strategy!?
Thaler draws the conclusion that the public option is "neither necessary nor sufficient" for health care reform. He has that half right: it really isn't sufficient, but it is necessary, even if he's correct that not that many will take it up. (Initially, anyway.) He advises Republicans to go along with it, if it is sufficiently limited, and Democrats to let it go: I'd say neither are going to take that advice, which is something he should know with his professed knowledge of economics and behavioral science.
It's the PUBLIC Option, Stupid
This can only be settled in one way: publicly. The six Finance Committee senators have to develop a "fair" framework for a public option to compete, that title of the bill has to come to a vote in the Senate, and we will take names: who's with us, and who's with the insurance companies? I don't think a single Democrat would dare to vote against it, and the sixty votes would be found: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd will somehow make it to the floor to vote for that one, and the public option will be renamed the Kennedy-Byrd Plan in honor of their fortitude. It will, eventually, be successful, and the Republicans will be despised, or ignored, for having opposed it so single-mindedly (or nearly so).
I think the Republicans among the Six probably have figured this out, so they have had to dig in their feet to keep anything like a public option coming out of committee. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Like it or not, Obamadmin, this will be the litmus test to see if there is still something that can be called Change We Can Believe In. Or even Change In Which We Can Believe!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Times in Their Labyrinth
Clearly, we can and will lose many of our local newspapers in coming years. We will regret the loss of jobs, but surely not the reduction of trees so we can read about more car crashes, cops-and-robbers, and human interest/disaster stories. Besides which, all those ugly non-news items will still be out there on YouTube or something.
We can envision a future where there will be five national printed newspapers: some kind of Washington Post/Politico amalgam for the policy wonks; The Wall Street Journal for the wealthy and wannabe-rich Republicans; some kind of L.A.Times/Variety/Billboard amalgam for the entertainment elite and wannabe-famous; the USA Today for ordinary folks, and the Times for the intelligentsia. The Times' problem is that it will remain something of an ivory tower, under frequent attack, isolated...
...But still indispensable. We'd like to review three recent cases in which the Times proved its value once again as the serious paper of record:
Case 1--Barack Obama's op-ed on the health care debate Sunday: It is not that he said anything new or original in it; it was basically the stump speech he has been delivering in recent weeks. He was entirely silent on the key topic of the moment, the "public option" (see my previous post). But there is his argument, undoctored and without commentary, for those too busy to have paid attention previously. Best of all, especially for those folks, there is the cute label at the bottom, in italics: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States." OK for putting that on record!
Case 2--Also in Sunday's paper, a long study--entitled "Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?"--of a brilliant man and his method of predicting future outcomes of complex human coalitions with dynamic, quantitative game-theory methods.
Although clearly he would dismiss me as a practitioner of rank speculation and whimsy (see our post), even worse as an insignificant, non-commercial practitioner, I claim Bueno de Mesquita as a kindred spirit. He has immaculately dressed up what I often try to do on this blog--carefully examining the key players, their desired outcomes, and their ability to effect the same, and then coming up with a most likely scenario--and he has sold it for big money to the CIA and other big-time clients, and he claims the track record to back it up. At the least, he's a role model.
By the way, his prediction is that Iran will move all the way to be fully ready to explode a bomb--then stop. I would endorse that prediction: the best result for Iran is not having the bomb--which will backfire against them, which violates everything its leaders have repeatedly stated--but showing they can do it, on brief notice, if they decide they do need it.
Case 3--In the next 48 hours (as we write on August 19), Afghanistan is having a Presidential election. The outcome, at one level, seems fairly certain--the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, should win, either with 50%+ of the votes in the first round, or in a runoff against his top opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Times has used this event, though--which we can only hope will come off with a minimum of violence, and with a maximum of integrity as compared with the similar, recent event in Iran--as the occasion to educate us all about this complex, hopeless country in which we are investing so much while knowing so little.
A lengthy article in last Sunday's Times Magazine, "President Karzai in his Labyrinth", is an indictment of Karzai's administration as being ineffective, hopelessly compromised with its tolerance of warlordism, corrupted by the opium trade, and Karzai personally as being oblivious, complacent, and far too isolated.
I went on record a long time ago about President Karzai: I felt that we (the US, and the anti-Taliban world in general) were extremely fortunate in finding Karzai and arranging for him to be put into his position. I still feel that way. Karzai is personally uncorrupted, incredibly courageous, sincerely concerned for his people, and determined to see his government victorious and surviving this long battle against the Taliban in order to preserve its legitimacy and as much of his people's freedoms as possible. He will win because he is clearly the symbol of the Pashtun majority's desire for a unified Afghan state, and the Afghanis will be unhappy with him because their state is such a mess.
Of course, Karzai is trapped in a difficult security situation: how many assassination attempts has he survived? (answer: plenty) When he leaves his capital, his life depends on these warlords he has to tolerate, first because he doesn't have the power to supplant them (the current ferocious battle for Helmand Province seems clearly the result of trying to do so there) and secondly because he's been told to tolerate them by his American military/economic backers.
A second Times article published more recently featured the third-most prominent of the many candidates in the election, Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister in Karzai's government but now a severe critic. It just showed that there are other prominent, educated Pashtun candidates, ones we might prefer except for the fact that they have even less of a power base or popular support, and just how difficult it would be for anyone else to do Karzai's job. Ghani's support is estimated at about 5%, so he's unlikely even to be close to making it into a runoff election if there were to be one.
The bottom line is that Karzai will win but, in the best case, it will not help much. Afghanistan clearly shows the limitations of what one person--even with sterling qualities, unlimited energy, and the best intentions--can do without adequate support (Barack Obama may end up also showing that, but that will be for another day's argument). Karzai will be empowered to stay in office for a couple more years (assuming he can dodge the future assassination attempts), then he can start negotiating, a la al-Maliki in Iraq, for the foreigners to go under the best terms possible.
Do I need to spell out the similarities between Hamid Karzai and the New York Times?
We can envision a future where there will be five national printed newspapers: some kind of Washington Post/Politico amalgam for the policy wonks; The Wall Street Journal for the wealthy and wannabe-rich Republicans; some kind of L.A.Times/Variety/Billboard amalgam for the entertainment elite and wannabe-famous; the USA Today for ordinary folks, and the Times for the intelligentsia. The Times' problem is that it will remain something of an ivory tower, under frequent attack, isolated...
...But still indispensable. We'd like to review three recent cases in which the Times proved its value once again as the serious paper of record:
Case 1--Barack Obama's op-ed on the health care debate Sunday: It is not that he said anything new or original in it; it was basically the stump speech he has been delivering in recent weeks. He was entirely silent on the key topic of the moment, the "public option" (see my previous post). But there is his argument, undoctored and without commentary, for those too busy to have paid attention previously. Best of all, especially for those folks, there is the cute label at the bottom, in italics: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States." OK for putting that on record!
Case 2--Also in Sunday's paper, a long study--entitled "Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?"--of a brilliant man and his method of predicting future outcomes of complex human coalitions with dynamic, quantitative game-theory methods.
Although clearly he would dismiss me as a practitioner of rank speculation and whimsy (see our post), even worse as an insignificant, non-commercial practitioner, I claim Bueno de Mesquita as a kindred spirit. He has immaculately dressed up what I often try to do on this blog--carefully examining the key players, their desired outcomes, and their ability to effect the same, and then coming up with a most likely scenario--and he has sold it for big money to the CIA and other big-time clients, and he claims the track record to back it up. At the least, he's a role model.
