I must recognize the death this past weekend of Manzarek, keyboard player for The Doors. Hardly a sideman, he added more than his share to their sound. He was also the most steadying influence this volatile rock band ever had.
As a classically trained musician, he performed relatively difficult rock keyboard parts well, but I would think he also had a major role in writing the music (writing credit was generally shared). If one reviews The Doors membership and the instruments they played, you'll see that, very rare for a rock band, they had no bass player: Manzarek also played the bass line on his keyboards for most of the pieces.
In the history of rock 'n roll, Manzarek has a prominent place. The late Sixties/early Seventies was the heyday period for featured keyboards, and his performances were right in the heart of that movement, which burst into full flame with progressive rock and the full emergence of the synthesizer after Jim Morrison died in 1971 and The Doors ended their meteoric career in 1973.
After Morrison, Manzarek largely faded from view for quite a long time, while admiration for the Doors' music re-emerged periodically as each new generation discovered its subversive appeal. Praise for their music was mingled with hero worship of Morrison the rogue, and Manzarek's role became witness and explainer of his sometimes inexplicable lyrics and behavior. He did reunite with guitarist Robbie Krieger in the later years to play the old favorites.
As keyboard player and part-time vocalist in an early-Seventies cover band, Manzarek was one of my role models and heroes (he also sang, as needed, especially after Morrison's death or when he was too trashed to perform properly). I learned note-for-note the opening/closing organ solo on "Light My Fire"--that was pretty much required at the time, and, as for the longer solo in the middle, I basically knew where I needed to start and end up (for the segue to the guitar solo) and faked my way through the rest OK. Doing the vocal part was more of a challenge, though I certainly wasn't going to go the Jose Feliciano short-cut route. I didn't have the whiskey-hardened tone of Morrison nor a fully-formed baritone, though I could yell a pretty good "Try to set the night on fire!"
Anyway, thanks, Ray! I would say he did a real fine job of maintaining both his professionalism and his public support for the Doors' transgressive philosophy, all the way through "UNTIL THE END!"
My favorite Doors songs: "Break on Through" (their first single), "Five to One", and "L.A. Woman".
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Events Not So Current or Great
I'm a bit behind in commenting on recent events. Most of them are both unfortunate and unredeemed.
An Unholy Armageddon
Syria continues to go downhill, and the Western powers edge closer to involvement. Israel strikes in Syria; reports suggest the attack is not taking sides in the civil war, but is apparently to block the transfer of Iranian missiles through to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is closer to direct involvement on behalf of Syria's ruling Shiite minority (Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite). Next would be the beginning of indications that Iran would not be inclined to stand back and watch the annihilation of Syria's Shiites, probably in the context of the upcoming Iranian Presidential election, which promises to be a wild and woolly affair once again.
My sub-head title suggests one destination where all this could be seen to be heading, as those who are prone to claim The End Is Near have already figured out. The traditional interpretation of the place referred to as Armageddon in the Bible's Book of Revelations is the plain of Megiddo, where there have been innumerable battles staged since the days of the pharaohs (and beyond, probably); however, there are other interpretations which debunk that as a faulty translation and place the reference in Syria.
I'm looking for a broad agreement that Syria must be left to work out its problems without any direct incursions of foreign forces. It is far too much to expect that Russia, Iran, and the West (by which I mean the US, Europe, Turkey, and Israel) will forego providing arms to the warring parties--that train was never in the station. Let's just agree to prevent the gathering of armies described in all those Judeo-Christian-Islamic prophecies; it can happen some other time than this one.
Benghazi: More Hearing or More Herring?
We have already covered more than once the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi which led to the deaths of four Americans and the issues it raised: four days afterward, it was clear that extremists had seized a gap in our security shield and that the handling of the Arab Spring uprisings was leading to dangerous conditions; later, in covering the debate on foreign policy we brought up one more issue, the inadequate funding for security in America's diplomatic outposts. By that time, it was already clear that Congress' funding cuts, as much as any State Department negligence, was responsible for the inadequate security--the only real scandal in the affair. The matter was thoroughly exposed to the American electorate before they voted.
So what is new in the current round of hearings and hand-wringing? The "shocking" discovery that the talking points Susan Rice took round to the Sunday talk shows had been edited and modified by people's points of view. Well, I hate to inform those who are new to such processes, but talking points, by their very nature, are an edited version.
Is that it? No, there are a couple of other new developments: Rand Paul wants to run for President, he'd like to prevent Hillary Clinton from running, and the Republicans are losing the public's support in issue after issue. They want another bite of this apple, but they will find that it tastes like red herring.
IRS' Faulty Targeting
If you're looking for a more authentic scandal, it appears the IRS has caused one by seeking out Tea Party groups for investigation of the use of funds given to the ostensibly charitable organizations which served as funding vehicles for political action groups in 2012.
Investigating these groups was not in itself the problem; in fact, it's something I would loudly praise. There is supposed to be a requirement that these groups' primary purpose is socially beneficial activities, though they are allowed to use a minority of their funding in political activity. Finding out whether they followed the rules is entirely within the IRS' permissible range of activity.
The problem is that evidence exists that the agency specifically targeted certain types of groups--specifically Tea Party-type groups--for investigation, which violates the principle of impartial application of the law to all. What was lacking, and what would have totally eliminated scandal, would be for the IRS to investigate equally these fundraising groups of all political flavors. I hope it's not too late; I want them all to be eviscerated and discredited.
President Obama has clearly denounced the unfair treatment, and apparently the head of the IRS has done so, too. There will be those who will lose their jobs as a result; they will be people who understood poorly how they were supposed to perform their duties.
Bomb, Terror in West, Texas
The explosion of the fertilizer plant that ended up killing fourteen persons, the great majority of them firefighters, points out some of the dangers of poor regulation. The ammonium nitrate which exploded is the same chemical used by the domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City in 1995; since then, the law has required that quantities greater than 500 pounds of the compound need to be reported. Over ten times that amount, stored--unreported--inside the warehouse there, caused the gigantic, deadly conflagration. Photos from the scene show ordinary houses next door, and a school nearby--a good example of zoning, Texas-style. The broader issue was the failure in the enforcement of regulation of workplace safety revealed by the disaster. It's simply been starved to the point that the likes of Rick Perry can drown it in the bathtub. Until it blows up.
The Mother of All Workplace Accidents
The collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh provides a crystal-clear example where the logic of neglecting workplace safety ends up. This was no ordinary workplace accident; the building was constructed poorly (even if it had the trappings of a modern, safe workplace), and at the time the building collapsed the owners were adding to the building--while it was full of workers. Over 1000 people died in the tragedy, which will no doubt mark a turning point in the devil's bargain the government and the elite in the country have made to attract contract work to produce goods more cheaply than everyone else. It may also mark a turning point in the willingness of American consumers to buy cheaply made manufactured goods, or more likely of American retailers to allow the cheapest providers to win the bids with insufficient consideration of workplace conditions and of the risk that those conditions may backfire upon them.
Economic theory says such "externalities" need to be factored into the cost calculations. How much more would we/should we pay so as not to subject hundreds or thousands to untimely death, and millions more to work in substandard conditions? Can we leave such a decision to the whim of the marketplace and the sensitivity and empathy of the consumer?
A Couple of Nuggets of Good News
We should mention the woman who was rescued alive from the Bangladesh disaster 17 days after it occurred.
Also, I should mention that the recovery no longer is looking so shaky. We will be hoping that we can avoid falling back into the Crater. A couple of cautionary notes, regardless: I don't see the labor glut in the US--for ordinary labor, not the most highly skilled or in-demand jobs--ending anytime soon, or in the next decade or two, for that matter. We have gone too far in creating that global marketplace for jobs and disadvantaging ourselves in that competition. Secondly, I see the housing market re-inflating very rapidly. This will pass, but a return to the expectation of inevitable growth in housing prices could cause some recurrence of the kind of problems which led, when combined with the market collapse caused by speculation on the same housing bubble, to an uncontrolled freefall in housing prices.
An Unholy Armageddon
Syria continues to go downhill, and the Western powers edge closer to involvement. Israel strikes in Syria; reports suggest the attack is not taking sides in the civil war, but is apparently to block the transfer of Iranian missiles through to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is closer to direct involvement on behalf of Syria's ruling Shiite minority (Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite). Next would be the beginning of indications that Iran would not be inclined to stand back and watch the annihilation of Syria's Shiites, probably in the context of the upcoming Iranian Presidential election, which promises to be a wild and woolly affair once again.
My sub-head title suggests one destination where all this could be seen to be heading, as those who are prone to claim The End Is Near have already figured out. The traditional interpretation of the place referred to as Armageddon in the Bible's Book of Revelations is the plain of Megiddo, where there have been innumerable battles staged since the days of the pharaohs (and beyond, probably); however, there are other interpretations which debunk that as a faulty translation and place the reference in Syria.
I'm looking for a broad agreement that Syria must be left to work out its problems without any direct incursions of foreign forces. It is far too much to expect that Russia, Iran, and the West (by which I mean the US, Europe, Turkey, and Israel) will forego providing arms to the warring parties--that train was never in the station. Let's just agree to prevent the gathering of armies described in all those Judeo-Christian-Islamic prophecies; it can happen some other time than this one.
Benghazi: More Hearing or More Herring?
We have already covered more than once the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi which led to the deaths of four Americans and the issues it raised: four days afterward, it was clear that extremists had seized a gap in our security shield and that the handling of the Arab Spring uprisings was leading to dangerous conditions; later, in covering the debate on foreign policy we brought up one more issue, the inadequate funding for security in America's diplomatic outposts. By that time, it was already clear that Congress' funding cuts, as much as any State Department negligence, was responsible for the inadequate security--the only real scandal in the affair. The matter was thoroughly exposed to the American electorate before they voted.
So what is new in the current round of hearings and hand-wringing? The "shocking" discovery that the talking points Susan Rice took round to the Sunday talk shows had been edited and modified by people's points of view. Well, I hate to inform those who are new to such processes, but talking points, by their very nature, are an edited version.
Is that it? No, there are a couple of other new developments: Rand Paul wants to run for President, he'd like to prevent Hillary Clinton from running, and the Republicans are losing the public's support in issue after issue. They want another bite of this apple, but they will find that it tastes like red herring.
IRS' Faulty Targeting
If you're looking for a more authentic scandal, it appears the IRS has caused one by seeking out Tea Party groups for investigation of the use of funds given to the ostensibly charitable organizations which served as funding vehicles for political action groups in 2012.
Investigating these groups was not in itself the problem; in fact, it's something I would loudly praise. There is supposed to be a requirement that these groups' primary purpose is socially beneficial activities, though they are allowed to use a minority of their funding in political activity. Finding out whether they followed the rules is entirely within the IRS' permissible range of activity.
The problem is that evidence exists that the agency specifically targeted certain types of groups--specifically Tea Party-type groups--for investigation, which violates the principle of impartial application of the law to all. What was lacking, and what would have totally eliminated scandal, would be for the IRS to investigate equally these fundraising groups of all political flavors. I hope it's not too late; I want them all to be eviscerated and discredited.
President Obama has clearly denounced the unfair treatment, and apparently the head of the IRS has done so, too. There will be those who will lose their jobs as a result; they will be people who understood poorly how they were supposed to perform their duties.
