10-Point Program

Back on Barack (B.O. Barack):

He doesn't want to announce a 10-point program--maybe he's afraid it's too limiting to his scope. I think that he needs to have some focus, besides bringing everyone together and all that nice-sounding stuff. Personally, I can't imagine someone running for President who doesn't have a program.

Anyway, here's mine (no, I'm not running--I'm using it to evaluate those who do), once again:

TEN-POINT PROGRAM

1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.

2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.

3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.

4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.

5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly; similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.

6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.

7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.

8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.

Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.

I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.

9. Electoral reform
.How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!

10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones)
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.

Some of these need some elaboration, and some discussion of why others are not included. Finally, my Iraq proposal (not part, an adjunct to #3). Coming soon.

B.O.: Boom Over?

On the talking heads shows today, "sources" who have been speaking informally with Barack Obama have informed us that he says, in effect, "The boomers decided back in the '60's to hate each other, but we're past that now. We're coming together."

I think that's OK, and very perceptive in its way, as long as we get one thing straight: the only politicians who have a right to criticize the boomers are the boomers themselves. And, sure enough, though he cleverly tries to put himself beyond The Baby Boom, Obama's 1961 birthdate puts him right there in the tail end. Either in terms of birthrates for mothers or of babies born, the boom, properly considered as a demographic phenomenon, covers the 20 years of births from 1946 through 1965.

Up to now, in political terms, the big shots have all been from the front end of the wave (or even slightly ahead of it)--that group that's just now hitting 60. That was the Shock Corps; we are the ones who trailed in their wake (often getting caught in the turbulence when we strayed). As for "Obara" (as Eleanor Clift said today; B.O.'s alter ego is, in fact, "KaBama' O'Barra", half-Irish, half-Southern black), as long as he can get us Shockers and Wavers to buy in, the Tail-Gunners can fire away at us. It's our own generational form of self-hate.

The Last anti-Bushite Rant

Tim Seidl, Kathy Bisbee and Doug Pomeroy all sent the same list, and we are grateful:

(On an infant's shirt): Already smarter than Bush.
1/20/09: End of an Error
That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway.
Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time.
Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
Which God Do You Kill For?
Cheney/Satan '08
Jail to the Chief
Who Would Jesus Torture?
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
So Many Christians, So Few Lions
Bad president! No Banana.
We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
Buck Fush
Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.
Impeach Cheney First
Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century.

I suppose we're grateful in that we don't have to parse any differences....

At any rate, the Ace of Hearts has fallen. Along with him, those laid low include the Ace Spades--Rove; Ace Clubs--Rumsfeld; the Kings of Spades--DeLay, Hearts--Jeb, and Diamonds--Frist; Queens Foley (diamonds) and Mehlman (spades--OK, Mehlman left honorably); Jacks Feist (clubs) and Santorum (spades). Our War deck has left only the face cards for Cheney (A of D), Queens Barbara Bush and Condi Rice (Hearts and clubs), and Jacks Alberto Gonzalez, hearts, and Mitch McConnell, diamonds.

The King of Clubs spot (the hidden person in the military-industrial complex 2nd-most responsible for the Iraq fiasco after Dick Cheney), I'd have to say belongs to George Tenet (down and out), though others would see in the face the images of Perle, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. Anyway, the whole suit has turned and is working for the anti-Bushite banner now. That's why this has to be the last rant. We're moving on.

They Rise Once Again to Their Nation's Rescue

Sounds almost too heroic to be true, doesn't it? But that is the kind of praise deserving to the Iraq Study Group, and particularly its leaders, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Let us recall first the yeoman service they have given us, and recently, too: Baker in the committee for electoral reform with Jimmy Carter (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/09/carter-baker-electoral-reforms.html), and Hamilton with Kean, Sr. in the 9/11 Commission. I have nothing but praise for both prior efforts, and it is to our collective shame that we have not done more with them. Both were also successful efforts to conspicuously display bipartisanship in conception and execution.

Neither of them got too far with the Bushites, but that's all over now. The nation has wearily turned the page. Dubya will pay dearly for attempted lip service this time. Which is not to say he wouldn't try it.

Baker and Hamilton have delivered on their purpose to provide a sensible bipartisan agreement with all particulars agreed to unanimously. The statement represents a bold departure from current strategy, and one that is, again, sensible in all its principal recommendations. Not guaranteeing success, it still pursues the combination of the highest probability of success along with some appreciable gain from "success".

Baker has usually been a trustworthy adversary to us, respected as we opposed his causes. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton has been a personal favorite of mine for over 30 years. My uncle was one of Hamilton's principal political allies in the old days in south-central Indiana in the 60's, and I have followed his career with interest since then. He has consistently shown judgement and maturity in his legislative work, which focused on America's role in world affairs. For his long-term role in Congress, particularly as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House during the key period, I would give him a hefty slice of the credit which tends to go exclusively to Reagan and Bush I for our ultimate victory in the Cold War. He was not a rubber stamp, though; Hamiltonian foreign policy would have shown more aversion to military adventure than our elected Presidents have.

The Iraq Study Group formulation bears a striking resemblance to the Consensus Democratic position that I outlined 15 months ago--except, of course, that I proposed it as a partisan stance: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html. Boiling Baker-Hamilton down, I'd summarize that they would complete whatever military missions remain (focusing on training and other mentorship--I don't see much about reconstruction) in 2007 and focus on withdrawing combat forces in 2008, while trying to open dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. Kind of obvious stuff, but still a lightning bolt because of what it represents: all parties telling the Emperor his buff bod's in the buff.

What has happened here is that the Democrats have reaped the electoral benefit of their less-than-fully-enunciated Iraq position, and now it becomes bipartisan. In the milieu of foreign policy development, that's already a success. Just as I don't begrudge the Republicans' latching onto it at this point, I don't resent the Democrats' failure to articulate what we were thinking; we are all anti-Bushites now (even many of the neocons).

Even the Bush Family Friend. Now, if we could only get the dog (and the Duck; ahem, that's "Dick") aboard. Then we could actually accomplish something in the next two years.

Green Energy: What's it Worth To Ya?

I've delighted in some of Patricia Chambers' reporting in the past: her preview before this year's election was quite good, for example. In the case of her Dec. 7 Taos News article, "Just how 'green' is Taos County?" though, I think she would have done better to include some economic and political analysis along with the straight reporting of the Kit Carson co-op meeting and the speech of its CEO. So, I'll provide some:

First, from the point of view of the consumer, who's getting browbeaten here, the key factor, mentioned almost in passing, is that consumers have to pay extra for electricity from Green sources. The amount, $.0125 per kwh, is beside the point. Essentially, the word around the street is that this is a "stupid tax" and people don't want any part of it.

"Stupid tax"--you may have heard the term used more for the public lotteries, and, less frequently, in relation to casino gambling. The difference between those activities--which attract hundreds of millions in the U.S.--and this one is that those forms of entertainment at least give you a moment of pulse-quickening thrill as they take your money. Green energy offers no extra juice.

If only they gave you something for signing up, some more would buy. Maybe a bumper sticker that says, "I Pay More for My Electricity For Your Benefit" would do the trick more than just the current mere Feeling That You Did the Right Thing. That, the normal electricity cost, and $.0125 per kwh will keep your lights burning (and they will seem to have a greener tint).

The bumper-sticker handout is a short-run, small-thinking approach, though. The real ticket is to make the price of Green Energy the same as the other source. Who wouldn't choose it, then? And once you had the mass interest in the product, it would work financially.

Which brings us to the second economic perspective, that of the enterprise. The key concept to consider here is "sunk cost". Basically, Kit Carson's heirs have invested most of the dough already in building the system to track the separate revenue from Green energy and the separate sourcing stream of energy. Which means that the enterprise has reason to lower its prices for the product now that it didn't have when the project was on the drawing board. They tried to get people to pay more for it; that didn't work. The next step is to see how many they can get to sign up by making public appeals, before they reduce the price, or if that doesn't work, abandon the project.

In all fairness, though, the sequence is the correct one for the enterprise, and it's right that they should be making the public appeals at this current stage. They have no doubt resolved to hold the line for a while longer before they take the plunge and bring the price to par, or perhaps they're merely waiting for the right moment.

Indeed, why give up that line before they have tried the third route, that of getting public policy support for the endeavor? Essentially, Kit Carson's next move should be to appeal to the government (through any lobby connections they have, but also through letter-writing campaigns from their many customers) for a subidy which will allow them to price at parity with the commercially-sourced "organic, but not green" fossil fuel-burning electricity. I'd suggest the federal route, going to Udall and Domenici, with the state channel as strategy 3B.

