In this week's episode of the classic boomer drama, "Leave it to Beaver", our hero's feeble attempts at long-distance ventriloquism fail. His agent, our brilliant ambassador Crocker, does not seem to have rehearsed the Iraqi premier's lines with him. Instead, he leaves al-Maliki to say what he wants regarding the visit of Prince Obama.
Miraculously, he tells the truth: Obama's plan is at least a plan, and it suits him well. 16-20 months is about enough time for the US combat forces to draw down, and starting that in January, 2009 seems propitious given recent developments.
There is no guarantee of success for Maliki and his government--in fact, he could be out when and if fair, fully-contested provincial elections occur (now scheduled, like the begin of the Obama Drawdown, for early 2009). These results, largely dependent on the extent of Sunni willingness to cooperate, are crucial: A result which is marred by violence or heavy boycotts could extend insurgency. In the hands of McCain it would mean four more years of occupation (or until when he kicks, whichever is sooner), and if Maliki doesn't like it, too bad for him.
I think we can count on Moqtada al-Sadr to keep the Shiites out of the streets and getting his people to vote under Obama's program, which will be most agreeable to him. Whether we can count on him after we are gone is wholly another question. So, that's another huge area of risk for Maliki: that the whole thing will "go pear-shaped" (Anglicism) after the Obama Drawdown.
Still, he is brave and expresses the Iraqi popular will to defend its long-neglected sovereignty--at least for this stage of his career. It will certainly be to his electoral advantage to build some space between himself and Bushite policy. His statement was well-crafted for this purpose, and, as such, deserves praise for both the content and the manner of putting it out there.
As for the Bushites, it's game over. They've actually got things on a good glide path for their approach onto the carrier this time: "Jan. 20, 2009: Mission (Impossible) Accomplished, Pt. 2".
The truth of the eventual form of any security agreement that the US is likely to make with Iraq (whether the administration is Bushite, Obamaian, or McCainian) becomes clear: the Iraqis will not consent to continue the UN mandate (under which American occupation became legitimized after the fact) further than (approx.) December, 2010. Any permanent US bases on Iraq are subject to future agreement, upon which there will be none. The future Iraqi government may be pro-American or anti-American, or both (for example, depending on our posture towards its sovereignty, which may be a partisan issue), or it could be tripartite and chaotic, but it will have this as its rock of continuing national policy for quite awhile.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Movement on Renewable Energy
The current campaign gives hope that the will exists to move forward on energy toward renewable sources. Even the right-wing "energy independence" movement can be a positive force if handled properly. Obama and McCain have agreed on cap-and-trade and other measures to shift gears. Some kind of non-partisan consensus and concerted action in 2009 is imaginable, no matter which candidate wins.
Al Gore's call to bring 100% of electricity to renewable sources in 10 years (see, for example, http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/) is a huge stretch, but points toward a nexus, a visible point on the horizon. So does Boone Pickens, who's for Big Wind to replace Big Erl. There's a focus to Gore's challenge that is practicable, even if the goal isn't. "How?" is now the question of the hour.
If the movement works out, wind and solar will soon be able to command huge investment and political will, which no self-respecting high plains district will long be able to ignore. (Taos County Commissioners, please note: the only question is alignment so as to cause minimum disruption to bird migratory patterns.)
Now, a Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html?th&emc=th) argues for large-scale solar power generation through new-generation panels deployed from space stations. The power would then "be safely beamed back to earth by microwave radio." Author O.Glenn Smith, a former NASA scientist, claims this is all possible with existing technology. I think the issues will be durability and reliability--space is a harsh mistress, as Heinlein said, and the solar wind may corrode the new, delicate cells. Further, the slightest malfunction with the microwave beam would probably cook thousands of hapless victims. But, if you're a connoisseur of solar, this is drinking straight from the source.
Another component of this emergent consensus was expressed recently by Andy Grove, former head of Intel (reference). He convincingly argues that we must focus on the electrical system as the most resilient way (also most efficient) to utilize energy. If we bring more of the energy consumption into our electrical power system we would be able to absorb fuel supplies of many types and waste less--produce less greenhouse gases--in doing so.