Bomb, Terror in West, Texas
The explosion of the fertilizer plant that ended up killing fourteen persons, the great majority of them firefighters, points out some of the dangers of poor regulation. The ammonium nitrate which exploded is the same chemical used by the domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City in 1995; since then, the law has required that quantities greater than 500 pounds of the compound need to be reported. Over ten times that amount, stored--unreported--inside the warehouse there, caused the gigantic, deadly conflagration. Photos from the scene show ordinary houses next door, and a school nearby--a good example of zoning, Texas-style. The broader issue was the failure in the enforcement of regulation of workplace safety revealed by the disaster. It's simply been starved to the point that the likes of Rick Perry can drown it in the bathtub. Until it blows up.
The Mother of All Workplace Accidents
The collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh provides a crystal-clear example where the logic of neglecting workplace safety ends up. This was no ordinary workplace accident; the building was constructed poorly (even if it had the trappings of a modern, safe workplace), and at the time the building collapsed the owners were adding to the building--while it was full of workers. Over 1000 people died in the tragedy, which will no doubt mark a turning point in the devil's bargain the government and the elite in the country have made to attract contract work to produce goods more cheaply than everyone else. It may also mark a turning point in the willingness of American consumers to buy cheaply made manufactured goods, or more likely of American retailers to allow the cheapest providers to win the bids with insufficient consideration of workplace conditions and of the risk that those conditions may backfire upon them.
Economic theory says such "externalities" need to be factored into the cost calculations. How much more would we/should we pay so as not to subject hundreds or thousands to untimely death, and millions more to work in substandard conditions? Can we leave such a decision to the whim of the marketplace and the sensitivity and empathy of the consumer?
A Couple of Nuggets of Good News
We should mention the woman who was rescued alive from the Bangladesh disaster 17 days after it occurred.
Also, I should mention that the recovery no longer is looking so shaky. We will be hoping that we can avoid falling back into the Crater. A couple of cautionary notes, regardless: I don't see the labor glut in the US--for ordinary labor, not the most highly skilled or in-demand jobs--ending anytime soon, or in the next decade or two, for that matter. We have gone too far in creating that global marketplace for jobs and disadvantaging ourselves in that competition. Secondly, I see the housing market re-inflating very rapidly. This will pass, but a return to the expectation of inevitable growth in housing prices could cause some recurrence of the kind of problems which led, when combined with the market collapse caused by speculation on the same housing bubble, to an uncontrolled freefall in housing prices.
Friday, May 10, 2013
NBA Playoff Status
There was an unusual day off in the playoffs yesterday (Thursday, May 9), and it was at an interesting point: all four conference semifinal series were tied at 1-1. This means that the higher-seeded teams had all lost one of the first two games at home, essentially giving up the home-court advantage their better records provided. Thus, the status of each series allows for a definite possibility of an upset, and upsets--particularly of something more than adjacent seeds--don't happen that often in the NBA playoffs. In order to be in a position to win the series, though, the underdog must now win both games at home; to contest it properly they must win one of the two, so in a sense the pressure is now on the lower-seeded teams. We will take a brief look at each series, then guess current odds and step out boldly and make some predictions.
Chicago (#5) vs. Miami (#1) - The Bulls have overachieved, no matter what happens from here forward. As I write, they are tied after three quarters in Game 3, playing at home, and they are still playing without three key players: Derrick Rose, his replacement Kirk Hinrich, and key wingman Luol Deng; however, the bench has stepped up, and Joachim Noah has played like an All-Star. That being said, though, it seems impossible for the Bulls to win three more games to take the series, and getting two more wins would be a stretch.
Indiana (#3) vs. New York (#2) - As they are adjacent seeds, this is the closest matchup and Indiana's winning would not really qualify as an upset. Still, New York played very well at the end of the season and the Pacers did not, and the Knicks do not have any particular excuse not to play their best. I don't give either team much of a chance against the Heat in the Eastern finals; Indiana maybe would have a slight edge as a better defensive team and rougher style, probably the best way to play Miami.
Golden State (#6) vs. San Antonio (#2) - The Spurs should be solid favorites, as they are healthy, and they are the Spurs, which means a serious playoff team. The fact is, though, the Warriors have outplayed the Spurs by a fair margin in the two games in San Antonio, showing the same dynamic attack and tough defense which allowed them to defeat third-seeded Denver in the first round. The loss in Game 1, in which they blew a 16-point lead in the final minutes, then lost in double overtime, should have devastated Golden State. Instead, they came back strongly and still came away from San Antonio with a win. Now, they have two games at home: I would expect them to win at least one of them. This series looks to be going to seven games.
Memphis (#5) vs. Oklahoma City (#1) - The Grizzlies have shown in the past that they are unafraid of Oklahoma City, and now the Thunder will be playing without their high-scoring point guard, Russell Westbrook. Memphis is dangerous against any team, having the best center/power forward combination in the league in Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph (the Lakers' Dwight Howard/Pau Gasol combo never proved itself, and now may never do so). The key for them is the play of their point guard, Mike Conley, who matched, or even outplayed, the Clippers' Chris Paul in the first round. He's a solid playmaker and defender but his shot selection sometimes is unsound. He's in a position to dominate the Thunder's reserve point guard, Reggie Jackson; if he can do so, the Grizzlies might justly be expected to win the series. In the Conference Finals, Memphis might be the team best suited to slow down the Warriors' Stephen Curry, who has been sensational, and they can match up well against San Antonio, as well.
Chances to Reach the Championship Series:
Miami 75%; Indiana 12%; New York 8%; Chicago 5%.
San Antonio 30%; Memphis 30%; Golden State 22%; Oklahoma City 18%.
Thus, by my reckoning, there is a little better than 50% chance for a #5 or #6 seed to make the Finals (not even counting the Bulls' slight chance). I'm thinking the last time a seed lower than #4 made the Finals was the #8-seeded Knicks, with Latrell Sprewell, in 1999. (?)
My pick: Miami to defeat Memphis in the Finals, 4-2.
Chicago (#5) vs. Miami (#1) - The Bulls have overachieved, no matter what happens from here forward. As I write, they are tied after three quarters in Game 3, playing at home, and they are still playing without three key players: Derrick Rose, his replacement Kirk Hinrich, and key wingman Luol Deng; however, the bench has stepped up, and Joachim Noah has played like an All-Star. That being said, though, it seems impossible for the Bulls to win three more games to take the series, and getting two more wins would be a stretch.
Indiana (#3) vs. New York (#2) - As they are adjacent seeds, this is the closest matchup and Indiana's winning would not really qualify as an upset. Still, New York played very well at the end of the season and the Pacers did not, and the Knicks do not have any particular excuse not to play their best. I don't give either team much of a chance against the Heat in the Eastern finals; Indiana maybe would have a slight edge as a better defensive team and rougher style, probably the best way to play Miami.
Golden State (#6) vs. San Antonio (#2) - The Spurs should be solid favorites, as they are healthy, and they are the Spurs, which means a serious playoff team. The fact is, though, the Warriors have outplayed the Spurs by a fair margin in the two games in San Antonio, showing the same dynamic attack and tough defense which allowed them to defeat third-seeded Denver in the first round. The loss in Game 1, in which they blew a 16-point lead in the final minutes, then lost in double overtime, should have devastated Golden State. Instead, they came back strongly and still came away from San Antonio with a win. Now, they have two games at home: I would expect them to win at least one of them. This series looks to be going to seven games.
Memphis (#5) vs. Oklahoma City (#1) - The Grizzlies have shown in the past that they are unafraid of Oklahoma City, and now the Thunder will be playing without their high-scoring point guard, Russell Westbrook. Memphis is dangerous against any team, having the best center/power forward combination in the league in Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph (the Lakers' Dwight Howard/Pau Gasol combo never proved itself, and now may never do so). The key for them is the play of their point guard, Mike Conley, who matched, or even outplayed, the Clippers' Chris Paul in the first round. He's a solid playmaker and defender but his shot selection sometimes is unsound. He's in a position to dominate the Thunder's reserve point guard, Reggie Jackson; if he can do so, the Grizzlies might justly be expected to win the series. In the Conference Finals, Memphis might be the team best suited to slow down the Warriors' Stephen Curry, who has been sensational, and they can match up well against San Antonio, as well.
Chances to Reach the Championship Series:
Miami 75%; Indiana 12%; New York 8%; Chicago 5%.
San Antonio 30%; Memphis 30%; Golden State 22%; Oklahoma City 18%.
Thus, by my reckoning, there is a little better than 50% chance for a #5 or #6 seed to make the Finals (not even counting the Bulls' slight chance). I'm thinking the last time a seed lower than #4 made the Finals was the #8-seeded Knicks, with Latrell Sprewell, in 1999. (?)
My pick: Miami to defeat Memphis in the Finals, 4-2.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Three Game Changers
Two are in sports; one in international news.
Germany Punishes Spain
No, this is not an economic austerity news story; the shocking news that comes from Europe this week concerns the Champions League, the continental soccer club championship. In the first leg of home-and-home semifinal matches this week, the broad expectation of a Spanish Classico final (in England) between Real Madrid and Barcelona was disrupted by German teams. Bayern Munich, last year's Champions League runners-up (defeated by Chelsea, I must remind the reader), defeated the presumptive favorite Barcelona by 4-0, and, just as shocking (maybe more), Borussia Dortmund whipped Real Madrid, 4-1, all four goals being scored by Robert Lewandowski. In its long history of European leadership, Real Madrid had never suffered such a one-man drubbing.
Still, although it's a tall order for the Spanish clubs to come back and reverse these deficits in the rematch games at home, it is not impossible. Barcelona, in particular, is so explosive on offense that one can't count out Messi & Co. It just shows a part of the appeal of sporting events, the possibility of surprise.
Lightning Strikes Thunder
The NBA's Eastern Conference playoffs are all about the Miami Heat, and the unlikely possibility that some team might stop them, or at least slow them down. The Western Conference, on the other hand, is fairly wide open. The Oklahoma City Thunder have the best record and top seed, and they have shown playoff capability last year, but they are hardly overwhelming favorites, not when the San Antonio Spurs are potential Conference final opponents and in both good form and reasonably good health, and there are other teams with strong competitive claims, like Denver, Memphis, the L.A. Clippers, and even the Lakers (though they are less threatening without Kobe Bryant).
As for the Thunder, their prospects just took a dramatic downturn last night when their high-scoring playmaker Russell Westbrook tore up his knee yesterday. They seem likely to make it past the Houston Rockets to the second round, but the Clippers/Grizzlies survivor would be a tough opponent for them without Westbrook. His injury reminds me of the injury the Bulls suffered last year when Derrick Rose went out in the first game of the playoffs, the result being an even more dramatic loss than I predicted. The Bulls, still without Rose a year later, are battling on heroically and seem likely to pull off their first-round series against the Nets, but the Heat loom in the next round.
Meanwhile, the Spurs' chances have risen. They now have Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili back and Tim Duncan healthy, and that combination has acres of proven playoff success. I like their chances to win the West now, and I like them better than any other Western opponent against Miami.
Then, There Was Syria...
