I'm one who firmly believes that decades (or centuries/millennia) begin with numbers ending with 1 and end with numbers ending in 0. To bolster my position, one factual argument: You will never find a reference to the Year 0--either B.C. or A.D.--because there isn't one. Therefore, the first millennium A.D. must've begun with Year One (just saw the movie, by the way--good fun!), and, logically, this one began with 2001.
In terms of the worst events of this decade now ending, then, the 2000 election, or even the Supreme Court decision which finalized it, was clearly disqualified from consideration, totally last century. Bush's inauguration was the inauspicious beginning to this decade, century, and millennium, and that level of dissatisfying event has pretty much maintained. It is much easier to come up with the worst 10 things of the decade (see below)*, so I'm going to focus on the more difficult task of identifying the good.
(Note: Last year I did yield to the prevailing mode and list the 10 best rock albums of 2000-2009 and my 10 favorite movies of that 10-year-period last year. I refer you to those for some detail in those two critical cultural areas, and I'd add that 2010 hasn't changed those judgments much or at all.)
I will go fairly broad with these, by category, adding more commentary as we approach the decade's best.
10.Conor Oberst/Bright Eyes I'd say the decade in popular music was pretty foul, probably the worst since the '50's, but Our Man from Nebraska has been prolific with quality product (a new Bright Eyes release is expected in February, 2011). As with Bob Dylan, one never knows what's next. Honorable mention to Dylan and to U2 for keeping it going, and to Green Day for their brilliant album "American Idiot". Finally, my friend Roger McNamee and his wife Ann McNamee have enriched my experience of this decade with their bands the Flying Other Brothers and Moonalice, and I will of course mention my personal favorite, the uncredited cut from the FOB's "52-Week High" CD, the satiric "Dubya".
9. Broadband/Wi-fi Writing from a home in which I have to go outside to talk on my cellphone, I'm one who thinks American mobile is less than it's cracked up to be, and I don't want more apps, just basic functionality for my phone. I'm not all that impressed with the progress in other digital applications, like iPod, video games, or YouTube, either. The speed and capability of the Internet, and the ease of access, though, are real improvements in American lives.
8. Satellite TV Offsetting the continuing, precipitous decline in the quality of network television is the broadening of broadcast alternatives, headed by what is inertially still called "cable"--examples being HBO, the Comedy Channel, expansion of sports availability, business news, etc. And while satellite doesn't always deliver--bad weather has more effect than it should--it's on the right track. And on the subject of broadcasting, satellite radio is Sirius-ly a positive, too.
7. The Coen Brothers And I say that without even having seen "True Grit" (I'm planning to go today). My Best of Year posting will come out next month, when normal people like me will have had a chance to see the late releases, but the body of work in the past ten years from Joel and Ethan is most impressive, even if not uniformly brilliant. Same comments go for Clint Eastwood, though I think he's running a bit dry on ideas.
Two more areas of note in film: Fantasy production has clearly taken off, probably in a sustainable way, with "Lord of the Rings", "Avatar 3-D", and the continuing pipeline of quality animation being three landmark examples. In the reality-based world, the BBC's "Planet Earth" documentary series provided the most stunning natural photography ever seen--given the trends in natural extinction, probably the best there will ever be. I mistakenly omitted it from my best film list last year.
6. David Mitchell This guy has risen to the top of my heap of writers of book-length fiction, with Cloud Atlas (2004) being the best of the best. In non-fiction, I didn't get to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) until 2001, but its impact remains unsurpassed.
In a personal note, got to give a plug to my friend Muhammad Cohen and his first published novel, Hong Kong on Air (2007); a very rewarding read on China's takeover of Hong Kong, TV news production, and ladies' lingerie.
There's some hope that the digital tsunami will not wash away book publishing the way it seems to be doing to music. If I'm not mistaken, the last decade set all-time records for number of new titles. The kindles and such will still provide royalties for writers; while editors are still very much needed, book publishers as gatekeepers may not be so critical.
5. Fareed Zakaria He's my headliner for what I mean to be discussion of "other print" (and I use the latter word loosely), but he's also got a strong TV show (GPS, on CNN)--"strong" may be the wrong word, as he has probably a minuscule audience but exceptional informational value. Mr. Z. has a prodigious range, covering economics and politics everywhere (including the US, which he puts in proper perspective) with depth of knowledge and wisdom. His departure from Newsweek, though, means I'm going to cut down on my periodical time (a subscription to Time seems unlikely), which I hope to make up by reading more books.
The decline in the business model for newspapers and magazines is well-reported (what could be closer to journalists' top of mind?), but I'm not sure if that necessarily means a decline in the level of public information--it's certainly out there, and easier to consume than ever before. In the long run, I can anticipate government payouts to individuals who are willing to keep themselves informed (and be tested on it)--if we're going to subsidize good behavior through tax code, why not subsidize our civic education? If we were to do that, though, we should require individuals to read something other than just echoes of their own opinions. I'd watch Fox News and read the National Review if I got paid for it!
I should also mention the rise and rise of blogs and websites with broad participation. None of this can be bad for literacy, even if it's not apparent. Twitter, not so much; Facebook, the jury's out.
4. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Bono. The downside of the economic crisis has been the collapse of small-scale charitable contribution; the economy is impoverishing all but the upper crust. This is finding a silver lining in the gathering storm of economic inequality, but the four I've mentioned (and some others, like Hollywood celebs, ex-Presidents) are establishing new standards for transnational, big-money philanthropy. Not just megabucks, but very carefully considered, globalized manna for the suffering masses.
Do they make up for the failures of foreign aid (in the US, ever more closely tied to military objectives) and international organizations like the UN? Not even close. Their efforts might even perpetuate false notions about the benefits of capitalism, but at least they are aimed at decreasing dependency.
3. Third World Rising OK, it's a misnomer: the Second World--who remembers?--was the Communist empire headed by the Soviet Union and Mao's Red China, and it no longer exists. The countries I'm referring to--India, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, and the Commie/capitalist chimera China heading the list from this decade--should now be considered the Second World, along with a few, like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Israel, who'd already made the grade. The Third World should refer to countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, South Africa, Argentina, UAE, and Russia, ones which are making real progress but unevenly, and the Fourth World are the states that are failing or in danger of doing so.
Anyway, the emergence of this Second World is an unmixed benefit to global society; those in the First World who react with fear to its rise are way out of line. "American exceptionalism" is a valid concept, in the sense that the US has a great gift--or several of them--for the posterity of humanity, but not if it means that we have to focus on our separation from the advancement of everyone else in a zero-sum struggle for superiority. Fortunately, I see no chance that that sort will be able to have their way.
2. The 2008 Election.And while we're at it, throw in the surprise success in the 2006 US Congressional elections which helped the stage for '08.
I'm not sure how much more I need to say about it. Even for those who supported the losing side, the event--and the '09 inauguration of President Obama which followed--had its appeal. The setbacks of 2010, for me, were just the low energy trough following the 2008 wave's peak. I'm not sure whether the waves of 2012 and beyond will carry to new heights or just bear the ship of state a bit further along, but I'm optimistic they won't suck us under. Maybe the ardently-desired demise of the Republicans as a major party is too much to ask, but I see plenty of evidence that time and demography are working against them.
1. Family and Friends. As I've often said, most Americans are either over-employed or under-employed. I switched from the first category to the second in 2003, and the benefit has been in the amount of time I can devote to family and friends--no regrets in that regard. Although I have lost some relatives and some dear friends in this decade, for the most part mine have been healthy and happy. In particular I am grateful that my parents--both in their eighties, now--are surviving and still undiminished, and for the vigor of my wife and children.
Happy New Year--and Happy New Decade!
*Bottom 10: 10. Reality TV and amateur performance shows. 9. CSI TV shows and 24. 8. The 2009 Citizens United decision, and the removal of limits for campaign contributions for certain organizations (but not for individuals?) 7. The 2004 Election (and its predecessor, the 2002 election). 6. Climate Change (and the failure to do anything about it). 5. The Economic Crisis (a/k/a The Great Crater). 4. Natural Disasters: Earthquakes, tsunami, Katrina, and Haiti, Haiti, Haiti. 3. September 11, 2001 and its aftermath. 2. The Iraq Invasion, and Bushite Misrule (2001-2009) generally. 1. Vampire movies and books.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
This Duck Has Flown
I congratulate the departing 111th Congress on its successful lame-duck session--and I question why some are reacting to this unusually rapid legislative progress by suggesting that lame-ducks be banned in the future.
The key to breaking the logjam was the agreement between President Obama and the Republican Senate leadership on the tax cut extension. Minority Leader McConnell had a signed document from all 42 of the Republican senators pledging to block all progress until the tax cut bill was resolved. That held up (mostly) in a couple of test votes, and in practical terms it meant there would be nothing done in the lame-duck unless the President gave in on the sacred tax cut extensions for high-income earners (for some period of time). The deal made--which, somewhat suprisingly, stuck unchanged through both houses of Congress--came out better than expected, in terms of some additional provisions (like extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary reduction in FICA payroll taxes, and accelerated deductions for business expansion) which may actually have some positive effect on stimulating the economy.
Once the deal was done, progress came quickly on the extremely important START2 nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the moderately important repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allowing gays to serve openly in our armed forces, food safety, defense authorization, and others, too.
Unlike some, I don't see this progress as a harbinger of significant future bipartisan cooperation. These were all provisions which had been out there for some time, the political effects were generally advantageous or relatively unimportant, and they were bills the Democrats needed now--before the new Congress came in. When logs hit slower waters--as with the DREAM Act, to allow legal immigration for some undocumented who wanted to contribute to our country, or with a massive spending bill--the votes for cloture in Senate were not there.
If campaigning is poetry, governing prose, then the outlook for the text of the next two years is going to be something even more boring: repetitive language lessons, or something impenetrable like software manuals, legislative language, or the tax code. Speaking of which, it seems everyone is psyched to tackle that Augean stable, and there is no handy stream to route through it: value-added-tax is a political non-starter (if enacted, it would be a career-killer for its supporters, so it won't be), as is a flat tax, and the mortgage deduction--in these times of continuing declining home values--would be touched only at great danger of electrocution. I see nothing happening on that front, possibly some preliminary progress towards a longer-term plan to reduce the budget deficit that could happen after 2012--one which will require a prolonged, uninterrupted recovery which may not prove possible--and a very long, boring series of failed attempts to legislate budget cuts and crippling provisions against the health insurance reforms passed early this year.
