45 Straight: A Burly Mark
The new major league record of 15 consecutive innings' worth of pitching perfection this week was a great accomplishment for a perfectly accomplished pitcher. Mark Buehrle has long been recognized as having superstar talent, and this record is clear evidence of that (with a word from D. Wise--he certainly had something to say about it--notwithstanding).
Anything over the 38 or so that Harvey Haddix achieved in the not-quite-perfect 13-inning loss in 1959 is amazing to me. Buehrle has something more to show in the record book, a solid, asterisk-less perfect game last week in a key game against the Detroit Tigers. The consecutive batters retired record is one of natural appeal which has never gotten much attention, until now.
Suit Yourself
That's what Michael Phelps should say to the swimming world, and take a break until the ban on the new cheat suits takes effect--it will be next year, the suits of swimming-dom are saying right now. Phelps has been taunted for taking a pass on the new, extra-buoyant and unnatural swimming attire going round the World Championships. The result of the new suits, which take inordinately long to prepare, have proven beyond doubt how critical suit buoyancy can be to world-class performance, where success and abject failure are divided by tenths of seconds, or less.
This world championships has had literally incredible numbers of world records. Not proof in themselves of unfairness, but several of the records have come from folks coming out of nowhere at the championship level in the new suits.
This looks to be a near-obvious asterisk situation; clearly the international swimming institution (I've read it's called FINA, though that means nothing to me--I thought that was a nearly-extinct Italian gasoline brand) got sandbagged and will have to do so some serious backtracking. Buoyancy is soon going to be one of those performance characteristics governed directly, like carburetion in auto racing.
Phelps should finish the meet, then take a break, and see how things play out. At this point, he has much more to offer the sport than it him. He's been penalized for excessive fame recently; now he must allow himself to be penalized for his loyalty to his sponsoring brand.
Sam Shows 'Er Form
We watched the first two sets of the Samantha Stosur ("Sam") vs. Serena Williams match, then went to dinner. Stosur was rocking the best serve I've seen from a woman: wicked low kick serve, delivered from an incredible angle behind her head, with well-hidden direction. Serena looked disgusted with her game, rusty, low in energy. Still, the commentators all emphasized how--in this type of match, implicitly--Serena pulls them out with fire and intimidation, even when her quality of tennis suffers. They also commented how the outcome of her matches is always about Serena's quality of play--when she's on her game, there's no one who can beat her (well, maybe Venus or Maria--Shaparova).
I guess of the two contradictory fatuous observations, the second one was operable today. Serena lost 6-2 in the third, which is at least consistent with the theory that she can't lose when on her game. She was certainly off, in this first of the US Open prep series, but Stosur is now officially a contender. I just hope she's legit (no performance enhancement by illicit means), as her improvement seems almost too great.
As for the men, going into this series of US hardcourt matches Andy Roddick has to be considered a co-favorite with Federer and Nadal--even if Rafa is fully back by the US Open.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Obama the Hamiltonian
The birthers are raving lunatics and mostly driven by racist or xenophobic motives, but I will give them credit for one thing, and that is giving me a nod toward the identity of the best historical predecessor to Obama I've found yet. I'm speaking of Alexander Hamilton, known primarily as the first Secretary of the Treasury (and for being on the $10).*
Apart from the tenner, Hamilton is given short shrift in modern American history, because he was never President and because a duel with Aaron Burr cut short his life/career. However, he was a Founding Father of the first order, Washington's most trusted lieutenant (both in government and in the Continental Army), and a major participant in the Federalist Papers, which were the critical public (if anonymous) debate in the process of the passage of the Constitution by the states (note the need for such in the current health care debate).
Obama's approach is certainly Hamiltonian in his view of the Federal government as the public sponsor of the private banking system, of an active central government (as opposed to the states' rights view which predominated at the time, or to a pure libertarian/conservative view of the central government's role, today's chief opposing philosophy to the Obamaian). Further, Hamilton is considered the most poised, articulate, and clever speaker and writer of his age (which is saying something, with Jefferson in the picture), just as Obama may be today.
We don't know that much about a Hamiltonian mode of governing, though, because of the lack of any Hamilton Administration. It wasn't the duel, really, that kept Hamilton from the White House (particularly in 1796, when Washington exited); it was the Constitution. The sentence governing citizenship and eligibility for America's top office was specifically crafted to exclude Hamilton, who had many enemies.
Hamilton became an American citizen, and was as loyal as any other, but he wss born a British subject in the West Indies. And everyone knew it; that's why the Presidency is limited to natural-born citizens. That phrase, about which there is considerable confusion, means that the person must have been a citizen at birth, not becoming one by means of naturalization. That means Arnold Schwarzenegger is out, unless he can get a Constitutional amendment.
Obama, of course, was born in Hawaii, which had just become a state. (Even if Hawaii hadn't--become a state yet, that is--being born in a US Territory is good enough: as per the case of John McCain, no less).**
There isn't really any debate about Obama's being a natural-born citizen. It's just that the artificially-birthed controversy about it reminded me of the Hamilton Exclusion.
