Oscars early preview

Oscar nominations will come out Tuesday; after that, speculation will narrow on the horserace of a set of the anointed choices. So it's more fun to consider possibilities now, while they are relatively unlimited.

I will make some reference to conventional wisdom, here represented by moviefone's preview of nominees; their predicted (10) nominees for Best Picture will be noted with an asterisk (*) after the name of the flick. We also have strong indications of what we could expect from the Golden Globe awards from last weekend.

I would say that this year's entries are distinguished by their quantity rather than quality. Rather than a head-to-head battle of two or three movies across most categories, there are plenty of contenders from a large number of movies. This is not to say that there are not big favorites in some categories; clearly there are, but they are, again, spread from several movies. A common theme this year was the unsatisfactory ending--and I don't mean the absence of a happy ending, but one that suits the movie poorly--spoiling some good moments earlier on.

My approach will be to winnow down the pack with a few brief reviews, then focus a bit more on the best ones out there and what award categories they should feature. Once the nominees are actually out I'll post my picks by category of who I'd want to win, and who will win.

First, though, in the category of Longshot Late Entries, I note two movies that are just being released this weekend:
The Company Men--This movie was screened in last winter's Sundance festival, and so should be eligible for this round. It looks like "Up in the Air" in the sense of an attempt to capture the mood of the recession through some individuals (prominently Ben Affleck) who've lost their jobs and are suffering in their efforts to get back in the game. An orphan abandoned to January release by their Weinstein producers, I wish it well.
The Way BackThis movie by longtime fave Peter Weir is getting limited release--now, three weeks past year-end? There was probably some hidden theater somewhere that it was shown on December 31. I'm not sympathetic to the fact that it will probably have zero chance with that kind of crypto-release. The movie's supposed to be a defies-belief-true-story of escape from a gulag in Poland during WWII, all the way to central Asia; its facts are also supposed to be in dispute.

Briefly Noted and/or Demoted
Burlesque--old hat; may win for Best Song. Cristina Aguilera looks to be third place in Best Unacknowledged Pregnancy behind Natalie Portman and Jennifer Connelly.
Black Swan*--between bad ballet, creepy obsession, and S&M intimations, the movie you either didn't want to see or couldn't be allowed to see. Portman's the clear favorite for Best Actress.
Blue Valentine--Just like Black Swan, except a different color and poorer distribution, and its lead, Michelle Williams is a clear favorite to get a nomination and lose for Best Actress.
The Fighter* I've seen this movie just about every year. I didn't go, this time (nor for "The Wrestler", last year, or the last four episodes of "Rocky"). Christian Bale is a true talent and should win an Oscar sometime--it might be this year, for Supporting Actor.
Salt, The Tourist I'm afraid Angelina Jolie's family antics may be getting in the way of her career. "Salt" had some real excitement, but basically ruined it with an ending clearly designed to set up a sequel which, largely because of its lame ending, may never happen. "The Tourist" seemed more like a Bond-like improbable hijinks movie (no, I didn't go), but I noticed it had identified itself as "comedy" for the purpose of Golden Globe nominations (their musical/comedy class of awards is a notable, but bootless, effort to influence the Oscars into broadening beyond drama).
Knight and Day Apply above comments about Jolie and "Salt" to Tom Cruise and this one. Stupid ending ruined some good special effects.