Fortunately, I think the US economy--but not necessarily the stock, capital, or commodity markets--will improve slowly and steadily over the next 18 months. Our Airship of State is approaching the lip of the Great Crater, and the gentle slope might allow us to achieve a successful takeoff. As that happens, we need to ease off the throttle a bit and not pull up too sharply on the flaps--trying for too steep a climb is likely to lead to a fatal, inflationary stall. The tipoff for recognition that we are on a sustainable flight path will be an announcement in about 4-6 months that the Fed will end its Quantitative Easing with the current second round.
The key to breaking the logjam was the agreement between President Obama and the Republican Senate leadership on the tax cut extension. Minority Leader McConnell had a signed document from all 42 of the Republican senators pledging to block all progress until the tax cut bill was resolved. That held up (mostly) in a couple of test votes, and in practical terms it meant there would be nothing done in the lame-duck unless the President gave in on the sacred tax cut extensions for high-income earners (for some period of time). The deal made--which, somewhat suprisingly, stuck unchanged through both houses of Congress--came out better than expected, in terms of some additional provisions (like extension of unemployment benefits, a temporary reduction in FICA payroll taxes, and accelerated deductions for business expansion) which may actually have some positive effect on stimulating the economy.
Once the deal was done, progress came quickly on the extremely important START2 nuclear arms treaty with Russia, the moderately important repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" allowing gays to serve openly in our armed forces, food safety, defense authorization, and others, too.
Unlike some, I don't see this progress as a harbinger of significant future bipartisan cooperation. These were all provisions which had been out there for some time, the political effects were generally advantageous or relatively unimportant, and they were bills the Democrats needed now--before the new Congress came in. When logs hit slower waters--as with the DREAM Act, to allow legal immigration for some undocumented who wanted to contribute to our country, or with a massive spending bill--the votes for cloture in Senate were not there.
If campaigning is poetry, governing prose, then the outlook for the text of the next two years is going to be something even more boring: repetitive language lessons, or something impenetrable like software manuals, legislative language, or the tax code. Speaking of which, it seems everyone is psyched to tackle that Augean stable, and there is no handy stream to route through it: value-added-tax is a political non-starter (if enacted, it would be a career-killer for its supporters, so it won't be), as is a flat tax, and the mortgage deduction--in these times of continuing declining home values--would be touched only at great danger of electrocution. I see nothing happening on that front, possibly some preliminary progress towards a longer-term plan to reduce the budget deficit that could happen after 2012--one which will require a prolonged, uninterrupted recovery which may not prove possible--and a very long, boring series of failed attempts to legislate budget cuts and crippling provisions against the health insurance reforms passed early this year.
Fortunately, I think the US economy--but not necessarily the stock, capital, or commodity markets--will improve slowly and steadily over the next 18 months. Our Airship of State is approaching the lip of the Great Crater, and the gentle slope might allow us to achieve a successful takeoff. As that happens, we need to ease off the throttle a bit and not pull up too sharply on the flaps--trying for too steep a climb is likely to lead to a fatal, inflationary stall. The tipoff for recognition that we are on a sustainable flight path will be an announcement in about 4-6 months that the Fed will end its Quantitative Easing with the current second round.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Mor(e)on the NBA
In a press availability quoted the other day, LeBron James said that he thought the NBA was better in the '80's, when there were 10 teams with two or three All-Stars each, and implied that contraction back toward the 24 teams of that era (from today's 30) would be healthy for the league.
With all due respect to the King, that's a bunch of baloney. The '80's NBA was full of bad teams--many of them (Kings, Clippers, Cavaliers) are the same that are bad now. If there was such parity, why was it Celtics-Lakers every year in the championship?
On the other hand, this season is shaping to be a Golden Era-type season with at least a half-dozen teams of true championship caliber.* There will be fantastic Conference finals, even some great Conference semifinals, not just a good Finals matchup.
Then, it will all be screwed up--and I blame the owners, as usual. They caused the problem with excessively generous contracts to second-tier players; now they want to dump their problem on everyone else: the fans, the players, I'm sure they'll blame the networks, the ball and sneaker manufacturers. The answer to their problems, though, is not a work stoppage and contraction, but better marketing and expansion--of their minds.
There are certainly bad, money-losing franchises, but I can't think of any bad NBA cities--places which don't turn out committed fans for good teams. I'd say move the Clippers and Nets to South America and Europe, respectively--let them play a few "home" games in their old cities (ones that already have successful franchises, so they won't lose so much), and watch the merchandise money flow in as never before. Asia and Australia would make sense, too, in an expansion--not contraction--to 32 teams (which would work better, as the NFL has shown). There's plenty of top-quality talent in the world to fill out that number of teams. Oh, and change the name to the "WBA".
*The obvious ones are Miami, Boston, and (post-blockbuster trade) Orlando in the East, along with the Lakers, the perennially contending Spurs, and the Mavericks (Dirk and Co. looking better than ever this year). One should also include in the mix the rising Chicago Bulls, the Utah Jazz, and Oklahoma City Thunder, and there are a couple of other dark horse challengers (Phoenix, New Orleans, Denver, and the surprising New York Knicks).
