While we are trying to convince the Chinese to join us in sanctions on Iran (or at least not to veto them), China is on the verge of announcing sanctions against American companies for selling arms to Taiwan (a/k/a the Republic of China, or ROC).
The sanctions at this point are only threatened, not put in place, but, short of deciding that that measure may be an overreaction--which doesn't seem likely to me--I don't see what would stop them. The Chinese government's point of view is that selling arms to Taiwan is an intolerable intrusion in their domestic affairs, while ours is that we are obligated by policy and treaty to provide military necessities for the defense of Taiwan.
The American arms companies involved probably just have to look at the enmity of China (a/k/a the Peoples' Republic of China, or PRC) as an unavoidable negative effect of being a good customer of the US military (while the sales to Taiwan are an unavoidable fringe benefit).
To me, China's making a big campaign against the arms sales is a mistake--when was the last time anyone outside the region noticed the existence of Taiwan?--though China considers it a principled objection to an intentional policy of disrespect to their claimed sovereignty over the "renegade province". A more suspicious person might look at the sales as a potential direct harm to Chinese soldiers if the day ever came when they decided to take Taiwan back by force (as the PRC threatens to do, if Taiwan ever dared declare their independence from the mainland).
The unsettled status of Taiwan would probably be the last thing the US government needs to bring up in these trying times, when China's cooperation is needed on so many matters of international diplomacy and economics. With the return to unchallenged political control of the KuoMinTang (the KMT, the party of Chiang Kai-Shek), things are back to "normal" ambiguity, in which both the ROC and the PRC have a position that Taiwan is part of China--there's just a technical dispute about who's in charge.
The only major declared enemy of this permanent temporary anomaly, former ROC President Chen Shui-bian, is now in prison somewhere near Taipei, serving a sentence of life imprisonment for corruption crimes. His prosecution was nothing but murky; he admitted some violations on campaign financing, and his wife and son admitted more, but the whole thing also smacks strongly of political motivation and placation of the mainland power.
During his heyday, in the early days of his 2000-2008 term in office (like George W. Bush, he somehow managed re-election in 2004 under unusual circumstances and deep internal dissatisfaction), "A-bian" dared to speak truth to power and suggest a couple of heresies: 1) the people in Taiwan don't want unification with China while the PRC continued to violate the civil liberties of its citizens, thank you very much; and 2) federation is the long-term solution for Greater China which would both permit the Han Chinese their pre-eminent political role in Chinese civilization, yet allow the multiple nationalities (Taiwanese, Uighur, Tibetan, the westernized Hong Kong Chinese, and, believe me, many others) in the Chinese-speaking world to exercise their own rights of free expression. Is it for this that the disgraced head of the unofficial party of Taiwanese independence (the DPP) must pay?
Probably the imprecation does some injustice to the rough-and-tumble democracy, and the semi-independent judiciary, of the ROC. Taiwan's government suggests to me many of the characteristics of the Italian government (but with superior economic management): chaotic, corrupt, untrustworthy, but unmistakably, unshakably, their own.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Bernanke Confirmation Vote in Senate
Today the Senate voted to confirm the renewal of Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The key vote was the first one, for cloture (to end debate). Sixty votes in favor were needed for that one, whereas only 50 were needed for his actual re-confirmation. The nomination had been held up for weeks by various Senators who were opposed to Bernanke's continuing in the job. In response, there was an effort by some in the Senate (from what I heard, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire) to get past the cloture vote, at least, to relieve anxiety in the markets.
My point of the post is not on the merits of Bernanke's retention in the job. There are two main points of reference for that: those who look backwards and either approve or disapprove of what was done to rescue the banks and other companies and Bernanke's role in that, along with his role in the lax regulation of financial institutions that helped lead to the crisis; while those who look forwards might have a positive or negative point of view on Bernanke's monetary policy (he might be less inclined to continue the Fed's policy of easy money than other possible appointees) or his stance toward the Fed's role in future regulation. I would say, along with President Obama, that he has done a good enough job to continue on--in particular, his deep knowledge of the Great Depression of the '30's was very relevant to his efforts to prevent its recurrence in these days.
Instead, I'm more interested in the fact that voting, for once, was not split on partisan lines, and secondly, that 77 Senators voted for cloture, but only 70 voted for his actual confirmation.* That means that seven Senators voted to end debate and move on, though they did not favor Bernanke's confirmation. This is a positive sign, one that should be encouraged. It means that some Senators are willing to consider that, while they may not get their way (and, without doubt, they knew that cloture was going to guarantee confirmation), they would not support a filibuster--one which might have become very harmful to our fragile economy (Bernanke's term was due to end this Sunday).
I would strongly support the Senate changing its filibuster rules (I like Tom Udall's motion to allow each Congress to set its rules by majority vote), but if it is not to be changed, it must stop being abused. It is not appropriate to try to filibuster every bill that one opposes; it should be a different matter whether to continue debate or to approve a motion.
So, I commend those seven Senators: Barbara Boxer (CA), Byron Dorgan (ND), Al Franken (MN), Tom Harkin (IA), Edward Kaufman (DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and George LeMieux (FL). All but LeMieux are Democrats; LeMieux and Kaufman--who were interim appointments--along with Dorgan, are "lame ducks"--Senators who will not be returning after this session of Congress (so, presumably, they are ones with little motivation for their votes beyond the public interest). Even more, I commend the nuanced and supportive vote strategies of Boxer, Franken, Harkin, and Whitehouse--each are very good Senators, in my view.
* The 70-30 vote for confirmation was 47-11 for Democrats, 22-18 for Republicans, and 1-1 for Independents, and the 77-23 for cloture was 53-5 for Democrats, 23-17 for Republicans, and 1-1 for Independents (Sanders against both). Note that newly-elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts is not yet in place.
The key vote was the first one, for cloture (to end debate). Sixty votes in favor were needed for that one, whereas only 50 were needed for his actual re-confirmation. The nomination had been held up for weeks by various Senators who were opposed to Bernanke's continuing in the job. In response, there was an effort by some in the Senate (from what I heard, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire) to get past the cloture vote, at least, to relieve anxiety in the markets.
My point of the post is not on the merits of Bernanke's retention in the job. There are two main points of reference for that: those who look backwards and either approve or disapprove of what was done to rescue the banks and other companies and Bernanke's role in that, along with his role in the lax regulation of financial institutions that helped lead to the crisis; while those who look forwards might have a positive or negative point of view on Bernanke's monetary policy (he might be less inclined to continue the Fed's policy of easy money than other possible appointees) or his stance toward the Fed's role in future regulation. I would say, along with President Obama, that he has done a good enough job to continue on--in particular, his deep knowledge of the Great Depression of the '30's was very relevant to his efforts to prevent its recurrence in these days.
Instead, I'm more interested in the fact that voting, for once, was not split on partisan lines, and secondly, that 77 Senators voted for cloture, but only 70 voted for his actual confirmation.* That means that seven Senators voted to end debate and move on, though they did not favor Bernanke's confirmation. This is a positive sign, one that should be encouraged. It means that some Senators are willing to consider that, while they may not get their way (and, without doubt, they knew that cloture was going to guarantee confirmation), they would not support a filibuster--one which might have become very harmful to our fragile economy (Bernanke's term was due to end this Sunday).
I would strongly support the Senate changing its filibuster rules (I like Tom Udall's motion to allow each Congress to set its rules by majority vote), but if it is not to be changed, it must stop being abused. It is not appropriate to try to filibuster every bill that one opposes; it should be a different matter whether to continue debate or to approve a motion.
So, I commend those seven Senators: Barbara Boxer (CA), Byron Dorgan (ND), Al Franken (MN), Tom Harkin (IA), Edward Kaufman (DE), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), and George LeMieux (FL). All but LeMieux are Democrats; LeMieux and Kaufman--who were interim appointments--along with Dorgan, are "lame ducks"--Senators who will not be returning after this session of Congress (so, presumably, they are ones with little motivation for their votes beyond the public interest). Even more, I commend the nuanced and supportive vote strategies of Boxer, Franken, Harkin, and Whitehouse--each are very good Senators, in my view.
* The 70-30 vote for confirmation was 47-11 for Democrats, 22-18 for Republicans, and 1-1 for Independents, and the 77-23 for cloture was 53-5 for Democrats, 23-17 for Republicans, and 1-1 for Independents (Sanders against both). Note that newly-elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts is not yet in place.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
China Cyberpunk'd
The face-off between two great world powers--Google and the People's Republic of China--is a landmark event of the 21st century. It certainly deserves some comment.
The background: Google, like most Western companies, has bent over backwards to get access to the huge Chinese market. One of the many ways China's market has been growing rapidly has been in its people's use of the Internet. Against their principles, Google agreed to allow Chinese authorities to censor Web searches on their Google.cn site. Not for pornography (as far as I know), but for political content: search objects like Tienanmen Square, or the Dalai Lama, don't return the same rich information that they would on a normal Google search.
About two weeks ago, Google reported to US authorities, and then publicly, that they had been subjected to hacker attacks that were traced back to China (via Taiwan servers). Google has replied to that threat by saying they are thinking of closing down their China-specific site, Google.cn, and in the meantime they will no longer allow the censorship. China has denied any involvement in the hacker attacks and is basically saying "talk to the hand".