The alleged game-changing event (or events) happened some weeks ago. There is evidence of attack with sarin gas which killed a few people in Damascus and/or Aleppo, evidence that has been detected in autopsy. Who did it, and why, are far from clear--possibly a test to see if it could be done without drawing a strong reaction from the West. President Obama is proceeding carefully, though he has now gone public with the allegation, and he has repeated his warning that use of chemical weapons is a "game-changer".
For all that, I'm not sure the game really has changed, though. It has been, and it remains, getting the Russians, Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad's key ally, to abandon their support for him and help arrange his ouster. It may give Obama a new, persuasive piece to play in the game, though. Another part of the strategy is and has been lining up two nations bordering Syria, Turkey and Israel, to help enforce UN sanctions and a potential no-fly policy (if the proper international support can be mustered), and the allegations of use of outlawed weapons will certainly make their support more likely.
I am and remain an advocate of strong action to both overturn Assad--through a variety of means short of direct US military intervention--and to purge the rebel forces of Islamic extremists.
Germany Punishes Spain
No, this is not an economic austerity news story; the shocking news that comes from Europe this week concerns the Champions League, the continental soccer club championship. In the first leg of home-and-home semifinal matches this week, the broad expectation of a Spanish Classico final (in England) between Real Madrid and Barcelona was disrupted by German teams. Bayern Munich, last year's Champions League runners-up (defeated by Chelsea, I must remind the reader), defeated the presumptive favorite Barcelona by 4-0, and, just as shocking (maybe more), Borussia Dortmund whipped Real Madrid, 4-1, all four goals being scored by Robert Lewandowski. In its long history of European leadership, Real Madrid had never suffered such a one-man drubbing.
Still, although it's a tall order for the Spanish clubs to come back and reverse these deficits in the rematch games at home, it is not impossible. Barcelona, in particular, is so explosive on offense that one can't count out Messi & Co. It just shows a part of the appeal of sporting events, the possibility of surprise.
Lightning Strikes Thunder
The NBA's Eastern Conference playoffs are all about the Miami Heat, and the unlikely possibility that some team might stop them, or at least slow them down. The Western Conference, on the other hand, is fairly wide open. The Oklahoma City Thunder have the best record and top seed, and they have shown playoff capability last year, but they are hardly overwhelming favorites, not when the San Antonio Spurs are potential Conference final opponents and in both good form and reasonably good health, and there are other teams with strong competitive claims, like Denver, Memphis, the L.A. Clippers, and even the Lakers (though they are less threatening without Kobe Bryant).
As for the Thunder, their prospects just took a dramatic downturn last night when their high-scoring playmaker Russell Westbrook tore up his knee yesterday. They seem likely to make it past the Houston Rockets to the second round, but the Clippers/Grizzlies survivor would be a tough opponent for them without Westbrook. His injury reminds me of the injury the Bulls suffered last year when Derrick Rose went out in the first game of the playoffs, the result being an even more dramatic loss than I predicted. The Bulls, still without Rose a year later, are battling on heroically and seem likely to pull off their first-round series against the Nets, but the Heat loom in the next round.
Meanwhile, the Spurs' chances have risen. They now have Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili back and Tim Duncan healthy, and that combination has acres of proven playoff success. I like their chances to win the West now, and I like them better than any other Western opponent against Miami.
Then, There Was Syria...
The alleged game-changing event (or events) happened some weeks ago. There is evidence of attack with sarin gas which killed a few people in Damascus and/or Aleppo, evidence that has been detected in autopsy. Who did it, and why, are far from clear--possibly a test to see if it could be done without drawing a strong reaction from the West. President Obama is proceeding carefully, though he has now gone public with the allegation, and he has repeated his warning that use of chemical weapons is a "game-changer".
For all that, I'm not sure the game really has changed, though. It has been, and it remains, getting the Russians, Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad's key ally, to abandon their support for him and help arrange his ouster. It may give Obama a new, persuasive piece to play in the game, though. Another part of the strategy is and has been lining up two nations bordering Syria, Turkey and Israel, to help enforce UN sanctions and a potential no-fly policy (if the proper international support can be mustered), and the allegations of use of outlawed weapons will certainly make their support more likely.
I am and remain an advocate of strong action to both overturn Assad--through a variety of means short of direct US military intervention--and to purge the rebel forces of Islamic extremists.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Rigor Mortis for the Iron Lady
Margaret Thatcher's death was long overdue: I lived in the same area of SE London that she did back in 2001-2003; she was already reportedly suffering from dementia, and there were no public sightings of her during that whole period. Needless to say, she didn't get better.
For that matter, she'd already withdrawn from public life by that point for at least a decade, after the public political assassination she suffered from her party in 1990, when the Conservatives threw her under the bus in favor of John Major. Her popularity had never been all that strong outside her party, and her uncompromising stances had finally turned enough of her supporters off.
In her prime--basically, the 1980's--she was extremely powerful and effective in the British government, as influential as anyone since World War II in shaping the society. The shadow of her government's influence was visible influence on Major's government, on Tony Blair's (the triangulation after the Thatcher revolution, just as Bill Clinton's was to Ronald Reagan's), and now on David Cameron's: Thatcherism with a human face.
I exaggerate, but only a little. Whether you liked her politics or not, you had to respect her ruthlessness. Margaret Thatcher stood out among all politicians of this age, of either gender, for cold-blooded competence. Of women leaders, she is not unique in that characteristic--I think of Indira Gandhi of India, and of Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka--but she was a tough cookie by any standard. Clear examples were her stance with regard to the IRA and in the British Army's occupation of Northern Ireland, and the manner in which she conducted the war against Argentina for the Falklands.
What were her politics all about? The radical opposition to the ideas and practice of social democracy. It's something often found in the petit bourgeoisie, which describes her upbringing as a grocer's daughter. She formed her opinions early and maintained them forever--you could take her or leave her, but there was no levering her. Not even a bomb planted a floor underneath her hotel room in Brighton could shake her will. She was all about breaking the unions; her shibboleth, the equivalent of Reagan's PATCO strike breaking of the air-traffic controllers, was the coal miners' union and their persistent striking. She basically wrote the book on privatizing, on dis-empowering rebellious local governments, on putting down the rebellions of the masses upset with things like austerity, unemployment, and denial of government services. And we (meaning, the governments)--in Britain, and in the US--have been riffing off her playbook, more or less, ever since.
She will get the national heroic treatment for her funeral--Westminster Abbey, royal family, etc. As well she should: she was the leading nationalist/imperial British politician of the postwar period, as well (since Churchill, anyway). The Malvinas Putdown was one of the few successful pro-colonial events of the last 70 years. There is something to be said for her intervention rescuing Britain from a drain-swirling malaise: at least it's still clinging to the side of the bowl, and she might deserve some of the credit for that.
I need to mention the movie made of her life in late 2011, Iron Lady. I refer you also to my comments made then; I didn't like the movie all that much, as I felt it dwelt too much on her later dementia and really touched much too lightly on the reality of her governance. Ronald Reagan was just a quick dance memory; Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall didn't even come into it, let alone the domestic strife prevalent throughout her term. This is not to criticize at all her portrayal by Meryl Streep, which was brilliant and thoroughly deserved the Oscar that she received.
I think that the real story of her administration and her time is yet to come, one that should be told by people who were inside the government (or maybe in the opposition), who saw both her strengths and weaknesses, and how they played out in the country, during and after her government, and who could do justice to the complexity of the policy issues she tackled. It was something she never did, nor could she ever, as she was too much at the heart of it, without any objective viewpoint of it all.
For that matter, she'd already withdrawn from public life by that point for at least a decade, after the public political assassination she suffered from her party in 1990, when the Conservatives threw her under the bus in favor of John Major. Her popularity had never been all that strong outside her party, and her uncompromising stances had finally turned enough of her supporters off.
In her prime--basically, the 1980's--she was extremely powerful and effective in the British government, as influential as anyone since World War II in shaping the society. The shadow of her government's influence was visible influence on Major's government, on Tony Blair's (the triangulation after the Thatcher revolution, just as Bill Clinton's was to Ronald Reagan's), and now on David Cameron's: Thatcherism with a human face.
I exaggerate, but only a little. Whether you liked her politics or not, you had to respect her ruthlessness. Margaret Thatcher stood out among all politicians of this age, of either gender, for cold-blooded competence. Of women leaders, she is not unique in that characteristic--I think of Indira Gandhi of India, and of Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka--but she was a tough cookie by any standard. Clear examples were her stance with regard to the IRA and in the British Army's occupation of Northern Ireland, and the manner in which she conducted the war against Argentina for the Falklands.
What were her politics all about? The radical opposition to the ideas and practice of social democracy. It's something often found in the petit bourgeoisie, which describes her upbringing as a grocer's daughter. She formed her opinions early and maintained them forever--you could take her or leave her, but there was no levering her. Not even a bomb planted a floor underneath her hotel room in Brighton could shake her will. She was all about breaking the unions; her shibboleth, the equivalent of Reagan's PATCO strike breaking of the air-traffic controllers, was the coal miners' union and their persistent striking. She basically wrote the book on privatizing, on dis-empowering rebellious local governments, on putting down the rebellions of the masses upset with things like austerity, unemployment, and denial of government services. And we (meaning, the governments)--in Britain, and in the US--have been riffing off her playbook, more or less, ever since.
She will get the national heroic treatment for her funeral--Westminster Abbey, royal family, etc. As well she should: she was the leading nationalist/imperial British politician of the postwar period, as well (since Churchill, anyway). The Malvinas Putdown was one of the few successful pro-colonial events of the last 70 years. There is something to be said for her intervention rescuing Britain from a drain-swirling malaise: at least it's still clinging to the side of the bowl, and she might deserve some of the credit for that.
I need to mention the movie made of her life in late 2011, Iron Lady. I refer you also to my comments made then; I didn't like the movie all that much, as I felt it dwelt too much on her later dementia and really touched much too lightly on the reality of her governance. Ronald Reagan was just a quick dance memory; Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall didn't even come into it, let alone the domestic strife prevalent throughout her term. This is not to criticize at all her portrayal by Meryl Streep, which was brilliant and thoroughly deserved the Oscar that she received.
I think that the real story of her administration and her time is yet to come, one that should be told by people who were inside the government (or maybe in the opposition), who saw both her strengths and weaknesses, and how they played out in the country, during and after her government, and who could do justice to the complexity of the policy issues she tackled. It was something she never did, nor could she ever, as she was too much at the heart of it, without any objective viewpoint of it all.
CSI: Boston - the Conclusion
This is a story that just won't quit, and one that no storywriter could come up with.
As I predicted, the visual evidence produced the identity of the alleged perpetrators very quickly, then after a short commercial break (and a few false leads: the New York Post canard, the convenience story robbery red herring), came the exciting final half-hour of the show. For some reason--were they "made" as the wanted suspects?--they (allegedly) killed an M.I.T. security officer sitting in his car. This brought down the storm; the senior (alleged) evildoer Tamerlan was dramatically brought down and taken out, but young Dzokhar escaped.
Then came a day of intense drama, the area on lockdown, teams of officers going door to door to find him. The search proved fruitless and the Governor came out and told everyone they could come out. Within minutes, it seemed, young Tsarnaev was spotted by an alert citizen just outside the zone of the house-to-house search, hiding in a boat.