What means all this? Coal, which has not walked the walk in terms of developing clean methods of use, should be pushed roughly out of the picture (gasification being probably the only sane channel for future development). Vehicles powered principally by rechargeable electrical systems would be logical to roll out in this future scenario (I'd say light rail, along with plug-in hybrids and even the return of the pure electric car.) Nuclear will be marginal but still part of the program in this consensus approach. Biomass generally should supplant ethanol and other processes using food plants. Fossil fuels would wither and die....
OK, got carried away. And, for all its merits under the current US energy economic environment, I don't see how this emergent policy saves the globe from the wave of Chinese dirty consumption which is building. We still need to do the research into clean coal, too. And plan for the refugees from Bangladesh and other populous areas nearly certain to suffer massive future flooding, in case we all fall short.
Al Gore's call to bring 100% of electricity to renewable sources in 10 years (see, for example, http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/) is a huge stretch, but points toward a nexus, a visible point on the horizon. So does Boone Pickens, who's for Big Wind to replace Big Erl. There's a focus to Gore's challenge that is practicable, even if the goal isn't. "How?" is now the question of the hour.
If the movement works out, wind and solar will soon be able to command huge investment and political will, which no self-respecting high plains district will long be able to ignore. (Taos County Commissioners, please note: the only question is alignment so as to cause minimum disruption to bird migratory patterns.)
Now, a Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html?th&emc=th) argues for large-scale solar power generation through new-generation panels deployed from space stations. The power would then "be safely beamed back to earth by microwave radio." Author O.Glenn Smith, a former NASA scientist, claims this is all possible with existing technology. I think the issues will be durability and reliability--space is a harsh mistress, as Heinlein said, and the solar wind may corrode the new, delicate cells. Further, the slightest malfunction with the microwave beam would probably cook thousands of hapless victims. But, if you're a connoisseur of solar, this is drinking straight from the source.
Another component of this emergent consensus was expressed recently by Andy Grove, former head of Intel (reference). He convincingly argues that we must focus on the electrical system as the most resilient way (also most efficient) to utilize energy. If we bring more of the energy consumption into our electrical power system we would be able to absorb fuel supplies of many types and waste less--produce less greenhouse gases--in doing so.
What means all this? Coal, which has not walked the walk in terms of developing clean methods of use, should be pushed roughly out of the picture (gasification being probably the only sane channel for future development). Vehicles powered principally by rechargeable electrical systems would be logical to roll out in this future scenario (I'd say light rail, along with plug-in hybrids and even the return of the pure electric car.) Nuclear will be marginal but still part of the program in this consensus approach. Biomass generally should supplant ethanol and other processes using food plants. Fossil fuels would wither and die....
OK, got carried away. And, for all its merits under the current US energy economic environment, I don't see how this emergent policy saves the globe from the wave of Chinese dirty consumption which is building. We still need to do the research into clean coal, too. And plan for the refugees from Bangladesh and other populous areas nearly certain to suffer massive future flooding, in case we all fall short.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Tax the Bushites!
This is the meaning of Obama's key economic policy, in blunt, harsh terms you would never hear from him. This is the wedge issue that Obama seeks to create, and, if he does so, it will be the means for him to win a convincing victory (one that's Electoral College chicanery-proof).
It's the Microeconomy, Stupid
I do not think Iraq, or foreign policy/national security generally, will be central to the campaign or its outcome. Each candidate has already garnered the supporters for whom this issue will be central, and that number will be less by November. Obama's current international tour should serve to demonstrate that there is no hesitation abroad about letting us elect him President (as if that really mattered), so we can check off that box.
It also provides a distraction and delay from what could be a more telling debate on military policy--a subject on which Obama will need to beef up his team by September, when he will begin to get intelligence briefings which should make it easier to avoid gaffes in the big debates. I'm talking about weapons programs, numerical strength of the different branches of the armed forces, enlistment--very important decisions that the next President will make and Congress will ratify.
Immigration, gun control, abortion, death penalty--these are all the political baggage which Obama can deal with, must deal with, in order to successfully execute his strategy, which boils down to cutting something like a 12-point election day deficit among white voters to a deficit of 6-8%. Whites must be placated in their backwards views on these sensitive topics--Obama must seek to moderate the intensity of debate and reduce these issues' importance--in order not to lose a point here or there. The ritual incantations of unqualified, unthinking support for entitlements and Israel are required to protect the Democratic base from McCain raiding tactics.