*Other American historical figures for whom one can make plausible arguments for similarities in key respects with Obama include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and, of course, Lincoln.
** For the factoid that McCain was born in the Canal Zone--US territory at the time, though no more, I must thank my friend Muhammad Cohen (and see his blog, and novel, Hong Kong on Air, hopefully coming soon to a theater near you).
Apart from the tenner, Hamilton is given short shrift in modern American history, because he was never President and because a duel with Aaron Burr cut short his life/career. However, he was a Founding Father of the first order, Washington's most trusted lieutenant (both in government and in the Continental Army), and a major participant in the Federalist Papers, which were the critical public (if anonymous) debate in the process of the passage of the Constitution by the states (note the need for such in the current health care debate).
Obama's approach is certainly Hamiltonian in his view of the Federal government as the public sponsor of the private banking system, of an active central government (as opposed to the states' rights view which predominated at the time, or to a pure libertarian/conservative view of the central government's role, today's chief opposing philosophy to the Obamaian). Further, Hamilton is considered the most poised, articulate, and clever speaker and writer of his age (which is saying something, with Jefferson in the picture), just as Obama may be today.
We don't know that much about a Hamiltonian mode of governing, though, because of the lack of any Hamilton Administration. It wasn't the duel, really, that kept Hamilton from the White House (particularly in 1796, when Washington exited); it was the Constitution. The sentence governing citizenship and eligibility for America's top office was specifically crafted to exclude Hamilton, who had many enemies.
Hamilton became an American citizen, and was as loyal as any other, but he wss born a British subject in the West Indies. And everyone knew it; that's why the Presidency is limited to natural-born citizens. That phrase, about which there is considerable confusion, means that the person must have been a citizen at birth, not becoming one by means of naturalization. That means Arnold Schwarzenegger is out, unless he can get a Constitutional amendment.
Obama, of course, was born in Hawaii, which had just become a state. (Even if Hawaii hadn't--become a state yet, that is--being born in a US Territory is good enough: as per the case of John McCain, no less).**
There isn't really any debate about Obama's being a natural-born citizen. It's just that the artificially-birthed controversy about it reminded me of the Hamilton Exclusion.
*Other American historical figures for whom one can make plausible arguments for similarities in key respects with Obama include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and, of course, Lincoln.
** For the factoid that McCain was born in the Canal Zone--US territory at the time, though no more, I must thank my friend Muhammad Cohen (and see his blog, and novel, Hong Kong on Air, hopefully coming soon to a theater near you).
Monday, July 27, 2009
We Have Survived Armageddon!
I discovered the Good News this morning. One of the TH on CNBC referred to a notion that the S&P's global low may may have been set in March at 666 and the technical implications of that. He was saying it without irony or giving it epecial importance--no raised eyebrow--but I definitely didn't hear it that way.
I encourage all to look at it this way: the Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled! The license plate number of the Beast that ran over us was "666 S&P". I didn't see which state was on the plate, though.
I encourage all to look at it this way: the Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled! The license plate number of the Beast that ran over us was "666 S&P". I didn't see which state was on the plate, though.
Eating Through Asia, Pt. 1: Meals
Hong Kong--
Yuen Kee Seafood, Wellington St.
Thailand--
Bali--Sarong,
Singapore--Xing.
Yuen Kee Seafood, Wellington St.
Thailand--
Bali--Sarong,
Singapore--Xing.
Is the Public Option Negotiable?
This is the question of the moment in the health care debate, though everywhere I look the people in Congress seem to have it all wrong.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed it thusly: the bills coming from Committee have it; Obama wants it; we can pass a bill with it. Blue Dogs notwithstanding, she's probably right about that, though all would view her position as being the bluster that it was.
CNN's Jon King pressed her on it, and she basically said, "No."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took it on forcefully. It seemed to him to be a genuine bipartisan moment.
As a parable, I suppose, he trotted out the Ford plant in his home base of Louisville.* They unfairly have to compete with reorganized GM, he said, because GMAC is subsidized by the government and Ford's finance arm is not. Not only that, he harnessed the trotter with "well, most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage". So, "No."
Blue Dogs are worried that their blue Democrat constituents manning the phones for the insurance companies are going to lose their jobs as the result of unfair competition with a Federal public option "takeover". So, they're leaning hard toward "No Way!"
Finally, in Sunday's New York Times (link in title) there is very thorough editorial review of what we can expect from health care reform. In the entire length of the article, though, there is no mention of "public option". Their analysis comes directly from the meetings of a bipartisan Gang of Six (three Dems, three Republicans) who are meeting daily to come up with a legislative proposal which can get through the Senate. They have already looked at the question of the moment and come to the conclusion, "Not this Time", and the Times bought into that enough that they didn't even mention it. Shame on them for the duck.