By the way, his prediction is that Iran will move all the way to be fully ready to explode a bomb--then stop. I would endorse that prediction: the best result for Iran is not having the bomb--which will backfire against them, which violates everything its leaders have repeatedly stated--but showing they can do it, on brief notice, if they decide they do need it.
Case 3--In the next 48 hours (as we write on August 19), Afghanistan is having a Presidential election. The outcome, at one level, seems fairly certain--the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, should win, either with 50%+ of the votes in the first round, or in a runoff against his top opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Times has used this event, though--which we can only hope will come off with a minimum of violence, and with a maximum of integrity as compared with the similar, recent event in Iran--as the occasion to educate us all about this complex, hopeless country in which we are investing so much while knowing so little.
A lengthy article in last Sunday's Times Magazine, "President Karzai in his Labyrinth", is an indictment of Karzai's administration as being ineffective, hopelessly compromised with its tolerance of warlordism, corrupted by the opium trade, and Karzai personally as being oblivious, complacent, and far too isolated.
I went on record a long time ago about President Karzai: I felt that we (the US, and the anti-Taliban world in general) were extremely fortunate in finding Karzai and arranging for him to be put into his position. I still feel that way. Karzai is personally uncorrupted, incredibly courageous, sincerely concerned for his people, and determined to see his government victorious and surviving this long battle against the Taliban in order to preserve its legitimacy and as much of his people's freedoms as possible. He will win because he is clearly the symbol of the Pashtun majority's desire for a unified Afghan state, and the Afghanis will be unhappy with him because their state is such a mess.
Of course, Karzai is trapped in a difficult security situation: how many assassination attempts has he survived? (answer: plenty) When he leaves his capital, his life depends on these warlords he has to tolerate, first because he doesn't have the power to supplant them (the current ferocious battle for Helmand Province seems clearly the result of trying to do so there) and secondly because he's been told to tolerate them by his American military/economic backers.
A second Times article published more recently featured the third-most prominent of the many candidates in the election, Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister in Karzai's government but now a severe critic. It just showed that there are other prominent, educated Pashtun candidates, ones we might prefer except for the fact that they have even less of a power base or popular support, and just how difficult it would be for anyone else to do Karzai's job. Ghani's support is estimated at about 5%, so he's unlikely even to be close to making it into a runoff election if there were to be one.
The bottom line is that Karzai will win but, in the best case, it will not help much. Afghanistan clearly shows the limitations of what one person--even with sterling qualities, unlimited energy, and the best intentions--can do without adequate support (Barack Obama may end up also showing that, but that will be for another day's argument). Karzai will be empowered to stay in office for a couple more years (assuming he can dodge the future assassination attempts), then he can start negotiating, a la al-Maliki in Iraq, for the foreigners to go under the best terms possible.
Do I need to spell out the similarities between Hamid Karzai and the New York Times?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Obama and the U.N. General Assembly
Credo asked me to vote among five choices on the question, "What message should President Obama deliver to the world at the UN General Assembly?"
Choices were: Security; Climate Change; Millennium Development Goals; Treaties; Multilateralism.
Then, they provided a forum for me to comment on Facebook.
Here's my comment:
I think that Obama will and should mention the climate change goals--the U.S. legislation, weak as it may be, and leadership at the Copenhagen conference in developing new worldwide objectives and policies. More important, though, and more likely to be underplayed in his speech is that he feature the Millennium Development objectives, so that's what I voted for.
I'd like to suggest something else of enduring importance, one that specifically concerns the U.N. as an organization and does not get much attention here in the U.S.: the need for general reform of the U.N. Charter, and specifically to expand the Security Council. The U.S. should go on record as favoring the expansion of the Security Council by four seats: permanent ones for Brazil, India, and Japan, as well as one to be shared in alternate years by Germany and Turkey. Most ambitiously, he should suggest the notion that the Security Council move to Jerusalem (!) and pledge a battalion of U.S. Marines to defend its security. That would be a Wow! moment the world would never forget.
Finally, if he believes in it, Obama should declare his personal support for a new, democratically-elected assembly to replace the UNESCO organization. Constituencies for this new body should be set up to cross national boundaries, consider ethnic group representation, and the quality of electoral participation should be monitored by a new Electoral Supervision Agency;the U.N. should, for the first time, assist the world in moving toward participatory democracy.
I'm sure that's more than Credo asked for; more than Obama would want to hear; and more than my compatriots would sign up for. But, there it is: what I think he should say.
Choices were: Security; Climate Change; Millennium Development Goals; Treaties; Multilateralism.
Then, they provided a forum for me to comment on Facebook.
Here's my comment:
I think that Obama will and should mention the climate change goals--the U.S. legislation, weak as it may be, and leadership at the Copenhagen conference in developing new worldwide objectives and policies. More important, though, and more likely to be underplayed in his speech is that he feature the Millennium Development objectives, so that's what I voted for.
I'd like to suggest something else of enduring importance, one that specifically concerns the U.N. as an organization and does not get much attention here in the U.S.: the need for general reform of the U.N. Charter, and specifically to expand the Security Council. The U.S. should go on record as favoring the expansion of the Security Council by four seats: permanent ones for Brazil, India, and Japan, as well as one to be shared in alternate years by Germany and Turkey. Most ambitiously, he should suggest the notion that the Security Council move to Jerusalem (!) and pledge a battalion of U.S. Marines to defend its security. That would be a Wow! moment the world would never forget.
Finally, if he believes in it, Obama should declare his personal support for a new, democratically-elected assembly to replace the UNESCO organization. Constituencies for this new body should be set up to cross national boundaries, consider ethnic group representation, and the quality of electoral participation should be monitored by a new Electoral Supervision Agency;the U.N. should, for the first time, assist the world in moving toward participatory democracy.
I'm sure that's more than Credo asked for; more than Obama would want to hear; and more than my compatriots would sign up for. But, there it is: what I think he should say.
Sen. Bingaman's Secret Mission
Our state's veteran Senator Jeff Bingaman is in a privileged position in key committees. Right now, he's one of the six Finance Committee members who have been meeting daily to try to work out a bipartisan version of the health bill.
So, why is it that in his most recent update to his constituents he only talks about the health pork he's obtained for us, and not his vital role in bringing health care reform to all of us?
The suspicion rises that it's because he's busy selling us out, and the liberal mobilization groups have been agitating for me to call and put pressure on him.
Following up, I checked his website for his position on health care It turns out that he has a fairly orthodox liberal position on the health care reform bill, and is strongly in favor of the public option (unlike the other two Dems in the secret panel, Committee Chairman Baucus--reputedly the Senator receiving the most contributions from the insurance industry--and "give us co-ops or give us death" Kent Conrad).
What is he up to, and why doesn't he come clean to us about it? If I were him, I'd be seriously thinking about walking out and denouncing the effort as a fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
I'm sure he's just trying to get the best, most probable, favorable outcome, but I don't think that crew is going to allow it to come out.
http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090619-01.cfm
So, why is it that in his most recent update to his constituents he only talks about the health pork he's obtained for us, and not his vital role in bringing health care reform to all of us?
The suspicion rises that it's because he's busy selling us out, and the liberal mobilization groups have been agitating for me to call and put pressure on him.
