The above title is a bit of a lame, Spoonerist pun on Dr. Doolittle's two-headed hoofed beast, the pushmi-pullyu. Right at the outset, I apologize to one and all.
As the announcement of President Obama's strategy decision on the war in Afghanistan approaches, and the atrocities of the Taliban multiply daily, I'm wrestling with the two-headed monsters of the strategy: Is U.S. escalation giving our enemies exactly what they want, and if so, would that mean that it's necessarily wrong? Or, to put it another way, is this a case where each side is playing Rope-a-dope with the other?
On the Taliban side, the Rope-a-dope concept is that the more we are sucked into the fight, the more chance they can have to win the sympathy and support of the Afghan people. The Taliban are almost all from the Pashtu group, to which a plurality of Afghans belong (it's the largest group, though not a majority). In the non-Pashtu areas, they are generally loathed; in the Pashtun areas, from what I can see, the majority of people are on the fence: they don't long for a return of the bad old days of Taliban rule, but they are not enamored of the current regime, either. In all parts, the US/NATO forces are viewed as undependable interlopers, not yet as occupiers looking to set up shop permanently.
Moving in more forces, and inevitably also the foreign civilians who provide support for them, can change that dynamic over time in the direction the Taliban would want, making us look more like colonizers. It is true that the counterinsurgency strategy would increase contact between us and the locals, though if it's done right the quality of those interactions would be improved. The question, then, revolves around whether we have the ability and persistence to pull it off, and I can't be too optimistic about that one.
Our version of the Rope-a-dope would be a fallback approach if counterinsurgency doesn't work the way we planned. It starts from the premise that we will never gain strategic success fighting guerrilla warfare. When we are the ones in the outposts, surrounded by hostile territory that is readily infiltrated, they only fight us on those occasions when they can get numerical and tactical superiority: we'd re-create the chase against the Vietcong that was so frustrating to us. What happened at the end of the Vietnam War, after the US had pulled out, and it was clear we weren't coming back, was the Communist armies came out of the jungles, well-armed, and defeated the South Vietnamese in conventional battle.
If that happens in Afghanistan, we'll still be around, and we'll bomb the hell out of them. Like in 2001, only more thoroughly and definitively. It will just be too bad for the local population, though; I don't see us, after all this effort, pulling out and turning over the country to the hostiles. The current issue of The Nation, for all the sane arguments they make for exit, ignores that reality. The opponents of escalation, or even continuation, may have all the arguments, but they are all in vain: cut-and-run is not going to happen.
The strategy that the Obama administration seems to have settled upon (see the article leaking it in yesterday's New York Times, which includes a convincing level of detail, and which I would expect had been confirmed by multiple administration sources) would allow the Taliban free movement around the settled areas which our enhanced force levels will protect. They'd have their shadow Sharia in many rural areas, particularly in the Pashtun south, while we would presumably be able to control the Northern areas without beefing up force levels too much. In terms of its design, it's a "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. It's a strategy that seems to reduce the likelihood of total defeat to a minimum without overreaching. It will also seek to deny the dichotomy between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. The only question is, when does it end? and I'm afraid of the answer to that one.
I had advocated a more clearly identified and limited area in which to offer the Taliban their turf on a peaceable, autonomous basis. Frankly, I think the problems with my suggestion are two: 1) we can't trust them to keep the peace, and they couldn't trust our side, either (they would suspect a trap, and in a way, it would be); and 2) our side doesn't have sufficient control over the territory to ringfence them properly.
I find the Times leaked article and strategy totally credible. The details certainly need to be worked out, and also apparently more precision in the force levels required (which were not in the leaked report). The timing planned for Obama's announcement allows his emissaries to hold back on any promise of increased support for the Karzai government until the runoff election is completed Nov. 7, so as to gain their best efforts to conduct a visibly fair contest.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Racial Protest Puts Us On the Map
This Associated Press article about a local hotel owner and his troubles with outraged Hispanic protestors, which ran in USA Today in the Travel News section, was no news to us. We've been watching the protestors for months (first reference in The Taos News was in its August 19 issue).
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
So, this little song-and-dance is getting old.
My beef starts with a safety concern: the hotel is right at the spot where the northbound Paseo del Pueblo Sur (goes from two lanes to one, usually with heavy traffic. So, there's a merge, with the right lane disappearing, right where the protestors usually hang out. I haven't heard of anyone getting run over yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a couple of close encounters between vehicle and Brown Beret.
Beyond that, I don't know what is being accomplished. Larry Whitten, the benighted, insensitive owner of the hotel, seems determined not to turn and run, though he's undoubtedly leaking money (and he probably wants to get past this disaster before he tries to sell it). The employees who were fired--for whatever reason, it has not been made real clear--aren't getting their jobs back. The protestors are getting plenty of fresh air. Taos Mayor Darren Cordova said Whitten hadn't done anything illegal--no labor violation, I guess--and I'm guessing he checked to see. There just doesn't seem to be much resolution in the air.
As far as publicity, the protestors' group and the hotel each get some, none of it good. The town was described in generally favorable terms.
The Subtext: Perceived Slights to the Majority Group
The reporting has focused on Whitten's request to a couple of Hispanic employees to Anglicize their names for calls on the switchboard. CNN picked up the story today and had a long piece, including a phone conversation with Whitten, during which two women reporters talked to each other (with him on the line) about how he needed therapy for his insensitivity. Then they cut to a colleague, Rick Sanchez, who told them he had done the same with his name--to fit in and have more success in an Anglo-dominant society--and thought Whitten had a point.
The point here is that Taos is a highly progressive community with an Hispanic majority, and there is a little bit of PC bullying about the whole thing. There may be injustice involved, but there's plenty of that around. I'm just hoping this ends without any resort to violence, or to arson--as occurred recently with the homeless shelter.
Obama Approval Rating: What Gives?
If we look at Rasmussen, Obama's got a little more disapproval than approval. If we look at Gallup, there's about 15 percent more approval than disapproval.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
This is not a temporary blip or statistical anomaly: both polling services have been consistent in their varying results. There has to be something significantly different either in the polling methodology, or in the question being asked to respondents.
West Wing 101
Criminally "dumb", not Criminal
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
My longtime friend Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post has weighed in rather heavily on the Obama Administration's press strategy of urging, and partially putting into practice, a boycott of Fox News. In a recent blog on the subject, she called the policy "dumb", then searching for stronger terms, suggested "Nixonian" or "Agnewesque" (sp?) I'll buy the first name she gives it, but I recoil from the second and third.
As she points out, the way the game is played is that administration leaks and interviews are provided to "journalists" who take good steno, and are withheld from those who fail to take good notes, or who take their inside information to write "yes...but" pieces that take advantage of their access to demolish the leaker's objectives. Extra credit is given in the scoring system for those who do more than reproduce the talking points and actually use them to come up with creative additional arguments, but that's hardly required.
The point is, the scoring is done outside the public eye in the political affairs office, not by the press secretary or his/her minions. The mistake the Obama press office made is to make public their aversion to Fox. Starve them, yes--maybe show the bad guys up by throwing a bone or two if there's a Chris Wallace or someone they think treats their tidbits properly--but don't go public with it. If the news they're giving has any value, viewers' and readers' eyes will follow their choices.
As for Nixon, though, the difference is that Nixon's political affairs desk (all administrations have one) looked for illegal ways to punish its enemies; as for Agnew, he was just a whiny, graft-driven mouthpiece. The comparison is inappropriate.
Amateur Hour
That's how Donna Brazile aptly described some Obama backgrounders' criticism of Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' campaign.
OK, if they want to cut ties to Deeds and throw him under the bus, they can do it after election day when he's lost, but they're planning to send the President into Virginia to campaign for him, so that only reduces the value of the President's intervention.
I've said it before: I know Virginia's electorate and I don't trust it for a minute. There's plenty of reason to think they'll turn their back on a Democrat this time--there's a very fickle swing vote that decides elections there, and it's about time the pendulum swings back to the Republican side for them. In my view, they are searching for something they are never going to get; Virginia governors can't run for re-election, so their attempts to punish the incumbent always fail.
Of course, a politician can never blame the voters, who are always right. Neither can a journalist, who has to sell papers or TV ads and has to be nice to the public. That right belongs exclusively to me, and my ilk.
Measure of Success
I know that Rahm Emmanuel's job as chief of staff, controlling Obama's schedule and access to him, is important work. I'm beginning to think, though, that he should be shifted to a more overtly political job, like the one I described above. From his work heading up the Democratic Congressional campaign in 2006, we know his considerable acumen.
Obama has every right to get involved in state political races--indeed, it's pretty much an obligation: he is the leader of his party. But he needs to make sure than his subordinates assigned to the political process do it right. I'm afraid that the hamfisted political sensitivity shown by these two cases might be described as more "JimmyCarterian".
The most meaningful test of success of a new Administration is its ability to get re-elected after four years, and the main discriminator for that is its ability to get an uncontested re-nomination from its party. Jimmy Carter, despite his many talents and virtues, was not able to achieve that in 1980 and it contributed mightily to his defeat. Even George W. Bush, for all his defects, kept his party united in 2004, and his ability to keep his party together for re-nomination, and then in the general election campaign, made the difference.