I would say that each political channel holds promise. I don't pretend to know the legal complications for the interactions between feds, the state, and our own rural electric co-operative. I think there's plenty of precedent for subsidies, though, and politically, it's a winner: to any elected official, it has the appearance of Votes on a Platter. That might not matter to Domenici, if he's secretly harboring ambitions of retirement, but otherwise he should love this one. Udall and Bingaman should be slam-dunks, though their support would not be sufficient without that of Ol' Pete. Richardson would also like it, but he might encounter a problem with the jealousy of state legislators from other parts of the state.

As one who rates the reduction of our climate-changing effects from generating greenhouse gases and burning fossil fuels to be at the absolute head of the list of our long-term priorities, I would welcome such a government investment decision. But sign up to pay extra for nothing? No, not even I would do that.

PO-210 by Any Other Name

My thoughts on the Litvinenko poisoning:

I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. This book was in the form of a medieval mystery story with a 12th-century Sherlock Holmes-equivalent solving the mysterious poisoning of several in a monastery. The key aspect to solving the case and identifying the culprit was the absence of motive, and the solution turned out to be a booby-trapped document.

Here there's plenty of motive, but identifying a potential culprit who had a physical connection with the victim seems to be the key. This latest poisoning of a second person, one who met with Litvinenko, suggests that there may have been such a trap: a document which may not have been so important in its contents, but was designed to draw interest and then kill those who viewed it. A ultranationalist Russian might have developed such a poisoned piece thinking that those who viewed it--"it" being some scurrilous piece of anti-Russian gossip, probably made up--deserved to die.

All we need is the smoking (in the alpha-ray sense) document.

The Latest Trend: Opting Out

The original prompt for my thinking about a post on this subject was the "controversy" about New York Giants running back Tiki Barber's announcement that he would retire after this year to go into broadcasting. How could anyone question the reasonableness of such a decision? Retirement from professional sports is usually an economic decision, and this one is pretty close to a no-brainer, the way they wear down NFL players and pay broadcasters these days.

Remember when Barry Sanders quit in mid-career form? Time may have seemed to turn its back on him, but we don't see it from his point of view.

I am loth to question anyone's motivation for withdrawing from the public spotlight (particularly if one's public role is imitating an anvil). Even Ricky Williams, who seemed to want to quit to devote himself to smoking pot (before practical reality got in the way). Who am I to judge that?

I will say that it is unwise to withdraw right when one's integrity is being challenged, as happened with Rafael Palmeiro this year. It tends to confirm the negative rumors--actually, it doesn't, it just seems to confirm them. Better to tough it out and let them bring you home on a stretcher if it comes to that (see Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert).

Better yet though to read the handwriting on the wall, and either 1) let them buy you out or 2) get out at any costs before they make you look like a "statistic on a government chart" (thanks for that one, The Police!)

2008 Update

While we're on the subject, I can only marvel at the fact that so far we have a lot more potential candidates who have bowed out than thrown their hat in. (Folded: Warner, Feingold, Frist; Tossed: Vilsack). Of course, this is only a question of timing for those who are still holding their hats, standing upright with an eager look. I do think that there may be some more dropouts from Democratic Senate folk (like Feingold) who once again have a reason to come to work, due to the surprising outcome of the 2006 elections: Biden, Dodd, Kerry, even possibly Obama or HRC.

Once again: "Running things. It's not all it's cracked up to be." (Miller's Crossing) Who wants to be President, anyway? And why?

Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
Republicans.
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )

Democrats.
1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)

I'm still thinking Obama may decide it's too early in his career for him to make his best run at it (which it is). If he goes, that CCC spot is wide open, though I don't think Edwards can capture it. It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.

I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).

2006 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot

If I were doing it, here's how I would've done it:

(apologies to the Yahoo BBallgroup on which I originally posted this)

Yes, but for whom are you voting, Aaron?

I advocate making the serious choices, but also engaging one's emotional whims.

Here are my picks:
Gwynn
Ripken
Blyleven
L Smith
Gossage
J Morris
Mattingly
Concepcion
E Davis
Strat-O-Matic

The last does require some explanation. I'm looking at the game box for the Strat-O-Matic set my mother got my 10-year-old in a yard sale awhile ago. It says on it, "The Game that Belongs in the Hall of Fame."

I'm convinced. Until Strat is in, it gets my vote over Pete Rose.

Will Jose Canseco make the 5% to stay on the ballot? Surveysays...no. (appropriate sound effect)

Additional comments--

I think that "God gave you ten picks, you should use them."

I avoid picking borderline candidates unless I'm advocating a change in direction in Hall membership, and I give votes to lower-probability candidates who "deserve" my vote. This I test out in avery simple way: if I voted for him before, did it feel right? If not, I don't continue.

The same principle--it's just human nature, no?--applies to McGwire, and to the other future "Steroids Alleged" cases. One thinks--and should think--"I feel free to withhold my vote this year." But then, one must think back and ask oneself, 'Does this feel right?'

I'm going to try omitting mac and see how it feels, though I will say he's all the ballplayer Harmon Killebrew was (4th ballot) except a shorter career. I predict it will end up feeling bad if one tries this approach with Sammy Sosa, and this feeling of regret,multiplied by a sufficient number of folks, will lead to his selection on a low number of ballot tries. But that doesn't mean heshould be elected on the first ballot--"heaven forbid"!

Anyway, I think this line of thinking leads me to my assessment ofthe problem with the Hall standard of 75%: it assumes people areactually using their votes, when for the most part, they don't.

And my final one (for the Hall suggestion box?): they really shouldset up a Committee to make sure that the thing that happened withBuck O'Neil doesn't happen again. I've got it: the VeteransCommittee!

Hollywood Movie Plot?

I can't just publish the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401286.html); I've got to put the whole article out here.


Marijuana Multiplies Suspect's Problems
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, November 25, 2006;
Page B01

Talk about having a lousy day in court.
As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table.

The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history.

To make matters worse, his mother, a defense lawyer, was by his side at the time -- representing him.
"I don't even know what the word for it is," Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton said, according to a recording of the hearing. "Inconceivable is not strong enough. For him to walk into a courtroom in the middle of a jury trial for a robbery case with marijuana in his pocket is just unbelievable."

Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Wennar asked Boynton for a high bond, noting that Hoerauf had tested positive for use of narcotics in recent weeks, a violation of the terms of his pretrial release supervision program.

"To come into a courthouse in the middle of trial and have a bag of marijuana on his person just seems to me to be a total disregard for the criminal justice system," Wennar said in court.

According to the recording, Gwyn Hoerauf, his mother, said jail was not the answer to her son's problems.

"I'm going to say it in a very crass way, and I hope he forgives me," she said. "He is brain-damaged, your honor. I don't mean he's just a defendant who does dumb stuff. This is a boy with an IQ in triple digits. His brain is glued together with Silly Putty. He can't think his way out of a paper bag, but he can do physics."

Hoerauf first appeared before Boynton years ago on juvenile charges. He pleaded guilty this summer to second-degree assault after an incident in Silver Spring. He was charged with robbery in June after he and some friends were suspected of stealing bikes from a group of younger teenagers near the MARC train station in Germantown.

The jury, which was not in the courtroom for the marijuana bust, convicted Hoerauf on four counts of robbery and acquitted him on two counts of robbery and one charge of conspiracy.

Courthouse arrests for such things as disorderly conduct and showing up drunk are not unheard of, Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight said.

"But at the defense table?" the sheriff asked. "We've never had that happen."

Moral of the story: Don't do that.

All Hail the Democratic Party Organizations!

Mandatory Opening Rhetorical Hallelujah:
As Jim Talent said in his concession, and George Allen Jr. in his non-concession, "Thank God!"

"It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Fine!"--R.E.M., 1987

For the first time in a long time, we really won one. The 30-seat gain in the House is not record territory (best since 1974), but in today's big-spending, incumbent-friendly system a very impressive result. The six-seat gain in the Senate was at the outer edge of the probability distribution and, to me, was even more impressive. The Democrats won 24 of 33 races held in the Senate! That's 73%, in House terms a veto-proof 318 seats (vs. the reality of 230-something).

This sets Senate Democrats up well for the next election; the House outlook may not be as promising. The several scandal seats among the House pickups will be vulnerable next time around. Of course, the House will be working from about 15 seats above the minimum majority, while the bare majority in the Senate is vulnerable at any moment to sickness, scandal, or some sort of Liebermania.