Following up, I checked his website for his position on health care It turns out that he has a fairly orthodox liberal position on the health care reform bill, and is strongly in favor of the public option (unlike the other two Dems in the secret panel, Committee Chairman Baucus--reputedly the Senator receiving the most contributions from the insurance industry--and "give us co-ops or give us death" Kent Conrad).
What is he up to, and why doesn't he come clean to us about it? If I were him, I'd be seriously thinking about walking out and denouncing the effort as a fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
I'm sure he's just trying to get the best, most probable, favorable outcome, but I don't think that crew is going to allow it to come out.
http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090619-01.cfm
Why I Love Ricola
This was posted on the I Love Ricola Facebook site, accessed through ilovericola.com:
Live Longer & Happier with Ricola Pearls!
Cigarette smoking cessation programs give lots of attention to nicotine addiction, and how to break or supplant that. My experience with them, however, is that they overlook other key aspects of smoking and its effects, and that omission makes it harder to quit successfully.
I have to give my consumption of Ricola Pearls much of the credit for successfully quitting smoking some 15 years ago--ever since, I gratefully buy them whenever and wherever I can.
First, there's what the shrinks call the "oral fixation". The smoking quitter needs--wants--something to take its place. Ricola Pearls gave me that satisfaction--without sugar, without messy substitutes like chewing gum.
There is an even more important benefit that I got from the Pearls, one many fear to mention. Smoking is a powerful laxative, and the quitter often suffers from severe constipation. Pearls' gentle laxative properties helped immeasurably.
P.S. Also with airlandings!
The site severely limited the number of characters in my post. I would add: 1) Ricola Pearls are now very hard to find in the US, outside of the NYC area, but are plentiful in the bodegas of East Asia; and 2) the bit about landings is that chewing the Pearls (also known as "Breath Mints", but crucially, the ones without sugar that are semi-soft) helps equalize pressure in the ears as one rides in a plane landing, and then afterwards to recover full hearing in the airport and thereafter.
Finally, the post did have a commercial motive--there's some sort of prize offered--but it is entirely true, and there's no financial reward here on the blog, of course.
Live Longer & Happier with Ricola Pearls!
Cigarette smoking cessation programs give lots of attention to nicotine addiction, and how to break or supplant that. My experience with them, however, is that they overlook other key aspects of smoking and its effects, and that omission makes it harder to quit successfully.
I have to give my consumption of Ricola Pearls much of the credit for successfully quitting smoking some 15 years ago--ever since, I gratefully buy them whenever and wherever I can.
First, there's what the shrinks call the "oral fixation". The smoking quitter needs--wants--something to take its place. Ricola Pearls gave me that satisfaction--without sugar, without messy substitutes like chewing gum.
There is an even more important benefit that I got from the Pearls, one many fear to mention. Smoking is a powerful laxative, and the quitter often suffers from severe constipation. Pearls' gentle laxative properties helped immeasurably.
P.S. Also with airlandings!
The site severely limited the number of characters in my post. I would add: 1) Ricola Pearls are now very hard to find in the US, outside of the NYC area, but are plentiful in the bodegas of East Asia; and 2) the bit about landings is that chewing the Pearls (also known as "Breath Mints", but crucially, the ones without sugar that are semi-soft) helps equalize pressure in the ears as one rides in a plane landing, and then afterwards to recover full hearing in the airport and thereafter.
Finally, the post did have a commercial motive--there's some sort of prize offered--but it is entirely true, and there's no financial reward here on the blog, of course.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
What We Are Not, and What We Are
This is the piece I need to do, about once a year, in which I take a close look at what we're trying to do here, and why. We need to set ground rules for ourselves--which we'll try not to break unless we give notice--and keep ourselves motivated and our dear readers' expectations managed..
We Are Not the News
The main problem with trying to do news here is that we don't have the time to provide immediate, fact-checked reporting. We will take our time, think once or twice, research as much as we need to do to feel right about what we're writing, and do exactly as much editing as we want. So don't expect me to be all over the latest event.
Much less are we going to be a local news reporter; we have too little appreciation for the trade, and much too much respect for the local powers of retribution. Crime and punishment, real estate development, and the tourism trade are three subjects we cannot abide, and that will eliminate 90% of any local stories, anyway. As for the others, they're probably in litigation, or else, in the case of the scandal called our public schools, I have no information beyond what's in the local newspaper.
We Are Not In Anyone's PocketWe aren't offered, nor are we taking, any ads, any sponsorship of any kind. We can endorse people, policies, artistic endeavors, articles, or sports teams for that matter, but we'll do it because that's what we want, not because of any binding agreements or requirements. We aren't getting paid.
We Ain't the Elements of Style
I always hated Strunk and White, and this is part of my revenge. Yes, there are typos here and there, and passive voice, and sentence fragments. We're trying to write like people talk (not "as people talk")--OK, how educated people talk. The typos have increased, no doubt, as we moved from desktop with large monitor to the Dell Inspiron Mini (see if you can guess when!) It's a small price to pay, though, as I see it, which is with the laptop perched on my lap, feet up, in the easy chair, in front of the TV: I'll spend a lot more time with the blog, so hopefully a net benefit to all.
These Are Our Politics
I remember shooting the breeze late one work evening (would've been about 1994) with Hamid Biglari (physicist of Afghan background, turned finance guru)*--for some reason he asked me to characterize my politics, and I said "Utopian Progressive". He thought that was pretty amusing--first, that a guy in banking could be so far from the mainstream, second that I would admit it.
I supported the re-branding of liberals as "progressives" in later years: they needed to get rid of that late-19th-century ball-and-chain. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them in my camp, though. What we share, hopefully, is an understanding that the arc of human destiny is away from the struggle-then-die mode which has characterized most peoples' lives for most of our history (and prehistory), toward something presumably better for more of us, more of the time.
Our politics are, and intend always to be in this blog, guided by three principles: internationalist, futurist, and humanist. With regard to the first, it's not about globalization of trade--which may be a useful tool for development, but is not the objective in itself. We aim to take the broad view, the long view, and to put the course of the collective project of humanity above all else. Feel free to hold me to this.
Yes, we're one of those big, nasty "secular humanists" your pastor may have warned you about. Hey now baby, get into my big black car/ I wanna just show you/ What my politics are.
"Politician", from Cream: Goodbye
We Are a Monthly of Informed Speculation and Whimsy
That mission statement should be pretty much self-explanatory. The blog contents are ordered by month; what's posted intra-month is provisional. After the month is over (plus a couple of days), I generally won't go back and change what's out there (if I do, I'll put it in a comment).
We Have a Record, but We're Not Breaking Any
Our goals are fairly modest: express ourselves on the subjects we choose, clarify our thinking, hopefully persuade a few people around the margins. We welcome dialogue, though few have chosen to sully the pristine contents of our pages with their inputs. In particular, we'd love for readers to point out our past errors--and correct analysis and predictions, if any--and any inconsistencies. We may try a bit more self-promotion in other forums to try to bring in more readers, but just doing this blog is pretty heavy promotion of self, as it is.
*Shameless namedropping, yes: Last I heard, Biglari was the head of McKinsey's financial practice, but this was his first consultancy project. I praise his success, and hope he hasn't gotten himself into too much trouble these days.
We Are Not the News
The main problem with trying to do news here is that we don't have the time to provide immediate, fact-checked reporting. We will take our time, think once or twice, research as much as we need to do to feel right about what we're writing, and do exactly as much editing as we want. So don't expect me to be all over the latest event.