Now comes the real drama of the movie--and we know it will be a movie, maybe several of them--as Tsarnaev huddled in the boat, bleeding severely. The flashbacks--how did he get into this? Why did he ever agree to it? Should he go out in a hail of bullets or face the music? Punctuated by the occasional flashbomb to distract him and bring us back to the story.
Yes, he was at least partially responsible for several deaths, injuries to many, inconvenience to millions. Yes, the malice of the style of the attack--going after the families watching the game, non-competitive finishers four hours into the race, loading the bombs with b-b's, ball bearings, and nails--undermines the empathy we might otherwise feel for the 19-year-old "good guy" (as those who knew him described him).
Still, it's not a simple story at all. Flashback to Chechen in the 1990's. After the fall of the Soviet Union this region of Russia proper, a perennial headache with its Islamic majority and rebellious warrior tradition, wanted out. The Russians, stung by the collapse of the weak coalition of formerly Soviet Republics, were having none of it. The repression was horrendous--both to the Chechens and to the Russians. Think of the US Civil War if it were just South Carolina that seceded. The postwar governance has been equally repugnant to both: to Russians, duty in the Chechen capital is literally "menacing"*. The Chechen suppression has its side effects leaking into neighboring areas, into Moscow itself--it's a wound that won't heal.
Why did this blood feud end up coming to our shores? This is one of the big questions we will seek. The Tsarnaevs were granted asylum by the US; the younger one recently became a citizen, and his older brother might have done so, except that the Russians tracked down his suspicious behavior and their inquiries put a hold on the process. Maybe this was Tamerlan's motive--some kind of paranoid response to frustrated ambition?
The next episode for Tsarnaev will be the "Law and Order" one. The over-under on Dzokhar is 25-to-life. The Feds will dangle the threat of a death sentence if they need to, but I don't think they must. He will be willing to cooperate, I think, having seen all too clearly how serious of a fix he's got himself into. As a public real-life crime drama, this far exceeds O.J. for both importance and interest level. It's not 9/11, but I would compare it to the Patty Hearst/Symbionese Liberation Army story of the '70's for its complexity and multiple story lines.
More broadly, Sen. Charles Grassley crassly tried to bring this story into the immigration legislation game, which is still in its early innings; his ploy has been coldly rejected by most. Instead, it only points out how important it is to evaluate prospective immigrants (and do it better!) Next will be the tie-in to the gun reform issue; how did they get their guns? Of course, the counter will be that, however they got the guns, it was the bombs, which caused the greatest damage ("guns don't kill people--pressure cookers kill people"), and they used nothing that needed anything more than a couple of visits to the hardware, grocery, and toy supply stores.
Finally, there are the stories of Boston, of Watertown, of the state of Massachusetts, of the participants in the Marathon and their families, of the many victims from all walks of life and their perspectives about the incident drama. We must give them all our support in dealing with this brief, but traumatic, experience and its enduring consequences.
*A Russian-speaking colleague gave me the translation of the literal meaning of the Russian word "grozhny", which is also the name of the Chechen capital. The Russians have spent lavishly to rebuild the city after destroying it and purging any rebellious citizens, which is one reason why the Tsarnaevs grew up mostly in nearby Dagestan.
As I predicted, the visual evidence produced the identity of the alleged perpetrators very quickly, then after a short commercial break (and a few false leads: the New York Post canard, the convenience story robbery red herring), came the exciting final half-hour of the show. For some reason--were they "made" as the wanted suspects?--they (allegedly) killed an M.I.T. security officer sitting in his car. This brought down the storm; the senior (alleged) evildoer Tamerlan was dramatically brought down and taken out, but young Dzokhar escaped.
Then came a day of intense drama, the area on lockdown, teams of officers going door to door to find him. The search proved fruitless and the Governor came out and told everyone they could come out. Within minutes, it seemed, young Tsarnaev was spotted by an alert citizen just outside the zone of the house-to-house search, hiding in a boat.
Now comes the real drama of the movie--and we know it will be a movie, maybe several of them--as Tsarnaev huddled in the boat, bleeding severely. The flashbacks--how did he get into this? Why did he ever agree to it? Should he go out in a hail of bullets or face the music? Punctuated by the occasional flashbomb to distract him and bring us back to the story.
Yes, he was at least partially responsible for several deaths, injuries to many, inconvenience to millions. Yes, the malice of the style of the attack--going after the families watching the game, non-competitive finishers four hours into the race, loading the bombs with b-b's, ball bearings, and nails--undermines the empathy we might otherwise feel for the 19-year-old "good guy" (as those who knew him described him).
Still, it's not a simple story at all. Flashback to Chechen in the 1990's. After the fall of the Soviet Union this region of Russia proper, a perennial headache with its Islamic majority and rebellious warrior tradition, wanted out. The Russians, stung by the collapse of the weak coalition of formerly Soviet Republics, were having none of it. The repression was horrendous--both to the Chechens and to the Russians. Think of the US Civil War if it were just South Carolina that seceded. The postwar governance has been equally repugnant to both: to Russians, duty in the Chechen capital is literally "menacing"*. The Chechen suppression has its side effects leaking into neighboring areas, into Moscow itself--it's a wound that won't heal.
Why did this blood feud end up coming to our shores? This is one of the big questions we will seek. The Tsarnaevs were granted asylum by the US; the younger one recently became a citizen, and his older brother might have done so, except that the Russians tracked down his suspicious behavior and their inquiries put a hold on the process. Maybe this was Tamerlan's motive--some kind of paranoid response to frustrated ambition?
The next episode for Tsarnaev will be the "Law and Order" one. The over-under on Dzokhar is 25-to-life. The Feds will dangle the threat of a death sentence if they need to, but I don't think they must. He will be willing to cooperate, I think, having seen all too clearly how serious of a fix he's got himself into. As a public real-life crime drama, this far exceeds O.J. for both importance and interest level. It's not 9/11, but I would compare it to the Patty Hearst/Symbionese Liberation Army story of the '70's for its complexity and multiple story lines.
More broadly, Sen. Charles Grassley crassly tried to bring this story into the immigration legislation game, which is still in its early innings; his ploy has been coldly rejected by most. Instead, it only points out how important it is to evaluate prospective immigrants (and do it better!) Next will be the tie-in to the gun reform issue; how did they get their guns? Of course, the counter will be that, however they got the guns, it was the bombs, which caused the greatest damage ("guns don't kill people--pressure cookers kill people"), and they used nothing that needed anything more than a couple of visits to the hardware, grocery, and toy supply stores.
Finally, there are the stories of Boston, of Watertown, of the state of Massachusetts, of the participants in the Marathon and their families, of the many victims from all walks of life and their perspectives about the incident drama. We must give them all our support in dealing with this brief, but traumatic, experience and its enduring consequences.
*A Russian-speaking colleague gave me the translation of the literal meaning of the Russian word "grozhny", which is also the name of the Chechen capital. The Russians have spent lavishly to rebuild the city after destroying it and purging any rebellious citizens, which is one reason why the Tsarnaevs grew up mostly in nearby Dagestan.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
I'm with Gabby
Gabby Giffords, the former Arizona Congresswoman who was shot by a typical gun nut who had no difficulty buying an automatic pistol with a large magazine despite being recognizably, dangerously insane, stood by President Obama after the pathetic Senate vote not to include a sensible provision to expand background checks for gun purchases, and she told off the Senators in very strong terms. Her editorial in the Times opened an offensive against the offenders; she accused them of cowardice, covered them with shame, and asked her readers to hold them responsible.
Let's review the facts, and the names. The amendment had 54 votes in favor, 46 against; it didn't pass because the rule applied for the bill in the Senate required amendments to receive 60 votes. 50 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted for it; 42 Republicans and 4 Democrats against. The amendment would have had 55 votes, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeing the certain outcome, voted against so that he could introduce a motion to reconsider at some point.
I think Reid is on the right track: those who voted against included some who appear fearful of retribution from the NRA in the next election. Giffords is calling on us to make those political hacks more afraid of the retribution of Americans, who in opinion polls overwhelmingly supported the provision.
So, let's name names, beginning with those who deserve praise. These are the Republicans who bucked the trend and voted in favor: Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, along with Joe Manchin of West Virginia. I give them full credit and pledge some "immunity" in the next election--if they don't do anything too stupid, I will not contribute to their opponents.
I also want to credit a few others who might have caved, due to a sense that their states would not support their backing sensible gun reform, but did not: Independent Angus King of Maine; Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Along with Manchin, they've also earned my backing- - at least for the short-term--by choosing to do the right thing.
Now, the hit list: at the head of it are the four Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment: Mark Begich of Alaska, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and most shamefully, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. The first three have re-election battles coming up in 2014 and perhaps have reason to be fearful of consequences, though I question the accuracy of their judgment. Heitkamp, though, just won election, with a lot of support of national Democrats, and her betrayal is particularly noticeable. I would say something similar of Begich, who has sought support from national Democrats, and should get none in the future. The other two are corporate tools from whom I expected nothing. To be fair, their votes would not have been enough to pass the amendment, but they gave cover to Republicans who also knew better.
Apart from Heitkamp, the other woman who should've known better was Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Yes, she's a Republican, and no moderate, but this is more a test of common-sense and courage than of ideology. She failed it; I thought she was a little smarter. Most of the Republican votes were what we should expect, whether their reasons were libertarian, corporatist (serving the gun manufacturers), or simple Obama-hater (he's for it, so I must be against it). For the record, two other women of the 20 Senators voted against the provision: Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Still, that's 16 for it, and 4 against; once again, the women showed more sense in the Congressional food fight.
In a previous post, I suggested that it would be justice for those who vote against background checks to be the victims of deranged gun-wielders with their arms purchased legally under the radar. Although I still feel that emotionally about it, I would suggest non-violent bulls-eyes for Pryor, Begich, Heitkamp, Ayotte, and Baucus as suitable targets for political campaigns to pressure reconsideration for this foul legislative outcome. Five vote changes, plus Byrd's, would allow this to be reversed and put the spotlight on the House. This vote let Boehner and the House of Orange off way too easily. Public opinion has shifted, and those who would block sensible gun reform in both houses of Congress should feel our fury.
Let's review the facts, and the names. The amendment had 54 votes in favor, 46 against; it didn't pass because the rule applied for the bill in the Senate required amendments to receive 60 votes. 50 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted for it; 42 Republicans and 4 Democrats against. The amendment would have had 55 votes, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeing the certain outcome, voted against so that he could introduce a motion to reconsider at some point.
I think Reid is on the right track: those who voted against included some who appear fearful of retribution from the NRA in the next election. Giffords is calling on us to make those political hacks more afraid of the retribution of Americans, who in opinion polls overwhelmingly supported the provision.
So, let's name names, beginning with those who deserve praise. These are the Republicans who bucked the trend and voted in favor: Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, along with Joe Manchin of West Virginia. I give them full credit and pledge some "immunity" in the next election--if they don't do anything too stupid, I will not contribute to their opponents.
I also want to credit a few others who might have caved, due to a sense that their states would not support their backing sensible gun reform, but did not: Independent Angus King of Maine; Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Along with Manchin, they've also earned my backing- - at least for the short-term--by choosing to do the right thing.