The gains in the governors' offices and statehouses were all that we hoped for and more. In the House races and in gubernatorial elections, the Democrats showed that they could break out of the blue-state urban ghettoization that recent elections suggested. Here is Howard Dean's vindication, and I see no need to modify the tetrahedral party power structure that has emerged (Senate Dems, House Dems, and Dem Governors, with Dean supporting all and none in the pyramid) until someone breaks from the pack and wins the '08 nomination.

Two phenomena impressed most: one being the half-dozen or so surprise winners (the hallmark of a tidal wave victory) the DCCC came up with, and the other was the breadth of states represented in the House seats picked up by the Democrats. Yes, there was consolidation of control in blue states New York and Connecticut, and similar routing of Republican moderates in districts within swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. But there were also two seats in Arizona, three in Indiana (!), and ones in North Carolina, Texas (DeLay's old), Kentucky, and Kansas.

Then there was the incredible record of Democrats holding their own in the Senate, House, and Governors' seats. That is the answer to the argument that the results were merely "the Republicans and George Bush imploding".

Yet there was that implosion, that North Korean-magnitude muffled blast as the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule ends with a hidden blast, a futile attempt at suicide bombing that barely escaped the White House bunker. (Rumsfeld draped himself over the IED and absorbed much of the shock wave; the shrapnel passed right through, though.)

The 3-D nature of this second-term Administration (Dumb Duck Dubya) is now a reality apparent to all. There will be no more admitted Bushites permitted in the Republican party as it operates beyond the Beltway, and the late-campaign Red-state show tour of the President is the equivalent of the advertisers' nightmare: what if they ran it up the flag, and no one saluted?

In our local focus race, NM-01, Republican Heather Wilson's position surged late in the night and she's ended up 1000 votes or so ahead, with a few precincts somehow still not reported. Wilson needs to apologize for her campaign before we will accept Patricia Madrid's concession (not offered as yet). The justification both had--Wilson for her slagging, Madrid for freezing up in the key debate-- was that so much apppeared to be at stake.

The reason why NM-01 gets off the hook from massive scrutiny (true of several other races, still) was the superb execution of Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer in the House and Senate Campaign offices. They came at Rove's forces from too many fronts--fairly little need for tactical defense, and give them credit for sensing that but still not losing any of their own seats--and eventually the pressure broke down their forces in several geographic areas. The win of both Houses (I had that at 12% four weeks out) qualifies as a strategic victory, in boxing terms a knockout. Rove's reputation for flawless strategy takes a hit, and Libby Dole (9-for-33) takes it on the chin for the team. At least Tom Reynolds could make sure he had enough $$$ for NY-26, which he salvaged for himself.

Prediction Reliability Assessment

We were pretty transparently sandbagging on the House number. The key for me was to make sure that I could only do better than expected, for once. On Election Day, once all the effort had been expended and the self-deceptive quality of making myself expect the worst had used up all its benefit, I was considering bumping up the seat gain into safe territory (16 or more), as I could not deny there were plenty of targets of opportunity (though I had no idea that half or more would come through, and that most would indeed end up being serious challenges). But I wanted to stay on the low side of expectations regarding the House.

These were my five favorite House pickups of the night:
1) NH-01--no one saw that one coming (second choice for longshot winner would be MN-01).
2) NC-11--Heath Shuler was too a good football player!
3) KN-02--Jim Ryun reminds us of his famous foldup in the 1968 Olympics.
4) AZ-05--Everyone hates J.D. Hayworth now that he's lost.
5) IN-08--First pickup of the night, a 61-39% thumping that still took 2 hours to call (simply because they, like me, must have expected that the margin would narrow sharply. I think they wanted to be sure they didn't get taken in by the exit polls this time.)

In the Senate, we foresaw the basic idea of the contest and the themes of the evening, but we got the characters and their roles a little mixed up: the disappointment was Tennessee, not Missouri; the potentially challenged race became Virginia, not Tennessee; the clutch win with the late urban returns was Missouri, not Tennessee. Those were the three races we got wrong, from the start; we had the rest right, all along.

The Most Definitive Sign of Comprehensive Bushite Defeat

It's Rumsfeld, of course. The decision may have been made long ago, and he may have been on life-support in his office for months, just waiting for the right moment to pull his plug. Still, it's a good move, for which its time had come.

More Electioneering: 2006 and 2008

2008 News

The big piece has been the emergence of Barack Obama as "CCC"--the Clinton Centrist Challenger. In the wake of Mark Warner's withdrawal, a vacuum was formed, and it took about a nanosecond for Barack O' to step forward, and in one fell swoop, assume center stage for that role. His advocacy for Democrats this year has been a major contributor to his emergence as a national party leader.

This guy would be a first in about as many ways as HRC would, so this is not a retreat to safe territory. Most interestingly, he's almost a post-boomer Generation X'er, suggesting that the second half of the boom (my half) might never be represented in the White House (the first half already has Clinton and Dubya, and they presume to trot out more of these burned out, narcississtic victims of the Culture Wars. Our generation just stays out of it. More of that another time.)

Barack is the real deal, more "post-liberal" than centrist, but it's way too early for him. The right time for him is after a two-term Democratic presidency starting in 2009.

One enters the stage, the other leaves. John Kerry has put himself in the George Allen category as a hyped contender who didn't even make it out of the paddock. He wasn't a good choice in 2004 (when we wanted a real "wartime candidate"), and he would've been a joke in 2008. If we wanted a candidate who lost a sure prospect due to insufficient fire in the belly, we would go for Al Gore. Sorry, John.

Seething in NM-01

I did some phone canvassing in the Rio Rancho suburb part of this neighboring district getting the saturation treatment for attack ads, being generated locally, from the national organizations (both), and from some independent groups. Patricia Madrid, the Democratic challenger and current state Attorney General, had forged to the lead in this naturally Democratic-leaning, large Hispanic minority district, over the four-term "moderate" Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman vet in the House (so far).

The voters I talked to were very angry, with both candidates, for the low blows and infantile tactics. To be honest, the message of the campaigns have been very simple, though; Wilson is a Bushite who supported the Iraq war, and Madrid can't be trusted.

The last Wilson salvo (by her campaign organization) is really making me hopping mad, though. From one of their debates, they took out of context a brain lock Madrid suffered while trying to respond to a Wilson-authored question about Federal tax increases. Instead of going for the easy "no increased taxes for working families" pledge, Madrid stumbled, froze, then started hesitantly. They don't even show her answer, that's not the point. The point is something on the order of, "Can you have a representative who doesn't speak fluently at all times?"

To me, this is about one step away from mocking your opponent's stutter. Apparently, though, it's working as an ad, and it truly does present Madrid unflatteringly.

I think it is time for the Madrid campaign to launch the whisper campaign about Wilson's being a closeted butch Foley co-dependent with a thing for girls in page-boy haircuts. It's simply the next step in the escalation process; I can't say if it's true, but it's certainly plausible.

Supplement to the NY Times Election Preview

First thing I want to say is, it's not that bad. If it were the product of a one-person blog, I'd say it was great. The graphics interface on the website works well and produces reams of factoids about money spent, last elections, demographics, etc.

What it doesn't do is tell you anything useful about the results to expect in the House races. One of the biggest omissions in the newspaper articles is any information whatsoever about seven of the 16 races they've called "tossups", but somehow not "key races".

For the record , these are MN-06, NH-2, WI-08, CT-05, CT-02, PA-06, and VA-02. These races apparently didn't have anything interesting that could be reduced to a one-sentence summary going for them. My view of those seven: Minnesota sixth looks like a five-point win for the Republican incumbent, as does WI-08 and VA-02. Those three should be "Leaning Republican", in my view. PA-06 looks like a narrow win for the Democratic challenger, and I'd say the same about CT-05 (Murphy over Nancy Johnson). CT-02 and NH-02 are the true tossups in that group, with the latter a race that has switched from Republican leading to a dead heat.

CQ has been shifting its views much more quickly than the Times in these late days, and has a few more tossups to throw into the pile: OH-01 and OH-02 (Times: both leaning Repub.); AZ-01 (a shocker, as most others consider that a safe Republican seat, but a late scandal has hit); AZ-05 (another LR with a shrinking margin), IN-02 and IN-09 (Democratic challenges in the process of being rebuffed), NY-20, NY-24, and PA-08. Bob Novak's excellent calls--he doesn't hedge, his tossup states are called one way or the other--include one Republican pickup, in GA-12. He's looking for a 20-seat net House pickup for the Dems.