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gotten involved. Without naming China's government specifically, she has said that those who make cyberattacks on American entities should expect that there will be "consequences".
It would appear that the consequences, for now, will be limited to the Google/Secretary of State's campaign of denunciation. The evidence would appear too fuzzy to justify economic sanctions. Any kind of cyber counter-attack, either on Google's part or from the US military, would be neither announced nor, likely, effective as a deterrent of future cyberwarfare--more likely, it could lead to mutually destructive escalation of the contretemps.
Google's action to remove the censorship on their website, though, is an effective countermeasure. The Chinese are total control freaks, and that will get them where it hurts, to the degree that they tolerate it. And they may not: The leading web search site in China, baidu.com, is a government-owned company; Google is a distant second. So, they may dare Google to do their worst, feeling confident that their Internet users will abide.
The threat to close down Google's website is not just an idle one, though; apparently it doesn't make money, it represents a huge policy exception for the company, and it is something that will bring loss of face to the Chinese government. All the Chinese officials can do is keep a lid on the story, which they have tried to do. I have to feel the Chinese grapevine will be full of it, among those in the know and with a mind to listen to such seditious notions.
My guess is that China has several squads of patriotic hackers working without official authorization (but plenty of unofficial encouragement and access to resources). Each group would know that they must cover their tracks, and of course if they are found out "the ministry will deny all knowledge". There would probably be a friendly rivalry among the groups to see which can achieve the biggest splash, so I imagine the Google caper was quite a coup.
It is no doubt a wake-up call for both the US and Google to develop better methods of counter-attack, as I suspect a purely defensive approach can not succeed for long against determined attack. Drawing upon the cyberpunk fiction of William Gibson, which this incident resembles more than a little, perhaps they can develop some sort of "black ice" (Gibson's term--don't know if original) that would ensnare an attacker in a web of confusion and give it away to the omnipresent NSA spies monitoring everything traveling through the world's linked servers.
The New York Times has been all over the story since it broke two weeks ago, including a stimulating blog forum on the topic, and an update yesterday, well-informed from Foggy Bottom and from intelligence sources.
The background: Google, like most Western companies, has bent over backwards to get access to the huge Chinese market. One of the many ways China's market has been growing rapidly has been in its people's use of the Internet. Against their principles, Google agreed to allow Chinese authorities to censor Web searches on their Google.cn site. Not for pornography (as far as I know), but for political content: search objects like Tienanmen Square, or the Dalai Lama, don't return the same rich information that they would on a normal Google search.
About two weeks ago, Google reported to US authorities, and then publicly, that they had been subjected to hacker attacks that were traced back to China (via Taiwan servers). Google has replied to that threat by saying they are thinking of closing down their China-specific site, Google.cn, and in the meantime they will no longer allow the censorship. China has denied any involvement in the hacker attacks and is basically saying "talk to the hand".
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gotten involved. Without naming China's government specifically, she has said that those who make cyberattacks on American entities should expect that there will be "consequences".
It would appear that the consequences, for now, will be limited to the Google/Secretary of State's campaign of denunciation. The evidence would appear too fuzzy to justify economic sanctions. Any kind of cyber counter-attack, either on Google's part or from the US military, would be neither announced nor, likely, effective as a deterrent of future cyberwarfare--more likely, it could lead to mutually destructive escalation of the contretemps.
Google's action to remove the censorship on their website, though, is an effective countermeasure. The Chinese are total control freaks, and that will get them where it hurts, to the degree that they tolerate it. And they may not: The leading web search site in China, baidu.com, is a government-owned company; Google is a distant second. So, they may dare Google to do their worst, feeling confident that their Internet users will abide.
The threat to close down Google's website is not just an idle one, though; apparently it doesn't make money, it represents a huge policy exception for the company, and it is something that will bring loss of face to the Chinese government. All the Chinese officials can do is keep a lid on the story, which they have tried to do. I have to feel the Chinese grapevine will be full of it, among those in the know and with a mind to listen to such seditious notions.
My guess is that China has several squads of patriotic hackers working without official authorization (but plenty of unofficial encouragement and access to resources). Each group would know that they must cover their tracks, and of course if they are found out "the ministry will deny all knowledge". There would probably be a friendly rivalry among the groups to see which can achieve the biggest splash, so I imagine the Google caper was quite a coup.
It is no doubt a wake-up call for both the US and Google to develop better methods of counter-attack, as I suspect a purely defensive approach can not succeed for long against determined attack. Drawing upon the cyberpunk fiction of William Gibson, which this incident resembles more than a little, perhaps they can develop some sort of "black ice" (Gibson's term--don't know if original) that would ensnare an attacker in a web of confusion and give it away to the omnipresent NSA spies monitoring everything traveling through the world's linked servers.
The New York Times has been all over the story since it broke two weeks ago, including a stimulating blog forum on the topic, and an update yesterday, well-informed from Foggy Bottom and from intelligence sources.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Electoral Preview 2010
The Toxic Environment
I'm glad to see President Obama has invited the banks outside for a little tussle about their simultaneously taking government guarantees on deposits and making risky investments (other than loans)--it's the right enemy to take on, or at least one of them. I think he will find a good reason to take on the AIG bailout soon (even if it was a good deal for the taxpayer), and I expect him to take on the credit rating agencies, too. In terms of making loans to small businesses and the public more generally, the great need of the current economy, he will look beneath the big banks to the regionals and community banks, and find a way to help them do that.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, has taken the cause of corporations over the public interest and the people. As I predicted, they have cut down all limitations on corporations (and unions, too) taking out unlimited advertisements to support or oppose political candidates (they left standing the block on direct contributions to candidates, except through the PAC route)
The Tea-Baggers' win in Massachusetts has convinced the Democrats that they need a populist angle, and it is there to be found: attack on big business, and those who would do their bidding. The Republicans will be pretty much forced to take the Libertarian--small government--approach, and I expect Ron Paul to be their new best friend.
Senate
The Republicans go into the 2010 election with at least as tough a challenge to hold their seats as the Democrats do. Incumbents of both parties are likely to face more risk than usual, which does not tell us how the seats of the six Republican Senators who have chosen not to run again will turn out.
If we start with the Democrats' current holding of 58 seats (with Sanders, without Lieberman or the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts), I think the range of possible results goes from -3 to +3, so continuing a majority (in normal, 50+ vote terms) should not be at issue. If the pendulum swings back toward the Democrats, they should appeal to progressives for a 60-vote majority without Lieberman. Otherwise, they should plan on changing the filibuster rules for the new Congress, in which they will still have a safe majority, so that extended debate will replace unlimited debate (the number required for cloture number would proceed gradually down from 60 votes to 50 over some weeks), and senators will no longer hold nominations until there are 60 votes to force them to the floor.
Unless something suprising happens, I will not be giving to the DSCC this year. I will give to individual valued candidates in tough races, like Harry Reid in Nevada, Beau Biden in Delaware, and, depending on the candidates, Democratic hopefuls for open seats in states like Florida, Kentucky, and Ohio. I am supporting Reid, who has had a tough job as Majority Leader and generally done his best for the right reasons.
The House
Similarly the House's majority, which is currently 258-177,should not be endangered this year, even in a bad economy with satisfaction ebbing with the Administration. A 25-30 seat loss would be significant but not devastating, and I consider that to be near the worst-case scenario.
I am generally happier with the performance of the House majority than the Senate's. I am willing to give some to the DCCC and let them allocate the money. I may also give to New Mexico's Democratic congressmen; two of the three (though not mine) may expect tough races. In the conservative southern part of the state Harry Teague, even though he's a bit of a DINO, deserves support against the return of odious former Cong. Steve Pearce (who gave up his seat in a failed bid to win the Republican Senate nomination).
State Races
Given my expectations that Democratic control of Congress should not be at stake, some of the most important action will be in state races. Democrats have a pretty substantial advantage in terms of state houses, but that will be challenged in a year when the great majority of governorships will be at stake and state governments have huge difficulties with financing during the Great Crater. I am taking a close look at the races in California and Florida, in particular, two states that will gain additional representatives and thus may be subject to political wrangles on redistricting.
On that topic, control of state legislatures is also very important, if not moreso. I may contribute to those organizations which will be looking strategically at state legislature contests.
I'm glad to see President Obama has invited the banks outside for a little tussle about their simultaneously taking government guarantees on deposits and making risky investments (other than loans)--it's the right enemy to take on, or at least one of them. I think he will find a good reason to take on the AIG bailout soon (even if it was a good deal for the taxpayer), and I expect him to take on the credit rating agencies, too. In terms of making loans to small businesses and the public more generally, the great need of the current economy, he will look beneath the big banks to the regionals and community banks, and find a way to help them do that.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, has taken the cause of corporations over the public interest and the people. As I predicted, they have cut down all limitations on corporations (and unions, too) taking out unlimited advertisements to support or oppose political candidates (they left standing the block on direct contributions to candidates, except through the PAC route)
The Tea-Baggers' win in Massachusetts has convinced the Democrats that they need a populist angle, and it is there to be found: attack on big business, and those who would do their bidding. The Republicans will be pretty much forced to take the Libertarian--small government--approach, and I expect Ron Paul to be their new best friend.
Senate
The Republicans go into the 2010 election with at least as tough a challenge to hold their seats as the Democrats do. Incumbents of both parties are likely to face more risk than usual, which does not tell us how the seats of the six Republican Senators who have chosen not to run again will turn out.