No, it will be the specific domestic issue of the economy which will determine the outcome (like 1992, as some BTH have noted). The President has relatively little leverage on the macroeconomic course of destiny, which is basically market dynamics misshapen slightly by the tinkering of professionals (the President is fully included in the discussion but doesn't have a vote). He does, or can, have a significant effect on the microeconomic level though, by helping to shape the winners and losers resulting from political developments with major domestic economic impact.
But Who Are These "Bushites"?
Take Dubya's Administration. His decisions have had a major, positive impact on a few, identifiable groups. Military contractors, especially on-site service providers, oil executives, commodity producers in general, all those for whom continuing unsafe or unsustainable practices is critical to their business models, real estate kingpins, certain types of market speculators--these are the leading protagonists and winners of the Bushite Recovery of 2002-07. (Iran and China, too, but that's another story.)
Many components of the victorious Republican national coalitions of 2000 and 2004 feel poorly done by the Bushite Administration. "Conservatives"--meaning those who are concerned about the growth of the public vs. private sector--got nothing but slippage. Religious evangelists not much more, besides lip service and the Roberts/Alito positions, and that's not enough considering their decisive involvement in key states. A large number of them are getting more interested in preserving man's dominion (i.e., global warming, etc.) since the Republicans don't seem to be able to deliver Armageddon. These groups are not Bushite, they were allied with the true Bushites, and they're walking away. McCain's opportunity lies in his ability to appeal to many of them.
No, outside of their specified agents in Federal government, the true Bushite constituents are the ones we identified above. Obama can win the election if he can make the average American understand that this phony recovery which ended a year ago had certain identifiable beneficiaries, and that we can, at least, target for taxation future recognition of their ill-gotten incomes. Simply by letting certain tax cuts expire. It's the reverse of the classic tax ploy, the "oil depletion allowance" .
Yes, some will identify this as class warfare. There is that element, but that charge is an oversimplification that will not impress the voting public. It will actually be a squeezing of one segment of the upper class, a bit of revenge that voters will endorse. Though it will never be presented to them so baldly as I do.
It's the Microeconomy, Stupid
I do not think Iraq, or foreign policy/national security generally, will be central to the campaign or its outcome. Each candidate has already garnered the supporters for whom this issue will be central, and that number will be less by November. Obama's current international tour should serve to demonstrate that there is no hesitation abroad about letting us elect him President (as if that really mattered), so we can check off that box.
It also provides a distraction and delay from what could be a more telling debate on military policy--a subject on which Obama will need to beef up his team by September, when he will begin to get intelligence briefings which should make it easier to avoid gaffes in the big debates. I'm talking about weapons programs, numerical strength of the different branches of the armed forces, enlistment--very important decisions that the next President will make and Congress will ratify.
Immigration, gun control, abortion, death penalty--these are all the political baggage which Obama can deal with, must deal with, in order to successfully execute his strategy, which boils down to cutting something like a 12-point election day deficit among white voters to a deficit of 6-8%. Whites must be placated in their backwards views on these sensitive topics--Obama must seek to moderate the intensity of debate and reduce these issues' importance--in order not to lose a point here or there. The ritual incantations of unqualified, unthinking support for entitlements and Israel are required to protect the Democratic base from McCain raiding tactics.
No, it will be the specific domestic issue of the economy which will determine the outcome (like 1992, as some BTH have noted). The President has relatively little leverage on the macroeconomic course of destiny, which is basically market dynamics misshapen slightly by the tinkering of professionals (the President is fully included in the discussion but doesn't have a vote). He does, or can, have a significant effect on the microeconomic level though, by helping to shape the winners and losers resulting from political developments with major domestic economic impact.
But Who Are These "Bushites"?
Take Dubya's Administration. His decisions have had a major, positive impact on a few, identifiable groups. Military contractors, especially on-site service providers, oil executives, commodity producers in general, all those for whom continuing unsafe or unsustainable practices is critical to their business models, real estate kingpins, certain types of market speculators--these are the leading protagonists and winners of the Bushite Recovery of 2002-07. (Iran and China, too, but that's another story.)