Didn't See, Might've Liked
127 Hours I wish I'd gotten to this one last fall; it was released too early to do well with the Oscars without a big push; otherwise, this kind of incredible story (see "The Way Back" could've done very well indeed. James Franco will be nominated but won't win for Best Actor.
Winter's Bone* This movie's poor distribution seems a shame. Jennifer Lawrence will be nominated but won't win for Best Actress.
Get LowGreat cast, never came close to town. (Correction: It was listed at our local multiplex, but when I went to view it, it had been pulled--no explanation.) Robert Duvall is always a threat in any acting category.
Rabbit Hole It's hard to imagine that it would've been much as entertainment, but it did seem (from the previews) to be well-made. Hasn't made it here.
Never Let Me Go-- The book, by Anglophile Japanese Kazuo Ishiguro, was an amazing, difficult gut-wrencher; it's science fiction, about an alternative England which penalizes a few very heavily for the benefit of the many (don't want to spoil), and making the movie of it was a difficult ask because so much of the book is about the inner workings of the minds of people in a strange and difficult circumstance. Not having seen it, I don't know how well the movie works, but I would've liked to have had the chance to see it.

The Corral of O.K. Movies
Toy Story 3*--I couldn't believe the hype (or the box office) for this one: of the three T.S. movies, this one was clearly ranked #3 for me. The Holocaust imagery with toys in the incinerator was inappropriate and confusing.
Alice in Wonderland I don't think Johnny Depp's notoriety has destroyed his career yet, but his Mad Hatter show-stealing attempt probably didn't help it. Bad ending ruins good special effects and costumes.
HereafterAt this point, I'm willing to give serious consideration to any Clint Eastwood effort. This one was a bit too derivative of "The Sixth Sense" for me. Bad ending ruins great special effect (the tsunami in the first scene), and it did have some emotional heft before it became too obvious.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps As with Eastwood, I'll give a shot to most any Oliver Stone effort. Some of the early scenes, particularly the big facedown meetings where AIG and Lehman get eaten by their creditors, were very effective, essentially accurate fictionalized depictions of recent history. Michael Douglas and Josh Brolin were better than they were given credit, but I'll admit the ending was a mess. I don't agree with Frank Rich that TSN, and not this movie, is the true sequel to the '70's Wall Street.
The Ghost Writer--And like Eastwood and Stone, Polanski has earned a look from me for anything he does. This movie had some great aspects, in particular the Pierce Brosnan character who is a thinly-disguised version of Tony Blair (though the movie has him being assassinated) and "Blair's wife", who has an affair with our hero. The ending was chaotic, though, and there was an anti-US tone which was preachy and off-putting, even if I agreed with many of the sentiments underlying it.

The Second Circle
Inception* I had high hopes for this movie which were somewhat disappointed. Director Christopher Nolan somehow didn't get nominated for his work on "The Dark Knight"; he will get nominated for this one, instead, but he will be a big underdog to The Social Network's David Fincher. The award I would see it winning would be Art Direction--clearly, it had great storyboards.
The Social Network* I would accept that TSN had good production values, memorable (if obnoxious) characters, good acting by Jesse Eisenberg in the lead role (will be nominated but won't win). But what is the big deal, and how could it be the Best Picture of the year? At best, it leaves you flat; at worst, you feel cheated because there is no point.
The Kids are Alright* A pleasant, interesting movie about pleasant, interesting people. We root for everything to come out well for everyone, which of course is a little too much to be possible. Mark Rufalo probably deserves the nomination he'll get for Supporting Actor; Annette Bening probably less so for her lead Actress nom, and the film is marginal for a Best Picture nod. I resent the unacknowledged title theft--and slight spelling change--from the The Who documentary, reminding me of some un-memorable, overpraised, "inglourious" Quentin Tarantino WWII flick of a recent year.
The King's Speech* Watching the movie was painful, but I appreciated the ensemble acting, especially by the lead actors Colin Firth (heavy favorite for Best Actor), and probable nominee/losers Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush. Like TSN, though, my reaction is a little bit "what's the big deal?" In the scope of the drama of WWII, the English King's overcoming his stuttering to give a radio speech was hardly decisive.