Much less are we going to be a local news reporter; we have too little appreciation for the trade, and much too much respect for the local powers of retribution. Crime and punishment, real estate development, and the tourism trade are three subjects we cannot abide, and that will eliminate 90% of any local stories, anyway. As for the others, they're probably in litigation, or else, in the case of the scandal called our public schools, I have no information beyond what's in the local newspaper.
We Are Not In Anyone's PocketWe aren't offered, nor are we taking, any ads, any sponsorship of any kind. We can endorse people, policies, artistic endeavors, articles, or sports teams for that matter, but we'll do it because that's what we want, not because of any binding agreements or requirements. We aren't getting paid.
We Ain't the Elements of Style
I always hated Strunk and White, and this is part of my revenge. Yes, there are typos here and there, and passive voice, and sentence fragments. We're trying to write like people talk (not "as people talk")--OK, how educated people talk. The typos have increased, no doubt, as we moved from desktop with large monitor to the Dell Inspiron Mini (see if you can guess when!) It's a small price to pay, though, as I see it, which is with the laptop perched on my lap, feet up, in the easy chair, in front of the TV: I'll spend a lot more time with the blog, so hopefully a net benefit to all.
These Are Our Politics
I remember shooting the breeze late one work evening (would've been about 1994) with Hamid Biglari (physicist of Afghan background, turned finance guru)*--for some reason he asked me to characterize my politics, and I said "Utopian Progressive". He thought that was pretty amusing--first, that a guy in banking could be so far from the mainstream, second that I would admit it.
I supported the re-branding of liberals as "progressives" in later years: they needed to get rid of that late-19th-century ball-and-chain. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them in my camp, though. What we share, hopefully, is an understanding that the arc of human destiny is away from the struggle-then-die mode which has characterized most peoples' lives for most of our history (and prehistory), toward something presumably better for more of us, more of the time.
Our politics are, and intend always to be in this blog, guided by three principles: internationalist, futurist, and humanist. With regard to the first, it's not about globalization of trade--which may be a useful tool for development, but is not the objective in itself. We aim to take the broad view, the long view, and to put the course of the collective project of humanity above all else. Feel free to hold me to this.
Yes, we're one of those big, nasty "secular humanists" your pastor may have warned you about. Hey now baby, get into my big black car/ I wanna just show you/ What my politics are.
"Politician", from Cream: Goodbye
We Are a Monthly of Informed Speculation and Whimsy
That mission statement should be pretty much self-explanatory. The blog contents are ordered by month; what's posted intra-month is provisional. After the month is over (plus a couple of days), I generally won't go back and change what's out there (if I do, I'll put it in a comment).
We Have a Record, but We're Not Breaking Any
Our goals are fairly modest: express ourselves on the subjects we choose, clarify our thinking, hopefully persuade a few people around the margins. We welcome dialogue, though few have chosen to sully the pristine contents of our pages with their inputs. In particular, we'd love for readers to point out our past errors--and correct analysis and predictions, if any--and any inconsistencies. We may try a bit more self-promotion in other forums to try to bring in more readers, but just doing this blog is pretty heavy promotion of self, as it is.
*Shameless namedropping, yes: Last I heard, Biglari was the head of McKinsey's financial practice, but this was his first consultancy project. I praise his success, and hope he hasn't gotten himself into too much trouble these days.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Make It So: Oh-Ten
The other day I spotted a Talking Head referring to both "Oh-nine and oh-ten". A minute or two later, he had another opportunity to say it, but caught himself and said, paraphrasing here, "oh-nine and two-thousand-ten", awkwardly. Clearly, he had become aware in the intervening moments of his error and wanted to say it the right way.
I think he had it right the first time. All that debate we used to have about whether this decade would be referred to as the "oughts" or "zeroes" or whatever has subsided in favor of the "O's"--this is the "O Decade", as last year's election should have made abundantly clear.
So, "o-eight", "o-nine", "o-ten"--I like it, but why stop there?--"o-eleven", and so on until we get to twenty. I dig it.
After all, it's not a mistake: if you take the initial 2 for granted, it's a legitimate way of looking at the date--a long term view that goes beyond a mere century as the frame of reference. After all, we are going to need to refer to the carbon dioxide level of "oh-seventy" for quite a while (after we have to put back our net global reduction targets from "ofifty" (my preferred spelling).
I think he had it right the first time. All that debate we used to have about whether this decade would be referred to as the "oughts" or "zeroes" or whatever has subsided in favor of the "O's"--this is the "O Decade", as last year's election should have made abundantly clear.
So, "o-eight", "o-nine", "o-ten"--I like it, but why stop there?--"o-eleven", and so on until we get to twenty. I dig it.
After all, it's not a mistake: if you take the initial 2 for granted, it's a legitimate way of looking at the date--a long term view that goes beyond a mere century as the frame of reference. After all, we are going to need to refer to the carbon dioxide level of "oh-seventy" for quite a while (after we have to put back our net global reduction targets from "ofifty" (my preferred spelling).
Friday, July 31, 2009
3 Bad Sprots Puns
45 Straight: A Burly Mark
The new major league record of 15 consecutive innings' worth of pitching perfection this week was a great accomplishment for a perfectly accomplished pitcher. Mark Buehrle has long been recognized as having superstar talent, and this record is clear evidence of that (with a word from D. Wise--he certainly had something to say about it--notwithstanding).
Anything over the 38 or so that Harvey Haddix achieved in the not-quite-perfect 13-inning loss in 1959 is amazing to me. Buehrle has something more to show in the record book, a solid, asterisk-less perfect game last week in a key game against the Detroit Tigers. The consecutive batters retired record is one of natural appeal which has never gotten much attention, until now.
Suit Yourself
That's what Michael Phelps should say to the swimming world, and take a break until the ban on the new cheat suits takes effect--it will be next year, the suits of swimming-dom are saying right now. Phelps has been taunted for taking a pass on the new, extra-buoyant and unnatural swimming attire going round the World Championships. The result of the new suits, which take inordinately long to prepare, have proven beyond doubt how critical suit buoyancy can be to world-class performance, where success and abject failure are divided by tenths of seconds, or less.
This world championships has had literally incredible numbers of world records. Not proof in themselves of unfairness, but several of the records have come from folks coming out of nowhere at the championship level in the new suits.
This looks to be a near-obvious asterisk situation; clearly the international swimming institution (I've read it's called FINA, though that means nothing to me--I thought that was a nearly-extinct Italian gasoline brand) got sandbagged and will have to do so some serious backtracking. Buoyancy is soon going to be one of those performance characteristics governed directly, like carburetion in auto racing.
Phelps should finish the meet, then take a break, and see how things play out. At this point, he has much more to offer the sport than it him. He's been penalized for excessive fame recently; now he must allow himself to be penalized for his loyalty to his sponsoring brand.
Sam Shows 'Er Form
We watched the first two sets of the Samantha Stosur ("Sam") vs. Serena Williams match, then went to dinner. Stosur was rocking the best serve I've seen from a woman: wicked low kick serve, delivered from an incredible angle behind her head, with well-hidden direction. Serena looked disgusted with her game, rusty, low in energy. Still, the commentators all emphasized how--in this type of match, implicitly--Serena pulls them out with fire and intimidation, even when her quality of tennis suffers. They also commented how the outcome of her matches is always about Serena's quality of play--when she's on her game, there's no one who can beat her (well, maybe Venus or Maria--Shaparova).