Obama's proven that his electoral potential is huge, but if he allows his party unity to dissolve, he will fail that test.
p.o. news
Sen. Harry Reid is planning to announce today that the version of the Senate bill that he will bring to the floor will include a public option, with the form of option being a negative one for the states (i.e., they can "opt-out" of offering it to their publics), and, I believe, negotiated rates on reimbursement and an expanded eligibility for Medicaid (Medicare for the poor). Republicans will universally deride this compromise offering as creeping socialism, but, creep that I am, I will support it (if it's what I said it will be).
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Reid has said that he is personally in favor of the p.o., but what he is doing is watering it down so that he can hold his party's caucus together on a vote to end debate on the measure (at some point). He is going with the "60 to end debate; 51 to pass" approach, rather than the "budget reconciliation" approach--which might get something through without a cloture vote requiring 60 supporting an end to debate, but could be ineffective in terms of legislation and subject to legal challenges--or the "bipartisan approach", in which there would be no p.o., or a phony one, or a triggered one (and it still might not get 60 votes in favor). This is a new version of the "Gang of 12" which solved the last "slow-motion train wreck", that of judicial appointments back in the Bushite era (see posts with that label).
I'm not going to criticize Reid for the deficiencies of the results of his head-counting, nor do I think his headcount is wrong. What he is doing is being creative in finding several Democratic senators who don't support a public option but are willing to let it through as long as their individual states can opt out of offering the program entirely. There are several small states, some of which have Democratic senators, who have some problems with Medicare reimbursement rates (though I don't think the compromise proposal will actually have them) and don't trust the Federally-backed p.o. to deal fairly.
There are also two large states which we can expect may opt out: Florida and Texas. Texas will do so just because its legislature and statehouse are controlled by greedy hogs at the trough, and their voters can't seem to get their act together to do anything about it. So, if the train pulls out without them and they see it's a fun ride, maybe they finally will get the point. Florida, I hear, has enough competition from the private insurers that they may decide--in the short run--that they don't need this option for their consumers. We'll see if that holds up.
Eat Cake, Bob, Because You Can't Also Have It
Robert J. Samuelson, frequent columnist for Newsweek and the Washington Post, is what I would call a "crank economist". He doesn't have a clear ideological slant to his economical proclamations, but he does prefer a contrarian view of any given topic. So, with the p.o., he's essentially said that it won't cut costs, won't be popular, but will somehow destroy the private insurance industry. We've covered the contradictions in this point of view before: what I want to address now is the issue of costs, and his analysis both demonstrates a popular misconception and helps us clear up another.
Samuelson is arguing that if the p.o. has the "Medicare rates" of reimbursement to health providers (early House versions had Medicare +5%), it will kill private insurers while not reducing systemic health costs (the lower reimbursement rates will be made up somewhere); if they don't have those low rates--i.e. the "negotiated rates" that I'm expecting--they will merely be on a level playing field with the private insurers, so they won't make an impact.
Samuelson may be supported by studies like the Congressional Budget Office's which will suggest that the p.o. will not cut costs, but that's because the CBO is going to be talking about costs to the government, not the consumer, or of the system in general. The way to cut costs to the consumer is to allow low-cost insurance options to those not in employer plans (which the private insurers have proven they will not do), and the way to cut costs more broadly in the system is to cut the cost of employer programs by reducing their tax-deductibility. We all know that the final bill will be tweaked so that CBO's result is neutral over a 10-year period, so their periodic readouts on the current legislation just let us know whether subsidies will need to be increased or decreased.
This issue is tied inevitably with the question of mandates, which has been another moving target in the bill. The employer mandate should be a "pay or play" one, in which employers above a certain size (and it shouldn't be too large) must either contribute to a pool, or provide a program. The amount of tax deductibility for employer-provided programs should be equal to the required contribution, so the question is just which approach provides better quality for their employees. Similarly, the amount of penalty for individuals who do not have insurance should be slightly higher than the cost they would bear for the minimum level of the p.o., and people who have no insurance should have to pay that premium (that's a true "premium") when they are treated in emergency rooms (or be arrested for vagrancy) or in doctors' offices.
This would give people a choice: pay me now--and be covered by insurance--or pay me later. Some would still choose to bet on their invulnerability and would get away with it, but most would prefer not to have to deal with it on the back end.
The combination of the proper mandates, a public option for those without employer plans, and cost controls on employer plans will be the formula for bending the systemic costs of healthcare downward over the long run.
Friday, October 23, 2009
CO2: It's Just a Shame
I've seen some ads on TV recently to the effect that "Carbon dioxide is not pollution", and the more aggressive claim, "CO2 is Green". Now, there's no doubt that this is a disingenuous attempt to poleaxe our legislative attempts to control greenhouse gases, sponsored by companies with bad intentions, bad faith, and bad science. Still, I think they have it at least half-right.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas. It is not a pollutant, something which irreversibly contaminates all it touches, like nuclear waste or coal mining tailings. If the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere doubled, we wouldn't notice it in our breathing. For example, we can adapt to half the oxygen of sea level; we have that, and less, up here in Taos, and it takes about a day for almost anyone--except emphysema patients--to adapt.
Still, I'm far from a climate change denier. I see huge, though not civilization-ending, negative effects if current trends continue: Bangladesh--and other poor, low-lying countries--will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels; supplies of water will have huge disruptions; ecosystems will be badly, and unpredictably, messed with; and it looks as though major storms' destructive powers are being multiplied. We do need to do something about it, and we have to provide mentorship and assistance to the poorer countries so they can do something, too: this is clearly a global issue.
I'm just not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the only, or even necessarily the best, route to achieve these ends. Carbon dioxide, like water, has a cycle, in which animals and plants figure prominently. There are some plants that absorb more carbon dioxide than others; carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans (an effect which causes its own problems); carbon dioxide, unlike, say, nuclear waste, wouldn't need to be sequestered for tens of thousands of years: an approach which took CO2 out of the atmosphere for 500 years, after which it leaked slowly back in, would actually be kicking the can down the road effectively. I'm thinking that there may be chemical reactions between some minerals and CO2 that might prove to be an effective approach to taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, too.
The bottom line for me is that reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases is moral, and the inverse is true, too. The goal is not to eliminate CO2, though--it's like sin, or poverty, or war, or disease. It's something that's going to be with us, and we should seek to ameliorate its harmful effects. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but we do need to remove at least some of its fur, and we need to study the science of doing it from several different directions.
So I support the 350 movement (the number is the desired parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere; we're already above that level). I will do so with an ear conditioned by the more nuanced attitude to the gas that I've described.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
This Jobless Recovery
We seem to have found the quickest way across the Great Crater, but we've lost a good number of our passengers en route. It's no surprise that the economy can "grow" without giving Americans any net job gains. In my post in June, I predicted that the economy might make nominal gains for awhile before there were any net gains in jobs, and that gains in jobs might continue for awhile before the unemployment rate would decrease (due to the gradual return to the market of job-seekers). Well before that, I suggested that unemployment will still be an issue in the election of 2010.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
In this regard, this jobless recovery is like the last jobless recovery, the Bushite one of 2002-2005. Remember that two years into the "recovery", during the election campaign of 2004 the cry often went out: where are the jobs? Eventually there were some job increases, as there were needs for folks building seemingly endless McMansions, infinite numbers telemarketing mortgage refinancing, and those sly dogs providing outsourcing and re-engineering services, but these have largely gone the way of buggy-whip manufacturers and assembling eight-track players (except for the jobs with contractors supporting our military overseas).
Productivity, The Capitalists' Love Story
After some twenty years of continuous improvements in streamlining processes, supported by wave after wave of technological improvement and the tax deductibility of restructuring costs, modern productivity is truly marvelous.
The next phase of productivity increases--there will surely be more of the same--will require such things as across-the-board wage cuts, when possible (non-unionized hourly workers); or cuts in benefits like employer-provided health insurance (don't expect to see employer mandates to provide insurance in the final legislation); or the most certain of all--a new round of reorgs paring down middle management and piling more work on the remaining salaried workers.
These kinds of measures will protect those jobs which remain here, rather than being sent overseas, but they are hardly victories for the American people. What no American politician, Democrat or Republican, will ever admit, and especially not during the current period, is that we simply don't need all of the efforts of the American work force in order to produce all the goods and services we could ever require. Far less when we consider the poorer nations who would love to take our workers' place.
Fighting Upstream on Job Creation
Documenting that unfortunate fact was the principal theme of Jeremy Rifkin's The End Of Work. Rifkin, a notable progressive activist of the late 20th century, produced that book in 1996--bad timing, in that it was in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the past 25 years, a time when there was even something approaching a labor shortage. So, it didn't quite sink into the national consciousness that all these productivity increases weren't producing more jobs for us.
OK, so we work less: not a bad prospect on the face of it, but hardly a solution to our current portfolio of mess.