Many components of the victorious Republican national coalitions of 2000 and 2004 feel poorly done by the Bushite Administration. "Conservatives"--meaning those who are concerned about the growth of the public vs. private sector--got nothing but slippage. Religious evangelists not much more, besides lip service and the Roberts/Alito positions, and that's not enough considering their decisive involvement in key states. A large number of them are getting more interested in preserving man's dominion (i.e., global warming, etc.) since the Republicans don't seem to be able to deliver Armageddon. These groups are not Bushite, they were allied with the true Bushites, and they're walking away. McCain's opportunity lies in his ability to appeal to many of them.
No, outside of their specified agents in Federal government, the true Bushite constituents are the ones we identified above. Obama can win the election if he can make the average American understand that this phony recovery which ended a year ago had certain identifiable beneficiaries, and that we can, at least, target for taxation future recognition of their ill-gotten incomes. Simply by letting certain tax cuts expire. It's the reverse of the classic tax ploy, the "oil depletion allowance" .
Yes, some will identify this as class warfare. There is that element, but that charge is an oversimplification that will not impress the voting public. It will actually be a squeezing of one segment of the upper class, a bit of revenge that voters will endorse. Though it will never be presented to them so baldly as I do.
2008 Campaign Update
The Electoral Map has gotten a lot of attention, deservedly: it's not impossible for Obama to win by 3-4 points and still lose the Electoral College (it could've happened to Dubya in '04 if he didn't have control of the state house in Ohio).
I'm sticking with my previous assessment: my best guess is for a 293-245 win. Robert Novak lines the states up the same, except for Ohio--he feels McCain is stronger than Bush was there, so his is 273-265. I give him credit for making calls and not just dumping everything that's Too Close To Call (there's really about 15 states in that category) into the toss-up category. Rasmussen's analysis, when leaners are included, moved from 293 for Obama to 273, because they have moved Ohio from Leans Democrat to Toss-up. The other toss-up states they show are Virginia and Nevada--have to agree with that.
The difference betweeen a cliff-hanger and a safe win are the outcomes in Ohio and Michigan, where McCain seems to think he can win. The difference between a safe win and an Electoral College landslide are Virginia, Nevada, and Missouri. I'll be more than satisfied with a safe win, but it makes sense to do everything to keep the latter three in play down to the wire.
The Ohio/Michigan thesis may be borne out in the selection of VP's. Michigan was a strong state for Mitt Romney in the primary and, in the state, he's family: second-generation, once-removed. Better than the bland Clintonite, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, would be Kathleen Sebelius, who is second-generation, once-removed from Ohio (she's the daughter of the most successful Democratic statewide politician of the latter 1900's, John Gilligan). She brings successful executive experience, compatibility, and tactical advantage--as well as being a woman, which is not a bad idea at all (least of all in a VP nominee). She remains my top choice.
I'm sticking with my previous assessment: my best guess is for a 293-245 win. Robert Novak lines the states up the same, except for Ohio--he feels McCain is stronger than Bush was there, so his is 273-265. I give him credit for making calls and not just dumping everything that's Too Close To Call (there's really about 15 states in that category) into the toss-up category. Rasmussen's analysis, when leaners are included, moved from 293 for Obama to 273, because they have moved Ohio from Leans Democrat to Toss-up. The other toss-up states they show are Virginia and Nevada--have to agree with that.
The difference betweeen a cliff-hanger and a safe win are the outcomes in Ohio and Michigan, where McCain seems to think he can win. The difference between a safe win and an Electoral College landslide are Virginia, Nevada, and Missouri. I'll be more than satisfied with a safe win, but it makes sense to do everything to keep the latter three in play down to the wire.
The Ohio/Michigan thesis may be borne out in the selection of VP's. Michigan was a strong state for Mitt Romney in the primary and, in the state, he's family: second-generation, once-removed. Better than the bland Clintonite, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, would be Kathleen Sebelius, who is second-generation, once-removed from Ohio (she's the daughter of the most successful Democratic statewide politician of the latter 1900's, John Gilligan). She brings successful executive experience, compatibility, and tactical advantage--as well as being a woman, which is not a bad idea at all (least of all in a VP nominee). She remains my top choice.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Euro 2008 Recap
Congratulations to Spain, which showed it had a worthy defense and potent offense. The key game of the tournament was outlasting Italy in penalty kicks in the quarterfinal. Russia's speed was killed by the rain, which set up a classic test in the final. No shenanigans this time, and Germany was thoroughly beaten by the end.