Those looking at Bush's late tour as a something more than just a rote route are onto something here, and it's this: Bush's late visit to Red States indicates a clarification in the projected outcome set that is happening as we finish. It's back to polarization--most of the tossup races are not in Red states, and he can't help there. Most of the House gains for the Democrats will end up being at the expense of moderate Republicans in blue states. That's where the gerrymandered levee walls will be overtopped by the wave of anti-Bushite sentiment, and his late tour is just going to make this more clear.

RED STATE/BLUE STATE Updates

The key states are Pennsylvania, New York (upstate), Connecticut, and Ohio, where Republicans are being hounded from their holes; Florida, as always a battleground, but with the Democrats winning this year's key battles; and the mountain states of Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. I'm looking for the Dems to gain 11 House seats and two Senate ones from the first four, governorships and legislatures as well, and to establish their challenges in the latter four, picking up a couple of seats and possibly more. Florida will deliver a couple pickups in the House, re-election of its Lieberman-WASP Democratic senator, and possibly a major governorship.

I'm sticking with my 218-217 prediction (14-15 seat pickup for Dems), one way or the other. I see slippage in some of the seats that have been predicted for the Dems for a long time, particularly the three in Indiana (check out CQ's article about bellwethers--http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/11/election_night_bellwether_watc.html--
but expect bad news until Ohio's Republican debacle reports). There really aren't very many safe Democratic pickups, and even some of the "scandal seats"--like Foley's own FL-16--now are not sure things.

On the Senate: I'm still not confident about Virginia--a lot of closet racists will come home to Allen. I always expect Missouri to disappoint. I'm still looking for Tennessee to surprise with heavy black turnout, and I think there will be a surprisingly close race from either Nevada or Arizona. Maryland and New Jersey remain worries, though, and I'm sticking with my 50-50 prediction (Lieberman on the losing side, ours).

Mid-Monthly 1:9--2008, The Preview for Party Nominations

We're now moving on to the main event, the 2008 elections.

We'll comment further on the midterms if circumstances change dramatically, or, in any case, after the elections. I'm working on a micro-level analysis of some of the House races to identify about 5 more as key races. In the meantime, the Republicans have accurately zeroed in on the Senate races in MO and TN as being the decisive close ones worthy of major centralized dollars. (VA is a firewall, and they may yet have to shore up NV, or they may come out big in NJ or MD if one of them still looks winnable in the last week).

I see the 2008 nomination race in each party as being centered around three coalition centers (each also known as "The Candidate"):

Nomination Strategic Overview and a bunch of numbers

Democrats: it's HRC, and her antithesis, the Clinton Centrist Challenger; and XXX.

The key moment of the campaign will come when these three become two: the one who gets the support of the guy/gal withdrawing will have the edge to the convention and nomination.

The leading candidates for 'XXX' at this point are Feingold, and Gore if he runs. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, Netroots. There will only be one 'XXX' candidate at a time, and that is Feingold for the present.

Warner's dropping out has left the 3-C position up for grabs, but, to put it in horse racing terms, I think Mark clearly saw how difficult that slot by the rail would be coming out of the turn (credit to him!)

Some 'XXX' will stick it out, regardless, but you have to stick with the favorite unless Her Royal Clinton takes a false step. Which is what a lot of the beefing about her so far has been, that she's walking too gingerly. In mile-and-a-quarter racing, she'll make her move to the lead late in the backstretch. Or, at least, that's the idea. Position papers are being prepared.

One has to consider that there's something like a 10% chance she'll be scratched, never make it to the post (so to speak). It's hard to imagine why, but it could happen (maybe something having to do with Bill?)

The dream matchup for the history books is Clinton v. Gore. We'll rhapsodize later on that one, maybe.

Feingold vs. any centrist could be quite interesting from a rhetorical viewpoint, as Russ cuts him/her up. No doubt in an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the nomination.

As a matter of course, all Democratic contenders should be considered theoretically in a matchup one-on-one (or one on two, for that matter, if there's a Republican split) against John McCain (and a Bushite, say, for a three-way race) to ensure their candidacies are viable electorally against the most probable opponent.

As a follow-up, I'll post odds of some kind for each, which I can easily revise. But I'll do so separately, yes!

For now, I should rank order them in probability for the nomination and then, through a comment, for the candidates for 3-C I can think of (Biden, Bayh, Edwards, Richardson, and, improbably, Kerry, as well as a draft for someone like Obama or Schweitzer, or possibly Someone outta the Blue (SOTB).

Clinton 52%, Edwards 16%, Feingold 12%, Biden 8%, Gore 5%, Kerry 3%, the Field (Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, Wes Clark, Schweitzer/Obama-type Draftee) 3%, Is there anything else? 1%, Kucinich 3 votes. Now, it is a fact that rounded probabilities don't always add to 1.00, but the actual expected probabilities should, and that has guided my selections in the micronumbers, HRC being the proverbial "plug number". Yes, and what a plug number she is--you can say you heard me say that.

The basic theme of the Democratic nomination process will be winning in the early-season Four Corners (of a diamond?): IA, NH, and the recently promoted SC and NV. It seems improbable that anyone but HRC could win all four, but any candidate who doesn't win in SC but does win all the other three should be able to coast home. The SC winner would be the likeliest choice for the 3-C role, while the first XXX leader will be identified before SC. (There could be more than one, someone coming in late and absorbing most of the delegates from an early XXX leader who may falter).

If Hillary doesn't win it early (at least 3 of 4), it should settle into the three-way race, as I started out asserting.

As an assignment, I should look at one of those betting sites and compose the a quote on the odds at a convenient point in time soon.

Republicans:

This one really gets my analytical juices flowing.
The three blocs cluster around:
1) Giuliani (or more correctly, "GPR"*);
2) McCain (as the archetypal anti-Bushite, ABB, or his substitute);
3) a Bushite (or, as the case may be, some other Right-Wing non- or anti-Bushite o/t McCain).

As I said earlier, this is the race which will be most affected by the 2006 Elections outcomes in the two houses of Congress. John McCain's decision whether or not to run should flow naturally from the outcome; if he runs, he will be the early favorite.

Therefore, here, we need to postulate the odds for this election, as follows:
-- Democrats win one house of Congress: 40%. Win both houses: 12%. Probability that single house is "Representatives", 20%; that it's the U.S. Senate, 8%. Probability that the Democrats gain control of one house or other before January, 2009: 55%. Probability that the Republicans have more than a five-vote margin in one house, and control of the other, after the election (the chances of a "Bushite victory"), 5%.


Note: This means 32% chance Dems win H of R this year; 20% chance they win Senate, so that's my guess as of October 15, 2006--

To look at the probabilities dispassionately, we have to focus on that 40% in which the Democrats end up in control of one house or the other as the elections come out of the election. That is the definition of Democratic Victory in the elections. It is highly possible that result will not be clear until December of this year, due to the possibility of runoffs and contested outcomes. If something happens after Congress is sworn in, that's a separate discussion.

The 55% most-likely outcome of the election (excluding the 40%, and the 5% of a Bushite victory), will be what I call "Total Bushite Chaos!" of one kind or another.

To be fair, a lot of the outcomes within the 40% Democratic-victory probability would also end up in TBC! (or TBK! as our "Get Smart" fans would insist). In the scenario's drama, there would be various kinds of Julius Caesar-type plots and counter-plots and some inevitable Ides of March for one of the Aces (that's Rove, Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, in bridge suit rankings order, and similarly in probability). But I digress.

In anything but a Bushite Victory scenario, though (95% probability), McCain will emerge from the elections as the initial party frontrunner. Certainly in the Democratic Victory scenario, and most probably in the Total Bushite Chaos! scenario.

Being the initial party frontrunner is far from having the nomination in the bag, though. McCain's chances clearly have an exponential decay component, the key modeling issues being the rate of decay and from what point you measure: I'd say the logical focus is the New Hampshire primary, whenever it ends up being, and whenever it is, a healthy McCain should top any rival in sheer pull. If he can follow up New Hampshire with a victory in South Carolina, in practical terms it's over. If he doesn't win either, or if he pulls out, even temporarily, and gets less votes than someone in each, it's over for him.

Odds on McCain winning both the NH and SC primaries: 35%. Neither: about 25%. One but not the other: 40%.

(Of the 95% o/t Bushite Victory; his chances after a split remain about 40%, after winning both they go to 90%, and if he wins neither, he drops to 10%.)