If we start with the Democrats' current holding of 58 seats (with Sanders, without Lieberman or the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts), I think the range of possible results goes from -3 to +3, so continuing a majority (in normal, 50+ vote terms) should not be at issue. If the pendulum swings back toward the Democrats, they should appeal to progressives for a 60-vote majority without Lieberman. Otherwise, they should plan on changing the filibuster rules for the new Congress, in which they will still have a safe majority, so that extended debate will replace unlimited debate (the number required for cloture number would proceed gradually down from 60 votes to 50 over some weeks), and senators will no longer hold nominations until there are 60 votes to force them to the floor.
Unless something suprising happens, I will not be giving to the DSCC this year. I will give to individual valued candidates in tough races, like Harry Reid in Nevada, Beau Biden in Delaware, and, depending on the candidates, Democratic hopefuls for open seats in states like Florida, Kentucky, and Ohio. I am supporting Reid, who has had a tough job as Majority Leader and generally done his best for the right reasons.
The House
Similarly the House's majority, which is currently 258-177,should not be endangered this year, even in a bad economy with satisfaction ebbing with the Administration. A 25-30 seat loss would be significant but not devastating, and I consider that to be near the worst-case scenario.
I am generally happier with the performance of the House majority than the Senate's. I am willing to give some to the DCCC and let them allocate the money. I may also give to New Mexico's Democratic congressmen; two of the three (though not mine) may expect tough races. In the conservative southern part of the state Harry Teague, even though he's a bit of a DINO, deserves support against the return of odious former Cong. Steve Pearce (who gave up his seat in a failed bid to win the Republican Senate nomination).
State Races
Given my expectations that Democratic control of Congress should not be at stake, some of the most important action will be in state races. Democrats have a pretty substantial advantage in terms of state houses, but that will be challenged in a year when the great majority of governorships will be at stake and state governments have huge difficulties with financing during the Great Crater. I am taking a close look at the races in California and Florida, in particular, two states that will gain additional representatives and thus may be subject to political wrangles on redistricting.
On that topic, control of state legislatures is also very important, if not moreso. I may contribute to those organizations which will be looking strategically at state legislature contests.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
One-Year Report Card
We aren't grading on the curve--few other Presidents have had the challenges President Obama has faced in his first year. Instead, we are focusing on comparison to "correctness"--perfection--at 100%. A grade of A=91-100; B=81-90; C=71-80; D=61-70; F=60 or less. Two-thirds will be his progress on the issues--ahem, my issues, the 10-Point Program of what I expected from the 2008 Presidential winner, and one-third on the intangibles (or, more accurately, use of the "bully pulpit"), which for Barack Obama are Political Leadership, success as Agent of Change, Leadership through Visible Effort, and Racial Harmony.
The standard should be interpreted as, an A would make him the best President of the last 100 years (FDR gets an A-, for not being aggressive enough). No President in my lifetime would get better than a B. Before we get to the grading, though, let's try to be helpful and show how things can improve.
General Advice
Choose Some Enemies--He can't please everybody, and he will need to run against something or someone this year (as his opponents will run against him). Two obvious choices are the Big Banks (and AIG, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and Republican Congressional Obstructionists. Both are totally blameworthy, based on the facts, and also extremely unpopular.
I would suggest a third, the credit rating agencies, whose flawed business model is as responsible as any other factor for the collapse in the mortgage-backed securities which sparked the Great Crater. So far, incredibly, no one has targeted them, because they haven't identified an alternative. I would suggest that the Fed, or whatever regulatory agency will rule finance in the reform, needs to do its own certification of certain financial products and that those will replace the credit rating agencies' monopoly.
A fourth target, the private insurance companies, would be another great target--they are despicable, after all, and it's not really too late--but the problem is that going after them will not produce a single additional Congressional vote for healthcare insurance reform.
Make Some Cuts--Obama is in danger of becoming a "tax-and-spend" caricature, and we can't go back to that 20th-century nonsense. He should cut spending ruthlessly and with a sharp political eye, and promote the cuts as publicly as possible. I suggest military expenditures on new, unnecessary weapons in blue states; ending subsidies for employers sending jobs overseas; and getting his Administration immersed in the detail work of cutting earmarks from all states and districts (no pork policy). He should have a leakproof internal review process to prevent cuts which will reduce private sector jobs. If he's not going to give tax credits to private employers who create new jobs (and commit to keeping them around 24 months), a move I would favor, then he should loudly announce how this money is "being given back to taxpayers". Budget targets given to congress in the State of the Union should be ambitious on the spending side, but realistic on the revenue side (tax receipts are sure to disappoint).
Progress on the Agenda
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. He's made an honest effort, empowering the EPA to regulate under the Clean Air Act and putting his prestige on the line in Copenhagen. I think the side deal with China and three other major countries was as important as anything that could be done by the world panel at large. Progress is coming, and I am skeptical of anyone who knows how much is required (not of the argument that progress is required). Grade--85
2. Preserve our biosphere. This one is more about preservation of disappearing species (besides polar bears, I mean). It hasn't been a priority, but I think the signals are in the right direction. Grade--80
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. Large progress through Obama speech tour and positive signals on a variety of diplomatic fronts. The setback on closing Guantanamo does not appear to be a big hit in this regard; other countries have learned how stubborn Congress, the American people can be. Grade--95
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. This is a tough one. The environmental policies are a positive, but the building up of debt is a negative. Grade--72
5. Reform the UN Charter. Obama's speech to the General Assembly was very positive, but falls far short of this ambitious objective, which is clearly second-term business. Grade--80
6. Get control of armaments. Obama has made the right speech about eliminating nukes, and the change in missile defense strategy earns him significant points. The groundwork has also been laid with Russia for progress. Grade--88
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. Hasn't been an important topic thus far, except for the new issue (since the attempted Christmas bombing) of microscanning the full body for airline passengers (this is actually far from the central issue, that of eavesdropping). I see progress in a negative direction. Grade--70
8. Provide health care to our people. I have to say, he put more emphasis on this than he probably should have (given the implications on employment of true healthcare reform and how untimely they would have been). It's not exactly the form I want, but it will help--some--on the level of uninsured. Grade--78
9. Electoral reform. He really hasn't done a thing. 2010 is going to be a disaster from the point of view of an explosion in private sector spending on unhelpful campaign ads, and Obama has not yet given any assistance to the cause of Federal funding for campaigns. Grade--60
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
There are some signs of progress, domestically. The eruption of full-scale fighting in Mexico was unavoidable, and he has no choice but to give Mexican President Calderon his full support. The larger improvements I still expect, but only in the second term. Grade--88
Average--79.6--a "solid C+".
Intangibles:
Political Leadership--Surprisingly bad, given Obama's 2008 campaign, which was inarguably The Best Electoral Campaign in the History of the World. Where Obama has been forced to get involved, he has not succeeded, and he has been forced too often. Rahm Emmanuel has been targeted because of these failures, but I think somewhat differently: he should be moved directly into an overtly political job (with the mandate, for which he's fully qualified, to "kick ass and take names"). He can find someone else to handle appointments and coordinate staff work. The time to change this is NOW! Grade--72
Agent of Change--He has done about half the job--setting the agenda, giving the right speeches--very well. The hard part--taking on the resistance to change--remains. Grade--75
Visible Effort--No complaints here. Compared to his predecessor, for example, a huge improvement. No one doubts that he's giving his all. Grade--98
Racial Harmony--He has done what he can, when he needs to. The Skip Gates thing was a slight overreach, which he corrected. He does have to worry about losing his incredible levels of support from the Blacks, and the Browns. For the Hispanics, his appointment of Sotomayor was a success for 2009. In 2010, some effort on immigration reform will be required--it will fail, due to Republican Obstructionists, which is something he can include in his litany of complaints against them (but should not be overemphasized, because of its implications for future jobs). Grade--90
The intangibles average score of 86.3 ("solid B") brings up his final grade to 81.85, a low B.
Final Grade: B minus. Solid!
The standard should be interpreted as, an A would make him the best President of the last 100 years (FDR gets an A-, for not being aggressive enough). No President in my lifetime would get better than a B. Before we get to the grading, though, let's try to be helpful and show how things can improve.
General Advice
Choose Some Enemies--He can't please everybody, and he will need to run against something or someone this year (as his opponents will run against him). Two obvious choices are the Big Banks (and AIG, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and Republican Congressional Obstructionists. Both are totally blameworthy, based on the facts, and also extremely unpopular.
I would suggest a third, the credit rating agencies, whose flawed business model is as responsible as any other factor for the collapse in the mortgage-backed securities which sparked the Great Crater. So far, incredibly, no one has targeted them, because they haven't identified an alternative. I would suggest that the Fed, or whatever regulatory agency will rule finance in the reform, needs to do its own certification of certain financial products and that those will replace the credit rating agencies' monopoly.
A fourth target, the private insurance companies, would be another great target--they are despicable, after all, and it's not really too late--but the problem is that going after them will not produce a single additional Congressional vote for healthcare insurance reform.