I guess of the two contradictory fatuous observations, the second one was operable today. Serena lost 6-2 in the third, which is at least consistent with the theory that she can't lose when on her game. She was certainly off, in this first of the US Open prep series, but Stosur is now officially a contender. I just hope she's legit (no performance enhancement by illicit means), as her improvement seems almost too great.
As for the men, going into this series of US hardcourt matches Andy Roddick has to be considered a co-favorite with Federer and Nadal--even if Rafa is fully back by the US Open.
The new major league record of 15 consecutive innings' worth of pitching perfection this week was a great accomplishment for a perfectly accomplished pitcher. Mark Buehrle has long been recognized as having superstar talent, and this record is clear evidence of that (with a word from D. Wise--he certainly had something to say about it--notwithstanding).
Anything over the 38 or so that Harvey Haddix achieved in the not-quite-perfect 13-inning loss in 1959 is amazing to me. Buehrle has something more to show in the record book, a solid, asterisk-less perfect game last week in a key game against the Detroit Tigers. The consecutive batters retired record is one of natural appeal which has never gotten much attention, until now.
Suit Yourself
That's what Michael Phelps should say to the swimming world, and take a break until the ban on the new cheat suits takes effect--it will be next year, the suits of swimming-dom are saying right now. Phelps has been taunted for taking a pass on the new, extra-buoyant and unnatural swimming attire going round the World Championships. The result of the new suits, which take inordinately long to prepare, have proven beyond doubt how critical suit buoyancy can be to world-class performance, where success and abject failure are divided by tenths of seconds, or less.
This world championships has had literally incredible numbers of world records. Not proof in themselves of unfairness, but several of the records have come from folks coming out of nowhere at the championship level in the new suits.
This looks to be a near-obvious asterisk situation; clearly the international swimming institution (I've read it's called FINA, though that means nothing to me--I thought that was a nearly-extinct Italian gasoline brand) got sandbagged and will have to do so some serious backtracking. Buoyancy is soon going to be one of those performance characteristics governed directly, like carburetion in auto racing.
Phelps should finish the meet, then take a break, and see how things play out. At this point, he has much more to offer the sport than it him. He's been penalized for excessive fame recently; now he must allow himself to be penalized for his loyalty to his sponsoring brand.
Sam Shows 'Er Form
We watched the first two sets of the Samantha Stosur ("Sam") vs. Serena Williams match, then went to dinner. Stosur was rocking the best serve I've seen from a woman: wicked low kick serve, delivered from an incredible angle behind her head, with well-hidden direction. Serena looked disgusted with her game, rusty, low in energy. Still, the commentators all emphasized how--in this type of match, implicitly--Serena pulls them out with fire and intimidation, even when her quality of tennis suffers. They also commented how the outcome of her matches is always about Serena's quality of play--when she's on her game, there's no one who can beat her (well, maybe Venus or Maria--Shaparova).
I guess of the two contradictory fatuous observations, the second one was operable today. Serena lost 6-2 in the third, which is at least consistent with the theory that she can't lose when on her game. She was certainly off, in this first of the US Open prep series, but Stosur is now officially a contender. I just hope she's legit (no performance enhancement by illicit means), as her improvement seems almost too great.
As for the men, going into this series of US hardcourt matches Andy Roddick has to be considered a co-favorite with Federer and Nadal--even if Rafa is fully back by the US Open.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama the Hamiltonian
The birthers are raving lunatics and mostly driven by racist or xenophobic motives, but I will give them credit for one thing, and that is giving me a nod toward the identity of the best historical predecessor to Obama I've found yet. I'm speaking of Alexander Hamilton, known primarily as the first Secretary of the Treasury (and for being on the $10).*
Apart from the tenner, Hamilton is given short shrift in modern American history, because he was never President and because a duel with Aaron Burr cut short his life/career. However, he was a Founding Father of the first order, Washington's most trusted lieutenant (both in government and in the Continental Army), and a major participant in the Federalist Papers, which were the critical public (if anonymous) debate in the process of the passage of the Constitution by the states (note the need for such in the current health care debate).
Obama's approach is certainly Hamiltonian in his view of the Federal government as the public sponsor of the private banking system, of an active central government (as opposed to the states' rights view which predominated at the time, or to a pure libertarian/conservative view of the central government's role, today's chief opposing philosophy to the Obamaian). Further, Hamilton is considered the most poised, articulate, and clever speaker and writer of his age (which is saying something, with Jefferson in the picture), just as Obama may be today.
We don't know that much about a Hamiltonian mode of governing, though, because of the lack of any Hamilton Administration. It wasn't the duel, really, that kept Hamilton from the White House (particularly in 1796, when Washington exited); it was the Constitution. The sentence governing citizenship and eligibility for America's top office was specifically crafted to exclude Hamilton, who had many enemies.
Hamilton became an American citizen, and was as loyal as any other, but he wss born a British subject in the West Indies. And everyone knew it; that's why the Presidency is limited to natural-born citizens. That phrase, about which there is considerable confusion, means that the person must have been a citizen at birth, not becoming one by means of naturalization. That means Arnold Schwarzenegger is out, unless he can get a Constitutional amendment.
Obama, of course, was born in Hawaii, which had just become a state. (Even if Hawaii hadn't--become a state yet, that is--being born in a US Territory is good enough: as per the case of John McCain, no less).**
There isn't really any debate about Obama's being a natural-born citizen. It's just that the artificially-birthed controversy about it reminded me of the Hamilton Exclusion.
*Other American historical figures for whom one can make plausible arguments for similarities in key respects with Obama include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and, of course, Lincoln.
** For the factoid that McCain was born in the Canal Zone--US territory at the time, though no more, I must thank my friend Muhammad Cohen (and see his blog, and novel, Hong Kong on Air, hopefully coming soon to a theater near you).
Apart from the tenner, Hamilton is given short shrift in modern American history, because he was never President and because a duel with Aaron Burr cut short his life/career. However, he was a Founding Father of the first order, Washington's most trusted lieutenant (both in government and in the Continental Army), and a major participant in the Federalist Papers, which were the critical public (if anonymous) debate in the process of the passage of the Constitution by the states (note the need for such in the current health care debate).
Obama's approach is certainly Hamiltonian in his view of the Federal government as the public sponsor of the private banking system, of an active central government (as opposed to the states' rights view which predominated at the time, or to a pure libertarian/conservative view of the central government's role, today's chief opposing philosophy to the Obamaian). Further, Hamilton is considered the most poised, articulate, and clever speaker and writer of his age (which is saying something, with Jefferson in the picture), just as Obama may be today.
We don't know that much about a Hamiltonian mode of governing, though, because of the lack of any Hamilton Administration. It wasn't the duel, really, that kept Hamilton from the White House (particularly in 1796, when Washington exited); it was the Constitution. The sentence governing citizenship and eligibility for America's top office was specifically crafted to exclude Hamilton, who had many enemies.
Hamilton became an American citizen, and was as loyal as any other, but he wss born a British subject in the West Indies. And everyone knew it; that's why the Presidency is limited to natural-born citizens. That phrase, about which there is considerable confusion, means that the person must have been a citizen at birth, not becoming one by means of naturalization. That means Arnold Schwarzenegger is out, unless he can get a Constitutional amendment.