Now, the hit list: at the head of it are the four Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment: Mark Begich of Alaska, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and most shamefully, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. The first three have re-election battles coming up in 2014 and perhaps have reason to be fearful of consequences, though I question the accuracy of their judgment. Heitkamp, though, just won election, with a lot of support of national Democrats, and her betrayal is particularly noticeable. I would say something similar of Begich, who has sought support from national Democrats, and should get none in the future. The other two are corporate tools from whom I expected nothing. To be fair, their votes would not have been enough to pass the amendment, but they gave cover to Republicans who also knew better.
Apart from Heitkamp, the other woman who should've known better was Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Yes, she's a Republican, and no moderate, but this is more a test of common-sense and courage than of ideology. She failed it; I thought she was a little smarter. Most of the Republican votes were what we should expect, whether their reasons were libertarian, corporatist (serving the gun manufacturers), or simple Obama-hater (he's for it, so I must be against it). For the record, two other women of the 20 Senators voted against the provision: Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Still, that's 16 for it, and 4 against; once again, the women showed more sense in the Congressional food fight.
In a previous post, I suggested that it would be justice for those who vote against background checks to be the victims of deranged gun-wielders with their arms purchased legally under the radar. Although I still feel that emotionally about it, I would suggest non-violent bulls-eyes for Pryor, Begich, Heitkamp, Ayotte, and Baucus as suitable targets for political campaigns to pressure reconsideration for this foul legislative outcome. Five vote changes, plus Byrd's, would allow this to be reversed and put the spotlight on the House. This vote let Boehner and the House of Orange off way too easily. Public opinion has shifted, and those who would block sensible gun reform in both houses of Congress should feel our fury.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
CSI: Boston
Naturally, we can only condemn in the strongest possible terms the people responsible for the bombs in Boston on Monday. The design of the attack was cruel and cowardly, suitable only for terrorizing. The attackers will be caught, and while the justice imposed on them will be severe, it will not be nearly as bad as what they deserve.
Why do I feel so strongly they will be caught? Two or three things. First, while I would not call the US a "police state", it is a very well-policed one. We have an over-abundance of police at all levels (the Federal ones a bit less visible). This kind of stuff is now firmly, deeply ingrained in our national culture: the number of shows about law'n'order generally, and Crime Scene Investigation in particular, has mushroomed beyond all reasonable bounds. In the specific case of Boston, recall the recent movies "The Town" and "The Departed", which had the multiplicity of cops of all kinds as a theme in each. All of these are very eager to put to work their detective skills and criminal forensics capabilities. Any physical evidence at the scene will be collected, documented, analyzed, and correlated.
Then, there's the fact that the plotters, no doubt in order to create the greatest shock on the public psyche, chose to set off the bombs in one of the most public, most camera-covered places imaginable. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of cameras trained on the area at all times. Whatever precautions those who set the bombs in place may have taken, there will be a variety of still and action shots taken of them, from a variety of angles. Their 'tells' will be spotted, and the descriptions of those most visible will be produced. We can then hope that tracking down that person/those folks will lead to all the cell membership and it will be broken.
This is a good thing, that a public place should be so heavily covered with cameras. It is important to make a clear distinction between the public spaces, subject at all times to closed-circuit monitoring with review by any and all agencies, and private spaces, in which privacy must be possible and any monitoring is under the control of the right private individuals. The inside of my house is off-limits to the snoops; the outside, too, though I am responsible for anything that comes out of my property into the public space. My car is private on my property, but not when it's out on the public thoroughfares. My computer is private, but what I put out there is not. These are rules that our public agencies, our courts, and our journalists, need to respect.
Why do I feel so strongly they will be caught? Two or three things. First, while I would not call the US a "police state", it is a very well-policed one. We have an over-abundance of police at all levels (the Federal ones a bit less visible). This kind of stuff is now firmly, deeply ingrained in our national culture: the number of shows about law'n'order generally, and Crime Scene Investigation in particular, has mushroomed beyond all reasonable bounds. In the specific case of Boston, recall the recent movies "The Town" and "The Departed", which had the multiplicity of cops of all kinds as a theme in each. All of these are very eager to put to work their detective skills and criminal forensics capabilities. Any physical evidence at the scene will be collected, documented, analyzed, and correlated.
Then, there's the fact that the plotters, no doubt in order to create the greatest shock on the public psyche, chose to set off the bombs in one of the most public, most camera-covered places imaginable. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of cameras trained on the area at all times. Whatever precautions those who set the bombs in place may have taken, there will be a variety of still and action shots taken of them, from a variety of angles. Their 'tells' will be spotted, and the descriptions of those most visible will be produced. We can then hope that tracking down that person/those folks will lead to all the cell membership and it will be broken.
This is a good thing, that a public place should be so heavily covered with cameras. It is important to make a clear distinction between the public spaces, subject at all times to closed-circuit monitoring with review by any and all agencies, and private spaces, in which privacy must be possible and any monitoring is under the control of the right private individuals. The inside of my house is off-limits to the snoops; the outside, too, though I am responsible for anything that comes out of my property into the public space. My car is private on my property, but not when it's out on the public thoroughfares. My computer is private, but what I put out there is not. These are rules that our public agencies, our courts, and our journalists, need to respect.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
No, No, No. Korea
We have listened to the North Koreans' bluster and paranoia before. We have seen them break promises and agreements. We have seen them attack undefended outposts. Of course, we saw them open hostilities during the Cold War (starting the Korean War), and we saw them capture a US Navy ship and imprison and torture the seamen (the U.S.S. Pueblo, in the 1960's). We have seen them starve their own people to have food for the military, and we have seen them hand the dictatorial reign from father to son, twice, like monarchical dynasties of the past.
So why is this time any different, and what will we do this time to change the pattern? I think that the young dictator Kim Jung-on, unproven and with an unknown level of loyalty within the all-important military, has initiated an escalation in the usual level of provocative blather for domestic consumption; if that is true, then this little noise bump will pass without much serious consequence. On the other hand, if North Korea believes its back is against the wall because of external pressures, or because the noise and provocation doesn't convince the military leaders of young Kim's serious intent, violence could emerge in several possible forms.
The relatively minor ones we have seen before, and some have already been probed: North Korea captures visitors, kicks others out, closes lines of communication, shells undefended hamlets, and now, symbolic but new and ominous, announces that the armistice which ended hostilities sixty years ago has ceased to be in effect. In doing so, the North Koreans made reference to some military maneuvers conducted by South Korea and the US, ones that are not violations of any agreements but which North Korea chose to interpret as hostile.
The worst-case scenarios all involve one fairly unfortunate fact: Seoul, one of the largest cities in the world and one of the most economically significant, is vulnerably close to the border. It is hardly beyond belief that Pyongyang could find a way to deliver a nuclear weapon close enough to South Korea's capital to cause huge damage, and it is undeniably true that artillery could set the city ablaze.
North Korea thus has the ability to treat their enemy's capital as a hostage and extracts ransom though implied threats to cause it harm. As for the threats to rain down destruction on the US, even on Japan, I would discount them. If North Korea should ever launch a missile with a trajectory headed for us, one of our outlying territories, or one of our allies--it is easy to establish the trajectory of a missile very quickly--we have anti-missile missiles close at hand to destroy that thing, and the retribution would be swift, inevitable, and permanent (but not without some harm to our friends in South Korea).
The West--and that includes South Korea--has been restrained in its response to North Korea's threats. New Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama have limited their direct comments to asking Pyongyang to knock it off, while offering direct talks--something North Korea often, but not always, has sought.
The more subtle, and more significant, gambit of the US is a renewed approach to China, asking the Chinese to restrain their overexuberant ally. China has a new set of leaders, too, just installed in the last couple of months, and their language suggests a little less inclination to defend North Korea no matter what, a little more to rein it in, and a lot more interest in the well-being of South Korea, which has become a major trading partner.
Looking at North Korea in the long-run, there are really only three outcomes:
1) China tires of the Kim dynasty and puts in place a regime more likely to follow China's directives;
2) China tires of the Kim dynasty and allows the North Korean rule to fall and reunification to happen, similar to what happened with the Soviet Union and East Germany at the end of the Cold War; or
3) Hostilities break out, North Korea causes incalculable damage but is utterly ruined and its Communist government ended.
Of the three, 2) would be the best outcome for Korea and for most of the world, but 1) is by far the most likely. So, the real questions are whether China decides to move sooner or later to end this disastrous regime, and what influence the rest of the world may have upon them to do that.
So why is this time any different, and what will we do this time to change the pattern? I think that the young dictator Kim Jung-on, unproven and with an unknown level of loyalty within the all-important military, has initiated an escalation in the usual level of provocative blather for domestic consumption; if that is true, then this little noise bump will pass without much serious consequence. On the other hand, if North Korea believes its back is against the wall because of external pressures, or because the noise and provocation doesn't convince the military leaders of young Kim's serious intent, violence could emerge in several possible forms.
The relatively minor ones we have seen before, and some have already been probed: North Korea captures visitors, kicks others out, closes lines of communication, shells undefended hamlets, and now, symbolic but new and ominous, announces that the armistice which ended hostilities sixty years ago has ceased to be in effect. In doing so, the North Koreans made reference to some military maneuvers conducted by South Korea and the US, ones that are not violations of any agreements but which North Korea chose to interpret as hostile.
The worst-case scenarios all involve one fairly unfortunate fact: Seoul, one of the largest cities in the world and one of the most economically significant, is vulnerably close to the border. It is hardly beyond belief that Pyongyang could find a way to deliver a nuclear weapon close enough to South Korea's capital to cause huge damage, and it is undeniably true that artillery could set the city ablaze.
 |
| The core of the problem: looking at South Korea in isolation, Seoul looks like the eye of a seated, praying monk. The sense of calm this suggests betrays the fact that harm lies just overhead. |
North Korea thus has the ability to treat their enemy's capital as a hostage and extracts ransom though implied threats to cause it harm. As for the threats to rain down destruction on the US, even on Japan, I would discount them. If North Korea should ever launch a missile with a trajectory headed for us, one of our outlying territories, or one of our allies--it is easy to establish the trajectory of a missile very quickly--we have anti-missile missiles close at hand to destroy that thing, and the retribution would be swift, inevitable, and permanent (but not without some harm to our friends in South Korea).
The West--and that includes South Korea--has been restrained in its response to North Korea's threats. New Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama have limited their direct comments to asking Pyongyang to knock it off, while offering direct talks--something North Korea often, but not always, has sought.
The more subtle, and more significant, gambit of the US is a renewed approach to China, asking the Chinese to restrain their overexuberant ally. China has a new set of leaders, too, just installed in the last couple of months, and their language suggests a little less inclination to defend North Korea no matter what, a little more to rein it in, and a lot more interest in the well-being of South Korea, which has become a major trading partner.
Looking at North Korea in the long-run, there are really only three outcomes:
1) China tires of the Kim dynasty and puts in place a regime more likely to follow China's directives;
2) China tires of the Kim dynasty and allows the North Korean rule to fall and reunification to happen, similar to what happened with the Soviet Union and East Germany at the end of the Cold War; or
3) Hostilities break out, North Korea causes incalculable damage but is utterly ruined and its Communist government ended.
