It came as no surprise that Obama has rejected Fed funds for the general election campaign; to do otherwise would be to give up a huge advantage over John McCain. I wish he had not done so; to reject public campaign financing is close to a core issue that he has totally given up to his opponent. Since he was going to do so, though, he should have come clean, admitted it was a pragmatic move, and at least that way kept some of the high ground. Instead, his argument for rejecting it sounds weaselly--we know it is not perfect, what in the American system is?--and hypocritical.
I toy with the idea of giving Obama no more campaign contributions, after the one I have already committed to for him (54.40--a phrase from American History, as in "54-forty or fight", the rallying cry against Britain over the Oregon Territory from the 1840's--the Democrats eventually gave up that extremist, jingoist position). Obama campaign came up with some rationale for that one (not the historical one I just cited) , somehow, and I like that it distinguishes from the ordinary commitment amount. We'll see whether my financial ire passes, and whether he will need money, anyway.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
More Real-Life Drama
Hollywood fodder is coming fast these days:
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
HuffPost Post
This was in response to a posting by Stephen Schlesinger, "Why the Democracy League Won't Work," and a comment supporting his general thesis, that a league of democracies isn't feasible as a stand-alone organization, apart from the United Nations.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five
I'd like to announce my new unofficial partnership with Rasmussen Reports and Rasmussen Markets.com. Two-forty-five is the magic number for McCain's electoral defeat this year--if we can hold him to that figure in the projections of state/Electoral College outcomes going into Election Day, then we will win. If it looks any closer than that, we will have an official nail-biter.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
Russert
I'm not going to take the obvious lesson of Tim Russert's sudden, shocking death by heart attack. Overwork seems to be the occupational hazard, the dangerous part, of the journalistic career he chose, and he took it on joyously.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
Euro 2008: Initial Impressions
I don't like the way the Olympics are organized. National Olympic committees raise the funds and send the athletes, and it's all around jingoistic national pride. Furthermore, it is totally inconsistent with the original (Greek) Olympiad, which was about individual honor and glory (not that we need more of that in today's society). If I had my way, all the team sports would be eliminated from the Olympics, the medal count by country would be an interesting incidental statistic (like the popular vote in the primaries), and the Opening Ceremony would no longer have people marching around the track organized by country (more like the Closing Ceremony, which is a lot of fun).
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Footprints Filled With Water
Everybody's buzz word this day is "footprint"--our mark on the world. We--most of us--are looking for ways to reduce our "carbon footprint", though I don't see much evidence that we are reducing the size of our physical footprint. One thing we did, and I think it will catch on very soon, with the huge rise in the cost of building materials, is to build on what's there, instead of building anew.
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
Massive Celtics' Win
Tonight in game 4 of the playoff finals, the Boston Celtics came back from a 20+ point deficit in the first half and won. As bad as they were in the first half is how good they were in the second. Congratulations to the Celtics on the key road win.
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
- 20% chance the Celtics wrap it on the road in Game 5;
- 60% chance they lose, but win at home in Game 6 and finish it;
- 15% chance they lose twice but suck it up to win Game 7; and
- 5% they lose three straight times.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Intervention Less Ordinary
Former Secretary of State Madeleleine Albright had an excellent editorial in today's New York Times called "The End of Intervention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11albright.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). In it, she makes the case that the Bushite invasion of Iraq has undermined the internationalists' case for intervening in the affairs of nation-states, no matter how awful they act (particularly when it relates to outrages within their borders).
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sports Update
Nothing is settled in the resumption of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry at the highest level. Not only is 2-0, two wins at home, not in any way conclusive, I don't think even the full series' result will settle things. This is going to go on for years, like in the '80's (and early '60's).
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Congrats to The Man
I've been a little negligent in congratulating Obama on clinching the nomination. I've gone through the standard gamut of reactions--anger at Hillary for not conceding gracefully on time, relief when she finally did, pleasure at the start of the bump in the polls I expect over the next few weeks. Nothing very original about that, but mostly I was just too busy. I was also pleased to be wrong in my prediction on the timing of achievement of the Magic Number (Remember the song "This Magic Moment"?) , as the Obama camp had lined up the enedorsements so he clinched the nod a day earlier than I thought.
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
Sunday, June 01, 2008
PR: Si Mi, FL/MI
On Fareed Zakaria's new show GPS, the E.U.'s Ambassador to the U.S. (who knew there was one?), an Irishman named John Bruton, said in a discussion about foreign views of the Presidential campaign that, speaking for the foreign community, "we have learned about new territorial units in the U.S. and their relation to the political process, of which we had never heard before."
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