I jump Spain to the top of the list of European teams, which makes them #3 in their chance to win South Africa in 2010 (after Argentina and Brazil). England, which didn't make the Euros (and thus made the whole thing a lot more fun), might well be #2 of the Europeans. However, that doesn't necessarily put them at #4 in my rankings: Russia and Turkey, both questionable in their "European-ness" despite their memberships in the European federation, might be good longer-shot picks for 2010, which would then finesse the classic World Cup dichotomy--Europe wins when it's there, Brazil or Argentina when it's not (one exception in history).
I jump Spain to the top of the list of European teams, which makes them #3 in their chance to win South Africa in 2010 (after Argentina and Brazil). England, which didn't make the Euros (and thus made the whole thing a lot more fun), might well be #2 of the Europeans. However, that doesn't necessarily put them at #4 in my rankings: Russia and Turkey, both questionable in their "European-ness" despite their memberships in the European federation, might be good longer-shot picks for 2010, which would then finesse the classic World Cup dichotomy--Europe wins when it's there, Brazil or Argentina when it's not (one exception in history).
Lunatic Fringe Weighs In; Some Counter-Balance
See Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University on "Using Bombs to Stop Wars", http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html.
He logically builds an airtight case for the inevitability of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites in the period Nov. 5- Jan. 19 (a frighteningly real possibility, I admit), dismissing along the way any chance of negotiation, the possibility that mutual deterrence could prevent Iran using its hypothetical weapons, and even any chance that Israel's attack could work.
It seems to be addressed to the leaders in Iran, supported by Bushites (and the desperate Olmert government) as an adjunct to their "you get one chance to agree to our demands before we declare war, while we still can" policy--an ultimatum, in so many words, and to have been planted in the New York Times as a personal favor to some US intelligence apparatchik. I choose that interpretation over its being a desperate plea for help from the Israeli Intelligence to Washington: stop us before we hurt ourselves! Clearly the Olmert government, with scandals closing in and Labor pulling out, is willing to go to extremes: they're even threatening to make an agreement with the PLO (or whatever they call themselves today)!
In this vein, I like Obama's support for Jerusalem, undivided, as capital of Israel. I think he should have the same policy for the Palestinian Federation, Abbas' organization (the same former-PLO one), and, if they learn to behave themselves, Hamas. Then, in 2013, for the world, in the form of the (expanded, revised) Security Council of the U.N. With all the transplanted bureaucrats (and new McDonald's for the workers coming to support them), Jerusalem will become the priciest real estate that side of London. That would then be a well-deserved peace dividend!
On the Positive side: Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on the Obama Foreign Policy speech. Sargent's analysis focused on it as a point-by-point rebuttal to McCain's attacks. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_i_strongly_stand_by_my_p.php. (I have to praise TPM in this way since they did some dysfunctional change to their login process, which seems to have permanently screwed up my ID. Now, don't tell me it was intentional!)
And, at least, Obama gave a sentence to the indea of reform of the United Nations. It's a start.
He logically builds an airtight case for the inevitability of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites in the period Nov. 5- Jan. 19 (a frighteningly real possibility, I admit), dismissing along the way any chance of negotiation, the possibility that mutual deterrence could prevent Iran using its hypothetical weapons, and even any chance that Israel's attack could work.
It seems to be addressed to the leaders in Iran, supported by Bushites (and the desperate Olmert government) as an adjunct to their "you get one chance to agree to our demands before we declare war, while we still can" policy--an ultimatum, in so many words, and to have been planted in the New York Times as a personal favor to some US intelligence apparatchik. I choose that interpretation over its being a desperate plea for help from the Israeli Intelligence to Washington: stop us before we hurt ourselves! Clearly the Olmert government, with scandals closing in and Labor pulling out, is willing to go to extremes: they're even threatening to make an agreement with the PLO (or whatever they call themselves today)!
In this vein, I like Obama's support for Jerusalem, undivided, as capital of Israel. I think he should have the same policy for the Palestinian Federation, Abbas' organization (the same former-PLO one), and, if they learn to behave themselves, Hamas. Then, in 2013, for the world, in the form of the (expanded, revised) Security Council of the U.N. With all the transplanted bureaucrats (and new McDonald's for the workers coming to support them), Jerusalem will become the priciest real estate that side of London. That would then be a well-deserved peace dividend!