Obama, of course, was born in Hawaii, which had just become a state. (Even if Hawaii hadn't--become a state yet, that is--being born in a US Territory is good enough: as per the case of John McCain, no less).**
There isn't really any debate about Obama's being a natural-born citizen. It's just that the artificially-birthed controversy about it reminded me of the Hamilton Exclusion.
*Other American historical figures for whom one can make plausible arguments for similarities in key respects with Obama include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and, of course, Lincoln.
** For the factoid that McCain was born in the Canal Zone--US territory at the time, though no more, I must thank my friend Muhammad Cohen (and see his blog, and novel, Hong Kong on Air, hopefully coming soon to a theater near you).
Monday, July 27, 2009
We Have Survived Armageddon!
I discovered the Good News this morning. One of the TH on CNBC referred to a notion that the S&P's global low may may have been set in March at 666 and the technical implications of that. He was saying it without irony or giving it epecial importance--no raised eyebrow--but I definitely didn't hear it that way.
I encourage all to look at it this way: the Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled! The license plate number of the Beast that ran over us was "666 S&P". I didn't see which state was on the plate, though.
I encourage all to look at it this way: the Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled! The license plate number of the Beast that ran over us was "666 S&P". I didn't see which state was on the plate, though.
Is the Public Option Negotiable?
This is the question of the moment in the health care debate, though everywhere I look the people in Congress seem to have it all wrong.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed it thusly: the bills coming from Committee have it; Obama wants it; we can pass a bill with it. Blue Dogs notwithstanding, she's probably right about that, though all would view her position as being the bluster that it was.
CNN's Jon King pressed her on it, and she basically said, "No."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took it on forcefully. It seemed to him to be a genuine bipartisan moment.
As a parable, I suppose, he trotted out the Ford plant in his home base of Louisville.* They unfairly have to compete with reorganized GM, he said, because GMAC is subsidized by the government and Ford's finance arm is not. Not only that, he harnessed the trotter with "well, most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage". So, "No."
Blue Dogs are worried that their blue Democrat constituents manning the phones for the insurance companies are going to lose their jobs as the result of unfair competition with a Federal public option "takeover". So, they're leaning hard toward "No Way!"
Finally, in Sunday's New York Times (link in title) there is very thorough editorial review of what we can expect from health care reform. In the entire length of the article, though, there is no mention of "public option". Their analysis comes directly from the meetings of a bipartisan Gang of Six (three Dems, three Republicans) who are meeting daily to come up with a legislative proposal which can get through the Senate. They have already looked at the question of the moment and come to the conclusion, "Not this Time", and the Times bought into that enough that they didn't even mention it. Shame on them for the duck.
I have to say that each group has it all wrong.
First, with regard to the guy who's Really Blue and Really a Dog, McConnell, and leaving aside the question of why Ford doesn't try to take advantage of that banking opportunity on behalf of its shareholders, I'd have to point out that many of those satisfied folks in the poll are benefitting from public offerings from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. Take those folks out from the poll and the favorability rating for people's current health insurance is probably worse than 50-50 (or 40-40, if you will).
Pelosi is wrong if she really thinks that an unfair competition can be imposed on the public by the government. Such an attempt would end up getting slammed in the courts, as with "busing to achieve racial balance" if we remember that disaster. She can lead the House to the public pool, but she can't make Congress drink this initial version of the option coming from House committees--it will have to be watered down.
The Blue Dogs are going to have to accept a change to the status quo; even the insurance companies are very aware of that. They seem to be willing to go as far as giving up that wonderful question, "Have you ever been denied coverage?" which saves them so much money.
Unfortunately, their clients (the real ones--the big health care conglomerates) have spent the last 15 years, the ones since ClintonCare failed to come to a vote, competing on cherry-picking and on finding ways to repeatedly raise premiums and deductibles. There is a popular support for the attempt to "Keep Them Honest" that will emerge as we go deeper into the effort to discern the popular will during the legislative break month coming up.
The Correct Answer: "Yes"
There has to be a public option--it is one of the key promises of the Obama campaign, it will be a critical measure of his success, and it will be absolutely required by his core support group. No plan can be acceptable without it, though one that fudges a bit on the requirement--like Kent Conrad's Cooperative approach--may be tempting. (But Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been tried and found wanting.)
The terms of competition between the public and the privates are not fixed in stone, though. The minimum expectation is that the public route will break even after set-up costs and excluding assistance to poor applicants who can prove they can only afford part of the cost.
One could require a higher standard, such that the public plan produces a Return on Equity (ROE) of 8-10%, adjusting the capital and fees for the program to meet targets, which would become the health care policy equivalent of M2 money growth.
Also, though, the terms of competition should be structured so that the private insurers have an equal or better shot at getting public health insurance assistance dollars, which should not been given preferentially to the public option program.
*Mine, too! I should look into the Chinese character set that would exactly replicate the locals' "Lu-i-vl" pronunciation. It would give them (the Chinese reader preparing for a trade mission) so much cachet when they come to Ford, bringing capital, if they had the pronunciation down just so.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed it thusly: the bills coming from Committee have it; Obama wants it; we can pass a bill with it. Blue Dogs notwithstanding, she's probably right about that, though all would view her position as being the bluster that it was.
CNN's Jon King pressed her on it, and she basically said, "No."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took it on forcefully. It seemed to him to be a genuine bipartisan moment.
As a parable, I suppose, he trotted out the Ford plant in his home base of Louisville.* They unfairly have to compete with reorganized GM, he said, because GMAC is subsidized by the government and Ford's finance arm is not. Not only that, he harnessed the trotter with "well, most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage". So, "No."
Blue Dogs are worried that their blue Democrat constituents manning the phones for the insurance companies are going to lose their jobs as the result of unfair competition with a Federal public option "takeover". So, they're leaning hard toward "No Way!"
Finally, in Sunday's New York Times (link in title) there is very thorough editorial review of what we can expect from health care reform. In the entire length of the article, though, there is no mention of "public option". Their analysis comes directly from the meetings of a bipartisan Gang of Six (three Dems, three Republicans) who are meeting daily to come up with a legislative proposal which can get through the Senate. They have already looked at the question of the moment and come to the conclusion, "Not this Time", and the Times bought into that enough that they didn't even mention it. Shame on them for the duck.
I have to say that each group has it all wrong.
First, with regard to the guy who's Really Blue and Really a Dog, McConnell, and leaving aside the question of why Ford doesn't try to take advantage of that banking opportunity on behalf of its shareholders, I'd have to point out that many of those satisfied folks in the poll are benefitting from public offerings from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. Take those folks out from the poll and the favorability rating for people's current health insurance is probably worse than 50-50 (or 40-40, if you will).
Pelosi is wrong if she really thinks that an unfair competition can be imposed on the public by the government. Such an attempt would end up getting slammed in the courts, as with "busing to achieve racial balance" if we remember that disaster. She can lead the House to the public pool, but she can't make Congress drink this initial version of the option coming from House committees--it will have to be watered down.
The Blue Dogs are going to have to accept a change to the status quo; even the insurance companies are very aware of that. They seem to be willing to go as far as giving up that wonderful question, "Have you ever been denied coverage?" which saves them so much money.
Unfortunately, their clients (the real ones--the big health care conglomerates) have spent the last 15 years, the ones since ClintonCare failed to come to a vote, competing on cherry-picking and on finding ways to repeatedly raise premiums and deductibles. There is a popular support for the attempt to "Keep Them Honest" that will emerge as we go deeper into the effort to discern the popular will during the legislative break month coming up.