In the best case, our stimulus package will put people to work for a year or two as we re-pave roads that don't need paving, build some new bridges from or to nowhere, and develop some new, cleaner infrastructure and industries that will provide blessings down the road. Assembling wind turbines will last a few years; producing photovoltaic panels and other solar energy-producing materials will keep the silicon industry, and the materials industry generally, expanding; it will take some time to re-fit our walls and water heaters for the benefits of passive solar energy; and rewiring the grid more intelligently might take a decade or so. All these will provide continuing benefits, if not so many jobs, down the road. As for our healthcare industry, it could use some streamlining, so that it can support the increased number of sick and aging patients coming down the road.
I just don't believe that we are going to bring back "full employment"--in plain terms, an economy providing all the work that people need and desire--by just producing more stuff, and offering more services, though. We've got plenty already, though the fierce urgency to create new demand for products we never knew we needed continues unabated.
I see the solution coming from a different direction: most people in America today are either underemployed or overemployed, and it's getting worse. The former category has grown, and for economic reasons it's the less desirable of the two, but the numbers of people who have more work than they can physically or mentally support, let alone do the other things in life that they'd like, are growing all the time.
My recommendation is that, rather than rewarding companies for re-engineering away jobs or redoubling our efforts to produce make-work jobs at the cost of adding to the public debt, we provide some support for re-engineering our society, so that there is a better balance between work and leisure for all of us. Let's make part-time work more viable--affordable health insurance outside the employers' group plans is a big start toward this objective. Let's provide tax advantages for companies who allow their workers to submit their product from their homes--which will cut down on commuting, and allow for better lives--rather than to cut jobs.
Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story has a closing theme of a Bill of Rights for workers, proposed by FDR in 1944 but never enacted, in which the first item is the right to a job. Frankly, we can't afford to guarantee everyone jobs anymore (maybe when all the boomers retire in 40 years or so), but we could have the federal government give a tax credit to employers bringing on workers who stay for six months or so--and especially including part-time workers of, say, 15-30 hours. Yes, to some extent we will reward companies for what they might be doing anyway, but we will be modifying their behavior in a direction that is positive for public policy.
Resolved: Corporations are only Three-Fifths of a Person
The next big political issue to rise, and this one is going to be huge, is likely to come through a controversial Supreme Court decision in the near future on political contributions and advertisements by corporations. Right now, this behavior is strictly limited by Federal legislation, but that legislation is in great danger.
The Supreme Court is looking at claims that this legislation limiting the "free speech" of companies is unconstitutional, and I feel that they are going to rule that it is. It stands to reason, with the current body of judicial interpretation: if companies are in fact "persons", why don't they have the right to freedom of speech?
Allowing companies to go wacky with political activity will quickly and rightly be seen as a huge threat to our democratic processes, which already cost way too much (for the quality they produce). It will become an imperative--probably after one national election cycle--to limit companies' political activities (for everyone except the right wing--the independents will get sick of this coup against popular democracy real fast).
There will be two ways to go: 1) make Federal election campaigns limited in duration and cost, and paid for through taxpayer funds; or 2) amend the Constitution to delineate exactly to what extent corporations should be considered "persons"--what are their rights, and what rights are limited to "human persons"?
I think that the latter route is both more likely--given the crisis which will emerge, even with our country's extreme reluctance in these latter days to any modification, no matter how minor, to the Constitution--and a better solution.
The National Point Spread Game
It's the NFL, of course. Like many a red-blooded American male, I have a system for deriving bets against the point spread of NFL games (and I would certainly respect any American female's doing so, too). I would claim it's a good one; it sure makes sense to me, anyway.
NFL games are the best ones to bet point spread. My system starts to kick in about week 6 or 7 (where we are now), and does not work past about week 12 (when it's more about competing for playoff spots, and some teams are motivated and some not). During this period, teams have played enough games, and should have played a good-enough mix of weak and strong teams, to have a fairly good estimate of average points scored and against.
I hate systems that produce a recommended bet in every game. Mine generally, but not always, identifies three or four games where the point spread seems out of line with what it should be. So I recommend those bets. Very simple.
This week, one game has no line (according to "Glantz-Culver"), Buffalo at Carolina. I guess a QB is doubtful--my system wouldn't even notice, but I'm grateful if they take it off due to some random variable. The one I'd say "no line" on is the New England "at" Tampa Bay, which is being played in London. This is an extremely weird one--a very good team against a terrible one, on a neutral field far, far away. The main variable would seem to be how much Tom Brady cares to run up the score for an interested but dispassionate crowd. I handicapped it as though there were no home team, and I'm glad my point spread estimate came close to the posted one, as I wouldn't want to bet it either way.
Rather than give away my proprietary information, I will illustrate the system by putting my rep on the line with real picks. We'll give ourselves an imaginary $5000. I will bet $2000 this week, as follows:
To avoid taking up too much space on the blog, I will post results and future weeks' predictions (whenever I feel like doing them) as comments to this post. I have to say, I like these picks!
NFL games are the best ones to bet point spread. My system starts to kick in about week 6 or 7 (where we are now), and does not work past about week 12 (when it's more about competing for playoff spots, and some teams are motivated and some not). During this period, teams have played enough games, and should have played a good-enough mix of weak and strong teams, to have a fairly good estimate of average points scored and against.
I hate systems that produce a recommended bet in every game. Mine generally, but not always, identifies three or four games where the point spread seems out of line with what it should be. So I recommend those bets. Very simple.
This week, one game has no line (according to "Glantz-Culver"), Buffalo at Carolina. I guess a QB is doubtful--my system wouldn't even notice, but I'm grateful if they take it off due to some random variable. The one I'd say "no line" on is the New England "at" Tampa Bay, which is being played in London. This is an extremely weird one--a very good team against a terrible one, on a neutral field far, far away. The main variable would seem to be how much Tom Brady cares to run up the score for an interested but dispassionate crowd. I handicapped it as though there were no home team, and I'm glad my point spread estimate came close to the posted one, as I wouldn't want to bet it either way.
Rather than give away my proprietary information, I will illustrate the system by putting my rep on the line with real picks. We'll give ourselves an imaginary $5000. I will bet $2000 this week, as follows:
o) Take Minnesota, 4-point underdog at Pittsburgh ($300);The over/under bet on NFL is also a reasonably good one (I'd advise staying away from that one on NBA games like poison). My bets for this week are the following:
o) Take Kansas City, 4 1/2-point underdogs at home vs. San Diego ($600); and
o) Take Philly, 7-point underdog at Washington ($600).
o) Bet under on Indy at St. Louis vs. 46 points combined ($400);
o) Bet under on Atlanta at Dallas vs. 42 points ($400);
o) Bet over on New Orleans at Miami vs. 47 points ($200).
To avoid taking up too much space on the blog, I will post results and future weeks' predictions (whenever I feel like doing them) as comments to this post. I have to say, I like these picks!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
2000-2009: Ten Favorite Rock Albums
OK, I'm not an official rock critic or professional in the music business: I don't get tons of CD's sent to me, and I don't hear about everything. I just know what I like, and something about why I like it.
I'm one who would normally insist that the decade we're in started in 2001 and ends on December 31, 2010*, but I'm willing to ignore this for a series of posts reviewing highlights of "the decade". I know I'm in a tiny minority and most people think mine's a quibble. I only reserve the right to add some items produced in 2010 to the current decade's best, if appropriate.
So, if this is indeed the last quarter of the last year of this decade, where are the usual pieces about the highlights of this decade? I haven't seen or heard one yet; maybe they're coming (I know these issues have a long lead time, so the intrepid paid journalists are probably slaving away putting these pieces together, and I just don't know about it.) In that case, I'm happy to get out in front.
Somehow, I don't think so, though. The problem is, this decade has pretty much been s--t. Remember back to the 2000 election campaign and what a disappointment it was, exceeded then by the election itself and its revolting aftermath. Then, a short breath and September 11, then a brief period when we sucked it up, followed by even worse events. The 2004 election--what a drag! The only redeeming event of the decade, really, was the 2008 election (OK, previewed by the '06 one), and it was in the middle of an economic disaster. The Era of Good Feelings from Obama's election is over, lasting about six months. Those who think we're out of this funk are fooling themselves. I suppose every decade has its nostalgic follow-up, usually 20-30 years later, and this one might have its fans down the road, but it's pretty hard right now to celebrate it.
The second problem with a best album review is that the rock album now appears to be in really big trouble. This might be the last decade where the concept proposed in the title would even make any sense. At the end of the oh-tens, all we'll need to do is go to the stats for the top 10 video downloads--not much suspense about that, though they may be good ones. Recognizing the pendulum swing--in vinyl terms--back to the 45 from the LP, two of my faves are collections by various artists, but at least there's some unifying theme in them. I'm looking for conssistent quality throughout the albums I'm picking, but I ended up settling for a couple really strong tunes and decent quality through the rest.