The Inner Circle
The Town* I thought this intricately plotted action/heist movie was truly suspenseful at several levels. Probably the only real problems were the recycling of Boston blue-collar themes from "The Departed" and "Good Will Hunting" and the related overweening presence of Ben Affleck (writer, director, star). Actually, I'll be surprised if it does well at all in the nominations or on Oscar night.
True Grit* I'm not a fan of "grit", true or otherwise, and I remember hating the hamfest original version and the hoopla and Oscar given to John Wayne for it (though it did have Duvall and Dennis Hopper in bad-guy roles). I loved this movie, though, and movie audiences are apparently loving it, too. I rate it right at the top of the Coen Brothers' body of work, a notch below Miller's Crossing but above Raising Arizona or The Man Who Wasn't There (and, as better than TMWWNT, breaks into my Top 10 of the decade just ended), and a couple notches above their more-richly-awarded later works. Apparently the PG rating and popular subject has helped make it their most successful film yet from a commercial, first-run box office standpoint.
Still, I think it will be difficult for the film to win any actual Oscars (though it should get several nominations). Best Actor seems locked up for Firth, and Jeff Bridges won last year (for a lesser performance in "Crazy Heart"). The Coens themselves won prematurely (Director/Best Picture/Adapted Screenplay!) for "No Country for Old Men". One of the best features of "True Grit" was its dialogue, but that seems to have been largely taken verbatim from the Clinton Portis novel, and they've already won for Adapted Screenplay. Certainly worthy of award was the performance by young Hailie Steinfeld as Mattie; she was really in a lead role (along with Bridges), but I would rate her chances fairly low to win there, and it wouldn't be quite right to nominate her for Supporting Actress, where she'd have a good chance. Maybe Cinematography?
It's certainly defensible to criticize the Coens for taking the serious subjects of Western lawlessness, revenge, and murder too lightly--in this regard, the movie is probably less substantial than Eastwood's classic "Unforgiven", which covers similar ground (female seeking revenge through hired male and his guns). I don't think it's fair to criticize them for taking on the Western, as they have covered most other areas of typical American genre with a similar combination of homage and ironic detachment.
Fair Game This film got poor distribution, but it may have a longshot chance to be nominated for something. I would suggest Editing, Best Picture, and Best Actress as categories. This is the story of outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson (Naomi Watts) and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn), the beatdown they got from the Bush Administration for trying to spoil their little lies about Iraq's WMD (specifically, the allegation Iraq was trying to get uranium to build a nuclear weapon), and the exposure of the beatdown and the coverup around it. I've championed this cause for years, and this movie dramatizes, and brings to a very personal level, the story. My only complaint is a lack of closure in the cases of the Iraqi nuclear scientists Plame was (in the movie, at least) trying to get safely out of the country.
I think it's very fair to compare this movie to Best Picture favorite The Social Network, which is also dramatized history, covering a very similar range of recent history:

Five Reasons "Fair Game" (FG) is More of a Best Picture than "The Social Network" (TSN):
1. TSN is about self-entitled preppies who can't get laid; FG is about true patriots under huge psychological pressures.
2. FG has Naomi Watts as its lead actress; although set in a nominally coed university and Sillicon Valley, TSN does not have a female role worth mentioning.
3. As made up for the movie, Naomi Watts is a dead ringer for lovely Valerie Plame Wilson; Jesse Eisenberg is a pretty close imitation of nerdball Mark Zuckerberg.
4. FG is about the deceptions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans; TSN is about the (sarcasm follows) relatively much more important development of an Internet website used primarily to chat and flirt.
5. The viewer leaves TSN entertained but wondering "so what?", the viewer leaves FG sad for the victims, angry, and wondering "so what am I going to do?"

I'm still hoping that the success of the previous year's "Hurt Locker" will be an inspiration to Oscar voters. This is an independent film similarly worthy of praise.

Foo'ball Update

Last week (wild-card weekend) and this weekend (conference semifinals) are the best that the NFL can offer in terms of entertainment. These events have crept later--and may end up a week or two later still if the NFL makes good on its threat to extend the regular season from 16 to 18 games--but no matter: the league dictates when, and our eyes follow. Unless, of course, one has no interest at all in the modern version of team gladiatorial combat, which is certainly defensible.