With all due respect to the King, that's a bunch of baloney. The '80's NBA was full of bad teams--many of them (Kings, Clippers, Cavaliers) are the same that are bad now. If there was such parity, why was it Celtics-Lakers every year in the championship?
On the other hand, this season is shaping to be a Golden Era-type season with at least a half-dozen teams of true championship caliber.* There will be fantastic Conference finals, even some great Conference semifinals, not just a good Finals matchup.
Then, it will all be screwed up--and I blame the owners, as usual. They caused the problem with excessively generous contracts to second-tier players; now they want to dump their problem on everyone else: the fans, the players, I'm sure they'll blame the networks, the ball and sneaker manufacturers. The answer to their problems, though, is not a work stoppage and contraction, but better marketing and expansion--of their minds.
There are certainly bad, money-losing franchises, but I can't think of any bad NBA cities--places which don't turn out committed fans for good teams. I'd say move the Clippers and Nets to South America and Europe, respectively--let them play a few "home" games in their old cities (ones that already have successful franchises, so they won't lose so much), and watch the merchandise money flow in as never before. Asia and Australia would make sense, too, in an expansion--not contraction--to 32 teams (which would work better, as the NFL has shown). There's plenty of top-quality talent in the world to fill out that number of teams. Oh, and change the name to the "WBA".
*The obvious ones are Miami, Boston, and (post-blockbuster trade) Orlando in the East, along with the Lakers, the perennially contending Spurs, and the Mavericks (Dirk and Co. looking better than ever this year). One should also include in the mix the rising Chicago Bulls, the Utah Jazz, and Oklahoma City Thunder, and there are a couple of other dark horse challengers (Phoenix, New Orleans, Denver, and the surprising New York Knicks).
Friday, December 17, 2010
Mandate in Jeopardy?
About 20 states have filed suits of various kinds against the requirement for individuals to get health insurance that was approved in the health reform bill passed early this year. Even though the requirement does not come into effect for years, Republican state Attorney Generals are looking to block the requirement at the roots as part of their resistance of the "Federal takeover" of healthcare (a phrase recently, and correctly, named "the Lie of the Year" by PolitiFact, an organization that researches bogus claims in the political arena).
The claim from these state AG's is that the Federal government has never previously required citizens to buy a specific product in the marketplace, so that this would be a new power being taken on without precedent. (Auto insurance, for example, can be required of people who drive autos, but one can walk or take the train.) It seems clear that one or more states will find sympathetic judges, so that this one will eventually go to the Supreme Court. There, I would expect the four hardcore right-wingers to oppose the mandate (or anything else coming out of this Administration), so that the decision will fall, as usual, on the unpredictable whim of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The time to start influencing him on this--if anyone can figure out how to do that (perhaps get to his staffers? a prostitute seducing him?)--is now.
If the mandate falls, the whole edifice of the reform will be shaky: without coverage requirements, the number of people not covered will be reduced very little (we are talking about easy money for the insurance companies for the majority of those people, who are currently healthy and think themselves invulnerable, or are just unwilling to pay the insurers). That will mean those who have pre-existing conditions will be priced out of the market, and that public hospitals will continue to be flooded with emergency room costs for people with no insurance. We'll be back to where we started, only having lost years and any semblance of cost controls.
I wonder if the mandate would be judged more constitutional if there WERE a public option? I also wonder what the backup plan would be--a Constitutional amendment? a relaxation of the (already pretty minimal) fines eventually contemplated for those who refused to buy? Perhaps best would be an expansion of the "entitlement" of Medicare/Medicaid to cover catastrophic health problems for all, and scale back other publicly-subsidized coverage.
The claim from these state AG's is that the Federal government has never previously required citizens to buy a specific product in the marketplace, so that this would be a new power being taken on without precedent. (Auto insurance, for example, can be required of people who drive autos, but one can walk or take the train.) It seems clear that one or more states will find sympathetic judges, so that this one will eventually go to the Supreme Court. There, I would expect the four hardcore right-wingers to oppose the mandate (or anything else coming out of this Administration), so that the decision will fall, as usual, on the unpredictable whim of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The time to start influencing him on this--if anyone can figure out how to do that (perhaps get to his staffers? a prostitute seducing him?)--is now.
If the mandate falls, the whole edifice of the reform will be shaky: without coverage requirements, the number of people not covered will be reduced very little (we are talking about easy money for the insurance companies for the majority of those people, who are currently healthy and think themselves invulnerable, or are just unwilling to pay the insurers). That will mean those who have pre-existing conditions will be priced out of the market, and that public hospitals will continue to be flooded with emergency room costs for people with no insurance. We'll be back to where we started, only having lost years and any semblance of cost controls.
I wonder if the mandate would be judged more constitutional if there WERE a public option? I also wonder what the backup plan would be--a Constitutional amendment? a relaxation of the (already pretty minimal) fines eventually contemplated for those who refused to buy? Perhaps best would be an expansion of the "entitlement" of Medicare/Medicaid to cover catastrophic health problems for all, and scale back other publicly-subsidized coverage.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Tax Us Not
The 2012 election campaign begins--two years early--with something like a consensus: it never seems to be unpopular to argue for reduced taxes, and the Senate squashed any thought of filibuster on the Obama-McConnell tax deal by a decisive 83-15 margin today.