The Neither race is really only 10% of McCain running in, and losing, both races; it's more (14%) around McCain not running for one reason or another, but the result downstream will be the same. Such a race should become focused on Giuliani (or GPR*--the guy who's does best in NH) vs. a right-winger (and a possible Bushite). In this case, GPR's chances should be somewhat better than 50-50, as he will go to SC as a winner, and at the same time punch his ticket past SC.

The One but Not the Other race means McCain loses in NH or in SC. In either case, there would be a scramble. McCain would be seriously weakened and have probably no more than 40% chance of holding on to get the nomination.

This scenario is the one in which most of the contenders' probability lies. I see it breaking down as a three-way contest, in much the same way I see the highest probability in the Democratic race as being a three-cornered affair. The race would thus be between a Bushite (or two), GPR, and a weakened McCain.

Frist remains the most probable Bushite candidate (of face cards in the original 52-card pack), and the second-most likely nominee (to the Jack of Diamonds, as I say) is Queen of Clubs Condi Rice. The third-most, Jack of Hearts Jeb, would have an unusually high probability of actually gaining the nomination if the scenario were one calling for a Bushite in a leading role. That, of course, is mostly dependent on the unlikely Bushite Victory, or at least something other than the Democratic Victory. If there's a Democratic Victory, of course, everyone becomes an anti-Bushite, so there's no probability there. Frist, as the Bushite who bailed earliest (Colin Powell and the whole first-term State Dept. don't count as true Bushites), would also have the best chance as a reformed anti-Bushite to make a comeback, and that is a large portion of his probability range.

Conditional Probabilities:
Democratic Victory: GPR 25%, McCain 40%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger 35%
Total Bushite Chaos!: McCain 50%, GPR 20%, Bushite 15%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger15%.
Bushite Victory: Bushite 25%, non-Bushite Right-Winger 25%, GPR 35%, McCain 15%.


This works out to the following unconditional probabilities:
p(McCain)= (.15*.05)+(.5*.55)+(.4*.4)=.0075+.275+.16=.4425
GPR=(.35*.05)+(.2*.55)+(.25*.4)=.0175+.11+.10=.2275
Bushite=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+0=.0125+.0825=.0950
non- (or anti-) Bushite Right-Winger=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+(.35*.4)=.0125+.0825+.14=.2350

I'll definitely go for these, as of now, but just remind the valiant reader trying to figure probabilities for individuals that several Republicans (I have in mind Bill Frist) could appear in more than one category, i.e. both Bushite and anti-Bushite.

The thing that inspires me to battle is the 33% chance the Republicans will nominate either a Bushite or a non-Bushite Right-Winger. The thing that scares me is the 44.25% chance that John McCain will be the nominee.


The bottom line for this episode is that, going into the 2006 Election I see a 52% chance HRC will be the Democratic nominee, and a 44% chance McCain will be the Republican nominee.


Meanwhile, My Own Personal Ten-Point Program

This piece arises above all because of John McCain’s potential candidacy for the Presidency. We can’t just oppose him because he’s a Republican, if he’s a decent and reasonable person, which McCain appears to be. Our evaluation of candidates has to come from an evaluation of their programs and ideas, as compared to something. Here are my ten for national candidates to consider, and I will try to refer to these as reference points for dismissing, disrespecting, and otherwise trashing theirs.

TEN-POINT PROGRAM

1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.

2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.

3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.

4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.

We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?
These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.

5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly (see last weekend viz. North Korea, the Secretary-General, etc.); similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.

6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.
We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.

7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.

For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.

It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.

8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.

Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.

I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.

9. Electoral reform.
How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!

10. End the War on Drugs.
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.

At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.

I know these are idealistic and broad. I want to try to fit specific initiatives I may hear about into the big picture, and I’m looking for some vision to back up their ideas. I will elaborate on these as the opportunity presents itself. If I can’t fit someone’s thoughts somewhere in here, though, they are not the right ideas, and therefore, the candidate is not the one, for me. You don’t like these, try your own hand.

* GPR is short for Giuliani/Pataki/Romney, and is defined as the guy who the media think "did best" in New Hampshire, which could include the possibility that McCain technically wins there but in a way that disappoints analysts. Probability of GPR's identity is as follows: Giuliani 75%, Pataki 15%, Romney 5%, somebody who randomly becomes darling of the anti-Bushite, anti-Right Winger faction 5% (Joe Lieberman?).

Update on 2006 Elections (II)

Reading my last post, I find the need to re-iterate my predictions, this time much more succinctly. Then we can move on to the news of the climactic 2008 election that is brewing.

Senate, 50-50 (Dems w/ Lieberman).
House, 218-217 Republicans. But, even if I'm one seat too pessimistic, watch out when the first vacancy occurs: there can be a challenge for leadership and all it entails.
Governor, 28-22 Democrats. For all the good it will do them in the next two years. Ah, but in 2008!....

My final prediction for the 110th Congress (the one from Jan. 2007--Dec. 2008, anyway):

TOTAL BUSHITE CHAOS!!!



Yours truly.

Update on 2006 Elections

Lots of bobs and weaves, as expected, since my August 20 "Excessively specific" forecasts. One big new piece this week, though, requires some attention.

La Cage Aux Foley

The Republican spin machine has shut down in mid-cycle due to the Foley scandal. Pundits across the land are throwing up their hands and saying they simply don't know the effect this one will have. The Tarot (a/k/a "terra") Scare Card campaign was working to some extent (aided by some good financial news and lowering gas prices), and Republican operatives were starting to feel privately confident about the outcome (approaching their public bravado). Now, the general impression seems to be, who knows?

We will have to wait at least two weeks for the Foley scandal effect to harden into reliable polling data, and it will only be reliable once the initial surprise factor and 24-hour news coverage settles down. See below for polling information on the key race we're following here in New Mexico, NM-01, between the Republican incumbent Heather Wilson and her Democratic challenger, NM Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid.

Regardless of the pundits' floundering, we can pose a couple of notions on the effect here:
1) A couple of races will take major swings. Foley's, of course, was a safe Republican seat (as they say, he was "cruising" before the scandal) that now leans Democratic. The Republicans have come up with a notable substitute candidate, but his name will not be on the ballot, and the Democratic candidate's status has gone from long-shot to made in the shade.
A second race directly affected by the scandal is that of NRCC Chairman Reynolds (NY-26); surprisingly, he was already in a tough race, but now he will need to divert more of the Republican Congressional campaign's funds to his own coffer if he wants to survive. That could have some domino effect elsewhere, too. Apparently, Clay Shaw in a district adjacent to Foley's is taking a hit as well.

2) Turnout from Republican "values voters" (estimated at about 10% of the electorate) will be negatively affected, I'd guess about 20%. This effect will be distributed unevenly, but think of it as a 2% hit, on average, to Republican vote levels, and maybe more in Bible Belt districts (and there are many of those in key races this year; I'm looking particularly at Indiana, where two Republicans are seriously in difficulty, Arizona, and in Florida, Foley's home state).

3) More names will get caught up in the coverup of Foley's transgressions, but at this point it is impossible to predict which ones. Apart from Reynolds, most of the Republican leadership are in safe seats, but there could be some guilt by association with Foley, and a couple of other closeted gay Republicans or their aides may decide either to out themselves or get pre-emptively outed by scared party folks.

4) The only way Democrats are likely to get hurt by this is if they focus too much upon it (for example, by referring to something in the episode as a crime, which is unproven at this point), by picking too much on the amiable, typically incompetent, but mostly ineffectual Bushite pack Joker Speaker Hastert, or if they are revealed to have been involved in ABC News' initial scoop of the explicit Instant Messages Foley sent. Harping on Foley and the coverup in particular, or taking a tack that is morally arrogant could re-energize now-despondent Republicans. On the other hand, the Foley episode does underline three broader themes the Democrats should utilize: hypocrisy, corruption, and poor Congressional oversight.

5) Most races will not be decisively affected as they are gerrymandered for sure success for incumbents.

Based on the negative impact, I would shift my projection of the outcome from 221-214 Republican to 218-217 Republican, and the overall margin nationally from 53-47 Democrat to 53-45 (I'll take advantage of this to show something for 3rd parties, which probably should've had one percent in my previous estimate). The projected results combination amounts to an electoral scandal of redistricting, which may or may not get much attention on Election Night.

(I'm indebted to my friend David Bebout for the coinage of the subtitle. "La Cage Aux Folles" was the French movie about two aging queens who decide to break out of their "Birdcage".)