On the Positive side: Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on the Obama Foreign Policy speech. Sargent's analysis focused on it as a point-by-point rebuttal to McCain's attacks. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_i_strongly_stand_by_my_p.php. (I have to praise TPM in this way since they did some dysfunctional change to their login process, which seems to have permanently screwed up my ID. Now, don't tell me it was intentional!)
And, at least, Obama gave a sentence to the indea of reform of the United Nations. It's a start.
Eat. Pray. Love. Rinse. Repeat.
Elizabeth Gilbert's memoir "Eat Pray Love" was my first read on the trip through Italy. It's deservedly a "woman's book", but this guy just had to know.
To sum it up, Gilbert...
Eats her way through Italy, thinking about her bitter divorce (ex-husband is unmentionable) and her passionate, unstable relationship with a New Yorker (his name surely changed). Picks up Italian--the language, that is, not a single Italian male (she would have us believe). Drops her anti-depressant medication.
Prays like a son of a gun in the ashram in India. Learns to unleash her chakras. Teases her Robert from Texas until he moseys on. Loses that weight she put on in Italy.
OK, those of us following along know that Indonesia will mean "love". It was not as simplistic as it might have been, i.e., she does not fall in love with the teacher/healer whose influence caused her to come to Indonesia in the first place. But Ms. Gilbert has turned on that overhead light on her taxi, and before long someone hails her when she's in the right mood.
Just a passenger, she thinks. By the end of the book, though, her older Brazilian lover (she had to get used to the idea that her 30-something could go for a 50-something, no matter what skills he had in patient seduction) was thoroughly tangled in her hair.
Her section on Italy, the one of the three locales about which I'd consider myself expert, was accurate and perceptive, though hardly original. She wisely confines herself to a few areas of focus in her diaries--eating, the language, and getting those previous guys "right out of her hair". All of those topics struck chords that resonated with me--for example, I once fled to Italy to escape my unhappy love life.
Her wit is the book's saving grace--it was up-front and wisecracking in Italy, non-existent in oh-too-serious India, and mildly self-deprecating in Indonesia (her steady state). It was no challenge at all to read the whole thing in 3-4 days at the beach.
Oh--Rinse. And Repeat. Those are the sequels.
To sum it up, Gilbert...
Eats her way through Italy, thinking about her bitter divorce (ex-husband is unmentionable) and her passionate, unstable relationship with a New Yorker (his name surely changed). Picks up Italian--the language, that is, not a single Italian male (she would have us believe). Drops her anti-depressant medication.
Prays like a son of a gun in the ashram in India. Learns to unleash her chakras. Teases her Robert from Texas until he moseys on. Loses that weight she put on in Italy.
OK, those of us following along know that Indonesia will mean "love". It was not as simplistic as it might have been, i.e., she does not fall in love with the teacher/healer whose influence caused her to come to Indonesia in the first place. But Ms. Gilbert has turned on that overhead light on her taxi, and before long someone hails her when she's in the right mood.
Just a passenger, she thinks. By the end of the book, though, her older Brazilian lover (she had to get used to the idea that her 30-something could go for a 50-something, no matter what skills he had in patient seduction) was thoroughly tangled in her hair.
Her section on Italy, the one of the three locales about which I'd consider myself expert, was accurate and perceptive, though hardly original. She wisely confines herself to a few areas of focus in her diaries--eating, the language, and getting those previous guys "right out of her hair". All of those topics struck chords that resonated with me--for example, I once fled to Italy to escape my unhappy love life.
Her wit is the book's saving grace--it was up-front and wisecracking in Italy, non-existent in oh-too-serious India, and mildly self-deprecating in Indonesia (her steady state). It was no challenge at all to read the whole thing in 3-4 days at the beach.
Oh--Rinse. And Repeat. Those are the sequels.
Italy Re-Viewed Pt. I--
I didn't realize it at the time (late '70's-early '80's), but my youthful infatuation with Italy was indiscriminate. I was interested in every facet of the country, every region of its geography, all of its culture. Of course, that doesn't mean I was able to cover it all; one would need more than a lifetime, and I had a late start. Still, my range of interest went far. This recent voyage of discovery with my wife and children refreshed those memories, to which I brought a new perspective.