I'm not such a fan that I know the rosters in detail, or care the slightest about the endless hoopla about the annual draft of college players, or watch preseason games. I sometimes catch a regular season game if I happen to be in front of the TV and the games interest me. We get the Broncos on the AFC local telecasts, which has been interesting in the past but is no more; but on the NFC we don't seem tied to any particular franchise, so we get what the network thinks we would like.

This year, it was a lot of Michael Vick and Brett Favre. The first was quite interesting to watch, the latter not so much. Vick wowed everyone in the middle part of the season--he was promoted to starter after the first-string Eagles QB Kolb went down--and did some things that some of the talking deadheads could not recall ever seeing. It was the combination of dynamic running, rollouts, good defense reads, and precision passing, and it was blowing defenses away. Some were reluctant to credit the convicted dog-killer, but seeing was believing, and most gave him credit for (finally) growing up. By the end of the regular season, though, NFL defenses were making adjustments--mostly by various blitz combinations--taking away the time Vick needed to make the big plays. The Eagles slid into the playoffs on the last weekend, facing a tough Packers defense with strong linebackers: blitzers who can also fall back and cover. So, one of the big questions of last weekend was how that would pan out.

The Eagles fell short in the late minutes--the Packers did outplay them but the Vick factor kept the outcome in doubt until the end. It was one of three outstanding contests during the weekend, with the other two being upsets of the defending champion Saints by the (7-9 regular season) Seahawks and of the defending runner-up Colts by the New York Jets, 17-16. The Jets found the only way to beat the Colts and Peyton Manning in a close game: score the winning points on the final play of the game, so Peyton has no chance to come back.

The fourth game of last weekend was the Baltimore Ravens' dismantling of the Chiefs, 30-7. The Ravens looked like potential champions--for one game at least--as they showed added offensive punch to their perennially stifling defense. This weekend, the Ravens draw the Steelers; it should be a rugged defensive battle (major snow?), and the Jets go to New England to face the favored Patriots with their not-yet-crowned league MVP for the regular season, Tom Brady. Patriots have the best record in the league and are strong favorites--for this game, the AFC Championship, and even the Super Bowl--but I am predicting loss for them, either in this game or in the AFC finals. This way, I take credit for the upset, and if it doesn't happen, I don't mind seeing the Pats in the SB, anyway. My feeling from the start of the season was that this could be the Jets' year, and, though there may be fairly long odds, my hunch is that still may be true.

In the Other Conference, as with my recent posting on the Republican Presidential nomination competition for '012, someone will have to win. The Atlanta Falcons have the best record at 13-3, but I have to say that I didn't watch a minute of their regular season, so, based on ignorance and lack of track record from previous years, I have to discount their chances against the Pack.

Through an anomaly and rare misstep of NFL marketing, the second-seeded bye team, the Bears, play the worst team in the playoffs, the Seahawks: this is because the league gives the third and fourth seeds in the conference to the non-bye-winning division champions, even if they have worse records than the wild card teams. This is something I feel certain the NFL will rectify in some way for future seasons. Anyway, the Bears are big favorites over the Seahawks, and you have to expect that, indeed, it will be a one-sided win, despite the late-season resurgence the 'hawks showed with the final game win which got them in, followed by that gutsy first-round win.

So, my picks are Jets, Ravens, Packers, and Bears this weekend; the most interesting game should be the second game on Sunday between the Jets and Patriots. Of course, if that one's a big Patriots blowout (as was their latest, much-hyped matchup about a month ago), then it will be the unknown Falcons vs. Green Bay.

From this vantage point, my picks are the Bears and Jets in the S(t)upor Bo'. I'll take the Jets in that matchup, and the AFC in any other, too.