Senate Update

At this point, I see no reason to change any of my substantive predictions and find that most of my individual expectations are being borne out. Republican incumbents going down (but not Foley-related going down) are, clearly, Santorum (PA), Burns (MT), and Chaffee (RI). DeWine (Ohio) still looks like a loser to me (current polls show it a dead heat), and, as I expected, the open seat in Tennessee (ex-Frist's) will be a nail-biter leaning toward the Democrats. That makes five seats picked up for the Dems, who need six. The open seats previously held by Democrats in MN (Klobuchar the Dem. candidate) and MD (Cardin being the nominee, not Mfume as I thought earlier) are now looking relatively safe.

On the downside, I'm still expecting No Talent (MO) to disappoint us and survive. Jack Carter's within 6 points of Sen. Ensign (NV) in the most recent polls, but the experts still are considering this seat safe (!?), and I'm still expecting it to be a late-night, narrow Democratic loss. Menendez (NJ) and Kean, Jr. are in a race that will go down to the wire--I'm still scared, but I'll feign boldness and continue to say the incumbent will end up winning (this one could be decided on reduced Republican turnout--there are lots of suburban NJ Republicans who will be wringing their hands about the leadership's moral failures). I still think George Allen (VA) losing is a longshot. Lieberman looks like he will win, after all, but as I say that will only be a problem if the Democrats end up 50-49 and he's the swing vote they need.

So, I'm still predicting 50-50, Republicans win. The suppression of Republican turnout I'm expecting should affect these races, too, but I see that affect as only solidifying the seat pickups I already expected.

Wilson, Madrid, and Zogby

I read yesterday a shocking poll result on the House race we're watching most closely, the Albuquerque district NM-01. The respected pollster Zogby International now shows Madrid ahead of Wilson, 50-40, whereas all previous polls had the race a dead heat or very close to one. TPM Cafe has the result (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/polltracker?page=1), part of a blizzard of poll results released in the past two days which may or may not be invalidated by La Cage Aux Foley.

I wanted more info on this result, so I went to Zogby's web site. They are being very careful not to draw attention to that particular result--I got the distinct impression that they don't quite believe it yet. Most of their press releases of this exercise of polling in 15 key contested House races held in the current Congress by Republicans don't mention this one in the highlights, but, if valid, this is the most dramatic and essential finding they had to report. Zogby's polling was done Thursday-Sunday, and the pollster looked in more detail at the results Thursday/Friday, i.e. before Foleygate, and Saturday/Sunday. He/they found that the Democratic margin, in aggregate, of those 15 races was 44-40 before, and 44-40 after.

This doesn't tell the whole story for me, though. Zogby's releases don't talk about individual races and whether the margin shifted (probably not enough sample), and these 15 races are neither a random sample of the national electorate, nor would they necessarily have been conducted on the same time frame. Also, last weekend was just when the story burst forward, with the coverup allegations coming out only gradually, and mostly later.

I feel that our race of interest here may be very sensitive to this issue. The district has a very high Hispanic population, 40% or more, and many Hispanics of the area--professionals, seeking the American dream-- are indeed what I would consider to be "values voters", and their party identification is somewhat soft. (This is a generalization I would not apply to about half of them, who are very strong, motivated Democrats.) Madrid has the chance to gather them up--she's the Hispanic in the race, after all.

All of us residents of New Mexico (at least those of us who ever watch the network channels) have been bombarded with a crossfire of nasty ads. Wilson's ads now are emphasizing her independence from Bush (they barely note that she's a Republican), but the many nationally-sponsored Republican ads are full of slimy innuendo about her opponent. Madrid's have been little better, but they are successfully emphasizing the themes that Wilson is a loyal Republican who's backed the war in Iraq. And, yes, I have seen some footage with her and Foley side-by-side in front of the microphones: is it possible she was also part of Foley's Congressional Coalition for Exploited Youth (or whatever it was benightedly called)?

Finally, New Mexico is going Democrat, big-time, in the statewide races, with Sen. Bingaman and Gov. Richardson winning in routs. They will have resources to offer to Madrid. I expect the next polls will show a reduced margin, but I think the race is hers to lose now, and I'm putting it in the Democratic column, along with the ones for Foley's and Reynolds' seats.

My math still leaves the Democrats one seat short in each house: you can imagine what a mess these last two Bushite years will be, if I'm right. I'm thinking that the public will be scandalized by the outcome, which will set the stage for further Republican deterioration in 2008, unless they find a new formula for success. This bird can't fly no mo'.

If I were Running Things, Pt. 1

I'm inspired by the bald Italian gangster guy in "Miller's Crossing": "Running things; it's not all it's cracked up to be." A periodic series.

Soccer
I was watching an English Premier League game on TV last night (Everton vs. Newcastle). Something happened that often does--first one team had a guy red-carded (sent off for repeated or severe violation--you can't replace him), then the other team did. The resulting 10 vs. 10 style of play was improved, as it almost always is.

So, my first radical change would be to cut down the number of players on each side by one. The result should be a little less crowding in the box, and generally a little more open play.

Ah, you say, but the players would get too tired this way! Arguable, but you've merely identified the other major improvement I would make: allow two substitutions per half (a third in the first half in case of emergency) instead of three for the whole game. Two more additional substitutions when games go beyond their regular time in cup competitions. The real problem is that there's too much standing around.

Electoral College
Personally, I would junk the whole thing: I can't figure out why we would ever want to have a President that couldn't get more votes than his/her opponent(s). I accept that a runoff might help ensure a clearer decision in the cases (probably quite frequent) that no one gets more than 50% of the votes.

The gimmick passed by the California state legislature--that California would give its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who got the greatest national popular vote--is too clever and a clear sign of desperation. The idea is that other states would join on the bandwagon; the more that joined in, the greater the probability the popular vote winner would inevitably get the electoral vote nod. I don't think that too many other states share California's particular frustration, and most would correctly calculate that their leverage would be maximized in the short-run by staying out until others go in. So nothing more would happen, and once in a great while (like in 2004) California's electoral votes would defy their voters' choice.

If, though, we can never get rid of the ancient monstrosity, I would make some reform to it. Principally, I would make universal the rule that applies to Nebraska and Maine, that of Congressional district-level selection of electors. Each district would through its vote determine one elector, and two would be determined by the statewide count. The resulting campaigns would be less a high-stakes set of statewide win/loss gambles in a few swing states; the effort would be more diffused, but also focused on areas within states that never got any attention before.

This also would reduce the inequity--each voter would be contributing to the determination of exactly three electors. Finally, it would also throw a complicating factor into the politics of redistricting, one that would quickly lead toward needed national guidelines.

Statehood

It's been about 50 years since we last added any states to the Union (Alaska and Hawaii). It's time for three more.

First, of course, would be the District of Columbia. It's been taxation without representation there since the entity was established; the three Electoral votes DC gets hardly count, as they are a given for the Democrats, not worth a campaign event for either party.

There are no good arguments for denying DC Congressional representation (I mean, representatives that can vote!), only bad ones. The notion that DC representatives are all federal employees and thus shouldn't get involved in state politics is a stupid one; nowadays more of the fed workers live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and you don't hear any suggestion they should be disenfranchised. The old argument that DC can not govern itself, as evidenced by the quality of its governmental leadership, has now been substantially addressed.

The only real arguments against DC are pragmatic and partisan ones. First, that it may take a Constitutional amendment to make DC a state, and that's a lot of trouble. Second, that DC senators and representative would almost surely be Democratic, and thus would contribute to the Republicans' imminent loss of control in Congress.

The second additional state would be Puerto Rico. It's time to put up or shut up with all this "commonwealth", "territory", or "domain" stuff. The weird thing is that the US Democratic party is aligned with the status-quo party, while the Republicans are aligned with the Statehood party. This is a formula for stalemate; as with DC, the Republicans would surely not want statehood to become a reality for partisan reasons. PR gets a pretty good deal under the current associate membership arrangement--citizenship without taxation, and the heavy military enrollment level probably counts as a net plus for the residents. The absence of representation or Electoral College votes rankles, though, and it's about time that we recognize that it's the fact of the Hispanic majority there that prevents PR becoming a state, and do something about it.

The third state I would add is one I've never heard mentioned: I believe that Americans Abroad should have direct representation. They are numerous enough, for one thing. The second point is that they are effectively disenfranchised. I know; when I was living abroad, I tried several times but couldn't get New York (my previous residence) to send me an absentee ballot; they couldn't be bothered. Of course, NYS was more than happy to receive my state taxes (and to penalize me when they sent notices I never received to addresses I had departed years before, and yes, they had been informed of the changes). Third, AA would represent a distinctive and important additional perspective (let's call it "influenced by global thinking") to debates on both domestic and foreign issues. Fourth, their partisan leanings are not at all certain, and thus this proposal could be advanced on a bipartisan basis.