Having listed all my caveats, it's time for the actual list. The order isn't clear or important, but I'm pretty certain about number one:
Honorable Mention: Garbage, "Bleed Like Me" (not their best, but might deserve better); Warren Zevon, "The Wind" (nice swansong); Bob Dylan, "Love and Theft" (his best--so far--of the decade, but far short of "Time Out of Mind" or "Oh Mercy" from the '90's); Sleater-Kinney, "One Beat" (impressive energy); Modest Mouse "Good News for People Who Like Bad News" (if you're new to their off-putting sound, don't give up on it); Radiohead, "In Rainbows" (two terrific songs); Thievery Corporation, "The Cosmic Game" (pleasant-to-nice, but no deep impressions); Killers, "Hot Fuss" ("Mr. Brightside" is good, but like most of their stuff, there's angst toward no identifiable purpose); Gnarls Barkley, "St. Elsewhere" (one terrific song, and a couple others that are pretty good); Katy Perry, "One of the Boys" (good, clean, bisexual fun). And, what the heck, Neil Young, "Living with War--In the Beginning" (never thought I'd have him listed among my favorites).
Please don't suggest The White Stripes, The Strokes, or Portishead. I'm not doing drab and mopey. I should probably give a better look at TV on the Radio, though.
I'm one who would normally insist that the decade we're in started in 2001 and ends on December 31, 2010*, but I'm willing to ignore this for a series of posts reviewing highlights of "the decade". I know I'm in a tiny minority and most people think mine's a quibble. I only reserve the right to add some items produced in 2010 to the current decade's best, if appropriate.
So, if this is indeed the last quarter of the last year of this decade, where are the usual pieces about the highlights of this decade? I haven't seen or heard one yet; maybe they're coming (I know these issues have a long lead time, so the intrepid paid journalists are probably slaving away putting these pieces together, and I just don't know about it.) In that case, I'm happy to get out in front.
Somehow, I don't think so, though. The problem is, this decade has pretty much been s--t. Remember back to the 2000 election campaign and what a disappointment it was, exceeded then by the election itself and its revolting aftermath. Then, a short breath and September 11, then a brief period when we sucked it up, followed by even worse events. The 2004 election--what a drag! The only redeeming event of the decade, really, was the 2008 election (OK, previewed by the '06 one), and it was in the middle of an economic disaster. The Era of Good Feelings from Obama's election is over, lasting about six months. Those who think we're out of this funk are fooling themselves. I suppose every decade has its nostalgic follow-up, usually 20-30 years later, and this one might have its fans down the road, but it's pretty hard right now to celebrate it.
The second problem with a best album review is that the rock album now appears to be in really big trouble. This might be the last decade where the concept proposed in the title would even make any sense. At the end of the oh-tens, all we'll need to do is go to the stats for the top 10 video downloads--not much suspense about that, though they may be good ones. Recognizing the pendulum swing--in vinyl terms--back to the 45 from the LP, two of my faves are collections by various artists, but at least there's some unifying theme in them. I'm looking for conssistent quality throughout the albums I'm picking, but I ended up settling for a couple really strong tunes and decent quality through the rest.
Having listed all my caveats, it's time for the actual list. The order isn't clear or important, but I'm pretty certain about number one:
o) Green Day, American Idiot. I don't think there's even a close competitor for #2. Hardcore punks or metal fans view it as too melodic or soft, and as pop it's much too emotionally forceful, but for me it's power pop with purpose. It may be the last successful concept album (it put impossible expectations on this year's GD release, "21st Century Breakdown"), but it proved, once again, why an artist would bother trying.
o) Bright Eyes, I'm Wide Awake It's Morning. There's no question about Conor Oberst's talent; the only question is how will it best come out and be enjoyed. For me, this is the best expression yet from him, in terms of both good variety (one of Oberst's hallmarks is how he covers the waterfront despite starting from a clear folkie perspective) and consistent quality. Here you'll also find what I think is his most honest self-referential piece, "Landlocked Blues", featuring some beautiful backup vocals from Emmylou Harris, which is clearly about his struggle with fame at an early age.
o) Steve Earle, Jerusalem. True Earle fans will point out other releases by him that are more raw, more authentic, whatever; this is the only one that grabbed my attention and kept it. I'll admit that's mostly because of the political content.
o) Gomez, In Our Gun. I'm afraid my list from just 1997-1999 would be far superior to this one, and Gomez had two albums in that period that I'd rate above this one. In Our Gun, though, has good variety, some good jamming tunes (I saw them live during this release's tour), less of those annoying "Sha-la-la's" than their later stuff, and a good quota of Ben vocals.
o) Coldplay, Viva la Vida. In these late days, they surpassed their previous peak, "A Rush of Blood to the Head". Good for them! Typical of their better efforts, there are several good songs appealing to different folks: I like the rueful title cut best.
o) soundtrack album, Garden State. Apparently these were just tunes that the movie's star and director, Zach Braff, was humming at the time. A couple good ones from the Shins, and from Iron and Wine, Thievery Corporation, a few more obscure groups, and an oldie from Simon and Garfunkel. Compared to my favorite soundtrack from the '90's, "Until the End of the World", we're talking about a better movie here.
o) Mars Volta, "De-Loused in the Comatorium". The title gives a good feel--ickily incomprehensible, possibly gibberish. Frankly, the only word I can understand from the entire work's lyrics is "exoskeleton"--or is it "exoskeletal"?--either way, it's a good word. Thrilling guitar leads, frenetic drumming, exuberant energy--whatever it's all about.
o) King Crimson, "Happy With What You Have to be Happy With". I found this one recently, in Costa Rica--although dated 2008, it appears to be a re-release of material from 2002 or 2003. Now that we are living out 21st-Century Schizoid Man, it is good to still find Robert Fripp out there working. The usual mix of unbelievably gorgeous and unbelievably loud and obnoxious, just the kind of schizoid mix I like.
o) U2, "All That You Can't Leave Behind". A narrow call over both this year's "No Line on the Horizon" and "How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb". All three have better consistency than their previous work (excepting "Achtung, Baby!", of course). "All That" has better anthemic hits than the other two. U2's new tour is supposed to be called "Outer Space": Welcome back!
o) various artists, "Future Soundtrack for America". This was sent to me free in 2004 for a contribution to moveon.org.("All profits to non-profit progressive organiations working to involve more Americans in our political process...") A grab bag of offerings with mildly anti-Bushite political overtones from the famous and obscure. Best are the offerings from David Byrne, will.i.am, and Death Cab for Cutie (respectively, "Ain't Got So Far to Go", "Money", and "This Temporary Life"). A good notion, four years too soon, and I wonder if it's still available to purchase.
Honorable Mention: Garbage, "Bleed Like Me" (not their best, but might deserve better); Warren Zevon, "The Wind" (nice swansong); Bob Dylan, "Love and Theft" (his best--so far--of the decade, but far short of "Time Out of Mind" or "Oh Mercy" from the '90's); Sleater-Kinney, "One Beat" (impressive energy); Modest Mouse "Good News for People Who Like Bad News" (if you're new to their off-putting sound, don't give up on it); Radiohead, "In Rainbows" (two terrific songs); Thievery Corporation, "The Cosmic Game" (pleasant-to-nice, but no deep impressions); Killers, "Hot Fuss" ("Mr. Brightside" is good, but like most of their stuff, there's angst toward no identifiable purpose); Gnarls Barkley, "St. Elsewhere" (one terrific song, and a couple others that are pretty good); Katy Perry, "One of the Boys" (good, clean, bisexual fun). And, what the heck, Neil Young, "Living with War--In the Beginning" (never thought I'd have him listed among my favorites).
Please don't suggest The White Stripes, The Strokes, or Portishead. I'm not doing drab and mopey. I should probably give a better look at TV on the Radio, though.
*Logically, think of how the first millennium A.D. must have begun with year 1, not year 0, and must have ended at the end of 1000. Then, logically, we have 1001-2000, and 2001-3000 is the current, third millennium. Go ahead and apply that to centuries, then decades.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sports Notes October
First thoughts here on this topic for this month have to be about baseball. If you don't know why, I won't tell you, but the hint would be: Reggie Jackson.
The first round of playoffs has provided great clarity to the postseason scenarios. It might have been clear only in hindsight, but the first-round playoffs, as usual, were one-sided.
Three of the four first-round losers were clearly not ready for postseason competition. The Cardinals had a team as good as any on paper, featuring two of three best starting pitchers in the league this year (Wainwright, Carpenter, and the SF Giant Lincecum are the clear favorites for the Cy Young), but they came into the postseason on a serious down note, and they couldn't change it around. The Red Sox didn't look fearsome at all and lost meekly in the first two games with the Angels, then got nosed out in the third.
Minnesota really had one chance against the Yankees, after coming in to their series out of breath from a sprint to the finish and a feverish one-game playoff win over the Tigers: ride their emotional high and somehow overcome a huge disparity in talent. In the first game, that theory lasted about five innings, when the Yanks came back from a 2-0 deficit and took a commanding lead. In Game 2, they had their chances, but faced a grim reality in the ninth: closer Joe Nathan's track record against the heart of the Yankee lineup (Teixeira, ARod, and Matsui) was tragic, and the Yanks had a clear psychological advantage based on a May series in which they won three straight games from the Twins in the ninth. Sure enough, Nathan couldn't get the job done. In Game 3, Twins' manager Ron Gardenhire tried a different approach in the top of the ninth, down 2-1: he changed pitchers four times, each until fourth guy Nathan facing only one hitter. The other three guys couldn't get the third out, and Nathan gave up a two-run single to Jorge Posada which pretty much clinched it.