I foresee that the angry House Democrats will respond by leaving the estate tax compromise out of their version of the legislation, as they have already passed a reinstatement of the tax at a higher level. This will begin a Congressional stare-down between the House Democrats and Senate Republicans: who will want the tax cuts more, enough to accept the other side's version of the estate tax? I don't know which will blink first, but as in any staring contest, it's just a matter of time, because both eventually would have to do it.
President Obama will get to sign a stimulus bill as his Christmas present, one larger than he should've expected. Though most quarters would deny him any credit for successful political intervention in this case, he may yet get some econometric love--for a President, the most valuable kind. If the 2011 economic recovery is strong, even if unemployment remains doggedly high, he could enjoy a surge of support that would make him a strong favorite for re-election.
The only question I have is how to turn off the gas. McConnell and Obama's agreement on two years for the extension of most of the tax reductions means that we will be facing the renewal issue again in 2012. I would argue that, regardless of whether the tax cut stimulus works this time or not, it will be high time to end all of the tax cut extensions then. But will there be any politician bold enough to agree with that? Doubtful.
I see Obama already pivoting--not to the right, but toward the hoop: the next ploy will be to re-work the tax code. If several large deductions are phased out, as the deficit reduction commission's various proposals suggest, tax rates won't need to rise to get more revenue. Mortgage holders and state income tax payers should beware.
I foresee that the angry House Democrats will respond by leaving the estate tax compromise out of their version of the legislation, as they have already passed a reinstatement of the tax at a higher level. This will begin a Congressional stare-down between the House Democrats and Senate Republicans: who will want the tax cuts more, enough to accept the other side's version of the estate tax? I don't know which will blink first, but as in any staring contest, it's just a matter of time, because both eventually would have to do it.
President Obama will get to sign a stimulus bill as his Christmas present, one larger than he should've expected. Though most quarters would deny him any credit for successful political intervention in this case, he may yet get some econometric love--for a President, the most valuable kind. If the 2011 economic recovery is strong, even if unemployment remains doggedly high, he could enjoy a surge of support that would make him a strong favorite for re-election.
The only question I have is how to turn off the gas. McConnell and Obama's agreement on two years for the extension of most of the tax reductions means that we will be facing the renewal issue again in 2012. I would argue that, regardless of whether the tax cut stimulus works this time or not, it will be high time to end all of the tax cut extensions then. But will there be any politician bold enough to agree with that? Doubtful.
I see Obama already pivoting--not to the right, but toward the hoop: the next ploy will be to re-work the tax code. If several large deductions are phased out, as the deficit reduction commission's various proposals suggest, tax rates won't need to rise to get more revenue. Mortgage holders and state income tax payers should beware.
Julian's Wiki Leaks Upon Us
...freedom's a joke we're just taking a piss
And the whole world must watch the sad comic display
If you're still free start running away.
Because we're coming for you. --Bright Eyes, "Landlocked Blues"
I couldn't resist the quote--made early in the days of the Iraq invasion--from one of my favorite songs of this millennium. It's not exactly on point when it comes to Julian Assange's Wiki-Leaks dump (OK, not quite a dump, more a pisciata, to use the Italian), but there are a few relevant similarities. One is that "freedom" is here being used to spray junk indiscriminately; another is that our diplomacy's workings are here being displayed for effects both "sad" and "comic".
I have to retract some of my comments in my previous post on Wiki-Leaks, though. I thought the first round of leaked documents had a specific purpose: to reveal the weak spots in our Afghan campaign. I didn't really agree with the objective, but to me it was an expression of free press that recalled the Pentagon Papers. This round is more indiscriminate; it seems to be an abuse. Pvt. Manning's alleged release of the documents (another aspect I had wrong last time) and Assange's posting of them seem to have had no reason other than to show that they could. I agree with Secretary of State Clinton and others who have pointed out that, for the most part, the documents provide a vindication of the efforts of our diplomatic corps, all over the world.
There are plenty of victims, some deserving and some less so. The fact that the head of Yemen's government took credit for strikes on his domestic terrorists when we did them doesn't surprise nor appall, though it might cause some loss of face. The criticisms of Afghan President Karzai don't say much new, either; he may be erratic (zigzagging because of the tightrope he walks), his government corrupt (but still I haven't seen any accusations against him personally), but he remains indispensable for our hopes. The description of Italian P.M. Silvio Berlusconi as "feckless, vain, and ineffective" is right on target, and the disclosure may be (finally!) the straw that breaks his government's back. My reading of the situation there is that the government is capable and has adequate confidence from the public (despite the withdrawal of the neo-Fascist faction headed by Gianfranco Fini), but everyone is sick unto death of seeing and hearing him. Secretary Clinton will survive, but her department has been embarrassed by its inability to keep its secret opinions under wraps and her political fortunes have suffered a deep wound.
Rather than the leaks themselves and any possible purpose in them, what I see resulting are a variety of unintended consequences. The openness and access to the diplomatic cables which a young Army intelligence officer could access, copy, and slip into the hands of an unprincipled rogue were the product of an attempt to allow policy-makers all sorts of information to allow them to "connect the dots", a signal failure of our intelligence in the time leading up to 9/11, but now dots will once again be dissociated. Cyber wars break out as unnamed parties attack Wiki-leaks and sympathetic attackers go after those that deny services to them. American diplomats will find more secure ways to transmit and hide their most sensitive assessments. Assange will once again be forced to confront the peculiarities of sex crime laws in Sweden, and the U.S. Department of Justice will examine centuries-old laws to see if they provide some conceivable justification for indictment and possible extradition.