I have to say that each group has it all wrong.
First, with regard to the guy who's Really Blue and Really a Dog, McConnell, and leaving aside the question of why Ford doesn't try to take advantage of that banking opportunity on behalf of its shareholders, I'd have to point out that many of those satisfied folks in the poll are benefitting from public offerings from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. Take those folks out from the poll and the favorability rating for people's current health insurance is probably worse than 50-50 (or 40-40, if you will).
Pelosi is wrong if she really thinks that an unfair competition can be imposed on the public by the government. Such an attempt would end up getting slammed in the courts, as with "busing to achieve racial balance" if we remember that disaster. She can lead the House to the public pool, but she can't make Congress drink this initial version of the option coming from House committees--it will have to be watered down.
The Blue Dogs are going to have to accept a change to the status quo; even the insurance companies are very aware of that. They seem to be willing to go as far as giving up that wonderful question, "Have you ever been denied coverage?" which saves them so much money.
Unfortunately, their clients (the real ones--the big health care conglomerates) have spent the last 15 years, the ones since ClintonCare failed to come to a vote, competing on cherry-picking and on finding ways to repeatedly raise premiums and deductibles. There is a popular support for the attempt to "Keep Them Honest" that will emerge as we go deeper into the effort to discern the popular will during the legislative break month coming up.
The Correct Answer: "Yes"
There has to be a public option--it is one of the key promises of the Obama campaign, it will be a critical measure of his success, and it will be absolutely required by his core support group. No plan can be acceptable without it, though one that fudges a bit on the requirement--like Kent Conrad's Cooperative approach--may be tempting. (But Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been tried and found wanting.)
The terms of competition between the public and the privates are not fixed in stone, though. The minimum expectation is that the public route will break even after set-up costs and excluding assistance to poor applicants who can prove they can only afford part of the cost.
One could require a higher standard, such that the public plan produces a Return on Equity (ROE) of 8-10%, adjusting the capital and fees for the program to meet targets, which would become the health care policy equivalent of M2 money growth.
Also, though, the terms of competition should be structured so that the private insurers have an equal or better shot at getting public health insurance assistance dollars, which should not been given preferentially to the public option program.
*Mine, too! I should look into the Chinese character set that would exactly replicate the locals' "Lu-i-vl" pronunciation. It would give them (the Chinese reader preparing for a trade mission) so much cachet when they come to Ford, bringing capital, if they had the pronunciation down just so.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed it thusly: the bills coming from Committee have it; Obama wants it; we can pass a bill with it. Blue Dogs notwithstanding, she's probably right about that, though all would view her position as being the bluster that it was.
CNN's Jon King pressed her on it, and she basically said, "No."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took it on forcefully. It seemed to him to be a genuine bipartisan moment.
As a parable, I suppose, he trotted out the Ford plant in his home base of Louisville.* They unfairly have to compete with reorganized GM, he said, because GMAC is subsidized by the government and Ford's finance arm is not. Not only that, he harnessed the trotter with "well, most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage". So, "No."
Blue Dogs are worried that their blue Democrat constituents manning the phones for the insurance companies are going to lose their jobs as the result of unfair competition with a Federal public option "takeover". So, they're leaning hard toward "No Way!"
Finally, in Sunday's New York Times (link in title) there is very thorough editorial review of what we can expect from health care reform. In the entire length of the article, though, there is no mention of "public option". Their analysis comes directly from the meetings of a bipartisan Gang of Six (three Dems, three Republicans) who are meeting daily to come up with a legislative proposal which can get through the Senate. They have already looked at the question of the moment and come to the conclusion, "Not this Time", and the Times bought into that enough that they didn't even mention it. Shame on them for the duck.
I have to say that each group has it all wrong.
First, with regard to the guy who's Really Blue and Really a Dog, McConnell, and leaving aside the question of why Ford doesn't try to take advantage of that banking opportunity on behalf of its shareholders, I'd have to point out that many of those satisfied folks in the poll are benefitting from public offerings from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. Take those folks out from the poll and the favorability rating for people's current health insurance is probably worse than 50-50 (or 40-40, if you will).
Pelosi is wrong if she really thinks that an unfair competition can be imposed on the public by the government. Such an attempt would end up getting slammed in the courts, as with "busing to achieve racial balance" if we remember that disaster. She can lead the House to the public pool, but she can't make Congress drink this initial version of the option coming from House committees--it will have to be watered down.
The Blue Dogs are going to have to accept a change to the status quo; even the insurance companies are very aware of that. They seem to be willing to go as far as giving up that wonderful question, "Have you ever been denied coverage?" which saves them so much money.
Unfortunately, their clients (the real ones--the big health care conglomerates) have spent the last 15 years, the ones since ClintonCare failed to come to a vote, competing on cherry-picking and on finding ways to repeatedly raise premiums and deductibles. There is a popular support for the attempt to "Keep Them Honest" that will emerge as we go deeper into the effort to discern the popular will during the legislative break month coming up.