One losing team--the Colorado Rockies--showed up ready to compete. They went down due to a result that could never have been expected based on regular season performance. Constantly maligned (especially by phickle phillie phans) closer Brad Lidge outperformed his Rocks' counterpart Huston Street. Lidge had one of the worst regular season full-season performances in the modern history of closing relievers, while Street had been nearly untouchable, both before and after his late-season injury. It basically came down to two successful confrontations between Lidge and Colorado cleanup hitter Troy Tulowitzki (one popout in Game 3, one miserable strikeout in Game 4) and a failed one between Street and Phillies cleanup hitter Ryan Howard. Major redemption for Lidge, who was perfect in 2008 save opportunities all the way through the team's Series victory, and for Charlie Manuel for sticking with him despite heavy criticism.
This doesn't mean Manuel won't go to Pedro Martinez in some critical late-inning situation in the next round, or better yet, in the Series. The NLCS series between Philadelphia and Los Angeles would appear to favor the Phils now that Lidge has seemingly recovered his balance. I have to say that I owned Lidge for my Rotiss team down the stretch, and he repeatedly seemed to have his control back--until he didn't. The Dodgers' punch is underrated, and I'm looking for the return of Hiroki Kuroda to provide a hidden weapon at some point in the series. My prediction is that he will appear in Game 6 with decisively positive results.
Still, I don't see either NL staff having good enough arms to shut down the Yanks, whose hitting is pretty terrifying, and their starting pitching is now good enough, with their preseason additions of Sabathia and Burnett. I'm rooting for mankind's last, best hope, Nature's Better Angels, the feel-good choice of 2009, Los Angeles de Anaheim. I'm afraid it's them, or the deluge.
Quick NBA Preview
NBA teams can basically be divided into those who are hoarding money for the summer 2010 free agent bidding season, featuring LeBron James, and those who know they aren't in the bidding. The Phoenix Suns must be in the latter category, as they traded their aging star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers, giving them one last chance to convince LeBron he can ever win a championship in his home city.
Exciting as next offseason might be, there's still a season to play. In the revitalized Eastern Conference, the question has to be: Can anyone stop the Cleveland Cavaliers, now that Shaq has come to get LeBron's back? The 2008 champion Celtics are getting old faster than even Shaq, but may still have one more good playoff run left in their legs. Last year's Eastern champs, the Orlando Magic, have a good case to make with the NBA's best center, Dwight Howard, and Jameer Howard back: Howard had emerged as a top point guard with a rapidly improving outside shot last year until a serious injury; the team made a great run with him not fully recovered last year. I would still bet that Shaq can do for LeBron what he did for Dwayne Wade with Miami in 2007 and that the two can ride herd in the East.
In the West, it's very simple: Is there any reason to doubt that LA will repeat? I look hard because I seek to find one, and there are some very good teams, to be sure. As contenders, I like San Antonio's move to bring in Richard Jefferson and make sure there will be a third scoring option after Duncan and Parker, no matter the health of Manu Ginobili; New Orleans' improvement by trading for center Emeka Okafor, who will do well as a third option after Chris Paul and David West; and Portland's continuing rise around Brandon Roy and Chris Oden. Still, Kobe sits high on his throne with his "chamberlain", Phil Jackson, and it will be tough to dislodge them.
A Cleveland-LA Championship series would be an all-time ratings smash, hopefully one which will not be anticlimactic, like last year's Lakers wipeout of the Magic.
The English Game
I insist that "footie" not be confused with "the English vice". For the first time in a long, long time, the English "national" team looks to be a real contender for the World Cup.
Qualifying for next year's tourney in South Africa is in its final stages; if I've got it right, 23 of 32 spots will be fixed by the end of this week, with the remaining nine determined by head-to-head playoffs (one will come from a mighty Bahrain-New Zealand re-match, one looks like a straggling survivor from Uruguay or Ecuador vs. Honduras or Costa Rica, three from among African group runner-ups, and the other four from European group runner-ups, possibly including significant soccer nations like Russia, Portugal, or France).
Meanwhile, three teams have particularly distinguished themselves in European qualifying: Spain, Netherlands, and England. The first two teams have so far won all their games, while the southern Brits lost only last weekend, after they had clinched their spot (but the English press still went ape over the loss). You'd have to add as serious contenders defending champs Italy, which perennially lays as low as possible until crunch time after the first round, and, of course, Germany, which never loses until the final eight. I will also be watching Serbia and Slovakia, two teams which have performed in the qualifiers and may be auditioning for the upstart European semifinalist role which I associate with Croatia.
That being said, history clearly indicates that a non-European team will probably win (the rule being that a European team wins when the finals are held in Europe, and the inverse). As always, Brazil would seem the most likely candidate for that role. Paraguay has impressed in qualification and won't be taken lightly. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a horror show under Diego Maradona's clownish coaching, but no one doubts they have the horses to make a run--if they make it,and they could still blow it. Their star player, Leonel Messi, might be ready to upstage even Maradona if given the chance. Finally, the US and Mexico are both earnestly seeking to rate as legitimate threats--I can believe they could pull an upset or two, at least. The US team suffered a major loss in the lead-up to their last qualifying match vs. Costa Rica (we're in; they're not quite)--emergent striker Charlie Davies was seriously injured in an auto accident, and it may be difficult for him even to make the tourney next summer.
In the English Premier League, at least for this two-week break, we can once again exclaim: Chelsea Rules OK! The Blues gained a huge 2-0 win a week ago against their nemesis, Liverpool, while Manchester United dropped a point behind by managing only a 2-2 draw against improved Sunderland. The race looks to me at this point like a two-team fight to the finish, Chelsea and ManU, with four or five teams scrambling for third and fourth (the usual Liverpool and Arsenal, joined by Manchester City, Tottenham, and possibly Aston Villa or Sunderland). The first key showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United is only weeks away (at home, Nov. 8), so it's most important our key guys stay healthy now.
The first round of playoffs has provided great clarity to the postseason scenarios. It might have been clear only in hindsight, but the first-round playoffs, as usual, were one-sided.
Three of the four first-round losers were clearly not ready for postseason competition. The Cardinals had a team as good as any on paper, featuring two of three best starting pitchers in the league this year (Wainwright, Carpenter, and the SF Giant Lincecum are the clear favorites for the Cy Young), but they came into the postseason on a serious down note, and they couldn't change it around. The Red Sox didn't look fearsome at all and lost meekly in the first two games with the Angels, then got nosed out in the third.
Minnesota really had one chance against the Yankees, after coming in to their series out of breath from a sprint to the finish and a feverish one-game playoff win over the Tigers: ride their emotional high and somehow overcome a huge disparity in talent. In the first game, that theory lasted about five innings, when the Yanks came back from a 2-0 deficit and took a commanding lead. In Game 2, they had their chances, but faced a grim reality in the ninth: closer Joe Nathan's track record against the heart of the Yankee lineup (Teixeira, ARod, and Matsui) was tragic, and the Yanks had a clear psychological advantage based on a May series in which they won three straight games from the Twins in the ninth. Sure enough, Nathan couldn't get the job done. In Game 3, Twins' manager Ron Gardenhire tried a different approach in the top of the ninth, down 2-1: he changed pitchers four times, each until fourth guy Nathan facing only one hitter. The other three guys couldn't get the third out, and Nathan gave up a two-run single to Jorge Posada which pretty much clinched it.
One losing team--the Colorado Rockies--showed up ready to compete. They went down due to a result that could never have been expected based on regular season performance. Constantly maligned (especially by phickle phillie phans) closer Brad Lidge outperformed his Rocks' counterpart Huston Street. Lidge had one of the worst regular season full-season performances in the modern history of closing relievers, while Street had been nearly untouchable, both before and after his late-season injury. It basically came down to two successful confrontations between Lidge and Colorado cleanup hitter Troy Tulowitzki (one popout in Game 3, one miserable strikeout in Game 4) and a failed one between Street and Phillies cleanup hitter Ryan Howard. Major redemption for Lidge, who was perfect in 2008 save opportunities all the way through the team's Series victory, and for Charlie Manuel for sticking with him despite heavy criticism.
This doesn't mean Manuel won't go to Pedro Martinez in some critical late-inning situation in the next round, or better yet, in the Series. The NLCS series between Philadelphia and Los Angeles would appear to favor the Phils now that Lidge has seemingly recovered his balance. I have to say that I owned Lidge for my Rotiss team down the stretch, and he repeatedly seemed to have his control back--until he didn't. The Dodgers' punch is underrated, and I'm looking for the return of Hiroki Kuroda to provide a hidden weapon at some point in the series. My prediction is that he will appear in Game 6 with decisively positive results.
Still, I don't see either NL staff having good enough arms to shut down the Yanks, whose hitting is pretty terrifying, and their starting pitching is now good enough, with their preseason additions of Sabathia and Burnett. I'm rooting for mankind's last, best hope, Nature's Better Angels, the feel-good choice of 2009, Los Angeles de Anaheim. I'm afraid it's them, or the deluge.