Make Some Cuts--Obama is in danger of becoming a "tax-and-spend" caricature, and we can't go back to that 20th-century nonsense. He should cut spending ruthlessly and with a sharp political eye, and promote the cuts as publicly as possible. I suggest military expenditures on new, unnecessary weapons in blue states; ending subsidies for employers sending jobs overseas; and getting his Administration immersed in the detail work of cutting earmarks from all states and districts (no pork policy). He should have a leakproof internal review process to prevent cuts which will reduce private sector jobs. If he's not going to give tax credits to private employers who create new jobs (and commit to keeping them around 24 months), a move I would favor, then he should loudly announce how this money is "being given back to taxpayers". Budget targets given to congress in the State of the Union should be ambitious on the spending side, but realistic on the revenue side (tax receipts are sure to disappoint).
Progress on the Agenda
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. He's made an honest effort, empowering the EPA to regulate under the Clean Air Act and putting his prestige on the line in Copenhagen. I think the side deal with China and three other major countries was as important as anything that could be done by the world panel at large. Progress is coming, and I am skeptical of anyone who knows how much is required (not of the argument that progress is required). Grade--85
2. Preserve our biosphere. This one is more about preservation of disappearing species (besides polar bears, I mean). It hasn't been a priority, but I think the signals are in the right direction. Grade--80
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. Large progress through Obama speech tour and positive signals on a variety of diplomatic fronts. The setback on closing Guantanamo does not appear to be a big hit in this regard; other countries have learned how stubborn Congress, the American people can be. Grade--95
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. This is a tough one. The environmental policies are a positive, but the building up of debt is a negative. Grade--72
5. Reform the UN Charter. Obama's speech to the General Assembly was very positive, but falls far short of this ambitious objective, which is clearly second-term business. Grade--80
6. Get control of armaments. Obama has made the right speech about eliminating nukes, and the change in missile defense strategy earns him significant points. The groundwork has also been laid with Russia for progress. Grade--88
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. Hasn't been an important topic thus far, except for the new issue (since the attempted Christmas bombing) of microscanning the full body for airline passengers (this is actually far from the central issue, that of eavesdropping). I see progress in a negative direction. Grade--70
8. Provide health care to our people. I have to say, he put more emphasis on this than he probably should have (given the implications on employment of true healthcare reform and how untimely they would have been). It's not exactly the form I want, but it will help--some--on the level of uninsured. Grade--78
9. Electoral reform. He really hasn't done a thing. 2010 is going to be a disaster from the point of view of an explosion in private sector spending on unhelpful campaign ads, and Obama has not yet given any assistance to the cause of Federal funding for campaigns. Grade--60
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
There are some signs of progress, domestically. The eruption of full-scale fighting in Mexico was unavoidable, and he has no choice but to give Mexican President Calderon his full support. The larger improvements I still expect, but only in the second term. Grade--88
Average--79.6--a "solid C+".
Intangibles:
Political Leadership--Surprisingly bad, given Obama's 2008 campaign, which was inarguably The Best Electoral Campaign in the History of the World. Where Obama has been forced to get involved, he has not succeeded, and he has been forced too often. Rahm Emmanuel has been targeted because of these failures, but I think somewhat differently: he should be moved directly into an overtly political job (with the mandate, for which he's fully qualified, to "kick ass and take names"). He can find someone else to handle appointments and coordinate staff work. The time to change this is NOW! Grade--72
Agent of Change--He has done about half the job--setting the agenda, giving the right speeches--very well. The hard part--taking on the resistance to change--remains. Grade--75
Visible Effort--No complaints here. Compared to his predecessor, for example, a huge improvement. No one doubts that he's giving his all. Grade--98
Racial Harmony--He has done what he can, when he needs to. The Skip Gates thing was a slight overreach, which he corrected. He does have to worry about losing his incredible levels of support from the Blacks, and the Browns. For the Hispanics, his appointment of Sotomayor was a success for 2009. In 2010, some effort on immigration reform will be required--it will fail, due to Republican Obstructionists, which is something he can include in his litany of complaints against them (but should not be overemphasized, because of its implications for future jobs). Grade--90
The intangibles average score of 86.3 ("solid B") brings up his final grade to 81.85, a low B.
Final Grade: B minus. Solid!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Brief Eulogy: Albert Capsouto
I found out today about the death of my friend, Albert Capsouto, after a short illness.
Albert (pronounced always in the French manner) was one of the most extraordinary individuals I ever knew. I knew him first from his Frisbee throw on campus, the best I have ever seen in any venue. I can't name it--"a forehand flick"?--we always just called it "Albert's throw". It involved contorting one's wrist, near the face, then flicking it forward forcefully. The result--as he did it--went straight, hard, and fast, for 50 yards or more. After great effort, I learned to get the throw off, but--alas! that knowledge is now lost. Albert was humble about it: "I just learned it hanging out in Washington Square".
That was really pure Albert, though: he was totally urbane, and at the same time, a pure product of the streets of Lower Manhattan. Back in the day, we shared Knicks season tickets ("the day" being roughly the Patrick Ewing era). Albert would drive his old Mercedes sedan ('50's era?) up from his home on Lower Washington Street, somehow always finding a good spot near the Garden.
He was only a year ahead of me, but he was always senior to me throughout our lives. A good example is the one or two times I biked with him on the City's streets. I've done some serious bicycling in my time, but I could not keep up with him--there was too much chutzpah, brash defiance of the motorized and stoplights alike. He could've been a delivery guy--not that he'd want that career, just that he had the talent.
Instead, Albert was a restaurateur for his career; with his two brothers and his mother, they started the Capsouto Freres restaurant in 1979 in a dead part of Manhattan--something called "Tribeca". Back then, it was a high-quality place for New Jerseyans to take their dates before or after the disco--convenient to the Holland Tunnel. In this decade,* it was a place that made free meals for workers at the site of the fallen World Trade Center, though the disaster was not good for business in any way. Throughout the decades, it was a civilized place for the semi-civilized traders of Wall Street to dine for lunch or dinner, enjoying quality French bistro food and their signature souffle (order ahead, or wait).
Capsouto Freres was his pride and joy, and a large part of his adult life. He did the architecture for the renovation of the old building; he greeted the clients, and he was the public face for the bistro. Albert became active in the local neighborhood association, as a concerned resident as well as someone with a commercial interest.
He was a loyal friend, someone you could count upon for a social event--a birthday, wedding, or a party. He would take time from his busy schedule, show up with something of high quality in his hands--more than likely, good champagne--and he would socialize, kindly and without pretension or ambition, at great length. But not too long, if you know what I mean.
He had an edge, though. A keen wit, a bit anarchic. There was something of the Marx Brothers in him, somehow. A bit of Groucho, a bit of Harpo--much taller and more handsome, of course.
Maybe he came by it naturally, from his family's background. Officially, his mother brought his family from Egypt, via Paris. As I knew he was Jewish by origin, I asked him about that one day. It turns out the migration, which ended finally in triumph and a measure of security, was even more complex and unlikely (to most of us): his grandfather was forced from Smyrna (now Izmir) in Turkey to Egypt, during the period after World War I when non-Turks of all types were expelled.**
It seems that he and his family sought, and ultimately found, some stability and safety in this world of woe. Once he found it, he stayed with it--to the end.
I am saddened at his passing, and at its sudden nature. I am a little consoled by the quality he brought to his life and the joy he brought to all those around him.
* I'm sticking with my position that the decade isn't over until the end of 2010.
** Turkey and Israel: one thing that they have in common is good reason to take a selective stance toward the Right of Return.
Albert (pronounced always in the French manner) was one of the most extraordinary individuals I ever knew. I knew him first from his Frisbee throw on campus, the best I have ever seen in any venue. I can't name it--"a forehand flick"?--we always just called it "Albert's throw". It involved contorting one's wrist, near the face, then flicking it forward forcefully. The result--as he did it--went straight, hard, and fast, for 50 yards or more. After great effort, I learned to get the throw off, but--alas! that knowledge is now lost. Albert was humble about it: "I just learned it hanging out in Washington Square".
That was really pure Albert, though: he was totally urbane, and at the same time, a pure product of the streets of Lower Manhattan. Back in the day, we shared Knicks season tickets ("the day" being roughly the Patrick Ewing era). Albert would drive his old Mercedes sedan ('50's era?) up from his home on Lower Washington Street, somehow always finding a good spot near the Garden.
He was only a year ahead of me, but he was always senior to me throughout our lives. A good example is the one or two times I biked with him on the City's streets. I've done some serious bicycling in my time, but I could not keep up with him--there was too much chutzpah, brash defiance of the motorized and stoplights alike. He could've been a delivery guy--not that he'd want that career, just that he had the talent.
Instead, Albert was a restaurateur for his career; with his two brothers and his mother, they started the Capsouto Freres restaurant in 1979 in a dead part of Manhattan--something called "Tribeca". Back then, it was a high-quality place for New Jerseyans to take their dates before or after the disco--convenient to the Holland Tunnel. In this decade,* it was a place that made free meals for workers at the site of the fallen World Trade Center, though the disaster was not good for business in any way. Throughout the decades, it was a civilized place for the semi-civilized traders of Wall Street to dine for lunch or dinner, enjoying quality French bistro food and their signature souffle (order ahead, or wait).
Capsouto Freres was his pride and joy, and a large part of his adult life. He did the architecture for the renovation of the old building; he greeted the clients, and he was the public face for the bistro. Albert became active in the local neighborhood association, as a concerned resident as well as someone with a commercial interest.