I was thinking that perhaps we should consolidate a couple of states--the Dakotas would be the ones. They were originally one territory, and now that North Dakota has depopulated beyond the point where its population would earn it a single representative, and South Dakota's down to one, also, it would make some sense. The problem is that I can not think of a single reason why the residents of those states would accept consolidation. Yes, I know the title here was "If I Were Running Things", but still, I don't need to run things down their throats. It would also make sense to separate Northern and Southern California, as they have different issues, different cultures, and are often broadly opposed to one another; on that one, I'll let them take the initiative. If they have a referendum to split, and it passes, I'd endorse the idea.

I was a little concerned about having a nice pattern of stars for the revised flag with 53 stars, but actually it works pretty well. Seven rows, having a sequence alternating eight and seven stars per row, with eight stars for both the top and bottom rows. Do the math, or draw a picture. It looks nice.

Good Virtual Fences Keep out Virtuous Neighbors

Watched some of the debate on the enabling of detainee trials and unwarranted surveillance. The highlight of it was the debate in the House Judiciary Committee on the detainee bill and the vote whether to recommend the bill "favorably". Some of the House Republicans got the wrong message and thought they were able to vote their consciences and the vote was to report the bill "unfavorably" (this was later reversed, off-camera).

The debate on the detainee bill in both houses was around whether to give the Bushites 80% of what they wanted or 70%, the 10% being a provision that prohibits appeals to "habeas corpus" by those detainees who are not American persons. This one is certain to go to the Supreme Court and be decided by a 5-4 margin, one way or the other. One would have to think that it will be struck down eventually, which suggests a way the detainees may gradually have their day to have their cases come forward.

The point I didn't hear in the debate was the fact that "habeas corpus" would have to come, not from the detainee himself, but from some other party who gives a hoot about the fact the government is holding an individual. Gradually, then, the names of detainees would enter the US, people who might be looking for them (or their representatives in organizations like Amnesty International) would bring suit and then the government would need to present some evidence that the person is held for some valid reason. This will require the captors to expend a lot more energy than they do now in substantiating the captivity of many of those who have been simply dumped their and forgotten, and that will address the sin that the whole Guantanamo fiasco represents to most of the world.

As far as electronic surveillance goes, the idea that people actually think no Big Brother can listen to them seems absurd to us all these days. Instead, the assumption we all share is that someone could be listening, if they wanted, and you better watch what you say when it comes to certain issues. The question of whether someone gets a secret warrant on a routine basis is not central, except to the surveillance organizations who have to process the paper.

The final travesty of this session of this insubstantial Congress is the issue of the Stupid Border Fence. Apparently Congress had a little trouble signing onto the "stupid" part; they're looking for something that's mostly really "smart" with a relatively small "stupid" component. It probably doesn't matter, anyway, since they didn't appropriate the money to build anything--it's the intention to build a smart wall that matters?

Pity. I thought maybe they had something with the idea of a huge masonry wall, built by thousands of Mexican immigrants, which would thus drive up the cost of labor of the Mexican immigrant construction workers throughout this region and thus improve even more the rising value of already completed construction (i.e., my home). I certainly didn't think this had anything to do with the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country: most immigrants have come, and will continue to come, through legal channels, and then they just overstay their visas or ignore their visas' limitations on activity.

There is a humanitarian argument, though, for a smart border watch system which uses a variety of methods, particularly well-placed lights and cameras, to alert the border police and help them detain those sneaking in. The bill will be well-implemented if it does something to disrupt the coyote industry--the people who make a living arranging for people to cross the border in unsafe ways, often arranging to rob the migrants themselves. Many people are getting killed trying to come in.

Plus, there's so many jobs to be gained looking at cameras! Perhaps we could train people to do this at their homes, through the Internet?

The Boeotian

A quick one: Remember we posted the results of looking up "Bushite" at Merriam-Webster Online (January, 2006)? http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/01/from-merriam-webster-online-bushite.html

Anyway, one of the 10 similar words they came up with was "Boeotia", which I had to look up, remembering only that it was a state in ancient Greece. Checked with Wikipedia: it's a strategically located area (still an active place name), the big city in ancient times was Thebes (blown up real good, for good, by Great, Alexander the). Here's the key point, at the end of the article:

Pejorative term
As a result of Athens' proud assertion of its cultural superiority, first of all compared to its closest, rural neighbours (bad luck for them, there was no convincing reason), the word Boeotian or Beotian (the adjective derived from and word for the inhabitants of Boeotia) has been adopted in many classical and antique languages as a pejorative term for backward people, simpletons etc.

So, there we have it: Boeotian (pronounced Bo-EE-shun, I think) is, in some sense, a synonym for Bushite. I feel affirmed.

In Memoriam

On the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, I'm going to try to stay non-partisan. That was how we were, then.

Of the various 9/11-related entertainments, I would say the special "9/11" (the one hosted by Robert De Niro), which focused on the heroism of the FDNY, was particularly moving. "Path to War (Pt. I)" was not as obnoxious as I had been led to believe, and at least as entertaining and educational as the average episode of "24".

I will say that I think those poll questions to the effect of "Are you safer now than you were on September 11, 2001" are kind of ridiculous. Safer than 9/11/01? Of course: who knew then how far that madness could go? Now we have some semblance of crazed normality. Safer than 9/10/01? Of course not.

On 9/11/01 I was in England, just returned from a business trip to Miami (it happens to be the anniversary of my wedding). We looked at the TV in disbelief at the end of a long workday, and, when we were able, we reassured our friends that we were not there at the scene. I cannot claim that I had any personal losses on that day.

On the other hand, I was across the street from the WTC in 1993 when they tried to take it down with a truck bomb. We dodged it that day, but the principles of the WTC as a target and the will of Islamic fanatics to attack it had been established: 9/11/01 only changed the level of our confidence that we could continue to dodge the attacks. I don't even think Osama was involved in that first one.

We need to focus on the worldwide struggle to eliminate those who are turning toward fanatical jihadism by eliminating their emotional, psychological need to turn that way. Ours is a struggle for the hearts and minds; to the extent we have managed to avoid attacks within the US since then (with crossed fingers), it is because our country gives no fertile soil to the seeds of such a philosophy. By showing that there is another way.

We hear that Pakistan has thrown in the towel and agreed not to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda in some remote border regions adjoining Afghanistan. The US and NATO should explicitly state that we will not abide by that agreement, then do what is necessary to eliminate that safe haven. We should not, however, fool ourselves that the problem will go away when we have succeeded in doing that, and when we get Osama and al-Zawahiri. Still, we have the right to avenge ourselves, and a practical necessity to prevent safe havens for those who have authored the outrages of 9/11/01, Bali, Madrid, Casablanca, and London.

Finally, it has been reported that Anbar Province of Iraq is now a no-hope zone for our military mission, with the most powerful force being, not just Sunni militants, but Al Qaeda itself. Anbar is a very large province, extending from the outskirts of Baghdad to the Jordanian border. If this troubling report is true, it definitively shows the failure of the mission in Iraq. We need to consult with our allies, including those in the Mideast, and even hostile nations like Iran and Syria, and determine how to root this evil out. Much as we would like to end the US involvement in Iraq, we can't leave an open wound like that.

Mid-Monthly 1:8

Reviews of Import:
The Case for Goliath, by Michael Mandelbaum

I promised you reader(s) that I would read it, and I did. The thesis of the work is what attracted me: it is summarized in the subtitle, “How America Acts as the World’s Government in the 21st Century”. I hadn’t heard this expressed in just that way before, though the basic idea is quite straightforward. Generally, the author (whose day job is reporting on foreign affairs for Newsday) supports it well, though I would quarrel with the tense of the verb and the time period described—I’d say rather that he demonstrates “How America Acted as the Closest Thing to the World’s Government, Especially Right after the Cold War”.

A government needs to provide certain public benefits to the governed, and Mandelbaum covers a range of them and demonstrates that there’s value to the rest of the world (ROTW) in what America has done, in its own interest, in the areas of military security, diplomacy, trade, and financial guarantees. The arguments come from the bipartisan, internationalist, realist school of foreign affairs which has predominated in America since World War II; they’re well supported by references to similarly-inclined scholars and analysts, and they stick pretty close to well-established facts. To be sure, Mandelbaum’s world that we govern is limited to the community of democratic (or, at least, non-Communist), free-trading nations, but since the Cold War ended, that has included the majority of nations and people.