Quick NBA Preview
NBA teams can basically be divided into those who are hoarding money for the summer 2010 free agent bidding season, featuring LeBron James, and those who know they aren't in the bidding. The Phoenix Suns must be in the latter category, as they traded their aging star center Shaquille O'Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers, giving them one last chance to convince LeBron he can ever win a championship in his home city.
Exciting as next offseason might be, there's still a season to play. In the revitalized Eastern Conference, the question has to be: Can anyone stop the Cleveland Cavaliers, now that Shaq has come to get LeBron's back? The 2008 champion Celtics are getting old faster than even Shaq, but may still have one more good playoff run left in their legs. Last year's Eastern champs, the Orlando Magic, have a good case to make with the NBA's best center, Dwight Howard, and Jameer Howard back: Howard had emerged as a top point guard with a rapidly improving outside shot last year until a serious injury; the team made a great run with him not fully recovered last year. I would still bet that Shaq can do for LeBron what he did for Dwayne Wade with Miami in 2007 and that the two can ride herd in the East.
In the West, it's very simple: Is there any reason to doubt that LA will repeat? I look hard because I seek to find one, and there are some very good teams, to be sure. As contenders, I like San Antonio's move to bring in Richard Jefferson and make sure there will be a third scoring option after Duncan and Parker, no matter the health of Manu Ginobili; New Orleans' improvement by trading for center Emeka Okafor, who will do well as a third option after Chris Paul and David West; and Portland's continuing rise around Brandon Roy and Chris Oden. Still, Kobe sits high on his throne with his "chamberlain", Phil Jackson, and it will be tough to dislodge them.
A Cleveland-LA Championship series would be an all-time ratings smash, hopefully one which will not be anticlimactic, like last year's Lakers wipeout of the Magic.
The English Game
I insist that "footie" not be confused with "the English vice". For the first time in a long, long time, the English "national" team looks to be a real contender for the World Cup.
Qualifying for next year's tourney in South Africa is in its final stages; if I've got it right, 23 of 32 spots will be fixed by the end of this week, with the remaining nine determined by head-to-head playoffs (one will come from a mighty Bahrain-New Zealand re-match, one looks like a straggling survivor from Uruguay or Ecuador vs. Honduras or Costa Rica, three from among African group runner-ups, and the other four from European group runner-ups, possibly including significant soccer nations like Russia, Portugal, or France).
Meanwhile, three teams have particularly distinguished themselves in European qualifying: Spain, Netherlands, and England. The first two teams have so far won all their games, while the southern Brits lost only last weekend, after they had clinched their spot (but the English press still went ape over the loss). You'd have to add as serious contenders defending champs Italy, which perennially lays as low as possible until crunch time after the first round, and, of course, Germany, which never loses until the final eight. I will also be watching Serbia and Slovakia, two teams which have performed in the qualifiers and may be auditioning for the upstart European semifinalist role which I associate with Croatia.
That being said, history clearly indicates that a non-European team will probably win (the rule being that a European team wins when the finals are held in Europe, and the inverse). As always, Brazil would seem the most likely candidate for that role. Paraguay has impressed in qualification and won't be taken lightly. Argentina, on the other hand, has been a horror show under Diego Maradona's clownish coaching, but no one doubts they have the horses to make a run--if they make it,and they could still blow it. Their star player, Leonel Messi, might be ready to upstage even Maradona if given the chance. Finally, the US and Mexico are both earnestly seeking to rate as legitimate threats--I can believe they could pull an upset or two, at least. The US team suffered a major loss in the lead-up to their last qualifying match vs. Costa Rica (we're in; they're not quite)--emergent striker Charlie Davies was seriously injured in an auto accident, and it may be difficult for him even to make the tourney next summer.
In the English Premier League, at least for this two-week break, we can once again exclaim: Chelsea Rules OK! The Blues gained a huge 2-0 win a week ago against their nemesis, Liverpool, while Manchester United dropped a point behind by managing only a 2-2 draw against improved Sunderland. The race looks to me at this point like a two-team fight to the finish, Chelsea and ManU, with four or five teams scrambling for third and fourth (the usual Liverpool and Arsenal, joined by Manchester City, Tottenham, and possibly Aston Villa or Sunderland). The first key showdown between Chelsea and Manchester United is only weeks away (at home, Nov. 8), so it's most important our key guys stay healthy now.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obama's Nobel
The surprise announcement that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize has caught everyone off guard, even in the White House, which apparently had no clue it was coming.
The prize committee has said that they are giving it to Obama because he has introduced a new emphasis on negotiation of issues between states and on nuclear non-proliferation. Both are true, and worthy, but the award is frankly a bit premature. He should have won it in a couple more years, when he had accomplished more.
The award is never repeated, so I think Obama should try to make some others look good and win their own award, like the Palestinians and Israelis, some Iranian who will discontinue the development of nuclear weapons, or an Afghan Taliban who will cross over and make a move toward peace.
By the way, the award brings $1.5 million, and Obama's donating his to charity. One wonders which charity.
The prize committee has said that they are giving it to Obama because he has introduced a new emphasis on negotiation of issues between states and on nuclear non-proliferation. Both are true, and worthy, but the award is frankly a bit premature. He should have won it in a couple more years, when he had accomplished more.
The award is never repeated, so I think Obama should try to make some others look good and win their own award, like the Palestinians and Israelis, some Iranian who will discontinue the development of nuclear weapons, or an Afghan Taliban who will cross over and make a move toward peace.
By the way, the award brings $1.5 million, and Obama's donating his to charity. One wonders which charity.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
US' Strategy in Afghanistan
I have to weigh in on Pres. Obama's review of strategy in Afghanistan and the resulting decision on troop commitment there.
Unlike the Obama Administration, I do not have armies of Pentagon brass and Congress trying to pull me one way or the other, nor intelligence experts of various levels of credibility feeding me contradictory data, so I have had a fairly easy time coming to a conclusion. In fact, I did so and posted my recommendations a month and a half ago--see "How Afghanistan Can Win" in my post "Khartoum to Kabul". I stand by that post, but will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit more on it.
The Mind of the Taliban: Real Evidence
There has been one particularly relevant update in my database since then, the piece in Newsweek's October 5 issue titled "The Taliban in Their Own Words". I would give a link to it, but it seems Newsweek has already dropped it from its website; I recommend tracking down the issue and reading it, if you have not done so.
First, I have to say that I am in awe of the courage of the reporters who went behind enemy lines and interviewed the six unit-level commanders whose words make up the story (the reporters' names are Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau). To me, this is Pulitzer Prize-quality stuff, if one considers what happened to Daniel Pearl when he started getting too close to the story on the other side (he was beheaded). In editor Jon Meacham's notes, he suggests the most dangerous part of the task for Yousafzai (the lead interviewer)was traveling from Kabul's airport into town, shortly after the road had been bombed; that suggests that his contacts with the Taliban were so secure that he didn't feel in imminent peril of his life the whole time he was interviewing them--I find that kinda hard to believe, but more power to him. Consorting with the enemy it may have been, but the purpose--to understand our foe--was worthwhile for all of us.
So, what have we learned from what the Taliban are saying? Here are my key takeaways:
Let's Get Specific
In my last post, I reacted against those Americans who foolishly asked, "How Can We Win in Afghanistan?" by saying, first, we can't, and second, let's think about what's best for Afghanistan. If, however, we take a look at this from the US' national interest, the first point to emphasize is that what happens in Pakistan is much more important than any result--good or bad--in Afghanistan. The one exception to that rule is that we have our troops in Afghanistan, that their fate is hugely important, and that our forces are unlikely to be invited into Pakistan in any significant numbers. So, the objective is to use our forces wisely, from the Afghanistan side, and ultimately get them out of that hellhole safely.
The first question, then, is: How can what we do in Afghanistan help lead to success in suppressing our foes in Pakistan? The answer, it would seem, would be to beef up our military capabilities in Eastern Afghanistan, between Kabul and the Pakistan border. As the Pakistani forces begin now to take on the hostile enclave of Waziristan, we should make sure their hammer blows can strike the "anvil of evil" without the bad guys slipping away.
Second, as I've said before, I'm not one to put the blame for Afghanistan's weaknesses on its President, Hamid Karzai. I don't think he's responsible for the recent ballot box stuffing, and he had little choice but to ally himself with those corrupt provincial warlords who opposed the Taliban. His rule has never gone much beyond Kabul--we've just become acutely aware of that fact recently. If one of our conditions for increased assistance to Afghanistan is improved performance from Karzai--and it should be one--then we really can't much more of him than a) his efforts to have a clean recount, and a clean runoff if the recount requires it; b) that he ease out his brother, supposedly the drug kingpin of Kandahar; and c) that he keep on trying, in spite of great personal danger and incredibly long odds. It seems to me that's asking a lot, already.
Third, as another condition for the ramp-up (tipping my hand a little, here), NATO needs to stand up and be counted. We need to increase our military strength in the eastern part of the country, but NATO has to fill the void some in the rest of the country. They can't be looking to slip out the back door while we're marching through the front one. I would like to see something from our new best friend, France, and maybe from Turkey (that one, I admit, I'm not sure about: xenophobia runs deep and wide in this part of the world, and I don't know if Turks would be about the same as getting the Russians--i.e., a p.r. disaster--or better, or worse. Maybe in the northern part?) I've read the Turks are the best military forces in NATO, apart from our own. We should set up a NATO school of counterinsurgency skills in Kabul (or somewhere else), and get our allies and the Afghan Army officers to attend: maybe they'll learn something that they can even use somewhere else in the future. We cannot, should not, must not, have to do this all on our own, and frankly, I'm not sure this is the last war of this kind we're going to have to be involved with, even if GWOT is in the dustbin of history.