It's easier to start with some of the eternal values.
The People
There's no doubt or re-thinking here: The country is fully an expression of the complex, creative genius of its people. It's such a man-made environment--a beautiful artifice, though conditioned by some powerful forces of nature. A good example is the Gulf of Naples area, with the bounty of its gorgeous and expansive coast, the backdrop of Vesuvius, and the huge city of Napoli, not safely situated if a major eruption should occur. It's hard to find much of what Americans would call "natural", but it's hard to criticize their land management (given the population size), either.
Ah, the population. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Along with some pretty stiff "non-tariff barriers" against importation of people (a/k/a immigration), low birth rates are producing some concern about the top-heavy demographic shape taking form for the future and its implications on social services, the labor pool, etc.
Despite the waning population trend, it's hard to argue that the country lacks population density. There is a Northern Italian elitist party, though, that holds fast to the view that, due to differing growth rates, the country is doomed to the chaos of Southern Italy and Southern Italians--their aim is to pull together those who want to preserve their local (insular, xenophobic, elitist, Bourgeois) culture and keep the Other out. I guess you can tell I'm not exactly on their side.
True to their dire prophecies, and contrary to their best efforts, the country's famous fractionalization by clan/town/region seems to me to be decreasing (which means these Lega Nord guys are right on the issue, but losing the war). Principal agents causing this developing national consistency are schools, military service, and TV--there's basically one Italian-language TV market, and it's the whole country. There are some locally-produced broadcasts and news shows--about the equivalent of New York One (i.e., low budget, don't matter). I see the country as becoming more homogeneous, more oriented around the nuclear family, more mobile within the country.
In short, more like America. Which should please Italians: more than any other country (except Canada, of course), Italians look to America and American culture for their cues. Except that, while the Italians always moan about conditions, I feel that the widespread dissatisfaction is more earnest than ever this time around.
Which means, approximately, nothing, in political terms. Italians have been addressing inequality and inequity passionately through political means in a most ineffective manner for longer than any of us have been alive. And books have been printed about this problem since the press was invented.
If you're Italian, though, "si arrangia". This is the same as the English "muddling through", but with more style.
Tourism
It's tough, but rewarding. The Euro/dollar exchange rate has been a disaster for American tourists and those who hold dollars but could've held Euros (or pounds, or Swiss francs, for that matter). It hasn't been so great for Italians, either, to hear them tell it.
Certainly, the usual flood of Americans has relented a bit. This is not considered generally "a Good Thing", and we are more than welcome. Credit cards are more accepted, which is a good thing because it is impossible to have enough cash without maintaining a permanent physical presence next door to an ATM machine (and a US debit card bold enough to let you at it).
There is still massive art, ruins, and indescribable beauty of a thousand kinds everywhere you go. OK, not quite everywhere, but in quite a lot of places, not just one or two or even a hundred. Food is good. So is wine. We had more than our share of "Primitivo" in Puglia this year--never a bad one, never paid more than 6-7 Euros or the equivalent in inflated restaurant prices.
Agriturismo is still the trend of the moment there; it has deepened and broadened. Why not? Our fave this time was about 5 miles south of Noci, provincia di Bari--Masseria Murgia Albanese. It's a real farm--dairy, among other products. I give it an unabashed recommendation to visitors who bring the proper attitude. For our children, it was beautiful--our 9-year-old fell in love with Cicillo, the donkey, and watching the displays of the peacock.
More on popular culture, politics, and the things Italians are curious about today in our follow-up in the August "issue".
It's easier to start with some of the eternal values.
The People
There's no doubt or re-thinking here: The country is fully an expression of the complex, creative genius of its people. It's such a man-made environment--a beautiful artifice, though conditioned by some powerful forces of nature. A good example is the Gulf of Naples area, with the bounty of its gorgeous and expansive coast, the backdrop of Vesuvius, and the huge city of Napoli, not safely situated if a major eruption should occur. It's hard to find much of what Americans would call "natural", but it's hard to criticize their land management (given the population size), either.
Ah, the population. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Along with some pretty stiff "non-tariff barriers" against importation of people (a/k/a immigration), low birth rates are producing some concern about the top-heavy demographic shape taking form for the future and its implications on social services, the labor pool, etc.