The Correct Answer: "Yes"
There has to be a public option--it is one of the key promises of the Obama campaign, it will be a critical measure of his success, and it will be absolutely required by his core support group. No plan can be acceptable without it, though one that fudges a bit on the requirement--like Kent Conrad's Cooperative approach--may be tempting. (But Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been tried and found wanting.)
The terms of competition between the public and the privates are not fixed in stone, though. The minimum expectation is that the public route will break even after set-up costs and excluding assistance to poor applicants who can prove they can only afford part of the cost.
One could require a higher standard, such that the public plan produces a Return on Equity (ROE) of 8-10%, adjusting the capital and fees for the program to meet targets, which would become the health care policy equivalent of M2 money growth.
Also, though, the terms of competition should be structured so that the private insurers have an equal or better shot at getting public health insurance assistance dollars, which should not been given preferentially to the public option program.
*Mine, too! I should look into the Chinese character set that would exactly replicate the locals' "Lu-i-vl" pronunciation. It would give them (the Chinese reader preparing for a trade mission) so much cachet when they come to Ford, bringing capital, if they had the pronunciation down just so.
But What Would Mr. Pynchon Say?
Un-plugging "Unplugging Philco"
This alt-reality satire, written by Jim Knipfer and published this year, posits an American society gone wrong after a poorly-understood attack on the Homeland (Tupelo, Mississippi, to be exact) known as The Horribleness. The attack, perpetrated supposedly by Australians, becomes the justification for all manner of intrusions on privacy and re-structuring of the economy.
The story focuses on Wally Philco, a low-level Corporate Tool working for some insurance company, living out a loveless, childless marriage, and increasingly disenchanted by the impositions of the outside world on his anonymous existence. Philco ultimately goes the extra mile to go off-grid, under the eyes of Big Brother in the heart of Brooklyn, and joins a mysterious group of subversives called the Unpluggers.
This caricature of post-9/11 society and the reaction to domestic terrorism gives Knipfer a free platform to denounce or satirize his pet peeves, which include:
0) mandatory peeing into a cup for your employer--Philco chose refusing this request as his route to get fired;
1) cellphones plugged into one's ears;
2) pop-up ads;
3) hidden cameras;
4) public patriotic events;
5) political correctness enforcement;
6) phony Prohibition;
7) de-personalization through ID numbers; and most strongly,
8) aggressive mothers pushing their baby carriages and running over anyone who won't get out of their way.
As you can see, his complaints range from totally justified to extreme exaggeration. Sometimes a bit too obvious, UPP (we only give one free plug) has a plot closely patterned after Orwell's "1984" and pays overt homage to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano".
Knipfer chose to tell the story mostly, but not exclusively, from the perspective of Everyman Philco (he uses brand names for people as a satiric perspective on the commercialization of all aspects of postmodern life). Philco is a bit narcissistic, though brave, and more than a bit oblivious to detail. In centering the narrative on Philco's limited perceptions, he avoids going more deeply into some of the interesting characters he creates, most prominently his recruiter into the Unpluggers, Johnny Faro (the character--a Norwegian imitating a cowboy?--has got to be modeled on someone--Marion Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? --but we never find out), and the seductive agent Cornelia Bain and her rich uncle, "The Colonel".
We are fortunate in that we don't have to guess Thomas Pynchon's take on UPP, as he provided a blurb for the paperback cover, which I quote in its entirety:
We'll skip the question of the ellipsis in the first sentence, and what was left out. The description--particularly the "narrative exuberance" bit--sounds like Pynchon plugging Pynchon. All credit to Knipfer for getting "Unplugging" plugged, though.
Knipfer takes an ultimately libertarian, neo-Luddite, but pessimistic stance toward the gadgets which are progressively enslaving us. Pynchon's take on King Ludd and his followers, as discussed (but not much resolved) in his 1984 essay "Is It OK to be a Luddite?" (New York Times Book Review, 28 October 1984, pp. 1, 40-41.), is clearly sympathetic, though Pynchon himself is coming from a different place: Luddites are a phenomenon, like the science behind technology, or the events we try to interpret through history, or high art, or popular media (he gives high praise in the essay to postwar sci-fi), and all provide tragicomic grist for the endlessly turning mill.
Git Chaney, Episode 1
A detective story set in early 1920's Teapot Dome Wyoming in which Irish ex-footballer Berick O'Bama tracks down that cowboy rascal Jeremiah "Git" Chaney, bringing him to justice for disparaging public comments about the Lady V., Mrs. Joseph Wilson.
O'Bama's Teutonic investigator, Erick Holter, reaches dead ends when it comes to reports of dragging suspicious-lookin' furriners on the end of ropes tied to his horse, to accusations of setting his henchmen to watching innocent civilians down at the land title company, and researching the motivation possibly behind some kind of dubious hunting accident. The Wilsons, though, who blocked Chaney's prospectors from staking out a possible yellowcake mine, were turned out from job and home when Git got his banker to foreclose on their mortgage.
"We can tolerate some forward business dealin'", O'Bama explained. "But going after a lady, that just ain't right."
Blurbs for Pynchon Works
V. , 1963--"Pynchon...establishes key themes of modern dialectics of Force and Counterforce, Entropy and Revival, forcing an effort to connect the dots between the globe's hidden focal points in search of the roots of 20th-century drama through an inexplicable conspiracy. In other words, modern History is explored through a tragicomic novel."
The Crying of Lot 49, 1965--"Pynchon...posits a hidden struggle between sacred and profane forces coming to a possible head in the mind of a clueless divorced SoCal housewife exposed to hints of colossal ripples in the society's tectonics. In this short work, medieval revenge drama, postal monopolies, and rock music are intimations of something which may or may not provide hope and/or instability to our settled world."
Gravity's Rainbow, 1973--"Pynchon...babbles with profound coherence about the unseen forces on both sides of the curtain falling on the endgame of World War II and forming the Postwar world he grew up in. The problems of ballistic missiles provide a metaphor for the variable but constrained possible arcs of human civilization. High political drama and popular culture intersect in a metaphorical destiny that finds us unavoidably, just as the V-2's seek out our antihero Tyrone Slothrop."
Slow Learner, 1984--"Pynchon's...riffs on themes of degeneration and regeneration on the extremes of society, where the interesting stuff happens. This collection of early short stories shows the boil of talent and erudition which would bubble over in his novels."
Vineland, 1990--"Pynchon...builds a tale of the betrayal and disillusion of Nixonian repression and reaction on a micro scale among the hardcore Counterculture refugees of Northern California's forests. The archenemy's dramatic and cartoonish fall to Earth allows regeneration to replace degeneration of all types."
Mason & Dixon, 1997--"Pynchon...ironically locates the Great American Novel (Founding Father edition) in the tales and adventures of two British technologists of the mid-18th century. The great surveying project of drawing a straight line to eliminate any border issues between Catholic, slave-owning Maryland and free, Quaker-sponsored Pennsylvania becomes an allegory for the reduction of this nearly limitless land and its nearly limitless potential into plots (and counter-plots). Rollicking adventure and greater character development, especially of the eponymous heroes, make for the most enjoyable lesson yet from our voluble Zen Master."