Finally, I don't know Afghan geography well enough to say exactly where, but I still say we should set up a zone for Taliban fighters who want to give it a rest. All prisoners from the fighting go there (after any interrogation), and free entry to any other Taliban and their families who agree to lay down their arms (exit would be a tougher hurdle). Sharia rule OK! there, they can worship as they please, imprison their wives, whatever (but no poppy exports). The characteristics of this Taliban Autonomous Zone would be: not on the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway, far from Pakistan, a couple of peaceful, fertile valleys--someplace where the Karzai regime already is a non-factor--with mountains, preferably impassable, around them. Something like Utah for the Mormons; in time they could even become civilized and give up polygamy.
Bottom line is, I would give McChrystal the 40,000 more troops he wants, but only half of them should be American. And ours would have a strict time limit. The Afghan war has a seasonal quality; it basically shuts down in the winter, the forces build up in the spring, and the battles climax in tne late summer and fall. We should give the Afghans two years of increased forces, starting next spring with a sharp drawdown planned for the winter of '011 (that's "oh-eleven" and into the spring of '012). By election day 2012, the Obama Surge should be over. And, as in Iraq, out.
Unlike the Obama Administration, I do not have armies of Pentagon brass and Congress trying to pull me one way or the other, nor intelligence experts of various levels of credibility feeding me contradictory data, so I have had a fairly easy time coming to a conclusion. In fact, I did so and posted my recommendations a month and a half ago--see "How Afghanistan Can Win" in my post "Khartoum to Kabul". I stand by that post, but will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit more on it.
The Mind of the Taliban: Real Evidence
There has been one particularly relevant update in my database since then, the piece in Newsweek's October 5 issue titled "The Taliban in Their Own Words". I would give a link to it, but it seems Newsweek has already dropped it from its website; I recommend tracking down the issue and reading it, if you have not done so.
First, I have to say that I am in awe of the courage of the reporters who went behind enemy lines and interviewed the six unit-level commanders whose words make up the story (the reporters' names are Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau). To me, this is Pulitzer Prize-quality stuff, if one considers what happened to Daniel Pearl when he started getting too close to the story on the other side (he was beheaded). In editor Jon Meacham's notes, he suggests the most dangerous part of the task for Yousafzai (the lead interviewer)was traveling from Kabul's airport into town, shortly after the road had been bombed; that suggests that his contacts with the Taliban were so secure that he didn't feel in imminent peril of his life the whole time he was interviewing them--I find that kinda hard to believe, but more power to him. Consorting with the enemy it may have been, but the purpose--to understand our foe--was worthwhile for all of us.
So, what have we learned from what the Taliban are saying? Here are my key takeaways:
o) The Taliban have no love for the Arabs of Al Qaeda, whom they disparagingly refer to as "the camels"; as I suggested in my previous post, the Taliban resent that their leaders' willingness to host them in 2001 caused them to lose power in Afghanistan, and they are not likely to repeat that mistake;
o) Militarily, we can beat the Taliban almost anytime they mass to battle us--the flight to Pakistan in 2001 was not a strategic retreat for them, but an all-out rout, and we had a lot less troops in Afghanistan at the time than we do now;
o) The life of a senior commander in the Taliban is "short, nasty, and brutish"--all the superiors/recruiters these guys referred to have been taken out;
o) That being said, we will never wipe them out through military force, nor are they likely to give up their struggle anytime soon, because
o) These commanders, at least, are fully committed to their cause, impossible to buy out, and earnestly seek to re-impose Islamic rule; and
o) They believe time is on their side, and they are winning this time. There is more than a little revenge in their mix of motivations.
Let's Get Specific
In my last post, I reacted against those Americans who foolishly asked, "How Can We Win in Afghanistan?" by saying, first, we can't, and second, let's think about what's best for Afghanistan. If, however, we take a look at this from the US' national interest, the first point to emphasize is that what happens in Pakistan is much more important than any result--good or bad--in Afghanistan. The one exception to that rule is that we have our troops in Afghanistan, that their fate is hugely important, and that our forces are unlikely to be invited into Pakistan in any significant numbers. So, the objective is to use our forces wisely, from the Afghanistan side, and ultimately get them out of that hellhole safely.
The first question, then, is: How can what we do in Afghanistan help lead to success in suppressing our foes in Pakistan? The answer, it would seem, would be to beef up our military capabilities in Eastern Afghanistan, between Kabul and the Pakistan border. As the Pakistani forces begin now to take on the hostile enclave of Waziristan, we should make sure their hammer blows can strike the "anvil of evil" without the bad guys slipping away.
Second, as I've said before, I'm not one to put the blame for Afghanistan's weaknesses on its President, Hamid Karzai. I don't think he's responsible for the recent ballot box stuffing, and he had little choice but to ally himself with those corrupt provincial warlords who opposed the Taliban. His rule has never gone much beyond Kabul--we've just become acutely aware of that fact recently. If one of our conditions for increased assistance to Afghanistan is improved performance from Karzai--and it should be one--then we really can't much more of him than a) his efforts to have a clean recount, and a clean runoff if the recount requires it; b) that he ease out his brother, supposedly the drug kingpin of Kandahar; and c) that he keep on trying, in spite of great personal danger and incredibly long odds. It seems to me that's asking a lot, already.
Third, as another condition for the ramp-up (tipping my hand a little, here), NATO needs to stand up and be counted. We need to increase our military strength in the eastern part of the country, but NATO has to fill the void some in the rest of the country. They can't be looking to slip out the back door while we're marching through the front one. I would like to see something from our new best friend, France, and maybe from Turkey (that one, I admit, I'm not sure about: xenophobia runs deep and wide in this part of the world, and I don't know if Turks would be about the same as getting the Russians--i.e., a p.r. disaster--or better, or worse. Maybe in the northern part?) I've read the Turks are the best military forces in NATO, apart from our own. We should set up a NATO school of counterinsurgency skills in Kabul (or somewhere else), and get our allies and the Afghan Army officers to attend: maybe they'll learn something that they can even use somewhere else in the future. We cannot, should not, must not, have to do this all on our own, and frankly, I'm not sure this is the last war of this kind we're going to have to be involved with, even if GWOT is in the dustbin of history.
Finally, I don't know Afghan geography well enough to say exactly where, but I still say we should set up a zone for Taliban fighters who want to give it a rest. All prisoners from the fighting go there (after any interrogation), and free entry to any other Taliban and their families who agree to lay down their arms (exit would be a tougher hurdle). Sharia rule OK! there, they can worship as they please, imprison their wives, whatever (but no poppy exports). The characteristics of this Taliban Autonomous Zone would be: not on the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway, far from Pakistan, a couple of peaceful, fertile valleys--someplace where the Karzai regime already is a non-factor--with mountains, preferably impassable, around them. Something like Utah for the Mormons; in time they could even become civilized and give up polygamy.
Bottom line is, I would give McChrystal the 40,000 more troops he wants, but only half of them should be American. And ours would have a strict time limit. The Afghan war has a seasonal quality; it basically shuts down in the winter, the forces build up in the spring, and the battles climax in tne late summer and fall. We should give the Afghans two years of increased forces, starting next spring with a sharp drawdown planned for the winter of '011 (that's "oh-eleven" and into the spring of '012). By election day 2012, the Obama Surge should be over. And, as in Iraq, out.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Lose Some...Win Some
It wasn't so surprising that the International Olympic Committee didn't award the 2016 Summer Games to Chicago, even after the visit of President Obama and the First Lady. What was surprising was that it was the first of the four finalists to be eliminated, in the first round of voting.
In my post yesterday, I missed one important fact: Rio de Janeiro had been one of the finalists for the 2012 games (finally awarded to London), and had been preparing their bid for four years since. The challenges to put the games on in 2016 will still be massive, but I congratulate the plucky Brazilians for their accomplishment.
Chicago will have to decide if it wants to go through the gauntlet again for the future. The Windy City has not hosted the games, though they were just a couple hundred miles away in St. Louis in 1904. Rio's unlikely bid derived legitimacy from the fact that there has never been an Olympics hosted in South America, while Obama's visit justput it on the same level with the visit of King Juan Carlos of Spain (for Madrid), President Lula of Brazil, and the new prime minister of Japan for Tokyo. No shame in losing, just in not trying one's best.
Score One for Engagement
A potential victory of much more profound significance came out of talks in Geneva yesterday. Representatives of the "five permanent members of the Security Council", plus Germany and led by the European Union's Javier Solana, met directly with Iran's designated negotiators on the nuclear issue this week and came out of it announcing that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit--within two weeks--the secret facility near Qom which Iran acknowledged recently.