He was a loyal friend, someone you could count upon for a social event--a birthday, wedding, or a party. He would take time from his busy schedule, show up with something of high quality in his hands--more than likely, good champagne--and he would socialize, kindly and without pretension or ambition, at great length. But not too long, if you know what I mean.
He had an edge, though. A keen wit, a bit anarchic. There was something of the Marx Brothers in him, somehow. A bit of Groucho, a bit of Harpo--much taller and more handsome, of course.
Maybe he came by it naturally, from his family's background. Officially, his mother brought his family from Egypt, via Paris. As I knew he was Jewish by origin, I asked him about that one day. It turns out the migration, which ended finally in triumph and a measure of security, was even more complex and unlikely (to most of us): his grandfather was forced from Smyrna (now Izmir) in Turkey to Egypt, during the period after World War I when non-Turks of all types were expelled.**
It seems that he and his family sought, and ultimately found, some stability and safety in this world of woe. Once he found it, he stayed with it--to the end.
I am saddened at his passing, and at its sudden nature. I am a little consoled by the quality he brought to his life and the joy he brought to all those around him.
* I'm sticking with my position that the decade isn't over until the end of 2010.
** Turkey and Israel: one thing that they have in common is good reason to take a selective stance toward the Right of Return.
Early Oscar Picks
I was pretty outraged by many of the winners of the Golden Globes for movies (less opinion about the TV, but I've fallen in love with 30 Rock, which lost this year).
A lot of it comes from the Globes' signature distinction from the Oscars, the division of movie awards between those for "Drama" and those for "Musical or Comedy". The problem would seem to be the dearth of worthwhile musicals or comedies. Thus, the award for best actor in a musical or comedy went to Robert Downey, Jr. for his performance in the musico-comedic classic role of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes? Are you kidding? Or trying to sing me a song?
I'll get to my other objections in the discussion of specific awards. Suffice on the dichotomy question to say I will not be breaking the range of films into the categories that the Globes do.
One other preface: There are a whole raft of films that I have not seen. Some it is "their" fault, as the film has simply not been distributed well, or not yet--at any rate I haven't had a chance to see them, even if I wanted: falling into that category are "Young Victoria", "The Last Station" (I was a fan of the book and want badly to see it), "Crazy Heart" (feel like I've seen it before; not keen on seeing this year's version), "The Lovely Bones" (just arriving--I'll look but I'm skeptical) and "A Single Man" (Coen brothers--haven't seen it yet but will, just a matter of time and opportunity). There are some that have visited our little town, but I haven't seen them, so I have only the excuse that I'm not getting freebies, here: "Invictus" (though I was interested), "Precious" (too much so for me), "Brothers", "500 Days of Summer", "Its Complicated", and "Nine" (just got here--might see it just for the beauties).
Still, I think when you add up the number of good films I have seen, plus the potential from those I haven't, this past year stacks up as a very good one.
Best Film: Both Globes' choices--"Avatar" and "The Hangover"--are dismal ones. "Avatar" might stand up in a decade or so for its technical achievements, but it has too many major flaws to be considered this year's best. "The Hangover" (my nephew got it on DVD for Christmas, so I didn't have to pay) was pretty stupid and not particularly funny, plus it wasted the talent(!) of Heather Graham (in comedy, she's been much better, in either Steve Martin's "Bowfinger" or Mike Myers' "Austin Powers").
"Julie & Julia" was in the M&C group, so it would've been a superior choice. As for drama, give me the nominated "Up in the Air" or "Hurt Locker", or better yet, "Where the Wild Things Are" or the funniest movie of the year, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (neither of which were nominated for anything, as far as I can see). My choice: Where The Wild Things Are.
Best Actor: I've already complained about Downey in M&C. Best drama actor award went to Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart". My choice: George Clooney in "Up in the Air": I've decided that he really was acting and not just being an egotistical jerk in the early, confident part of the movie.
Best Actress: OK, they did give these to the right people, I think: Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side" and Meryl Streep for "Julie and Julia" (over Streep for "It's Complicated). I'd also like to see the nominated performances by Helen Mirren in "The Last Station" and Emily Blunt in "Young Victoria". Which will win: Bullock's role of her lifetime vs. Yet another brilliant Streep performance? I'd go with Bullock as the likely winner, but I'd choose Streep's. My choice: Meryl Streep in "Julie and Julia".
Best Director: Here, the choice of James Cameron for his signal achievement in creating "Avatar"seems more appropriate (at least they didn't nominate him for his story), and I could accept his winning. In fact, all the nominees but one (Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker", Clint Eastwood for "Invictus"--I'm guessing here, and Jason Reitman for "Up in the Air") are good ones, excepting that I would put Spike Jonze in "Wild Things" way over Quentin Tarantino for "Inglorious Bastards" (sp).
Like most Tarantino movies, the best thing about "I.B." was the music soundtrack (though I would've chosen the "Cat People (Putting Out Fire with Gasoline)" version with the flaming Stevie Ray Vaughan guitar solos over the quiet one he used, and I would've used it in the climactic scene rather than the build-up). My Choice: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker" (which never came to town, but I got it on PPV recently).
Supporting Actress: Here the Globes give up on their splittist logic and give only one award (MoNique for "Precious"). I see they had both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from "Up in the Air", both worthy but probably ensuring neither could win--I'd have put Farmiga's under lead actress. My Choice: Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air".
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds" got the Globe. It was a nice slimy performance and not a bad choice. I haven't seen the other four nominated performances, though I've heard good buzz for Woody Harrelson's in "the Messenger", and doubt Christopher Plummer's in "The Last Station" should be considered a supporting role. My choice: None yet.
Best Animated Film: This category is getting more lively each year. The Oscar should be between "Up" (odds-on favorite) and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (not nominated by the Globes); I'd be happy with either. My choice: The Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Screenplay: Here the Oscars are the splittists, with one award for original and one for adapted (and sometimes the line is fuzzy for them, too). I give credit to "the Foreign Press Association" for nominating "District 9", which had a script that was way, way out there. In terms of originality, it's tops. Nominating Tarantino must have been a joke, in my view.
The actual award went to Reitman and Sheldon Turner for "Up in the Air", which had both great dialogue and some quality narration. I'll buy that. My choice: Reitman and Turner, "Up in the Air" (original), and I'm going to guess adapted screenplay will go to "The Last Station" and not "Where the Wild Things Are", which was perhaps adapted a bit too much for some.
A lot of it comes from the Globes' signature distinction from the Oscars, the division of movie awards between those for "Drama" and those for "Musical or Comedy". The problem would seem to be the dearth of worthwhile musicals or comedies. Thus, the award for best actor in a musical or comedy went to Robert Downey, Jr. for his performance in the musico-comedic classic role of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes? Are you kidding? Or trying to sing me a song?
I'll get to my other objections in the discussion of specific awards. Suffice on the dichotomy question to say I will not be breaking the range of films into the categories that the Globes do.
One other preface: There are a whole raft of films that I have not seen. Some it is "their" fault, as the film has simply not been distributed well, or not yet--at any rate I haven't had a chance to see them, even if I wanted: falling into that category are "Young Victoria", "The Last Station" (I was a fan of the book and want badly to see it), "Crazy Heart" (feel like I've seen it before; not keen on seeing this year's version), "The Lovely Bones" (just arriving--I'll look but I'm skeptical) and "A Single Man" (Coen brothers--haven't seen it yet but will, just a matter of time and opportunity). There are some that have visited our little town, but I haven't seen them, so I have only the excuse that I'm not getting freebies, here: "Invictus" (though I was interested), "Precious" (too much so for me), "Brothers", "500 Days of Summer", "Its Complicated", and "Nine" (just got here--might see it just for the beauties).
Still, I think when you add up the number of good films I have seen, plus the potential from those I haven't, this past year stacks up as a very good one.
Best Film: Both Globes' choices--"Avatar" and "The Hangover"--are dismal ones. "Avatar" might stand up in a decade or so for its technical achievements, but it has too many major flaws to be considered this year's best. "The Hangover" (my nephew got it on DVD for Christmas, so I didn't have to pay) was pretty stupid and not particularly funny, plus it wasted the talent(!) of Heather Graham (in comedy, she's been much better, in either Steve Martin's "Bowfinger" or Mike Myers' "Austin Powers").
"Julie & Julia" was in the M&C group, so it would've been a superior choice. As for drama, give me the nominated "Up in the Air" or "Hurt Locker", or better yet, "Where the Wild Things Are" or the funniest movie of the year, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (neither of which were nominated for anything, as far as I can see). My choice: Where The Wild Things Are.
Best Actor: I've already complained about Downey in M&C. Best drama actor award went to Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart". My choice: George Clooney in "Up in the Air": I've decided that he really was acting and not just being an egotistical jerk in the early, confident part of the movie.
Best Actress: OK, they did give these to the right people, I think: Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side" and Meryl Streep for "Julie and Julia" (over Streep for "It's Complicated). I'd also like to see the nominated performances by Helen Mirren in "The Last Station" and Emily Blunt in "Young Victoria". Which will win: Bullock's role of her lifetime vs. Yet another brilliant Streep performance? I'd go with Bullock as the likely winner, but I'd choose Streep's. My choice: Meryl Streep in "Julie and Julia".