When I was younger, back in the days of Watergate cover-ups and Vietnam deceptions, I challenged my high school civics teacher: why did a democracy need secrecy? I still believe foreign policy options should be debated openly, and facts need to be presented so the public can weigh upon them (even if those issues rarely if ever rise to the importance on the electorate of the domestic economy). What the Wiki-Leaks provide, though, especially this round's disclosures, is something much less than facts, and generally don't meet our "need to know" test.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sports Notes
Heisman: Cam--Shaft or Be Shafted?
Cam Newton of Auburn was loaned the Heisman tonight by an overwhelming vote margin. There was no doubt that Cam was the top player in college football this year, leading the number one team and coming up with dozens of key plays, both passing and running the ball. The only question was whether he could keep his eligibility to play through the season (OK, there was some doubt whether Auburn would win all its games, but I'm not even sure that would've been required for him to establish his claim to the trophy). Given the quality of his performance and that his team surmounted every obstacle to finish the regular season undefeated, his landslide victory was assured.
Newton is without doubt an outstanding pro college player and should be successful in the NFL, when he will be beyond the threat of investigation. I have little doubt that his trophy will ultimately suffer the same fate as Reggie Bush's--'05 winner Bush surrendered his claim recently when allegations of major payoffs from when he played in college at USC were substantiated. The only allegations against Newton established during this season were that his father negotiated for payoffs with a college (Mississippi State) that Newton, who was coming out of junior college, didn't end up attending this year. That just means that MSU wasn't the highest bidder--Auburn was-- but there is no evidence yet to support that suspicion.
Heisman voters were faced with a difficult choice: to ignore the impropriety, or deny the award to the clear top player of the season. A significant number refused to name Newton on their ballots, but many more accepted the assumption of innocence for Cam (his father was disinvited from the Heisman ceremony).
Not Completely BCS This Year
The NCAA got lucky: there were exactly two teams from automatic-berth major conferences who went undefeated this year, so their national championship game has some legitimacy (for once). The critical break for their hopes to have a fair 1 vs. 2 matchup was Auburn's come-from-behind 28-27 win over last year's champion Alabama. Auburn and Oregon may not be the best two teams in the country, but they did manage to get through without a loss. A third major-college team went undefeated, the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University, but their conference and schedule difficulty don't rate so highly, so they could be safely excluded.
The other BCS pairings are less impressive: TCU, which has just announced they will degrade themselves and the Big East conference by bringing their football prowess to that top basketball conference in a couple of years, got a matchup with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl: a good test for TCU's claims to belong in the big time, but a matchup between Stanford (loser of one game, to Oregon) and Wisconsin would've been more in line with Rose Bowl's traditional Big X-Pacific pairing. Instead, Stanford got bumped to the Orange Bowl and a game with ACC survivor Virginia Tech. The real disaster of the BCS is the Fiesta Bowl with 8-4 Big East "champion" Connecticut vs. Oklahoma. And there's another game, I guess. And about 30 other bowl games, including a lot of teams with 7-5 records.
For a really fine flaming of a BCS conehead's public defense of his system (printed in the USA Today recently), see this blog. I refer you also to my post at the start of the college football season.
In Other Sports News
A couple of weeks ago, everyone couldn't stop talking about how the Miami Heat were disappointing everyone and their young coach was doomed and Lebron and Dwayne couldn't play together because they had the same games. All it took was their seven-game win streak since then to shut all that nonsense up: clearly the Heat have enough to blow away all the mediocre teams and win 60 games or so. There's still a question whether the Heat will be a good playoff team, able to get past the second round, and in particular whether they will be able to deal with the Celtics whenever they end up facing them. Next to that question, the theoretically more important question of whether anyone--in any round--can beat the Lakers seems less significant. The Heat-Celtics question, and the future of the next year's season, are the critical dramas that will have to remain unanswered for the next four or five months while the regular season plays itself out.
I'm not a Formula One fan, but the finish of this season with four car/drivers in the running until the last day, and the win by the youngest, nearly unknown driver (whose name continues to escape me) must rank fairly highly in the history of this perpetual snoozefest.
The Yankees and Red Sox have reacted swiftly and instinctively to their unsuccessful campaigns (success defined by a minimum of reaching the World Series): they've whipped out their checkbooks and started writing zeroes--lots of them. The Dodgers, who are waiting for the courts to figure out who will own them, have not been idle, either. It would seem to be a return to normalcy in baseball after this exciting season with the likes of the Giants, Rays, Reds, and Rangers unaccustomedly showing up in the postseason.
I was pulling for Tiger Woods to win that last tournament of the season so that we could have another theme for golf coverage besides when would he ever win again. Unfortunately, he lost a lead on Sunday (unheard of, in the pre-scandal Woods history) and ended up losing in the first hole of a sudden-death playoff. I do think Tiger will pick one up in the early-season Hawaii segment of the tour so we can move on.