OK, so far so good. Mandelbaum’s argument breaks down in three areas: the legitimacy of the USA as the world’s government, the other functions of government which the USA does not do for the ROTW, and finally, the expectation he tries to build that what has been recently, will continue.

Mandelbaum’s section on the political science notion of legitimacy doesn’t even try to make the argument that the USA’s governance is legitimate beyond its borders. He does make reference to traditional concepts of legitimacy, as with the Chinese Emperor of ages past, where the fact of predominance is its own justification, but he chooses instead to posit legitimacy in the modern world in a democratic, legalistic notion. In that sense, it’s the U.N. which is the legitimate organization, but of course it has no power beyond what the national governments and its limiting Charter allow it. Basically, in USA Rule there’s no taxation, and no representation (if there were, it wouldn’t be Dubya in the White House, that’s for sure). The real argument for the legitimacy of USA Rule comes later, in which Mandelbaum implies clearly that there’s a tacit consent among the leadership of many nations to let the Americans handle some of these difficult issues, though they would never admit to it and reserve every right to criticize.

There are a number of areas in which modern governments are heavily involved from which the USA’s world governance is conspicuously absent: housing, welfare for the poor and elderly, labor relations, transportation, regulation of corporate activities, and the broad categories of public health and safety—these don’t come up at all in the argument. All right, it’s a libertarian kind of governance, and, like many governments, there are some no-go zones where its power is not felt so keenly. More surprising is that Mandelbaum does not go more deeply into one area in which America exerts its power in the affairs of other nations, that being justice. In the sense of enforcing its view of who exactly are terrorist organizations, what drugs are illegal, and bringing fugitives under lock and key, America is indeed “the world’s policeman”.

The major inconsistencies and the great weakness of the thesis center around Mandelbaum’s lack of a transformational vision for America’s role in the future. He seems to think things will go along as they have, subject only to the willingness of the American people to foot the bill.

The first part of the argument is that there are no other likely candidates to take on the role that the USA has taken on. He specifically focuses on debunking any notion of a genuine world government coming into being or that Europe has anything to contribute in dealing with these global issues. We can agree that it is difficult to imagine the political circumstances which would lead the national governments to yield their sovereignty, but it is not hard to come up with major issues for which they have proved totally inadequate to address without one: AIDS, poverty, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, global warming, fossil fuel depletion, demographic whiplash, etc. Most of these are glossed over, with the exception of the nuclear one which he features in his argument of Goliath’s benign rule, and that is one I would argue specifically is failing dramatically before our eyes in these days: we kept the slingshots out of many would-be David’s hands for a long time, but we’ve got to come up with a new deal here or someone’s going to take it between the eyes. The simple fact is that we can only intimidate nations from taking up nukes until they defy us and do so, then we have to switch our strategy to deterrence.

Mandelbaum states that “a world government would, by definition, have responsibility for establishing order everywhere,” but how much does the USA, which “acts as the world’s government” do that? We can all see the deficiencies of the United Nations under its current, post WWII Charter, but Mandelbaum exercises no effort trying to imagine improvements to it, or a pact among the more powerful nations to bring about a more democratic international body. As for Europe, no one is looking for a restoration of the imperial rule of the ROTW by Europeans, but I would argue they are taking on the heavy lifting of solving problems of bringing together many nations with different cultures, languages, economic status under a single governmental roof (even if a cacophonous one), particularly as they take on the tasks of expansion to Eastern Europe and consider the possibility of including Turkey.

The second big quarrel has to do with the domestic support needed for America’s role abroad. Mandelbaum clearly sees America’s foreign policy as “unitary”—something the nation does, united, bipartisan. He says that it’s not so hard for other nations’ representatives to buttonhole someone in a responsible position for American foreign affairs and to influence them. At the same time, though, he states (and I agree) that these policies are driven by an elite—of politicians, academics, and military and economic professional analysts—with the mass of the American public largely uninterested but supportive when it affects it directly. He has little to say, really, about the costs or the benefits to this mass, and the last thing he seems to want is for the public to actually take notice and get involved in these stratospheric affairs. For example, he is quite ready to acknowledge that foreign governments and foreign peoples had very legitimate concerns about the Iraq invasion from the beginning (expressed both through private diplomatic channels and through public demonstrations), but he never once acknowledges that there was also very significant opposition to the policy at home at the time, as well.

I am not one who believes that these matters should be left to the “experts”, who make the policies we all then get to rally behind. In particular, it is this lack of vision which is their blind spot: I would argue that American strategic policy in the 1990’s was so weak because it was entirely based on improvisation: our experts had utterly failed to envision the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there had been no thinking about what the world might be like without the Cold War; thus, the opportunity that was present then was largely squandered, until 9/11/01 which gave us something more pressing to think about.

I think that, unreasonable as it is to expect other nations’ peoples to permit gladly the USA’s government to govern them, even at no charge, it is even more unreasonable to expect the American people to continue to foot the bill (using today’s catchphrase, with their “blood and treasure”) without telling them more of the truth and giving them a clearer understanding of what is to be accomplished, how, why, and for how much. Finally, I would expect Mandelbaum, or any advocate for continuing the general line of America’s internationalist, free-trading, realist school, to bring a stronger argument that the American people’s long-term interest lies in getting involved and becoming more knowledgeable about the world, its problems, and possible approaches to solving them.

Singularity Sky, by Charles Stoss

Changing pace dramatically here, this science fiction novel came strongly recommended, and I, in turn, have to recommend it strongly as well. It's been accurately categorized as "space opera", but is also a well-crafted story of political and social intrigue with its share of satire (my personal favorite genre). I found it included a lot of the most recent notions about Einsteinian physics, theoretical spacecraft (and star war) engineering, nanotechnology applications, etc. It combines some of the best features of Dune and of cyberpunk, notably a human Diaspora, people much like us dealing inadequately with future shocks and alien civilization, and a preference for anarchistic modes of self-governance as the best way of accommodating our accelerating technology, without a clear idea of how to get there. Personally, I would prefer to have some of our futurist thinkers consider how we can accelerate our social development so as to be able to handle our expanded powers, but....

Two Almost Post-Fidel Movies
Fidel is almost gone, though it doesn't seem as though that will be very momentous with Raul still around to enforce Stalinism. I saw two recent movies, though, that I thought worthy of some comment that have some connection with Cuba.
The Lost City was Andy Garcia's dream project. He doesn't explain it in terms of family connection, but it would seem to be the story that he has always heard at the family dinner table, adapted for Hollywood. He directed, produced, and starred in it--amazingly enough, he's not credited with the screenplay.
I hope he wasn't responsible for the sound on this--it was awful, at least in the cinema where we saw it (an art house). Muddy, with lots of mumbling. Visually, it was quite nice: filmed in the Dominican Republic, I think.

As a piece of history, I'm not qualified to comment, though I think it captured accurately the spirit of a segment of population before the revolution: liberal, white, urban. It was a state of mind that aspired to make the country better, inevitably terribly disillusioning living within the Batista dictatorship. I liked the segments when his brother went off and joined with the revolution, and the portrayal of Che Guevara. There was an interesting notion which might interest the survivors, post-Fidel/Raul: a couple of references to the liberal constitution of 1940, to which Batista paid occasional lip service but never observed, while Fidel claimed he would restore it (before he got into power, of course). Perhaps it could be revived.

I have to admit that I liked Miami Vice, the TV series, more than it deserved. Yes, the plots were totally formulaic, but there was a stolid earnestness about it (particularly Edward James Olmos) that felt real, and its use of rock music to help set the scene was a milestone, much-copied in latter days. Michael Mann proved he still had the chops with Collateral, so I was pretty keen to see this movie.

I can give it only a mixed review. Jamie Foxx was good as Rico--no surprise there, though he changed the role considerably. Gong Li was, of course, gorgeous, but also interesting as a Cuban/Asian (?) who had the smarts to be the consigliere of the drug runners, but somehow wasn't smart enough to see her doom approaching. The idea of her character going over to Cuba with Sonny in a fastboat for a couple days' of mojitos and partying was a good one, timely and provocative (also filmed in the D.R.?) The use of computer technology as a key tool for the drug runners was a good update to the standard package. Plenty of good action sequences.

The plot was no more than the usual formula, I'm afraid. And I miss the old Gina (her role, as usual, was next to nothing)--why couldn't they get Saundra Santiago back? I'm sure she's still in form; I see she was in The Sopranos, in the revival of Nine, etc.