The Correct Answer: "Yes"
There has to be a public option--it is one of the key promises of the Obama campaign, it will be a critical measure of his success, and it will be absolutely required by his core support group. No plan can be acceptable without it, though one that fudges a bit on the requirement--like Kent Conrad's Cooperative approach--may be tempting. (But Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been tried and found wanting.)
The terms of competition between the public and the privates are not fixed in stone, though. The minimum expectation is that the public route will break even after set-up costs and excluding assistance to poor applicants who can prove they can only afford part of the cost.
One could require a higher standard, such that the public plan produces a Return on Equity (ROE) of 8-10%, adjusting the capital and fees for the program to meet targets, which would become the health care policy equivalent of M2 money growth.
Also, though, the terms of competition should be structured so that the private insurers have an equal or better shot at getting public health insurance assistance dollars, which should not been given preferentially to the public option program.
*Mine, too! I should look into the Chinese character set that would exactly replicate the locals' "Lu-i-vl" pronunciation. It would give them (the Chinese reader preparing for a trade mission) so much cachet when they come to Ford, bringing capital, if they had the pronunciation down just so.
But What Would Mr. Pynchon Say?
Un-plugging "Unplugging Philco"
This alt-reality satire, written by Jim Knipfer and published this year, posits an American society gone wrong after a poorly-understood attack on the Homeland (Tupelo, Mississippi, to be exact) known as The Horribleness. The attack, perpetrated supposedly by Australians, becomes the justification for all manner of intrusions on privacy and re-structuring of the economy.
The story focuses on Wally Philco, a low-level Corporate Tool working for some insurance company, living out a loveless, childless marriage, and increasingly disenchanted by the impositions of the outside world on his anonymous existence. Philco ultimately goes the extra mile to go off-grid, under the eyes of Big Brother in the heart of Brooklyn, and joins a mysterious group of subversives called the Unpluggers.
This caricature of post-9/11 society and the reaction to domestic terrorism gives Knipfer a free platform to denounce or satirize his pet peeves, which include:
0) mandatory peeing into a cup for your employer--Philco chose refusing this request as his route to get fired;
1) cellphones plugged into one's ears;
2) pop-up ads;
3) hidden cameras;
4) public patriotic events;
5) political correctness enforcement;
6) phony Prohibition;
7) de-personalization through ID numbers; and most strongly,
8) aggressive mothers pushing their baby carriages and running over anyone who won't get out of their way.
As you can see, his complaints range from totally justified to extreme exaggeration. Sometimes a bit too obvious, UPP (we only give one free plug) has a plot closely patterned after Orwell's "1984" and pays overt homage to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano".
Knipfer chose to tell the story mostly, but not exclusively, from the perspective of Everyman Philco (he uses brand names for people as a satiric perspective on the commercialization of all aspects of postmodern life). Philco is a bit narcissistic, though brave, and more than a bit oblivious to detail. In centering the narrative on Philco's limited perceptions, he avoids going more deeply into some of the interesting characters he creates, most prominently his recruiter into the Unpluggers, Johnny Faro (the character--a Norwegian imitating a cowboy?--has got to be modeled on someone--Marion Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? --but we never find out), and the seductive agent Cornelia Bain and her rich uncle, "The Colonel".
We are fortunate in that we don't have to guess Thomas Pynchon's take on UPP, as he provided a blurb for the paperback cover, which I quote in its entirety:
We'll skip the question of the ellipsis in the first sentence, and what was left out. The description--particularly the "narrative exuberance" bit--sounds like Pynchon plugging Pynchon. All credit to Knipfer for getting "Unplugging" plugged, though.
Knipfer takes an ultimately libertarian, neo-Luddite, but pessimistic stance toward the gadgets which are progressively enslaving us. Pynchon's take on King Ludd and his followers, as discussed (but not much resolved) in his 1984 essay "Is It OK to be a Luddite?" (New York Times Book Review, 28 October 1984, pp. 1, 40-41.), is clearly sympathetic, though Pynchon himself is coming from a different place: Luddites are a phenomenon, like the science behind technology, or the events we try to interpret through history, or high art, or popular media (he gives high praise in the essay to postwar sci-fi), and all provide tragicomic grist for the endlessly turning mill.
Git Chaney, Episode 1
A detective story set in early 1920's Teapot Dome Wyoming in which Irish ex-footballer Berick O'Bama tracks down that cowboy rascal Jeremiah "Git" Chaney, bringing him to justice for disparaging public comments about the Lady V., Mrs. Joseph Wilson.
O'Bama's Teutonic investigator, Erick Holter, reaches dead ends when it comes to reports of dragging suspicious-lookin' furriners on the end of ropes tied to his horse, to accusations of setting his henchmen to watching innocent civilians down at the land title company, and researching the motivation possibly behind some kind of dubious hunting accident. The Wilsons, though, who blocked Chaney's prospectors from staking out a possible yellowcake mine, were turned out from job and home when Git got his banker to foreclose on their mortgage.