Further, and more remarkably (because a voluntary move by Iran, not compelled by any treaty obligations), Iran agreed to transfer the majority of its enriched uranium to Russia, from which it would be prepared for safe use in a medical facility in Tehran.
This agreement--if fulfilled, and that's a big 'if'--would set the clock back significantly from the "18 months and counting" until it's been estimated that Iran could detonate a nuclear device, or until the US or Israel (with US backing) would move militarily to stop such a move. It could lead to more, again if the Iranians follow through on their promises. Today's news reportssuggest that some of the Iranians didn't get the memo, or perhaps got a new one saying to feign ignorance of what was agreed. So, progress is not assured; however, the Obama strategy of engagement (as well as his gambit with Russia by resetting some parts of our relationship on a more favorable basis) is beginning to bring some benefit.
We're stil waiting to hear the Israelis' reaction, but former US Ambassador to the UN, the Bushite John Bolton, wasted no time in establishing his mala fides. Bolton, a person for whom the term "diplomat" is accurate from a career perspective but totally inaccurate in practice, criticized Obama for getting "ensnared in negotiations with Iran". It would be so much better, one concludes that Bolton thinks, to just bomb them and "connect the dots"--Iran being the nation between Iraq and Afghanistan where we don't yet have a military front.
If the point is that Iran's regime has not exactly demonstrated its legitimacy with this year's presidential elections, I take the point, and we should a) take every opportunity to point that out to the Iranians, thus weakening their moral position (very important to them, from what I can see) and b) avoid any meeting between putatively re-elected President Ahmadinejad and Obama (Khamenei would be the guy, and only once there is some firmer progress on the negotiations).
The Iranians are chess players; there are generally several layers to their moves. They needed help with their medical facility, they probably wanted to buy some time themselves, what with their domestic issues, and there may be other facilities which are still hidden (and thus possibly more enriched uranium than we know about). The existence of the secret Qom facility was known to the US, which had not told the IAEA about it, but Iran revealed its existence--somewhat casually, as a "peaceful research facility" though it is buried in a mountain within a Revolutionary Guard base--when they knew that we knew. I think they are beginning to see that our side has some folks who think a few moves ahead, too.
In my post yesterday, I missed one important fact: Rio de Janeiro had been one of the finalists for the 2012 games (finally awarded to London), and had been preparing their bid for four years since. The challenges to put the games on in 2016 will still be massive, but I congratulate the plucky Brazilians for their accomplishment.
Chicago will have to decide if it wants to go through the gauntlet again for the future. The Windy City has not hosted the games, though they were just a couple hundred miles away in St. Louis in 1904. Rio's unlikely bid derived legitimacy from the fact that there has never been an Olympics hosted in South America, while Obama's visit justput it on the same level with the visit of King Juan Carlos of Spain (for Madrid), President Lula of Brazil, and the new prime minister of Japan for Tokyo. No shame in losing, just in not trying one's best.
Score One for Engagement
A potential victory of much more profound significance came out of talks in Geneva yesterday. Representatives of the "five permanent members of the Security Council", plus Germany and led by the European Union's Javier Solana, met directly with Iran's designated negotiators on the nuclear issue this week and came out of it announcing that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to visit--within two weeks--the secret facility near Qom which Iran acknowledged recently.
Further, and more remarkably (because a voluntary move by Iran, not compelled by any treaty obligations), Iran agreed to transfer the majority of its enriched uranium to Russia, from which it would be prepared for safe use in a medical facility in Tehran.
This agreement--if fulfilled, and that's a big 'if'--would set the clock back significantly from the "18 months and counting" until it's been estimated that Iran could detonate a nuclear device, or until the US or Israel (with US backing) would move militarily to stop such a move. It could lead to more, again if the Iranians follow through on their promises. Today's news reportssuggest that some of the Iranians didn't get the memo, or perhaps got a new one saying to feign ignorance of what was agreed. So, progress is not assured; however, the Obama strategy of engagement (as well as his gambit with Russia by resetting some parts of our relationship on a more favorable basis) is beginning to bring some benefit.
We're stil waiting to hear the Israelis' reaction, but former US Ambassador to the UN, the Bushite John Bolton, wasted no time in establishing his mala fides. Bolton, a person for whom the term "diplomat" is accurate from a career perspective but totally inaccurate in practice, criticized Obama for getting "ensnared in negotiations with Iran". It would be so much better, one concludes that Bolton thinks, to just bomb them and "connect the dots"--Iran being the nation between Iraq and Afghanistan where we don't yet have a military front.
If the point is that Iran's regime has not exactly demonstrated its legitimacy with this year's presidential elections, I take the point, and we should a) take every opportunity to point that out to the Iranians, thus weakening their moral position (very important to them, from what I can see) and b) avoid any meeting between putatively re-elected President Ahmadinejad and Obama (Khamenei would be the guy, and only once there is some firmer progress on the negotiations).
The Iranians are chess players; there are generally several layers to their moves. They needed help with their medical facility, they probably wanted to buy some time themselves, what with their domestic issues, and there may be other facilities which are still hidden (and thus possibly more enriched uranium than we know about). The existence of the secret Qom facility was known to the US, which had not told the IAEA about it, but Iran revealed its existence--somewhat casually, as a "peaceful research facility" though it is buried in a mountain within a Revolutionary Guard base--when they knew that we knew. I think they are beginning to see that our side has some folks who think a few moves ahead, too.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Olympics: Vote Chi...and Rio!
President Obama is making a one-day stopover in Copenhagen to lend his support to Chicago's bid to host the Summer Olympics in 2016. Chicago is one of four finalists, along with Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, and Tokyo. Rio and Madrid were said to be the early leaders in the highly-politicized, somewhat parochial voting by the International Olympic Committee, but Chicago's star has risen at the expense of Madrid's, and now it is thought that it may be close between Rio and Chicago.
Rio's bid is extremely ambitious, costing an estimated $14 billion (Tokyo's would no doubt be the cheapest, as it hosted the Olympics in 1964, but that fact--that they hosted fairly recently--would count against it). Brazilian President Lula da Silva is also in Copenhagen and is making a strong plea for the first Olympic games in South America (in terms of Third World countries Seoul, S. Korea, which hosted in '88, might have an argument, though somewhat weaker than 2008's Beijing).
Brazil is doing well these years and has the right to bid for an international coming-out party such as Beijing's. I would suggest that the fact that Chicago's bid is for an estimated cost of "only" $4 billion would make it a better candidate, one with less risk for choice. Obama's strong international popularity will work for Chi-town's case, and apparently the swing group will be the African states (let's say he might help with those, too).
What the condition of the US economy will be in 2016, and whether it will need the boost Olympics bring (and preparation for it, as well) is anyone's guess.
Perhaps Brazil could win a vote now for 2020, which would give it more time to successfully complete what would be a huge effort to prepare the city. A better comparison that Beijing might be Athens' Olympics of 2004, which was a difficult prep.
I have been to Rio a couple of times--it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, so it would be a spectacular site for the Olympics. The fact that it would be winter during the normal time of the summer Olympics is not actually a problem--it would be temperate then, whereas it would be intolerably hot in their summer (December-February). Rio is a city that is much larger than most people realize, and it has enormous, widespread favelas (slums) which will need to be isolated from the Olympic competitors' experience (if not their sight--mostly they're on the huge, steep hills found throughout the city). That--making the city safe from criminal influences coming from the favelas--would be just one of the major challenges; transportation (they have enormous traffic jams, and little public transport) would be another. I think it's worth it, but they could use the extra four years.
Rio's bid is extremely ambitious, costing an estimated $14 billion (Tokyo's would no doubt be the cheapest, as it hosted the Olympics in 1964, but that fact--that they hosted fairly recently--would count against it). Brazilian President Lula da Silva is also in Copenhagen and is making a strong plea for the first Olympic games in South America (in terms of Third World countries Seoul, S. Korea, which hosted in '88, might have an argument, though somewhat weaker than 2008's Beijing).
Brazil is doing well these years and has the right to bid for an international coming-out party such as Beijing's. I would suggest that the fact that Chicago's bid is for an estimated cost of "only" $4 billion would make it a better candidate, one with less risk for choice. Obama's strong international popularity will work for Chi-town's case, and apparently the swing group will be the African states (let's say he might help with those, too).
What the condition of the US economy will be in 2016, and whether it will need the boost Olympics bring (and preparation for it, as well) is anyone's guess.
Perhaps Brazil could win a vote now for 2020, which would give it more time to successfully complete what would be a huge effort to prepare the city. A better comparison that Beijing might be Athens' Olympics of 2004, which was a difficult prep.
I have been to Rio a couple of times--it is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, so it would be a spectacular site for the Olympics. The fact that it would be winter during the normal time of the summer Olympics is not actually a problem--it would be temperate then, whereas it would be intolerably hot in their summer (December-February). Rio is a city that is much larger than most people realize, and it has enormous, widespread favelas (slums) which will need to be isolated from the Olympic competitors' experience (if not their sight--mostly they're on the huge, steep hills found throughout the city). That--making the city safe from criminal influences coming from the favelas--would be just one of the major challenges; transportation (they have enormous traffic jams, and little public transport) would be another. I think it's worth it, but they could use the extra four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