Big and Cheesy Series Wrap
Sounds tasty, no? Well, the Bowl Championship Series had three close games and two blowouts in its five games, which is decent, acceptable, but hardly proof of concept (after 15 years or so, we're still waiting for the concept to be vindicated). The Rose Bowl was a terrific matchup, soon-to-be-bigtime-Conference (but the wrong one) TCU (that's the undefeated, MWC-champion Texas Christian University Horned Frogs from Fort Worth, TX) winning one for the little guys over a game Wisconsin, 21-19, by stopping the Badgers' late two-point conversion to try to force a tie. The Sugar Bowl was also a good one, Ohio St. upholding the faltering prestige of the Big Whatever Conference (hint: they call it 10, have 11, going to 12) with a close-fought 31-26 win over a new-look, modernized U. of Arkansas team (third or fourth best in the SEC, but that's saying something). As expected, the ACC and Big East champions came up way short in their BCS matchups, with ACC champ Va. Tech (and their 10-game win streak) crushed by serious flash-in-pan Stanford (coach Harbaugh deserting the Cardinal, going pro, and likely taking their big-time football program with him).

The Fictional National Championship game itself, despite an unusual matchup of teams--Auburn and Oregon were both in the FNC for the first time--and undefeated records (the only ones, other than TCU), and a close game, was strangely not too compelling for me, probably because of a sloppy and scoreless first quarter. Auburn clearly had a major advantage in beef per capita, while the plucky Ducks used quickness--especially in their huddles and snap counts--to try to keep the Tigers (or is it War Eagles?!I'm confused!) off-balance.

Still, it had a dramatic climax. A late forced fumble given up by Heisman superstar and once-and-future-pro Cam Newton (the forced fumble is my least favorite play in football, and it is becoming more and more prevalent in both college and pro football, as coaches teach defenders to slap the ball rather than tackle the ball carrier) gave Oregon a chance, and they converted the turnover into a late touchdown and two-point conversion to tie the score. Auburn, though, quickly moved down the field--through the help of an odd play, in which a ball carrier was brought down, put his hand down, but his body rolled over the defender without touching the ground, allowing him to roll to his feet, look around, see his teammates waving him on, and run for another 20 yards--got into field goal position, and kicked the winner as the clock ran out. As has become usual, the SEC team won.

Meanwhile, the team I would insist was the best one in the nation this year, the one that would've won the championship in a playoff system, the defending champion and thrice-beaten Alabama, won in the Capital One (nee Citrus) Bowl on New Year's Day by about 40 points. And that is why the current system is defective, though I have to give credit to Auburn: in the key game of the regular season, their final regular-season game (before the SEC Championship game), Auburn came back from a two-touchdown deficit and somehow nosed out the Crimson Tide. I also have to admit that the playoff system would probably have needed 12 teams or more (three rounds) to get Alabama into it, as the first 10 probably would've been the ten in the BCS games (if they gave automatic berths at all, which, given the university politics, would be required).

I've given college football far too much space here given my loathing of the current system. I will say that, defective as it is, the BCS is the second-best postseason competition of American minor league sports (after the NCAA basketball tournament).

Other Foo'ball
Besides Foosball, probably the most popular version of soccer-related activity in the country today.

For me, big-league soccer means Europe, with particular focus on the English Premier League (EPL). Our Chelsea F.C., the defending EPL champions, had burst to the lead from the outset and widened it early. Then, something happened: injuries to the native Englishmen stalwarts of the midfield and backfield, Frank Lampard and John Terry, were the first signs of trouble, though they didn't register as such at the time. Nagging injuries to various defenders, and the announcement that star attacker Didier Drogba had contracted malaria, helped explain a couple of games that Chelsea lost, either to unusual defensive lapses or failure, despite monopolizing ball possession, to put the ball into the net. But excuses are running thin, and Chelsea has dropped out of the top four, to the point where even a spirited recovery of form would be unlikely to get them back into contention for the EPL title. Their run of bad games could endanger their chances of finishing in the top four (and keeping a European Champions League berth). Arch-enemy Manchester United's coach Alex Ferguson is cackling (with a Scottish accent) at the inexplicable decline of our front-runners.