"We can tolerate some forward business dealin'", O'Bama explained. "But going after a lady, that just ain't right."
Blurbs for Pynchon Works
V. , 1963--"Pynchon...establishes key themes of modern dialectics of Force and Counterforce, Entropy and Revival, forcing an effort to connect the dots between the globe's hidden focal points in search of the roots of 20th-century drama through an inexplicable conspiracy. In other words, modern History is explored through a tragicomic novel."
The Crying of Lot 49, 1965--"Pynchon...posits a hidden struggle between sacred and profane forces coming to a possible head in the mind of a clueless divorced SoCal housewife exposed to hints of colossal ripples in the society's tectonics. In this short work, medieval revenge drama, postal monopolies, and rock music are intimations of something which may or may not provide hope and/or instability to our settled world."
Gravity's Rainbow, 1973--"Pynchon...babbles with profound coherence about the unseen forces on both sides of the curtain falling on the endgame of World War II and forming the Postwar world he grew up in. The problems of ballistic missiles provide a metaphor for the variable but constrained possible arcs of human civilization. High political drama and popular culture intersect in a metaphorical destiny that finds us unavoidably, just as the V-2's seek out our antihero Tyrone Slothrop."
Slow Learner, 1984--"Pynchon's...riffs on themes of degeneration and regeneration on the extremes of society, where the interesting stuff happens. This collection of early short stories shows the boil of talent and erudition which would bubble over in his novels."
Vineland, 1990--"Pynchon...builds a tale of the betrayal and disillusion of Nixonian repression and reaction on a micro scale among the hardcore Counterculture refugees of Northern California's forests. The archenemy's dramatic and cartoonish fall to Earth allows regeneration to replace degeneration of all types."
Mason & Dixon, 1997--"Pynchon...ironically locates the Great American Novel (Founding Father edition) in the tales and adventures of two British technologists of the mid-18th century. The great surveying project of drawing a straight line to eliminate any border issues between Catholic, slave-owning Maryland and free, Quaker-sponsored Pennsylvania becomes an allegory for the reduction of this nearly limitless land and its nearly limitless potential into plots (and counter-plots). Rollicking adventure and greater character development, especially of the eponymous heroes, make for the most enjoyable lesson yet from our voluble Zen Master."
Against the Day, 2007--"Pynchon...challenges once again our willingness to suspend resolution for 1000+ pages, and then inevitably to accept something less than clarity. As with his first novel, the foundations of the 20th-century are the subject, though the locus is now more exclusively American Turf."
Inherent Vice, August 2009--"Pynchon...returns to the Sixties Motherlode for a new tale of Emergent Counterculture. Pure pleasure seems to be the objective, and the page count is reduced to a manageable 384, giving all of us who haven't quite finished Against the Day an enjoyable excuse for diversion and distraction. This appears to be the story Pynchon has chosen for conversion to a screenplay and movie by the Coen Brothers".
I wish.
This alt-reality satire, written by Jim Knipfer and published this year, posits an American society gone wrong after a poorly-understood attack on the Homeland (Tupelo, Mississippi, to be exact) known as The Horribleness. The attack, perpetrated supposedly by Australians, becomes the justification for all manner of intrusions on privacy and re-structuring of the economy.
The story focuses on Wally Philco, a low-level Corporate Tool working for some insurance company, living out a loveless, childless marriage, and increasingly disenchanted by the impositions of the outside world on his anonymous existence. Philco ultimately goes the extra mile to go off-grid, under the eyes of Big Brother in the heart of Brooklyn, and joins a mysterious group of subversives called the Unpluggers.
This caricature of post-9/11 society and the reaction to domestic terrorism gives Knipfer a free platform to denounce or satirize his pet peeves, which include:
0) mandatory peeing into a cup for your employer--Philco chose refusing this request as his route to get fired;
1) cellphones plugged into one's ears;
2) pop-up ads;
3) hidden cameras;
4) public patriotic events;
5) political correctness enforcement;
6) phony Prohibition;
7) de-personalization through ID numbers; and most strongly,
8) aggressive mothers pushing their baby carriages and running over anyone who won't get out of their way.
As you can see, his complaints range from totally justified to extreme exaggeration. Sometimes a bit too obvious, UPP (we only give one free plug) has a plot closely patterned after Orwell's "1984" and pays overt homage to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano".
Knipfer chose to tell the story mostly, but not exclusively, from the perspective of Everyman Philco (he uses brand names for people as a satiric perspective on the commercialization of all aspects of postmodern life). Philco is a bit narcissistic, though brave, and more than a bit oblivious to detail. In centering the narrative on Philco's limited perceptions, he avoids going more deeply into some of the interesting characters he creates, most prominently his recruiter into the Unpluggers, Johnny Faro (the character--a Norwegian imitating a cowboy?--has got to be modeled on someone--Marion Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? --but we never find out), and the seductive agent Cornelia Bain and her rich uncle, "The Colonel".