Against the Day, 2007--"Pynchon...challenges once again our willingness to suspend resolution for 1000+ pages, and then inevitably to accept something less than clarity. As with his first novel, the foundations of the 20th-century are the subject, though the locus is now more exclusively American Turf."
Inherent Vice, August 2009--"Pynchon...returns to the Sixties Motherlode for a new tale of Emergent Counterculture. Pure pleasure seems to be the objective, and the page count is reduced to a manageable 384, giving all of us who haven't quite finished Against the Day an enjoyable excuse for diversion and distraction. This appears to be the story Pynchon has chosen for conversion to a screenplay and movie by the Coen Brothers".
I wish.
This alt-reality satire, written by Jim Knipfer and published this year, posits an American society gone wrong after a poorly-understood attack on the Homeland (Tupelo, Mississippi, to be exact) known as The Horribleness. The attack, perpetrated supposedly by Australians, becomes the justification for all manner of intrusions on privacy and re-structuring of the economy.
The story focuses on Wally Philco, a low-level Corporate Tool working for some insurance company, living out a loveless, childless marriage, and increasingly disenchanted by the impositions of the outside world on his anonymous existence. Philco ultimately goes the extra mile to go off-grid, under the eyes of Big Brother in the heart of Brooklyn, and joins a mysterious group of subversives called the Unpluggers.
This caricature of post-9/11 society and the reaction to domestic terrorism gives Knipfer a free platform to denounce or satirize his pet peeves, which include:
0) mandatory peeing into a cup for your employer--Philco chose refusing this request as his route to get fired;
1) cellphones plugged into one's ears;
2) pop-up ads;
3) hidden cameras;
4) public patriotic events;
5) political correctness enforcement;
6) phony Prohibition;
7) de-personalization through ID numbers; and most strongly,
8) aggressive mothers pushing their baby carriages and running over anyone who won't get out of their way.
As you can see, his complaints range from totally justified to extreme exaggeration. Sometimes a bit too obvious, UPP (we only give one free plug) has a plot closely patterned after Orwell's "1984" and pays overt homage to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano".
Knipfer chose to tell the story mostly, but not exclusively, from the perspective of Everyman Philco (he uses brand names for people as a satiric perspective on the commercialization of all aspects of postmodern life). Philco is a bit narcissistic, though brave, and more than a bit oblivious to detail. In centering the narrative on Philco's limited perceptions, he avoids going more deeply into some of the interesting characters he creates, most prominently his recruiter into the Unpluggers, Johnny Faro (the character--a Norwegian imitating a cowboy?--has got to be modeled on someone--Marion Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? --but we never find out), and the seductive agent Cornelia Bain and her rich uncle, "The Colonel".
We are fortunate in that we don't have to guess Thomas Pynchon's take on UPP, as he provided a blurb for the paperback cover, which I quote in its entirety:
Mr. Knipfel...brings to fiction the welcome gifts which distinguished his previous books--the authenticity, the narrative exuberance, the integrity of his cheerfully undeluded American voice.
We'll skip the question of the ellipsis in the first sentence, and what was left out. The description--particularly the "narrative exuberance" bit--sounds like Pynchon plugging Pynchon. All credit to Knipfer for getting "Unplugging" plugged, though.
Knipfer takes an ultimately libertarian, neo-Luddite, but pessimistic stance toward the gadgets which are progressively enslaving us. Pynchon's take on King Ludd and his followers, as discussed (but not much resolved) in his 1984 essay "Is It OK to be a Luddite?" (New York Times Book Review, 28 October 1984, pp. 1, 40-41.), is clearly sympathetic, though Pynchon himself is coming from a different place: Luddites are a phenomenon, like the science behind technology, or the events we try to interpret through history, or high art, or popular media (he gives high praise in the essay to postwar sci-fi), and all provide tragicomic grist for the endlessly turning mill.
Git Chaney, Episode 1
A detective story set in early 1920's Teapot Dome Wyoming in which Irish ex-footballer Berick O'Bama tracks down that cowboy rascal Jeremiah "Git" Chaney, bringing him to justice for disparaging public comments about the Lady V., Mrs. Joseph Wilson.
O'Bama's Teutonic investigator, Erick Holter, reaches dead ends when it comes to reports of dragging suspicious-lookin' furriners on the end of ropes tied to his horse, to accusations of setting his henchmen to watching innocent civilians down at the land title company, and researching the motivation possibly behind some kind of dubious hunting accident. The Wilsons, though, who blocked Chaney's prospectors from staking out a possible yellowcake mine, were turned out from job and home when Git got his banker to foreclose on their mortgage.
"We can tolerate some forward business dealin'", O'Bama explained. "But going after a lady, that just ain't right."
Blurbs for Pynchon Works
V. , 1963--"Pynchon...establishes key themes of modern dialectics of Force and Counterforce, Entropy and Revival, forcing an effort to connect the dots between the globe's hidden focal points in search of the roots of 20th-century drama through an inexplicable conspiracy. In other words, modern History is explored through a tragicomic novel."
The Crying of Lot 49, 1965--"Pynchon...posits a hidden struggle between sacred and profane forces coming to a possible head in the mind of a clueless divorced SoCal housewife exposed to hints of colossal ripples in the society's tectonics. In this short work, medieval revenge drama, postal monopolies, and rock music are intimations of something which may or may not provide hope and/or instability to our settled world."
Gravity's Rainbow, 1973--"Pynchon...babbles with profound coherence about the unseen forces on both sides of the curtain falling on the endgame of World War II and forming the Postwar world he grew up in. The problems of ballistic missiles provide a metaphor for the variable but constrained possible arcs of human civilization. High political drama and popular culture intersect in a metaphorical destiny that finds us unavoidably, just as the V-2's seek out our antihero Tyrone Slothrop."
Slow Learner, 1984--"Pynchon's...riffs on themes of degeneration and regeneration on the extremes of society, where the interesting stuff happens. This collection of early short stories shows the boil of talent and erudition which would bubble over in his novels."
Vineland, 1990--"Pynchon...builds a tale of the betrayal and disillusion of Nixonian repression and reaction on a micro scale among the hardcore Counterculture refugees of Northern California's forests. The archenemy's dramatic and cartoonish fall to Earth allows regeneration to replace degeneration of all types."
Mason & Dixon, 1997--"Pynchon...ironically locates the Great American Novel (Founding Father edition) in the tales and adventures of two British technologists of the mid-18th century. The great surveying project of drawing a straight line to eliminate any border issues between Catholic, slave-owning Maryland and free, Quaker-sponsored Pennsylvania becomes an allegory for the reduction of this nearly limitless land and its nearly limitless potential into plots (and counter-plots). Rollicking adventure and greater character development, especially of the eponymous heroes, make for the most enjoyable lesson yet from our voluble Zen Master."
Against the Day, 2007--"Pynchon...challenges once again our willingness to suspend resolution for 1000+ pages, and then inevitably to accept something less than clarity. As with his first novel, the foundations of the 20th-century are the subject, though the locus is now more exclusively American Turf."
Inherent Vice, August 2009--"Pynchon...returns to the Sixties Motherlode for a new tale of Emergent Counterculture. Pure pleasure seems to be the objective, and the page count is reduced to a manageable 384, giving all of us who haven't quite finished Against the Day an enjoyable excuse for diversion and distraction. This appears to be the story Pynchon has chosen for conversion to a screenplay and movie by the Coen Brothers".
I wish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