Best Director: Here, the choice of James Cameron for his signal achievement in creating "Avatar"seems more appropriate (at least they didn't nominate him for his story), and I could accept his winning. In fact, all the nominees but one (Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker", Clint Eastwood for "Invictus"--I'm guessing here, and Jason Reitman for "Up in the Air") are good ones, excepting that I would put Spike Jonze in "Wild Things" way over Quentin Tarantino for "Inglorious Bastards" (sp).
Like most Tarantino movies, the best thing about "I.B." was the music soundtrack (though I would've chosen the "Cat People (Putting Out Fire with Gasoline)" version with the flaming Stevie Ray Vaughan guitar solos over the quiet one he used, and I would've used it in the climactic scene rather than the build-up). My Choice: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker" (which never came to town, but I got it on PPV recently).
Supporting Actress: Here the Globes give up on their splittist logic and give only one award (MoNique for "Precious"). I see they had both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from "Up in the Air", both worthy but probably ensuring neither could win--I'd have put Farmiga's under lead actress. My Choice: Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air".
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds" got the Globe. It was a nice slimy performance and not a bad choice. I haven't seen the other four nominated performances, though I've heard good buzz for Woody Harrelson's in "the Messenger", and doubt Christopher Plummer's in "The Last Station" should be considered a supporting role. My choice: None yet.
Best Animated Film: This category is getting more lively each year. The Oscar should be between "Up" (odds-on favorite) and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (not nominated by the Globes); I'd be happy with either. My choice: The Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Screenplay: Here the Oscars are the splittists, with one award for original and one for adapted (and sometimes the line is fuzzy for them, too). I give credit to "the Foreign Press Association" for nominating "District 9", which had a script that was way, way out there. In terms of originality, it's tops. Nominating Tarantino must have been a joke, in my view.
The actual award went to Reitman and Sheldon Turner for "Up in the Air", which had both great dialogue and some quality narration. I'll buy that. My choice: Reitman and Turner, "Up in the Air" (original), and I'm going to guess adapted screenplay will go to "The Last Station" and not "Where the Wild Things Are", which was perhaps adapted a bit too much for some.
A Few Brief Sports Notes
If I'm going to be watching NFL games, then it must be playoff time. This weekend's conference championship games feature a couple of matchups of new powers vs. a couple of old, or at least familiar, faces.
The AFC's championship has a featured storyline: two weeks before the end of the season, the Indy Colts had a perfect record, but they pulled old familiar Peyton Manning in the third quarter. The New York Jets took advantage of the situation, bagged backup QB Scott Painter, and won a game that was critical for them to make the playoffs. Now, having pulled off a couple of upsets, they face the Colts again.
Instead, I'm reminded of the most famous postseason game in history, the game that made the Super Bowl the circus spectacle it is today: the famous Colts-Jets Super Bowl III when Joe Namath and the Jets pulled off the great upset. Colts-Jets Super Bowl rematch can never happen again, since the Colts came over to the AFC, but the Jets have great momentum and look primed to pull off another great upset.
The Jets' top-ranked defense may be the only one with a chance to stop the new New Orleans Saints and their offensive juggernaut. The Minnesota Vikings, with their aged star Brett Favre, will have the chance this week.
NBA
The winners of the All-Star voting will be announced this week. The suspense is whether two stars who've lost luster will win spots through the voting that they would otherwise have no chance of making on the merit of their 2009-10 play: Tracy McGrady in the Western Conference and Allen Iverson in the Eastern. Both have been in second place, good for a starting spot, in the positional voting in their respective conferences, which has caused the experts to call for a recall and to get the public out of the process.
At the midway point of the season, there's a scramble for dominance among four teams in the East, and a clear leader (L.A.) with a couple of hungry challengers in the West. In the East, my pick for Conference champ, Cleveland, seems to be getting it together, while defending E.C. champion Orlando is struggling with injuries and poor team chemistry. The Atlanta Hawks have emerged as a real threat, with the potent young combination of Joe Johnson and big men Josh Smith and Al Horford, and the Celtics remain the veteran choice, who may be the odds-on favorite if they go into the playoffs with Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace both healthy and productive.
In the West, it's Can Anybody Stop the Lakers? again. Andrew Bynum has emerged as the top center, as if they needed to improve, while Ron Artest is another, unpredictable factor in their favor. The best hopes for the rest of us are the Denver Nuggets, if they can stay healthy, and the rejuvenated San Antonio Spurs, who have some new weapons to add to Duncan-Parker-Ginobili in shooting guard Roger Mason, beefy rookie DeJuan Blair, and Richard Jefferson, who is beginning to become acclimated to the Spurs' system.
EPL
(I refuse to call the English Premier League "Barclays". They didn't pay me for the privilege.)
At just past the midway point, this appears to be the most competitive Premier League season in the 15 years or so that I have followed it closely (before that, there wasn't really enough coverage in the US to follow it). At the top, there is a three-team race--Chelsea, Manchester United, and Arsenal--with all three within a match or so of each other (number of matches played is not exactly the same). Handicapping its eventual outcome is not easy: Chelsea has done best against the other top teams, while Arsenal has shown the most exciting capability (at least when healthy), and Manchester United, of course, has a tradition of making late-season runs. What is different this year is that all three have occasionally been vulnerable on the road against lesser teams. Big games are coming up at the end of January between Arsenal and Man U., followed a week later by one between Chelsea and Arsenal.
Also different this year is the absence of the fourth member of the Big Four, Liverpool, from the top of the table. Liverpool is in a bunch of some five teams a good distance behind the top three and does not appear to be capable of pulling away from them. It's the emergence of those other four--Everton, Aston Villa, Birmingham, and especially well-funded Manchester City--that is the most exciting development for the league as a whole.
I have to say that I am optimistic about Chelsea's chances in the League (and the Champions League, too, for that matter). They have done a good job of holding onto their talent and depth. A good thing, too, because some tampering misdeeds have hampered their ability to pick up anyone during the midyear transfer period. Their 1-2 punch of Drogba and Anelka has been outstanding (Drogba is off in African play for awhile, and star midfielder Michael Essien got hurt there, but we'll be all right for the moment); their defense has been solid if not inspired, and they seem to have recovered the confidence they showed during the Mourinho-coached period under Carlo Ancelotti.
NCAAM
(as ESPN abbreviates it)
I try to follow college basketball, though it's hard to see much continuity beyond the Coaches' personalities. The players go by so fast--at least the best ones, the ones with NBA aspirations.
My loyalties, though, were largely fixed in the '60's: faves are Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and more recently, New Mexico; and peeves are UCLA, North Carolina, and Duke.
It is thus with great pleasure that I have watched UK's Wildcats, which are now the only undefeated major college team left (after Texas lost last night). The infamous John Calipari has come to Lexington and drawn several prized prospects, for one year or for more we shall see. Greatest among them is John Wall, who I feel safe in saying is the best college point guard since Chris Paul (notwithstanding Calipari's penultimate, Derrick Rose, whose admission to Memphis has since been tainted--let's hope Wall's will never be).
I'm just getting acquainted with the teams, and there's a long way to go, so it's hard to say anything about UK's prospects, but it's clear that Wall is a steady hand of the sort that is absolutely critical to winning in the NCAA tournament. He scores--and well--when he needs to; otherwise, he sets up the numerous, talented athletes Calipari's brought in (last year's UK squad didn't make the NCAA field). I try to be agnostic about coaches and their ego shows; my loyalty to the jersey goes above and beyond such things.
The AFC's championship has a featured storyline: two weeks before the end of the season, the Indy Colts had a perfect record, but they pulled old familiar Peyton Manning in the third quarter. The New York Jets took advantage of the situation, bagged backup QB Scott Painter, and won a game that was critical for them to make the playoffs. Now, having pulled off a couple of upsets, they face the Colts again.
Instead, I'm reminded of the most famous postseason game in history, the game that made the Super Bowl the circus spectacle it is today: the famous Colts-Jets Super Bowl III when Joe Namath and the Jets pulled off the great upset. Colts-Jets Super Bowl rematch can never happen again, since the Colts came over to the AFC, but the Jets have great momentum and look primed to pull off another great upset.
The Jets' top-ranked defense may be the only one with a chance to stop the new New Orleans Saints and their offensive juggernaut. The Minnesota Vikings, with their aged star Brett Favre, will have the chance this week.
NBA
The winners of the All-Star voting will be announced this week. The suspense is whether two stars who've lost luster will win spots through the voting that they would otherwise have no chance of making on the merit of their 2009-10 play: Tracy McGrady in the Western Conference and Allen Iverson in the Eastern. Both have been in second place, good for a starting spot, in the positional voting in their respective conferences, which has caused the experts to call for a recall and to get the public out of the process.
At the midway point of the season, there's a scramble for dominance among four teams in the East, and a clear leader (L.A.) with a couple of hungry challengers in the West. In the East, my pick for Conference champ, Cleveland, seems to be getting it together, while defending E.C. champion Orlando is struggling with injuries and poor team chemistry. The Atlanta Hawks have emerged as a real threat, with the potent young combination of Joe Johnson and big men Josh Smith and Al Horford, and the Celtics remain the veteran choice, who may be the odds-on favorite if they go into the playoffs with Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace both healthy and productive.
In the West, it's Can Anybody Stop the Lakers? again. Andrew Bynum has emerged as the top center, as if they needed to improve, while Ron Artest is another, unpredictable factor in their favor. The best hopes for the rest of us are the Denver Nuggets, if they can stay healthy, and the rejuvenated San Antonio Spurs, who have some new weapons to add to Duncan-Parker-Ginobili in shooting guard Roger Mason, beefy rookie DeJuan Blair, and Richard Jefferson, who is beginning to become acclimated to the Spurs' system.