We are fortunate in that we don't have to guess Thomas Pynchon's take on UPP, as he provided a blurb for the paperback cover, which I quote in its entirety:
Mr. Knipfel...brings to fiction the welcome gifts which distinguished his previous books--the authenticity, the narrative exuberance, the integrity of his cheerfully undeluded American voice.
We'll skip the question of the ellipsis in the first sentence, and what was left out. The description--particularly the "narrative exuberance" bit--sounds like Pynchon plugging Pynchon. All credit to Knipfer for getting "Unplugging" plugged, though.
Knipfer takes an ultimately libertarian, neo-Luddite, but pessimistic stance toward the gadgets which are progressively enslaving us. Pynchon's take on King Ludd and his followers, as discussed (but not much resolved) in his 1984 essay "Is It OK to be a Luddite?" (New York Times Book Review, 28 October 1984, pp. 1, 40-41.), is clearly sympathetic, though Pynchon himself is coming from a different place: Luddites are a phenomenon, like the science behind technology, or the events we try to interpret through history, or high art, or popular media (he gives high praise in the essay to postwar sci-fi), and all provide tragicomic grist for the endlessly turning mill.
Git Chaney, Episode 1
A detective story set in early 1920's Teapot Dome Wyoming in which Irish ex-footballer Berick O'Bama tracks down that cowboy rascal Jeremiah "Git" Chaney, bringing him to justice for disparaging public comments about the Lady V., Mrs. Joseph Wilson.
O'Bama's Teutonic investigator, Erick Holter, reaches dead ends when it comes to reports of dragging suspicious-lookin' furriners on the end of ropes tied to his horse, to accusations of setting his henchmen to watching innocent civilians down at the land title company, and researching the motivation possibly behind some kind of dubious hunting accident. The Wilsons, though, who blocked Chaney's prospectors from staking out a possible yellowcake mine, were turned out from job and home when Git got his banker to foreclose on their mortgage.
"We can tolerate some forward business dealin'", O'Bama explained. "But going after a lady, that just ain't right."
Blurbs for Pynchon Works
V. , 1963--"Pynchon...establishes key themes of modern dialectics of Force and Counterforce, Entropy and Revival, forcing an effort to connect the dots between the globe's hidden focal points in search of the roots of 20th-century drama through an inexplicable conspiracy. In other words, modern History is explored through a tragicomic novel."
The Crying of Lot 49, 1965--"Pynchon...posits a hidden struggle between sacred and profane forces coming to a possible head in the mind of a clueless divorced SoCal housewife exposed to hints of colossal ripples in the society's tectonics. In this short work, medieval revenge drama, postal monopolies, and rock music are intimations of something which may or may not provide hope and/or instability to our settled world."
Gravity's Rainbow, 1973--"Pynchon...babbles with profound coherence about the unseen forces on both sides of the curtain falling on the endgame of World War II and forming the Postwar world he grew up in. The problems of ballistic missiles provide a metaphor for the variable but constrained possible arcs of human civilization. High political drama and popular culture intersect in a metaphorical destiny that finds us unavoidably, just as the V-2's seek out our antihero Tyrone Slothrop."
Slow Learner, 1984--"Pynchon's...riffs on themes of degeneration and regeneration on the extremes of society, where the interesting stuff happens. This collection of early short stories shows the boil of talent and erudition which would bubble over in his novels."
Vineland, 1990--"Pynchon...builds a tale of the betrayal and disillusion of Nixonian repression and reaction on a micro scale among the hardcore Counterculture refugees of Northern California's forests. The archenemy's dramatic and cartoonish fall to Earth allows regeneration to replace degeneration of all types."
Mason & Dixon, 1997--"Pynchon...ironically locates the Great American Novel (Founding Father edition) in the tales and adventures of two British technologists of the mid-18th century. The great surveying project of drawing a straight line to eliminate any border issues between Catholic, slave-owning Maryland and free, Quaker-sponsored Pennsylvania becomes an allegory for the reduction of this nearly limitless land and its nearly limitless potential into plots (and counter-plots). Rollicking adventure and greater character development, especially of the eponymous heroes, make for the most enjoyable lesson yet from our voluble Zen Master."
Against the Day, 2007--"Pynchon...challenges once again our willingness to suspend resolution for 1000+ pages, and then inevitably to accept something less than clarity. As with his first novel, the foundations of the 20th-century are the subject, though the locus is now more exclusively American Turf."
Inherent Vice, August 2009--"Pynchon...returns to the Sixties Motherlode for a new tale of Emergent Counterculture. Pure pleasure seems to be the objective, and the page count is reduced to a manageable 384, giving all of us who haven't quite finished Against the Day an enjoyable excuse for diversion and distraction. This appears to be the story Pynchon has chosen for conversion to a screenplay and movie by the Coen Brothers".