I almost forgot to mention the NFL, and this is the time of year when it gets interesting. Early-season league-wide parity, approaching universal mediocrity, has given way to a settling out of the cream and the sediment, and the identity of most of the playoff teams has emerged. In the NFC, the most riveting question now is whether the Eagles, with reinvigorated convict Michael Vick playing quarterback not just better than anyone else right now, but better than anyone can remember, will make it to the playoffs at all. If not, the defending champion Saints look a good bet to make it back to the Super Bowl. In the AFC, last week's Jets-Patriots game established New England as the favorite for that conference, though they could get knocked off their perch in the playoffs by either the Jets or Baltimore Ravens, if either can get their defense up to the challenge that Tom Brady presents.
Finally, I'm strongly rooting for someone to knock Duke's block off in college basketball, so we can look at the wide variety of talent and tons of competitive teams out there, but we may have to wait--in a weak ACC season--for a long time. Perhaps a much-desired early-round upset in the tournament itself.
Cam Newton of Auburn was loaned the Heisman tonight by an overwhelming vote margin. There was no doubt that Cam was the top player in college football this year, leading the number one team and coming up with dozens of key plays, both passing and running the ball. The only question was whether he could keep his eligibility to play through the season (OK, there was some doubt whether Auburn would win all its games, but I'm not even sure that would've been required for him to establish his claim to the trophy). Given the quality of his performance and that his team surmounted every obstacle to finish the regular season undefeated, his landslide victory was assured.
Newton is without doubt an outstanding pro college player and should be successful in the NFL, when he will be beyond the threat of investigation. I have little doubt that his trophy will ultimately suffer the same fate as Reggie Bush's--'05 winner Bush surrendered his claim recently when allegations of major payoffs from when he played in college at USC were substantiated. The only allegations against Newton established during this season were that his father negotiated for payoffs with a college (Mississippi State) that Newton, who was coming out of junior college, didn't end up attending this year. That just means that MSU wasn't the highest bidder--Auburn was-- but there is no evidence yet to support that suspicion.
Heisman voters were faced with a difficult choice: to ignore the impropriety, or deny the award to the clear top player of the season. A significant number refused to name Newton on their ballots, but many more accepted the assumption of innocence for Cam (his father was disinvited from the Heisman ceremony).
Not Completely BCS This Year
The NCAA got lucky: there were exactly two teams from automatic-berth major conferences who went undefeated this year, so their national championship game has some legitimacy (for once). The critical break for their hopes to have a fair 1 vs. 2 matchup was Auburn's come-from-behind 28-27 win over last year's champion Alabama. Auburn and Oregon may not be the best two teams in the country, but they did manage to get through without a loss. A third major-college team went undefeated, the Horned Frogs of Texas Christian University, but their conference and schedule difficulty don't rate so highly, so they could be safely excluded.
The other BCS pairings are less impressive: TCU, which has just announced they will degrade themselves and the Big East conference by bringing their football prowess to that top basketball conference in a couple of years, got a matchup with Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl: a good test for TCU's claims to belong in the big time, but a matchup between Stanford (loser of one game, to Oregon) and Wisconsin would've been more in line with Rose Bowl's traditional Big X-Pacific pairing. Instead, Stanford got bumped to the Orange Bowl and a game with ACC survivor Virginia Tech. The real disaster of the BCS is the Fiesta Bowl with 8-4 Big East "champion" Connecticut vs. Oklahoma. And there's another game, I guess. And about 30 other bowl games, including a lot of teams with 7-5 records.
For a really fine flaming of a BCS conehead's public defense of his system (printed in the USA Today recently), see this blog. I refer you also to my post at the start of the college football season.
In Other Sports News
A couple of weeks ago, everyone couldn't stop talking about how the Miami Heat were disappointing everyone and their young coach was doomed and Lebron and Dwayne couldn't play together because they had the same games. All it took was their seven-game win streak since then to shut all that nonsense up: clearly the Heat have enough to blow away all the mediocre teams and win 60 games or so. There's still a question whether the Heat will be a good playoff team, able to get past the second round, and in particular whether they will be able to deal with the Celtics whenever they end up facing them. Next to that question, the theoretically more important question of whether anyone--in any round--can beat the Lakers seems less significant. The Heat-Celtics question, and the future of the next year's season, are the critical dramas that will have to remain unanswered for the next four or five months while the regular season plays itself out.
I'm not a Formula One fan, but the finish of this season with four car/drivers in the running until the last day, and the win by the youngest, nearly unknown driver (whose name continues to escape me) must rank fairly highly in the history of this perpetual snoozefest.
The Yankees and Red Sox have reacted swiftly and instinctively to their unsuccessful campaigns (success defined by a minimum of reaching the World Series): they've whipped out their checkbooks and started writing zeroes--lots of them. The Dodgers, who are waiting for the courts to figure out who will own them, have not been idle, either. It would seem to be a return to normalcy in baseball after this exciting season with the likes of the Giants, Rays, Reds, and Rangers unaccustomedly showing up in the postseason.
I was pulling for Tiger Woods to win that last tournament of the season so that we could have another theme for golf coverage besides when would he ever win again. Unfortunately, he lost a lead on Sunday (unheard of, in the pre-scandal Woods history) and ended up losing in the first hole of a sudden-death playoff. I do think Tiger will pick one up in the early-season Hawaii segment of the tour so we can move on.