EPL
(I refuse to call the English Premier League "Barclays". They didn't pay me for the privilege.)
At just past the midway point, this appears to be the most competitive Premier League season in the 15 years or so that I have followed it closely (before that, there wasn't really enough coverage in the US to follow it). At the top, there is a three-team race--Chelsea, Manchester United, and Arsenal--with all three within a match or so of each other (number of matches played is not exactly the same). Handicapping its eventual outcome is not easy: Chelsea has done best against the other top teams, while Arsenal has shown the most exciting capability (at least when healthy), and Manchester United, of course, has a tradition of making late-season runs. What is different this year is that all three have occasionally been vulnerable on the road against lesser teams. Big games are coming up at the end of January between Arsenal and Man U., followed a week later by one between Chelsea and Arsenal.
Also different this year is the absence of the fourth member of the Big Four, Liverpool, from the top of the table. Liverpool is in a bunch of some five teams a good distance behind the top three and does not appear to be capable of pulling away from them. It's the emergence of those other four--Everton, Aston Villa, Birmingham, and especially well-funded Manchester City--that is the most exciting development for the league as a whole.
I have to say that I am optimistic about Chelsea's chances in the League (and the Champions League, too, for that matter). They have done a good job of holding onto their talent and depth. A good thing, too, because some tampering misdeeds have hampered their ability to pick up anyone during the midyear transfer period. Their 1-2 punch of Drogba and Anelka has been outstanding (Drogba is off in African play for awhile, and star midfielder Michael Essien got hurt there, but we'll be all right for the moment); their defense has been solid if not inspired, and they seem to have recovered the confidence they showed during the Mourinho-coached period under Carlo Ancelotti.
NCAAM
(as ESPN abbreviates it)
I try to follow college basketball, though it's hard to see much continuity beyond the Coaches' personalities. The players go by so fast--at least the best ones, the ones with NBA aspirations.
My loyalties, though, were largely fixed in the '60's: faves are Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and more recently, New Mexico; and peeves are UCLA, North Carolina, and Duke.
It is thus with great pleasure that I have watched UK's Wildcats, which are now the only undefeated major college team left (after Texas lost last night). The infamous John Calipari has come to Lexington and drawn several prized prospects, for one year or for more we shall see. Greatest among them is John Wall, who I feel safe in saying is the best college point guard since Chris Paul (notwithstanding Calipari's penultimate, Derrick Rose, whose admission to Memphis has since been tainted--let's hope Wall's will never be).
I'm just getting acquainted with the teams, and there's a long way to go, so it's hard to say anything about UK's prospects, but it's clear that Wall is a steady hand of the sort that is absolutely critical to winning in the NCAA tournament. He scores--and well--when he needs to; otherwise, he sets up the numerous, talented athletes Calipari's brought in (last year's UK squad didn't make the NCAA field). I try to be agnostic about coaches and their ego shows; my loyalty to the jersey goes above and beyond such things.
At Long Last, Snow!
We got some really nice, fluffy snow today--first time in almost a month. More than welcome--not just a lack of sufficient snow cover, even in the mountains, but the ground was getting dry.
Now that the fog is lifting, we see the world with new beauty, and it will be a powder day tomorrow!
Now that the fog is lifting, we see the world with new beauty, and it will be a powder day tomorrow!
The Bay State By-Election
Today is the day Massachusetts voters go to the polls in a special election to fill the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy (Paul Kirk has occupied it on an interim basis until this election). Democrat Martha Coakley is in a tight race with a smooth-talking, telegenic Tea-bagger, Scott Brown.
National Democratic figures have been appealing for help in near-panicky tones in the past two weeks, since polls showed Coakley's margin of lead narrowing, then disappearing entirely.
Scott has run a campaign with national overtones, declaring that he is running to be the 41st Senator to stop President Obama's program, and specifically to stop the healthcare bill, which is still awaiting the completion of the final set of compromises to produce a single, identical bill to be passed in both Houses of Congress. It is not an idle threat; the delicate formula which got exactly the necessary 60 votes in the Senate could be easily upset, and Brown's vote replacing Kirk's could either throw the thing into new chaos or stop it dead in its tracks.
I have been unmoved to act, though. First, I am being tight with my contributions this season--at least until my cash flow improves. Second, I am unfamiliar with Coakley; while I'm sure she'd be immeasurably better than a Republican, and a Tea-bagger at that, I don't feel comfortable calling Massachusians (or whatever they are; that's what some of the John Kerry-type emails were asking me to do) and telling them how they should vote, and why.
I have to start from the point of view that there should be no way Coakley could lose in Massachusetts; if there is, there's something wrong with her, her campaign, or something not apparent about Massachusetts voters. As Timothy Egan pointed out in an excellent "Opinionator" column on the NY Times blog, Massachusetts is already familiar with "Obamacare"--it's called "Romneycare" there. The approach Congress is legislating for health care insurance reform is very much the same one Massachusetts approved a few years ago with Mitt Romney as governor: mandated private coverage with subsidies. The results, by the way, seem to be: success in increasing coverage, no improvement in the cost curve, private insurers more pleased than the public. So, while I'm sure Massachusetts voters may have qualms about the national program, there isn't much of a self-interest involved (except if there were an increase in Medicare taxes, which isn't happening yet), and I doubt it's just altruistic concern for the rest of us that is floating Brown's boat.
Instead, it's just a matter of turnout for the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, and the party machinery doing what it is supposed to be able to do.
Finally, I am not one who believes that one Senate vote is going to wreck Obama's legislative program. I would still bet that Coakley will win--narrowly--but if she doesn't, there are several ways remaining to skin the healthcare cat (listed in order of my preference):
o) Find a new, better compromise, maybe the "potwt" (public option trigger with teeth), and get the vote of Olympia Snowe;
o) Find legislative maneuvers to get the bill through the Senate with less than 60 votes;
o) If the vote is close, hold up the decision through recounts until Kirk & Co. can vote on the current compromise, or something similar (the Republicans held up Al Franken's becoming a senator for six months in 2009, so it would serve them right);
o) The House can simply approve the Senate's version of the bill--then there is no further vote necessary in the Senate (I don't like this option much, and I don't think it's likely); or, worst case,
o) If the vote is not close, hold up the swearing-in of Massachusetts' new junior senator until the deed is snuck through. The blowback from this would be heavy, but the Republicans have done as bad, or worse, and gotten away with it. Six months from now, no one may care, and five years from now, the ruse may be praised. It's not as though there isn't a Senate majority in favor of the bill.
Still, I don't question that the by-election has significance--going down the road with other legislative battles, to be sure. There is no hope to change the filibuster rules in this Congress--that would require two-thirds vote in the Senate--though I do think the Democrats should make plans to implement a new modified cloture rule for the next Congress (approval of rules at the beginning of the new Congress in 2011 should require only a simple majority, if I understand it correctly). There are going to be other issues coming up where party-line voting will prevail and the support of the few moderate Republicans will be critical. In England, by-elections like this can be huge drivers of political momentum, even bringing down governments; that won't happen here, but it will definitely be a wake-up alert to possible catastrophic danger if the Democrats can't even win in Massachusetts.
I'll post a comment once the results are known.
National Democratic figures have been appealing for help in near-panicky tones in the past two weeks, since polls showed Coakley's margin of lead narrowing, then disappearing entirely.
Scott has run a campaign with national overtones, declaring that he is running to be the 41st Senator to stop President Obama's program, and specifically to stop the healthcare bill, which is still awaiting the completion of the final set of compromises to produce a single, identical bill to be passed in both Houses of Congress. It is not an idle threat; the delicate formula which got exactly the necessary 60 votes in the Senate could be easily upset, and Brown's vote replacing Kirk's could either throw the thing into new chaos or stop it dead in its tracks.
I have been unmoved to act, though. First, I am being tight with my contributions this season--at least until my cash flow improves. Second, I am unfamiliar with Coakley; while I'm sure she'd be immeasurably better than a Republican, and a Tea-bagger at that, I don't feel comfortable calling Massachusians (or whatever they are; that's what some of the John Kerry-type emails were asking me to do) and telling them how they should vote, and why.
I have to start from the point of view that there should be no way Coakley could lose in Massachusetts; if there is, there's something wrong with her, her campaign, or something not apparent about Massachusetts voters. As Timothy Egan pointed out in an excellent "Opinionator" column on the NY Times blog, Massachusetts is already familiar with "Obamacare"--it's called "Romneycare" there. The approach Congress is legislating for health care insurance reform is very much the same one Massachusetts approved a few years ago with Mitt Romney as governor: mandated private coverage with subsidies. The results, by the way, seem to be: success in increasing coverage, no improvement in the cost curve, private insurers more pleased than the public. So, while I'm sure Massachusetts voters may have qualms about the national program, there isn't much of a self-interest involved (except if there were an increase in Medicare taxes, which isn't happening yet), and I doubt it's just altruistic concern for the rest of us that is floating Brown's boat.
Instead, it's just a matter of turnout for the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, and the party machinery doing what it is supposed to be able to do.