I wish.
Earnings are a Mirage
As I write just before the opening of the markets for Monday, July 27, I have to say: the rally based on current earnings reports can not last very long. I hesitate to comment through the blog unless there is a very strong reason.
The way I see it, the lift in earnings due to temporary effects has been even larger than expected by analysts. They knew they would be sizable-to-huge, but they've even been better than that.
This is a double negative in terms of longer-term values: one because it will create higher expectations that are certain not to be realized, and one because it seems to reflect a more serious issue: the failure to put enough money away for future problems.
This is (has been) the time to recognize any likely negative downstream issues and provide for them. I would reward, rather than penalize, those organizations which are demonstrably taking advantage of short-term bumps to increase bad debt provisions.
The way I see it, the lift in earnings due to temporary effects has been even larger than expected by analysts. They knew they would be sizable-to-huge, but they've even been better than that.
This is a double negative in terms of longer-term values: one because it will create higher expectations that are certain not to be realized, and one because it seems to reflect a more serious issue: the failure to put enough money away for future problems.
This is (has been) the time to recognize any likely negative downstream issues and provide for them. I would reward, rather than penalize, those organizations which are demonstrably taking advantage of short-term bumps to increase bad debt provisions.
Monday, July 20, 2009
1989
Earlier this month, Time Magazine had a special Double Issue entitled 1989: 20 Years ago, the World Changed. It featured some recollections from journalists present at some of the key events of that year, particularly Adi Ignatius at Tienanmen and Anne McElvoy in East Berlin when the Wall came down.
I endorse wholeheartedly the concept of the issue, and commend some additional inclusions less obviously centered around 1989: a profile of Gorbachev's state of play then (glasnost, two years before the Soviet Union's collapse), a key meeting of Nelson Mandela and South African President DeKlerk (a year before Mandela's release), the Dalai Lama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (announced or awarded that year?--doesn't say), key developments in Pakistan, the Internet, Japan's economic bubble about to burst, the debut of The Simpsons (the regular program, in December, not the shorts from Tracey Ullman Show). This wider view of "1989" is reasonable.
I feel the issue shortchanged all the other developments of Eastern Europe, though: Poland's successful challenge to the Soviets, the Velvet Revolution in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the climax of the year's activities, the spectacular rebellion near year-end in Romania (one mention for each, really).
In terms of popular music, I thought the feature was weak: 1989 was during a bit of a pause as the British New Wave of the '80's receded and Seattle's grunge was just getting going. They would've done well to point out how Berlin's example provided inspiration to U2 for their greatest album, "Achtung, Baby!", which was written in post-Wallfall Berlin and released a year or two later. The point, to me, is that popular music both can inspire political change and feed off it: it doesn't need to be contemporaneous with it to be related in an important way.
'89 vs. '68?
The issue closed with a provocative piece by Martin Ivens, of Britain's Times. He made a Generation X-bssed argument for '89 being more important than 1968, the favored reference point for today's dominant Boomers. It included a cute graphic showing that '68' turned upside down is '89' and labeled each reading with "The Year that Changed the World".
A good, tendentious piece, that I would largely agree with: the changes of '89 were real, immediate, and long-lasting, whereas the movements of1968 (centered around anti-Vietnam protest and similar youthful rebellion in Paris, Italy, and London) never achieved most of their objectives, more far-reaching and profound though they may have been.
On the other hand, though '89 had some miraculous political developments and led directly to the end of the Cold War in a couple of years--a stunningly surprising outcome, like the end of apartheid which also followed soon after--the momentum was not sustained. Though it was such a surprise at the time, '89-91 didn't lead to any clear understanding of where we were or what we should do, though Saddam provided direction with his invasion of Kuwait.
So much for the "peace dividend" or change in the world as it should become.
As I've suggested above, '68 and '89 are each shorthand for a period of a few years in which dramatic events occurred in rapid succession, though not necessarily limited in duration to that single year. They each headed a period of crucial 20th-century changes ranking just under the World Wars in importance.
'68/'89 From a Middling Equidistance
As one who turned 18 in '74, I could experience both key dates at a safe distance, without too much generational bias or immediate pressure to throw myself into the fray(s). My youthful peak was more pacific, and the key event sequence of my times was Nixon/Watergate/Carter/Reagan/Worst Recession Since the Great Depression Before This One.
That 1974-82 period was Formative in a personal sense (turned me off to active political involvement, pushed me out into a career), 'and in contrast to the '68-'72 Tornado and the '89-'92 End of History not too significant in terms of world history.
Which leads me to the present, and the possibility that the biggest watershed year of our lifetimes might actually prove to be 2008. One can hope.