I almost forgot to mention the NFL, and this is the time of year when it gets interesting. Early-season league-wide parity, approaching universal mediocrity, has given way to a settling out of the cream and the sediment, and the identity of most of the playoff teams has emerged. In the NFC, the most riveting question now is whether the Eagles, with reinvigorated convict Michael Vick playing quarterback not just better than anyone else right now, but better than anyone can remember, will make it to the playoffs at all. If not, the defending champion Saints look a good bet to make it back to the Super Bowl. In the AFC, last week's Jets-Patriots game established New England as the favorite for that conference, though they could get knocked off their perch in the playoffs by either the Jets or Baltimore Ravens, if either can get their defense up to the challenge that Tom Brady presents.
Finally, I'm strongly rooting for someone to knock Duke's block off in college basketball, so we can look at the wide variety of talent and tons of competitive teams out there, but we may have to wait--in a weak ACC season--for a long time. Perhaps a much-desired early-round upset in the tournament itself.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
In Memoriam: John Lennon
Today is the 30th anniversary of that sad day when John was shot. I was working late at the Troy (NY) Times-Herald sports department when I heard it. My editor was dismissive: I almost quit on the spot. I remember not being surprised, though: everybody knew he was at the Dakota; it just took one jerk.
Anyway, here's a tough one: name your top 10 John Lennon songs, in order. (McCartney, Harrison, Starkey, you'll have your own days.)
To help, this site lists the authorship of all the Beatles' songs (it's Wikipedia, but well researched; I suggest just the ones by Lennon, or Lennon with McCartney); this site has all the songs from his recording career (including collaborations with Clapton, Zappa, Nilsson)--it's unwieldy, but if you want to try it, the ones with an "s" after it are from his solo career.
Here's my list:
10. I Want You (She's So Heavy)
9. #9 Dream (that's the one with "ah-hawakawa-pose-pose"--breaks me up every time)
8. Watching the Wheels
7. I'm Only Sleeping
6. Tomorrow Never Knows
5. Yer Blues
4. Mind Games
3. I Am the Walrus
2. Revolution
1. Instant Karma!
Finally, for those who are really challenged and want some additional help, here are names I somehow managed to exclude. First, qualifying names (primarily J.L.) from the Beatles list:
A Day in the Life, Across the Universe, And Your Bird Can Sing, Come Together, Glass Onion, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, If I Fell, I Feel Fine, In My Life, It's Only Love, Julia, Lucy in the Sky with diamonds, Mean Mr. Mustard, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Revolution 9, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, Sexy Sadie, Strawberry Fields Forever, Sun King, Tell Me Why, The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Ticket to Ride, You Know My Name (Look up my Number), You've Got to Hide Your Love Away.
And from his solo career: Beautiful Boy, Cold Turkey, How Do You Sleep, Imagine, I Don't Want to Be A Soldier, I'm Losing You, Jealous Guy, Just Like Starting Over, Mother, Oh Yoko!, Power to the People, Give Peace a Chance, Give Me Some Truth, Going Down on Love (?), Happy Xmas (War is Over), Woman, Working Class Hero, Whatever Gets You Thru the Night, and Woman is the Nigger of the World (with Yoko).
That wasn't so easy, now, was it?
Anyway, here's a tough one: name your top 10 John Lennon songs, in order. (McCartney, Harrison, Starkey, you'll have your own days.)
To help, this site lists the authorship of all the Beatles' songs (it's Wikipedia, but well researched; I suggest just the ones by Lennon, or Lennon with McCartney); this site has all the songs from his recording career (including collaborations with Clapton, Zappa, Nilsson)--it's unwieldy, but if you want to try it, the ones with an "s" after it are from his solo career.
Here's my list:
10. I Want You (She's So Heavy)
9. #9 Dream (that's the one with "ah-hawakawa-pose-pose"--breaks me up every time)
8. Watching the Wheels
7. I'm Only Sleeping
6. Tomorrow Never Knows
5. Yer Blues
4. Mind Games
3. I Am the Walrus
2. Revolution
1. Instant Karma!
Finally, for those who are really challenged and want some additional help, here are names I somehow managed to exclude. First, qualifying names (primarily J.L.) from the Beatles list:
A Day in the Life, Across the Universe, And Your Bird Can Sing, Come Together, Glass Onion, Happiness Is a Warm Gun, If I Fell, I Feel Fine, In My Life, It's Only Love, Julia, Lucy in the Sky with diamonds, Mean Mr. Mustard, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Revolution 9, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, Sexy Sadie, Strawberry Fields Forever, Sun King, Tell Me Why, The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Ticket to Ride, You Know My Name (Look up my Number), You've Got to Hide Your Love Away.
And from his solo career: Beautiful Boy, Cold Turkey, How Do You Sleep, Imagine, I Don't Want to Be A Soldier, I'm Losing You, Jealous Guy, Just Like Starting Over, Mother, Oh Yoko!, Power to the People, Give Peace a Chance, Give Me Some Truth, Going Down on Love (?), Happy Xmas (War is Over), Woman, Working Class Hero, Whatever Gets You Thru the Night, and Woman is the Nigger of the World (with Yoko).
That wasn't so easy, now, was it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