Despite the waning population trend, it's hard to argue that the country lacks population density. There is a Northern Italian elitist party, though, that holds fast to the view that, due to differing growth rates, the country is doomed to the chaos of Southern Italy and Southern Italians--their aim is to pull together those who want to preserve their local (insular, xenophobic, elitist, Bourgeois) culture and keep the Other out. I guess you can tell I'm not exactly on their side.
True to their dire prophecies, and contrary to their best efforts, the country's famous fractionalization by clan/town/region seems to me to be decreasing (which means these Lega Nord guys are right on the issue, but losing the war). Principal agents causing this developing national consistency are schools, military service, and TV--there's basically one Italian-language TV market, and it's the whole country. There are some locally-produced broadcasts and news shows--about the equivalent of New York One (i.e., low budget, don't matter). I see the country as becoming more homogeneous, more oriented around the nuclear family, more mobile within the country.
In short, more like America. Which should please Italians: more than any other country (except Canada, of course), Italians look to America and American culture for their cues. Except that, while the Italians always moan about conditions, I feel that the widespread dissatisfaction is more earnest than ever this time around.
Which means, approximately, nothing, in political terms. Italians have been addressing inequality and inequity passionately through political means in a most ineffective manner for longer than any of us have been alive. And books have been printed about this problem since the press was invented.
If you're Italian, though, "si arrangia". This is the same as the English "muddling through", but with more style.
Tourism
It's tough, but rewarding. The Euro/dollar exchange rate has been a disaster for American tourists and those who hold dollars but could've held Euros (or pounds, or Swiss francs, for that matter). It hasn't been so great for Italians, either, to hear them tell it.
Certainly, the usual flood of Americans has relented a bit. This is not considered generally "a Good Thing", and we are more than welcome. Credit cards are more accepted, which is a good thing because it is impossible to have enough cash without maintaining a permanent physical presence next door to an ATM machine (and a US debit card bold enough to let you at it).
There is still massive art, ruins, and indescribable beauty of a thousand kinds everywhere you go. OK, not quite everywhere, but in quite a lot of places, not just one or two or even a hundred. Food is good. So is wine. We had more than our share of "Primitivo" in Puglia this year--never a bad one, never paid more than 6-7 Euros or the equivalent in inflated restaurant prices.
Agriturismo is still the trend of the moment there; it has deepened and broadened. Why not? Our fave this time was about 5 miles south of Noci, provincia di Bari--Masseria Murgia Albanese. It's a real farm--dairy, among other products. I give it an unabashed recommendation to visitors who bring the proper attitude. For our children, it was beautiful--our 9-year-old fell in love with Cicillo, the donkey, and watching the displays of the peacock.
More on popular culture, politics, and the things Italians are curious about today in our follow-up in the August "issue".
Thursday, July 17, 2008
July Edition: Blogger's Note
The blogmeister has seen fit to clarify the Mid-Monthly concept as it relates to this blog: we will now have a monthly edition, with no new postings (or revisions of current-month ones) after, say the 1st of the following.
Unlike a printed publication, which closes 45 days or so before the start of the month, we will allow ourselves the whole month to revise previous postings in the month, so postings should be considered provisional until the end. Strategically, this would suggest we start the more difficult postings earlier in the month and go with quick hitters, closely edited, at the end. Also, that one should pay no attention whatsoever to the date and time within the month the blog may ascribe to a posting (alas, it is so___!)
We got a late start for this month's edition, which we begin more than halfway through, due to a vacation which renewed my infatuation with Italy. We post this next, to get it started.
Unlike a printed publication, which closes 45 days or so before the start of the month, we will allow ourselves the whole month to revise previous postings in the month, so postings should be considered provisional until the end. Strategically, this would suggest we start the more difficult postings earlier in the month and go with quick hitters, closely edited, at the end. Also, that one should pay no attention whatsoever to the date and time within the month the blog may ascribe to a posting (alas, it is so___!)
We got a late start for this month's edition, which we begin more than halfway through, due to a vacation which renewed my infatuation with Italy. We post this next, to get it started.
Letter to Myself
Stoner: in your previous post, "Obama Disappoints",
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.
Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.
Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.
Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.
Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.
Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.
As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.
In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.
Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.
Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.
Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.
Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.
Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.
As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.
In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