Of the three, 2) would be the best outcome for Korea and for most of the world, but 1) is by far the most likely. So, the real questions are whether China decides to move sooner or later to end this disastrous regime, and what influence the rest of the world may have upon them to do that.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
About the Chained CPI on the FICA
My friend Norman Goldman (normangoldman.com - podcasts only $5 a month, $50 a year) points out that Social Security is not an entitlement but a Federal insurance program (the notation on your paycheck for it is usually "FICA"= Federal Insurance Contribution Act, which mandated payroll deductions to support the program*). I will take heed and stop thinking that all participants are "entitled" to the current level of benefits, for the current level of contributions. A lot of people do tend to think that way, I will admit.
Anyway, this peculiar little bone that President Obama has offered to the would-be austere Republican Congresspeople seems to cause a lot of confusion on all sides. Some point out that this is a "cut", which is going to rob "seniors" of their benefits that they have purchased; others are saying that this is needed to balance our budget, or to preserve the program for the "millennials" (officially, those born 1987-2006) who will be inheriting the benefits after the devastation that will be caused by the boomers' retirement tsunami. Many have argued that Obama has negotiated badly, giving up something for nothing. Is this a betrayal, or a sop? Is it a major concession to the Republicans, or to whom?
I would like to suggest that the facts are as follows: Social Security does not add to the deficit--today--it runs a surplus. It will run a deficit in the future unless something is changed, but it is a very manageable problem which has several possible solutions; deficit financing of the program during the peak period of its stress (roughly 2025-2045) would be one of the less desirable ones, but hardly impossible--then it gets better for the program. People today gain much more from the program than they put in, on average. Seniors will not be penalized all that much from the proposed change, as it will cause a small change in the annual rate of increase of benefits. That change will have a cumulative effect; over a long period of time it will end up saving a huge amount of money. It would mean that the young people will have a secure retirement benefit, but one that will have considerably less value (as compared to today, in real purchasing power). On the benefit side for the young, it would allow the program to maintain the current retirement age (67, with full benefits), which I think is a good idea, regardless of the arguments of those who argue that life expectancy for retirees has lengthened. Their implied conclusion--that we should therefore force people to retire later--is contrary to my point of view that progress means improving quality of life.
Politically, it is a risky move for Obama--yes, he has peed on the third rail of US politics--but he is in a good position to take that risk. He is taking the long-term view, which is entirely appropriate and somewhat novel, so I have to approve of the concept. It does not do much to change the current budgetary dilemma by itself, but if it gets the Republicans thinking "deal" as opposed to their usual starting and ending position of "no deal", it could be an effective ploy. I don't think many Democrats will vote for it in isolation, but as part of a larger agreement they could vote for it, once they understand that the effect on current retirees and near-retirees will be minimal.
*Also known as "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance"-- OASDI.
Anyway, this peculiar little bone that President Obama has offered to the would-be austere Republican Congresspeople seems to cause a lot of confusion on all sides. Some point out that this is a "cut", which is going to rob "seniors" of their benefits that they have purchased; others are saying that this is needed to balance our budget, or to preserve the program for the "millennials" (officially, those born 1987-2006) who will be inheriting the benefits after the devastation that will be caused by the boomers' retirement tsunami. Many have argued that Obama has negotiated badly, giving up something for nothing. Is this a betrayal, or a sop? Is it a major concession to the Republicans, or to whom?
I would like to suggest that the facts are as follows: Social Security does not add to the deficit--today--it runs a surplus. It will run a deficit in the future unless something is changed, but it is a very manageable problem which has several possible solutions; deficit financing of the program during the peak period of its stress (roughly 2025-2045) would be one of the less desirable ones, but hardly impossible--then it gets better for the program. People today gain much more from the program than they put in, on average. Seniors will not be penalized all that much from the proposed change, as it will cause a small change in the annual rate of increase of benefits. That change will have a cumulative effect; over a long period of time it will end up saving a huge amount of money. It would mean that the young people will have a secure retirement benefit, but one that will have considerably less value (as compared to today, in real purchasing power). On the benefit side for the young, it would allow the program to maintain the current retirement age (67, with full benefits), which I think is a good idea, regardless of the arguments of those who argue that life expectancy for retirees has lengthened. Their implied conclusion--that we should therefore force people to retire later--is contrary to my point of view that progress means improving quality of life.
Politically, it is a risky move for Obama--yes, he has peed on the third rail of US politics--but he is in a good position to take that risk. He is taking the long-term view, which is entirely appropriate and somewhat novel, so I have to approve of the concept. It does not do much to change the current budgetary dilemma by itself, but if it gets the Republicans thinking "deal" as opposed to their usual starting and ending position of "no deal", it could be an effective ploy. I don't think many Democrats will vote for it in isolation, but as part of a larger agreement they could vote for it, once they understand that the effect on current retirees and near-retirees will be minimal.
*Also known as "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance"-- OASDI.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Making One Thing Very Clear
I ran across an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday written by Liz Cheney, the former Vice President’s daughter. It is a sort of manifesto extolling the views of the right-wing of the Republican party, refuting the arguments of its more moderate members that the party’s extreme positions are what are keeping it from winning and that it needs to move to the center.
The thesis of her argument is that “(T)hose who counsel that the GOP should move left are wrongheaded or Democrats, or both," showing a fairly liberal open-mindedness to the possibility that someone who is not Democratic could be wrongheaded! She is responding in particular to those who might be suggesting that the cuts caused by the sequestering provisions are harmful, and that therefore Republicans should be more willing to negotiate with the President.
If I were someone sympathetic to Republicans’ desire to regain the White House and assessing her editorial critically, I would say that her argument is based more on a claim that right-wing Republicans’ views are correct and their opponents are wrong, rather than the the possibility that her views will be endorsed by a majority of voters; however, it's really more about just attacking President Obama and declaring opposition to him in all things to be the test of one's patriotism.
She suggests that “the Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls.” All right—like Ms. Cheney, I have a teenage girl, so I know what she is talking about, and I recognize exactly that pattern of argument in some of Cheney’s exaggerated claims about President Obama: He is "the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office." She adds that "The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent." She states that we tell the North Koreans who threaten us, and the Islamist radicals in Benghazi, that "you can attack us with impunity."
She charges that we have allowed al-Qaeda to become resurgent, and that "If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory." In this last point, she refers to a quote from St. Ronald Reagan from 1961 (when he was still a Democrat!) that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction..." and if we don't defend it and teach that "then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."
See what I mean about the sky falling? Of course, all those claims are wrong, starting with the “occupy” charge (probably made as an incitement to anger for the WSJ readers who were outraged and scared by the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which Obama did not endorse nor condemn): I would say that the most radical “occupants” have all been radical conservatives, with the Administration headed by her father and the figurehead President George W. Bush the most radical in recent decades (Calvin Coolidge’s perhaps being the most radical all-time). The reference to “occupy the Oval Office”, with its suggestion of usurpation and improperly gaining the Presidency rather than “being elected and serving in” it seems particularly suited to the Bush-Cheney Administration. Beyond that, North Korea’s threats to the U.S. are pretty laughable (our threats against them much less so), and al-Qaeda has been pulverized; though a few grains remain, their ability to strike against the US and other developed countries has been seriously degraded. As for Reagan's quote, I would say that the main thing that has changed since 1961 is that a lot more men--and women--are now experiencing what it is like to be free, and that--contrary to Cheney's suggestions--our freedoms are not now seriously endangered by such things as having either to purchase healthcare insurance or to pay a fine, or to submit to a screen to see if you are a lunatic or criminal before buying a gun, or if our national defense spending falls below that of all the rest of the countries of the world combined.
She claims that “you can be sure that President Obama would welcome an America in which the Republican Party is preoccupied with remaking itself into a watered-down version of the Democrats." Presumably, she is referring to a desire Obama might have that some of the Republicans be willing to negotiate legislation in the nation’s interest instead of blocking anything that might definitively avoid the slow-motion trainwreck still in progress. I’d guess that desire exists, though I have never heard Obama attempt to advise the Republican party how to conduct its internal affairs.
As for me, though, I wish Liz all the success possible in maintaining total control of the party for the extreme right-wing. The GOP is much more a threat when it has some claim to moderate voters than when it doesn’t (as is generally the case now), even if that appeal is illusory (with the right controlling policy positions but masking their intent somewhat to gull “low-information voters”).
Some would argue that the country is better off with two strong national parties; at this point in time, I would disagree. I’m hoping for the Republicans to solidify their base with the mid-thirty percent nationally that genuinely understand and agree with their positions, with the rest also understanding Republican positions but voting their interest with the Democrats as the only sane choice.
The thesis of her argument is that “(T)hose who counsel that the GOP should move left are wrongheaded or Democrats, or both," showing a fairly liberal open-mindedness to the possibility that someone who is not Democratic could be wrongheaded! She is responding in particular to those who might be suggesting that the cuts caused by the sequestering provisions are harmful, and that therefore Republicans should be more willing to negotiate with the President.
If I were someone sympathetic to Republicans’ desire to regain the White House and assessing her editorial critically, I would say that her argument is based more on a claim that right-wing Republicans’ views are correct and their opponents are wrong, rather than the the possibility that her views will be endorsed by a majority of voters; however, it's really more about just attacking President Obama and declaring opposition to him in all things to be the test of one's patriotism.
She suggests that “the Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls.” All right—like Ms. Cheney, I have a teenage girl, so I know what she is talking about, and I recognize exactly that pattern of argument in some of Cheney’s exaggerated claims about President Obama: He is "the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office." She adds that "The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent." She states that we tell the North Koreans who threaten us, and the Islamist radicals in Benghazi, that "you can attack us with impunity."
She charges that we have allowed al-Qaeda to become resurgent, and that "If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory." In this last point, she refers to a quote from St. Ronald Reagan from 1961 (when he was still a Democrat!) that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction..." and if we don't defend it and teach that "then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."
See what I mean about the sky falling? Of course, all those claims are wrong, starting with the “occupy” charge (probably made as an incitement to anger for the WSJ readers who were outraged and scared by the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which Obama did not endorse nor condemn): I would say that the most radical “occupants” have all been radical conservatives, with the Administration headed by her father and the figurehead President George W. Bush the most radical in recent decades (Calvin Coolidge’s perhaps being the most radical all-time). The reference to “occupy the Oval Office”, with its suggestion of usurpation and improperly gaining the Presidency rather than “being elected and serving in” it seems particularly suited to the Bush-Cheney Administration. Beyond that, North Korea’s threats to the U.S. are pretty laughable (our threats against them much less so), and al-Qaeda has been pulverized; though a few grains remain, their ability to strike against the US and other developed countries has been seriously degraded. As for Reagan's quote, I would say that the main thing that has changed since 1961 is that a lot more men--and women--are now experiencing what it is like to be free, and that--contrary to Cheney's suggestions--our freedoms are not now seriously endangered by such things as having either to purchase healthcare insurance or to pay a fine, or to submit to a screen to see if you are a lunatic or criminal before buying a gun, or if our national defense spending falls below that of all the rest of the countries of the world combined.
She claims that “you can be sure that President Obama would welcome an America in which the Republican Party is preoccupied with remaking itself into a watered-down version of the Democrats." Presumably, she is referring to a desire Obama might have that some of the Republicans be willing to negotiate legislation in the nation’s interest instead of blocking anything that might definitively avoid the slow-motion trainwreck still in progress. I’d guess that desire exists, though I have never heard Obama attempt to advise the Republican party how to conduct its internal affairs.