Finally, I am not one who believes that one Senate vote is going to wreck Obama's legislative program. I would still bet that Coakley will win--narrowly--but if she doesn't, there are several ways remaining to skin the healthcare cat (listed in order of my preference):
o) Find a new, better compromise, maybe the "potwt" (public option trigger with teeth), and get the vote of Olympia Snowe;
o) Find legislative maneuvers to get the bill through the Senate with less than 60 votes;
o) If the vote is close, hold up the decision through recounts until Kirk & Co. can vote on the current compromise, or something similar (the Republicans held up Al Franken's becoming a senator for six months in 2009, so it would serve them right);
o) The House can simply approve the Senate's version of the bill--then there is no further vote necessary in the Senate (I don't like this option much, and I don't think it's likely); or, worst case,
o) If the vote is not close, hold up the swearing-in of Massachusetts' new junior senator until the deed is snuck through. The blowback from this would be heavy, but the Republicans have done as bad, or worse, and gotten away with it. Six months from now, no one may care, and five years from now, the ruse may be praised. It's not as though there isn't a Senate majority in favor of the bill.
Still, I don't question that the by-election has significance--going down the road with other legislative battles, to be sure. There is no hope to change the filibuster rules in this Congress--that would require two-thirds vote in the Senate--though I do think the Democrats should make plans to implement a new modified cloture rule for the next Congress (approval of rules at the beginning of the new Congress in 2011 should require only a simple majority, if I understand it correctly). There are going to be other issues coming up where party-line voting will prevail and the support of the few moderate Republicans will be critical. In England, by-elections like this can be huge drivers of political momentum, even bringing down governments; that won't happen here, but it will definitely be a wake-up alert to possible catastrophic danger if the Democrats can't even win in Massachusetts.
I'll post a comment once the results are known.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Reading Iranian Tea-Leaves
A news item last week from Tehran gives some insight on the complicated Iranian domestic political scene.
A Tehran University professor of physics, named Masoud Ali Mohammed, was killed near his home by a large remote-detonated explosion. The Iranian news reports claimed that the deed was done by Israelis, Americans, and internal enemies of the government. The presumption in that allegation was that Mohammed was engaged in vital research toward the development of Iran's nuclear capability, and that thus Israel/US interests were served by taking him out.
Implicit in that report is that Iran is actually doing anything with nuclear power that would threaten Israeli/American security (although an imaginative liar could probably stretch the truth so far as to say that it would be some sort of threat what they did with peaceful nuclear energy).
The plot thickens with the added detail (from acquaintances of the deceased) that he had encouraged his students to participate in Green demonstrations against the Iranian regime. Also, that his specialty is quantum theory.
These two facts give the lie to the Iranian allegation--there is very little of theory involved with the production of nuclear weapons these days; it's about the technical details of centrifuges, collecting the enhanced uranium, and creating the proper physics to detonate it.
So, the strategy by the Iranian perpetrators is to eliminate a prestigious opponent that could somewhat plausibly be identified as a possible target for foreign spies.
I would suggest that even if Mohammed were involved in research more vital to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it might have made sense to kill him off as a political enemy of the regime. Their long-term strategy, it would seem most likely, is to move all the way to the verge of deliverable nuclear warheads--not actually to use them (a move which would be suicidal). The run-up to that stage gives great opportunities to try to extort concessions from the West, so it should be prolonged.
Iran has reneged on all forms of the proposal to exchange their enhanced uranium for better-quality, non-weapons-grade material (after what appeared to be a pretty active internal debate). It is time to apply stiffer sanctions on Iran, particularly ones aimed at the individuals heading the administration and military, so that they don't see this blackmail opportunity phase to be so enjoyable.
A Tehran University professor of physics, named Masoud Ali Mohammed, was killed near his home by a large remote-detonated explosion. The Iranian news reports claimed that the deed was done by Israelis, Americans, and internal enemies of the government. The presumption in that allegation was that Mohammed was engaged in vital research toward the development of Iran's nuclear capability, and that thus Israel/US interests were served by taking him out.
Implicit in that report is that Iran is actually doing anything with nuclear power that would threaten Israeli/American security (although an imaginative liar could probably stretch the truth so far as to say that it would be some sort of threat what they did with peaceful nuclear energy).
The plot thickens with the added detail (from acquaintances of the deceased) that he had encouraged his students to participate in Green demonstrations against the Iranian regime. Also, that his specialty is quantum theory.
These two facts give the lie to the Iranian allegation--there is very little of theory involved with the production of nuclear weapons these days; it's about the technical details of centrifuges, collecting the enhanced uranium, and creating the proper physics to detonate it.
So, the strategy by the Iranian perpetrators is to eliminate a prestigious opponent that could somewhat plausibly be identified as a possible target for foreign spies.
I would suggest that even if Mohammed were involved in research more vital to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it might have made sense to kill him off as a political enemy of the regime. Their long-term strategy, it would seem most likely, is to move all the way to the verge of deliverable nuclear warheads--not actually to use them (a move which would be suicidal). The run-up to that stage gives great opportunities to try to extort concessions from the West, so it should be prolonged.
Iran has reneged on all forms of the proposal to exchange their enhanced uranium for better-quality, non-weapons-grade material (after what appeared to be a pretty active internal debate). It is time to apply stiffer sanctions on Iran, particularly ones aimed at the individuals heading the administration and military, so that they don't see this blackmail opportunity phase to be so enjoyable.
Haiti's Agony
The 7.0-magnitude earthquake centered near Haiti's capital of Port-au-Prince Tuesday was just what the country did not need. Haiti was making some progress in recovering from massive damage suffered from 2008 hurricanes. Damage in the capital is widespread, and the country has little infrastructure to deal with those injured and trapped. Follow-up reports tell of bodies of the dead lining the roads, millions of people unable or unwilling--due to aftershocks--to return to their homes, and the national governmant is essentially unable to assist.
I have received a deluge of urgent email requests for donations. As with the tsunami in S.E. Asia and earthquakes in Pakistan and Turkey in recent years, I have no doubt Americans will heed the call. My recommendations are groups that were already in place in Haiti: Doctors Without Borders (or MSF--Medecins Sans Frontiers), and the U.N. Foundation. The U.N. had significant presence in Haiti and have suffered tragic losses, as have other aid groups.
In the short run, there will be heroic efforts to save some of the trapped and injured, but we must soon look to the long-term problems Haiti will face, which basically run the gamut. Former President Bill Clinton has been committed to Haiti for years as Special Envoy from the U.N., and he will look to rally investment there. I feel that we are looking at a serious case of nation building, whether we like it or not (and despite our long, troubled history of ineffective meddling in Haitian politics). The alternative--to let the country slide into chaos, anarchy, disease, without relief for its poverty--is inconceivable. President Obama has put the Navy to Haiti's assistance, and his email messages to his network ask for donations to the Red Cross (a third group to recommend).
The only positive spin I can put on this disaster--despite the best efforts, it will be too late for so many unfortunates trapped in crushed buildings--is that Rush Limbaugh may have finally put himself beyond the pale, even for Republicans and many of his ditto-heads. Intemperate comments by Limbaugh include blaming Obama for playing politics with Haiti (no evidence at all of that) for racial reasons, and discouraging contributions to aid Haiti. Is Rush --who just had bypass surgery, for which he paid "the American way", with cash--having a relapse with the pain pills?
I have received a deluge of urgent email requests for donations. As with the tsunami in S.E. Asia and earthquakes in Pakistan and Turkey in recent years, I have no doubt Americans will heed the call. My recommendations are groups that were already in place in Haiti: Doctors Without Borders (or MSF--Medecins Sans Frontiers), and the U.N. Foundation. The U.N. had significant presence in Haiti and have suffered tragic losses, as have other aid groups.
In the short run, there will be heroic efforts to save some of the trapped and injured, but we must soon look to the long-term problems Haiti will face, which basically run the gamut. Former President Bill Clinton has been committed to Haiti for years as Special Envoy from the U.N., and he will look to rally investment there. I feel that we are looking at a serious case of nation building, whether we like it or not (and despite our long, troubled history of ineffective meddling in Haitian politics). The alternative--to let the country slide into chaos, anarchy, disease, without relief for its poverty--is inconceivable. President Obama has put the Navy to Haiti's assistance, and his email messages to his network ask for donations to the Red Cross (a third group to recommend).
The only positive spin I can put on this disaster--despite the best efforts, it will be too late for so many unfortunates trapped in crushed buildings--is that Rush Limbaugh may have finally put himself beyond the pale, even for Republicans and many of his ditto-heads. Intemperate comments by Limbaugh include blaming Obama for playing politics with Haiti (no evidence at all of that) for racial reasons, and discouraging contributions to aid Haiti. Is Rush --who just had bypass surgery, for which he paid "the American way", with cash--having a relapse with the pain pills?
2010 Resolutions
For my first post of the year, I want to start off positive--which is one of my three resolutions for the year:
1) Be more positive in the blog.
2) Get a job--I'm coming out of semi-retirement--but not just any job; do something on the job front each day.
3) Get in better shape--my goal is to be in the best shape since 30 years ago (when I was young enough that it didn't matter what I did).
1) Be more positive in the blog.
2) Get a job--I'm coming out of semi-retirement--but not just any job; do something on the job front each day.
3) Get in better shape--my goal is to be in the best shape since 30 years ago (when I was young enough that it didn't matter what I did).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