I endorse wholeheartedly the concept of the issue, and commend some additional inclusions less obviously centered around 1989: a profile of Gorbachev's state of play then (glasnost, two years before the Soviet Union's collapse), a key meeting of Nelson Mandela and South African President DeKlerk (a year before Mandela's release), the Dalai Lama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (announced or awarded that year?--doesn't say), key developments in Pakistan, the Internet, Japan's economic bubble about to burst, the debut of The Simpsons (the regular program, in December, not the shorts from Tracey Ullman Show). This wider view of "1989" is reasonable.
I feel the issue shortchanged all the other developments of Eastern Europe, though: Poland's successful challenge to the Soviets, the Velvet Revolution in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the climax of the year's activities, the spectacular rebellion near year-end in Romania (one mention for each, really).
In terms of popular music, I thought the feature was weak: 1989 was during a bit of a pause as the British New Wave of the '80's receded and Seattle's grunge was just getting going. They would've done well to point out how Berlin's example provided inspiration to U2 for their greatest album, "Achtung, Baby!", which was written in post-Wallfall Berlin and released a year or two later. The point, to me, is that popular music both can inspire political change and feed off it: it doesn't need to be contemporaneous with it to be related in an important way.
'89 vs. '68?
The issue closed with a provocative piece by Martin Ivens, of Britain's Times. He made a Generation X-bssed argument for '89 being more important than 1968, the favored reference point for today's dominant Boomers. It included a cute graphic showing that '68' turned upside down is '89' and labeled each reading with "The Year that Changed the World".
A good, tendentious piece, that I would largely agree with: the changes of '89 were real, immediate, and long-lasting, whereas the movements of1968 (centered around anti-Vietnam protest and similar youthful rebellion in Paris, Italy, and London) never achieved most of their objectives, more far-reaching and profound though they may have been.
On the other hand, though '89 had some miraculous political developments and led directly to the end of the Cold War in a couple of years--a stunningly surprising outcome, like the end of apartheid which also followed soon after--the momentum was not sustained. Though it was such a surprise at the time, '89-91 didn't lead to any clear understanding of where we were or what we should do, though Saddam provided direction with his invasion of Kuwait.
So much for the "peace dividend" or change in the world as it should become.
As I've suggested above, '68 and '89 are each shorthand for a period of a few years in which dramatic events occurred in rapid succession, though not necessarily limited in duration to that single year. They each headed a period of crucial 20th-century changes ranking just under the World Wars in importance.
'68/'89 From a Middling Equidistance
As one who turned 18 in '74, I could experience both key dates at a safe distance, without too much generational bias or immediate pressure to throw myself into the fray(s). My youthful peak was more pacific, and the key event sequence of my times was Nixon/Watergate/Carter/Reagan/Worst Recession Since the Great Depression Before This One.
That 1974-82 period was Formative in a personal sense (turned me off to active political involvement, pushed me out into a career), 'and in contrast to the '68-'72 Tornado and the '89-'92 End of History not too significant in terms of world history.
Which leads me to the present, and the possibility that the biggest watershed year of our lifetimes might actually prove to be 2008. One can hope.
Obama and Medvedev
They seemed to have had a successful initial direct meeting ("summit" might be a little inaccurate). They share a lot of common interests: keeping Putin out of it, keeping China, Iran, and India off-balance and receptive to their separate influences, threatening North Korea, keeping natural gas prices down.
Some kind of progress on strategic arms reduction will be necessary for Obama's program to protect what's left of nuclear nonproliferation, and I think Medvedev will work with him on that. Hopefully, a clear understanding of the missile defense issue was achieved: the Russians consider it a joke but a bargaining chip of symbolic importance to them, the US is willing to give it up if success is attained in preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
I doubt that the formula for Georgia and the Ukraine has been found yet, though. Including them in NATO is unacceptably close to an encirclement/containment strategy for Russia (the Baltic States don't matter), while the US will find it necessary to remain supporters of those two countries' aspirations to remain something other than just former-Soviet states.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has the tough job of negotiating with India on greenhouse gases--I'm thinking some sort of biofuel project is the way out of the room. China will be easier, I think--a deal on "clean coal" development--which will be a huge benefit to the future No. 1 and 2 economies if successful.
Some kind of progress on strategic arms reduction will be necessary for Obama's program to protect what's left of nuclear nonproliferation, and I think Medvedev will work with him on that. Hopefully, a clear understanding of the missile defense issue was achieved: the Russians consider it a joke but a bargaining chip of symbolic importance to them, the US is willing to give it up if success is attained in preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
I doubt that the formula for Georgia and the Ukraine has been found yet, though. Including them in NATO is unacceptably close to an encirclement/containment strategy for Russia (the Baltic States don't matter), while the US will find it necessary to remain supporters of those two countries' aspirations to remain something other than just former-Soviet states.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has the tough job of negotiating with India on greenhouse gases--I'm thinking some sort of biofuel project is the way out of the room. China will be easier, I think--a deal on "clean coal" development--which will be a huge benefit to the future No. 1 and 2 economies if successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