As for me, though, I wish Liz all the success possible in maintaining total control of the party for the extreme right-wing. The GOP is much more a threat when it has some claim to moderate voters than when it doesn’t (as is generally the case now), even if that appeal is illusory (with the right controlling policy positions but masking their intent somewhat to gull “low-information voters”).
Some would argue that the country is better off with two strong national parties; at this point in time, I would disagree. I’m hoping for the Republicans to solidify their base with the mid-thirty percent nationally that genuinely understand and agree with their positions, with the rest also understanding Republican positions but voting their interest with the Democrats as the only sane choice.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Global Update
Matters of State and Fossil Fuels
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Comments Upon Comments
I was reading a column by Joel Stein in Time magazine the other day*, the title of which was "No Comment", and the point of which was to include his remarks on how moronic are most of the comments on websites, and to proudly boast that he will not allow comments on his column.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sports Update
Manchester United- Chelsea
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Who Rules in Rome?
Candidate I: The New Pope
Pope Benedict's most interesting move as Pope was his last--choosing to abdicate. There seemed not to be a rule against it, but no pope had left vertically from the job in 600 years or so. I have heard all the gossip about the supposed "real reason" why he left--gay intrigue, financial shenanigans, cover-up of whatever. They may all be true, but I don't believe any of them is the reason he is leaving: he saw how his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was reduced at the end and didn't want to go out that way. I give him credit, and I recommend his example to future popes who can see their faculties irreversibly slipping away.
Pope Benedict's term officially ends now, and the conclave of Cardinals of the church will begin to select a new pope. I do not pretend to have followed the politics of the Vatican enough to be able to guess on whose feet will be fitted "The Shoes of the Fisherman", ready or not, but I do think the rest of the world (and not just the Catholics) has an interest in their judgment.
I do not have any expectation that the new pope will be any kind of an innovator, one who will change the current state of papal bull. What I have read is that all of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Pope Benedict or by his predecessor, and that means it is unlikely that the next pope will be even slightly inclined to change things, or that even any of those who will be voting will be so inclined. That means no prospect of female priests, no change to celibacy rules, no change to policies on contraception, etc.
That being said, there are some things that could change, and selection of the right Pope could help with them. What I am looking for above all is a change to the Eurocentric, even Italocentric, focus of the papacy and of the College of Cardinals. There are many more Catholics in Latin America than in Europe, and if one adds the Catholics from Asia, Africa, and North America to those in South and Central America, one realizes that 100% of modern popes (in the last ten centuries or so) have come from the continent of 25% of modern Catholics. The last two popes were not Italian--so the Italian cardinals think they are due, no doubt--but the previous fifty or so were, and of course Italians represent a much smaller, steadily shrinking, percentage. The origin of the cardinals themselves has been broadening; a non-European pope might assist that process, which--since the church is such a hierarchical, patriarchal organization--might lead to those in the rest of the world feeling a little less like second-class Catholics. More likely, I will be disappointed at the end, as I was when the current pope was chosen.
Candidate II: The New Prime Minister
Italians went to the polls this week to choose a new Parliament. The results were shocking, but not very significant. How can this be true? To answer this, we must delve a little into the morass of Italian politics, one of my favorite subjects.
Italy is a true multi-party Parliamentary democracy, one of the purest in the world (Israel is another). Unlike Great Britain, where the parties are stable, with long history and hereditary patterns of membership, Italian parties come and go, burning brightly then burning out, and, even more so, the groupings of parties are short-lived. Credibility is the big issue for Italian parties; in order to come into governing coalitions, parties bend their principles out of shape until no one believes their platforms anymore. Then, the parties, or their leaders, usually do something which confirms peoples' worst impressions of them.
It's been going on for more than six decades, since WWII, and it went on for several decades before then, from independence through WWI. The one party which remained true to its principles, in many Italians' minds, was the Fascist party of Mussolini. That was the good part, the bad side was that most of their principles, in fact, were ugly, repressive, and self-destructive.*
The Italians made an effort in the last decade to develop something like a two-party system. Their (excessively) proportional representation was revised to give a sizable bonus of seats in the lower house to the party winning the most votes. Two big groupings formed, one around "The Cavalier"--Silvio Berlusconi, multimillionaire industrialist, media magnate, and self-imagined ladies' man--and one called "The Olive Tree" of all the groups which couldn't stand him. Of course, Italian politics being what they are, both groups fractured within a few years.
The elections this month occurred in a more typical fragmented environment, but there were really only four major parties contesting the election. The first two were the renamed remnants of the Berlusconi coalition and the anti-Berlusconi one, Berlusconi's we will refer to as "center-right" and the other "center-left". The center-left coalition's largest group is the Democratic Party (PD), which is really the former Italian Communists and Socialists of the postwar period (both of their parties self-destructed). Italian Communists are like no other Communists in the world: they have a long tradition for clean government, support of labor unions, using the rules of electoral democracy to achieve their ends, and responsible, bourgeois bureaucracy. The leader of the PD for this election was Pier Luigi Bersani, another in a series of former Euro-Communists with impeccable democratic credentials. Berlusconi's supporters are middle-class patriots, businesspeople, and a significant bloc of Northern Italians sick of subsidies in favor of the relatively poor South of the country,
As you might imagine from the descriptions above, your average non-special interest, free-thinking iconoclastic Italian hates both of them. The third force is made up of the technocrats who rallied behind central banker Mario Monti, Prime Minister of the last governing coalition (destroyed by the tidal pulls of austerity), while the fourth is a unique Italian phenomenon, the Five Stars Movement of comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo ("grillo" means "cricket", and I'm assuming that is not his real name). Grillo is anti-everything, and particularly anti-Berlusconi and anti-EuroCommunist, and in his long career his humor has been satiric, vicious, and often vulgar.
In Italy, organization is everything, and the many who hate politics and politicians have organized, and their man with a megaphone is currently Grillo, who has been very adept at using the Internet, cell phones, and flash mobs to create a political movement of the disaffected. Grillo is the latest in a unique Italian tradition which I would call the "vafanculo" party. The one I would compare him most to is Marco Pannella, head of the new-Left Radicals of the Seventies through Nineties. Pannella and the Radicals accomplished much--through hunger strikes, referendums, political organizing for issues--but never went into the government. Eventually, time passed them by, and now these random elements converged on Grillo, who made a late run. Bersani's coalition had a sizable lead, but it shrunk by the day.
The final results were a very narrow popular vote victory for the center-left coalition over the Berlusconi forces (29.5% to 29.1% in the lower house; 31.6% to 30.7% in the Senate). Grillo's M5S (Movimento 5 Stelle) came in a very strong third, with 25.5% in the lower house and 23.8% in the Senate, while Monti's group finished fourth, around 10%, but still high enough to get a strategically-important slice of representatives.
Thanks to Bersani's narrow win in the lower House of Deputies and the bonus he received, the only conceivable choice for Prime Minister, really, is Bersani--his party has an absolute majority in that house with 345 of 630 seats. (Results, and some of the background are from the online version of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.) In order to be confirmed in office, though, his Cabinet will need to be approved by both houses, and in the Senate his party has only 123 of 315 seats (Berlusconi controls 117, Grillo 54, and Monti 19). The immediate reaction was that no government can be formed, a hasty judgment, and one that does not give full credit to the Italians' creativity, though it does recognize their ability to dispute endlessly.
Anyway, Bersani will surely get the initial chance to form a government, which will be granted by President Napolitano, an aged former PCI and WWII partisan leader, who was quoted on a visit to Germany this week calling both Berlusconi and Grillo "clowns". Subsequently, he walked back his comment, saying it was "out of place"--but not mistaken, for surely it is correct. Italian politics is nothing if not a stage play with its leaders as dramatic actors, and the role these two play are that of "pagliacci" for sure (sorry for the opera reference). The amusement factor should be multiplied, though, now that there are two clowns at the very front of the stage beating each other over the head with rubber bats.
If no one can put together a government--the Italians call that not-unusal situation a government "crisis in the dark"--eventually the President would call for new elections. One alternative that I saw mentioned in my research is the possibility that new elections might be called for just the Senate--I didn't know that was possible, and it might not have the desired effect. My reading of the math is that Bersani--who would normally be able to count on Monti's group for support and to fill responsibly key positions in the Cabinet--will have to deal with either Berlusconi or Grillo. Berlusconi's price might well be to make Monti the PM in a unity government; Grillo's might be to water down the austerity in exchange for his willingness to abstain in a vote of no confidence in the Senate. In any of these outcomes, the answer to the title question will be: Nobody.
But, Really...
It is a debatable proposition which authority has more influence, the secular government of the Republic of Italy, or the presumed holy one of Vatican City. The Italian central government has always--since the nation's unification in the 19th century--been a relatively weak one, hardly able to manage the disputatious and endlessly politically creative Italian people. Both before and after the Risorgimento, Italy was a land in which the Roman Catholic church meddled, often, frequently in a decisive way, and not necessarily to the benefit of the native population.
The current equation governing power in the Italian peninsula was worked out during the rule of Mussolini, and it has survived both his fall and the Italian monarchy that was in place at the time. Basically, Italy--the secular state--has agreed to leave the Vatican alone and sovereign within its walls, and the Vatican agreed to stay out of domestic politics. The formula has worked to allow the Vatican to project its power worldwide, probably more effectively than it had for centuries, and the state has eliminated a messy distraction from its many obstacles to effective government.
Italy now has a new distraction, one that overpowers the relatively puny efforts of its central government and the regions, provinces, and comuni (the localities). The relatively impotent European Community government provided a neutral battleground for Italians to exercise their volatile political arguments but didn't rule their world, but the European central bankers responsible (mostly to the various national governments, and especially to Germany's) for safeguarding the Euro have not been able to leave Italy alone in the past few years. Italy entered the Euro under somewhat false pretenses, not really meeting the requirements for government debt or budget-balancing, but the European Community needed Italy in the deal. And, they still do: while Greece is a relatively small appendage to the Eurozone which could be excised if it were done before its corruption spread to the rest of the body, Italy is a pound of flesh too near the heart.
So, I would say that the near-universal perception in Italy (I will confirm it this summer) is that the shots are being called by the Eurobankers, on behalf of the "tedeschi" (Germans). This is different from what I often experienced in the past, when the Italians were convinced their country was controlled by the CIA (and they had plenty of evidence of such conspiracy), but this would not be a system of order that will appeal much, either. Economically, they may not have any better alternative, but a lot of Italians have very little invested in the globalized national economy, relatively successful though it appears.
In summary, a very combustible situation; one could conclude that there is the potential for massive, even revolutionary, upheaval, but that is often the case in Italy and it occurs much less frequently than would seem possible.
*Another group remaining true to its principles--even now-- that I discovered in my research is the Italian Republican Party, which dates back to the 19th century. It has always stood for respectable, democratic government and has produced many of the leading figures of modern Italian history--though I don't think it has ever attained more than 5% of the vote in postwar Italy. The leader of its leading fragment (there was a PRI list that got about 5000 votes nationally) now is Oscar Giannino, his party is called "Fare" (to do/to make) and its slogan is "to stop the decline". It got about 1% of the vote (300,000 or so) and no seats in Parliament. Draw your own conclusions.
Pope Benedict's most interesting move as Pope was his last--choosing to abdicate. There seemed not to be a rule against it, but no pope had left vertically from the job in 600 years or so. I have heard all the gossip about the supposed "real reason" why he left--gay intrigue, financial shenanigans, cover-up of whatever. They may all be true, but I don't believe any of them is the reason he is leaving: he saw how his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was reduced at the end and didn't want to go out that way. I give him credit, and I recommend his example to future popes who can see their faculties irreversibly slipping away.
Pope Benedict's term officially ends now, and the conclave of Cardinals of the church will begin to select a new pope. I do not pretend to have followed the politics of the Vatican enough to be able to guess on whose feet will be fitted "The Shoes of the Fisherman", ready or not, but I do think the rest of the world (and not just the Catholics) has an interest in their judgment.
I do not have any expectation that the new pope will be any kind of an innovator, one who will change the current state of papal bull. What I have read is that all of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Pope Benedict or by his predecessor, and that means it is unlikely that the next pope will be even slightly inclined to change things, or that even any of those who will be voting will be so inclined. That means no prospect of female priests, no change to celibacy rules, no change to policies on contraception, etc.
That being said, there are some things that could change, and selection of the right Pope could help with them. What I am looking for above all is a change to the Eurocentric, even Italocentric, focus of the papacy and of the College of Cardinals. There are many more Catholics in Latin America than in Europe, and if one adds the Catholics from Asia, Africa, and North America to those in South and Central America, one realizes that 100% of modern popes (in the last ten centuries or so) have come from the continent of 25% of modern Catholics. The last two popes were not Italian--so the Italian cardinals think they are due, no doubt--but the previous fifty or so were, and of course Italians represent a much smaller, steadily shrinking, percentage. The origin of the cardinals themselves has been broadening; a non-European pope might assist that process, which--since the church is such a hierarchical, patriarchal organization--might lead to those in the rest of the world feeling a little less like second-class Catholics. More likely, I will be disappointed at the end, as I was when the current pope was chosen.
Candidate II: The New Prime Minister
Italians went to the polls this week to choose a new Parliament. The results were shocking, but not very significant. How can this be true? To answer this, we must delve a little into the morass of Italian politics, one of my favorite subjects.
Italy is a true multi-party Parliamentary democracy, one of the purest in the world (Israel is another). Unlike Great Britain, where the parties are stable, with long history and hereditary patterns of membership, Italian parties come and go, burning brightly then burning out, and, even more so, the groupings of parties are short-lived. Credibility is the big issue for Italian parties; in order to come into governing coalitions, parties bend their principles out of shape until no one believes their platforms anymore. Then, the parties, or their leaders, usually do something which confirms peoples' worst impressions of them.
It's been going on for more than six decades, since WWII, and it went on for several decades before then, from independence through WWI. The one party which remained true to its principles, in many Italians' minds, was the Fascist party of Mussolini. That was the good part, the bad side was that most of their principles, in fact, were ugly, repressive, and self-destructive.*
The Italians made an effort in the last decade to develop something like a two-party system. Their (excessively) proportional representation was revised to give a sizable bonus of seats in the lower house to the party winning the most votes. Two big groupings formed, one around "The Cavalier"--Silvio Berlusconi, multimillionaire industrialist, media magnate, and self-imagined ladies' man--and one called "The Olive Tree" of all the groups which couldn't stand him. Of course, Italian politics being what they are, both groups fractured within a few years.
The elections this month occurred in a more typical fragmented environment, but there were really only four major parties contesting the election. The first two were the renamed remnants of the Berlusconi coalition and the anti-Berlusconi one, Berlusconi's we will refer to as "center-right" and the other "center-left". The center-left coalition's largest group is the Democratic Party (PD), which is really the former Italian Communists and Socialists of the postwar period (both of their parties self-destructed). Italian Communists are like no other Communists in the world: they have a long tradition for clean government, support of labor unions, using the rules of electoral democracy to achieve their ends, and responsible, bourgeois bureaucracy. The leader of the PD for this election was Pier Luigi Bersani, another in a series of former Euro-Communists with impeccable democratic credentials. Berlusconi's supporters are middle-class patriots, businesspeople, and a significant bloc of Northern Italians sick of subsidies in favor of the relatively poor South of the country,
As you might imagine from the descriptions above, your average non-special interest, free-thinking iconoclastic Italian hates both of them. The third force is made up of the technocrats who rallied behind central banker Mario Monti, Prime Minister of the last governing coalition (destroyed by the tidal pulls of austerity), while the fourth is a unique Italian phenomenon, the Five Stars Movement of comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo ("grillo" means "cricket", and I'm assuming that is not his real name). Grillo is anti-everything, and particularly anti-Berlusconi and anti-EuroCommunist, and in his long career his humor has been satiric, vicious, and often vulgar.
In Italy, organization is everything, and the many who hate politics and politicians have organized, and their man with a megaphone is currently Grillo, who has been very adept at using the Internet, cell phones, and flash mobs to create a political movement of the disaffected. Grillo is the latest in a unique Italian tradition which I would call the "vafanculo" party. The one I would compare him most to is Marco Pannella, head of the new-Left Radicals of the Seventies through Nineties. Pannella and the Radicals accomplished much--through hunger strikes, referendums, political organizing for issues--but never went into the government. Eventually, time passed them by, and now these random elements converged on Grillo, who made a late run. Bersani's coalition had a sizable lead, but it shrunk by the day.
The final results were a very narrow popular vote victory for the center-left coalition over the Berlusconi forces (29.5% to 29.1% in the lower house; 31.6% to 30.7% in the Senate). Grillo's M5S (Movimento 5 Stelle) came in a very strong third, with 25.5% in the lower house and 23.8% in the Senate, while Monti's group finished fourth, around 10%, but still high enough to get a strategically-important slice of representatives.
Thanks to Bersani's narrow win in the lower House of Deputies and the bonus he received, the only conceivable choice for Prime Minister, really, is Bersani--his party has an absolute majority in that house with 345 of 630 seats. (Results, and some of the background are from the online version of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.) In order to be confirmed in office, though, his Cabinet will need to be approved by both houses, and in the Senate his party has only 123 of 315 seats (Berlusconi controls 117, Grillo 54, and Monti 19). The immediate reaction was that no government can be formed, a hasty judgment, and one that does not give full credit to the Italians' creativity, though it does recognize their ability to dispute endlessly.
Anyway, Bersani will surely get the initial chance to form a government, which will be granted by President Napolitano, an aged former PCI and WWII partisan leader, who was quoted on a visit to Germany this week calling both Berlusconi and Grillo "clowns". Subsequently, he walked back his comment, saying it was "out of place"--but not mistaken, for surely it is correct. Italian politics is nothing if not a stage play with its leaders as dramatic actors, and the role these two play are that of "pagliacci" for sure (sorry for the opera reference). The amusement factor should be multiplied, though, now that there are two clowns at the very front of the stage beating each other over the head with rubber bats.
If no one can put together a government--the Italians call that not-unusal situation a government "crisis in the dark"--eventually the President would call for new elections. One alternative that I saw mentioned in my research is the possibility that new elections might be called for just the Senate--I didn't know that was possible, and it might not have the desired effect. My reading of the math is that Bersani--who would normally be able to count on Monti's group for support and to fill responsibly key positions in the Cabinet--will have to deal with either Berlusconi or Grillo. Berlusconi's price might well be to make Monti the PM in a unity government; Grillo's might be to water down the austerity in exchange for his willingness to abstain in a vote of no confidence in the Senate. In any of these outcomes, the answer to the title question will be: Nobody.
But, Really...
It is a debatable proposition which authority has more influence, the secular government of the Republic of Italy, or the presumed holy one of Vatican City. The Italian central government has always--since the nation's unification in the 19th century--been a relatively weak one, hardly able to manage the disputatious and endlessly politically creative Italian people. Both before and after the Risorgimento, Italy was a land in which the Roman Catholic church meddled, often, frequently in a decisive way, and not necessarily to the benefit of the native population.
The current equation governing power in the Italian peninsula was worked out during the rule of Mussolini, and it has survived both his fall and the Italian monarchy that was in place at the time. Basically, Italy--the secular state--has agreed to leave the Vatican alone and sovereign within its walls, and the Vatican agreed to stay out of domestic politics. The formula has worked to allow the Vatican to project its power worldwide, probably more effectively than it had for centuries, and the state has eliminated a messy distraction from its many obstacles to effective government.
Italy now has a new distraction, one that overpowers the relatively puny efforts of its central government and the regions, provinces, and comuni (the localities). The relatively impotent European Community government provided a neutral battleground for Italians to exercise their volatile political arguments but didn't rule their world, but the European central bankers responsible (mostly to the various national governments, and especially to Germany's) for safeguarding the Euro have not been able to leave Italy alone in the past few years. Italy entered the Euro under somewhat false pretenses, not really meeting the requirements for government debt or budget-balancing, but the European Community needed Italy in the deal. And, they still do: while Greece is a relatively small appendage to the Eurozone which could be excised if it were done before its corruption spread to the rest of the body, Italy is a pound of flesh too near the heart.
So, I would say that the near-universal perception in Italy (I will confirm it this summer) is that the shots are being called by the Eurobankers, on behalf of the "tedeschi" (Germans). This is different from what I often experienced in the past, when the Italians were convinced their country was controlled by the CIA (and they had plenty of evidence of such conspiracy), but this would not be a system of order that will appeal much, either. Economically, they may not have any better alternative, but a lot of Italians have very little invested in the globalized national economy, relatively successful though it appears.
In summary, a very combustible situation; one could conclude that there is the potential for massive, even revolutionary, upheaval, but that is often the case in Italy and it occurs much less frequently than would seem possible.
*Another group remaining true to its principles--even now-- that I discovered in my research is the Italian Republican Party, which dates back to the 19th century. It has always stood for respectable, democratic government and has produced many of the leading figures of modern Italian history--though I don't think it has ever attained more than 5% of the vote in postwar Italy. The leader of its leading fragment (there was a PRI list that got about 5000 votes nationally) now is Oscar Giannino, his party is called "Fare" (to do/to make) and its slogan is "to stop the decline". It got about 1% of the vote (300,000 or so) and no seats in Parliament. Draw your own conclusions.
The Slowest Train-Wreck of All Time
In a couple of days, the sequester of spending will begin to apply. This reduction in spending--a percentage of the total, with entitlement areas excluded--had been agreed by Congress and the President in 2011 as a compromise to end the debt ceiling crisis of that time. The across-the-board reductions were supposed to be replaced by a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Super-committee's decisions on prudent deficit reduction measures, but they could come to no agreement by the time deadline they were given. The cuts were postponed, kicked down the road, but there was still no agreement on spending priorities, and so we are come to this. Two trains heading toward each other on the same track, a game of low-speed chicken.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Here's to the Losers!
I have to endorse the sentiment of the Oscars-closing song that Seth McFarlane and Kristen Chenoweth performed. Rather than last night's winners, I want to praise the losers.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
My 10's
In honor of the Academy Awards, here are the ones I've rated as 10 on imdb.com (out of 713 items rated, at last count). In order to rate a 10 with me, a movie needs to change the way I think, forever, and for better.
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