Are we (i.e, they) getting old? Is their trouble in the locker room? Is our coach a neutered puppet? The answers will come in the next month or two as Chelsea tries to salvage the season through the secondary F.A. Cup (we have two titles in a row) and the primary Champions League. Chelsea clinched its berth in the second round of the Champions League early on, before its general decline, but hardly look like Europe-beaters at present. We have talent as good as any team in Europe, but something has surely been lacking. We shall see.

Obama-Hu?

High-Level Framing
Or is it: Hu-Obama?

I've given a lot of thought to the proper framing of the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao from January 18-21 (also, to the improper framing of same, which will be the thrust of the second section of this posting). The importance of the US-China bilateral relationship has risen to the point where it is likely the most significant of its kind in the world today.

President Hu (his surname--I made some effort but could not find a proper English translation of that name; apparently the word has many different meanings depending on tone, inflection, and context) is expected to leave his job in 2012, and we already know the name of his provisional successor: Xi JinPing. That's probably one of the specified tasks of Hu's second Five-Year Plan--to name his successor, train him, and install him--and he's on schedule, under budget. Good technocrats, these Red Chinese.

There are at least a few major topics to which the two will need to devote substantial time during the work sessions. First, and most urgent, will be the opportunity to talk at length about North Korea behind its back. Awareness of this agenda item will surely get those uneasy folks' insecurity up, so they'll probably commit some sort of provocation (even if by some omission NK were not on the agenda, the North Koreans would assume that it is). The timing may this time be handy because Hu and Obama can discuss their response to it together (without the red phone, this time) and, perhaps, use their coordinated response(s) as a template for future handling of China's unruly pet nation. If NK waits until just after Hu steps on the plane to return home (it would seem a better tactic), then Obama and Hu can benefit from discussing during the meeting how they would respond, given a few likely scenarios by both nations' military planners.

Second, the economy, usually referred to in this country these days as those "jobs, jobs, jobs". The current development is China's having to ratchet back its economic growth through rises in interest rates, required because the inflation dragon has reared its head there. This may affect trade with the US and also reduce global growth. The alternative, though, would probably be greater inflation everywhere and an even tougher regime of rising interest rates and slowed growth, possibly even a renewed recession. Obama should signal recognition of the necessity of Hu's tamping on the brakes and patience with the consequences: he needs above all for the perception of recovery, just now really starting to be broadly accepted in the American public, to continue through the remainder of Hu's (and Obama's) terms, so a little Chinese braking is optimal.

Associated with the broad issue of short-term macroeconomic development is the question of revaluation of the Chinese currency (called either the yuan or renminbi) in relation to the US dollar. The Chinese have been allowing theirs to move slowly upward vs. ours, whereas some of our trade-balance-minded folks have been urging (demanding, bloviating) for it to move rapidly, or just to take out the controls and let the exchange move freely, determined by the market. They forget that the Chinese do not do either "rapidly" or "freely". Slow is what they will allow; since it is not strictly an internal affair, but a bilateral one, they may condescend to allow Obama, Geither, & Co. to weigh in on a desired target exchange rate.

Third on the agenda I would put coming to agreement--and here I don't mean just discussion, but actual agreement, with a communique and everything--on climate change policy. China and the US are numbers 1 and 2 respectively in greenhouse gas emissions, and on this one in particular the whole world will be watching to see what we can produce in the way of leadership.

There has been a real change--and for the better--in both the tone and the actions of the Chinese in this area in the past couple of years. Motivation is always tricky, but I would suggest that two reasons lie behind the changes: 1) they see the brown skies in much of China and realize that continuing on the bad old path is going to cause a domestic public health catastrophe; and 2) they are taking up the opportunity to develop green industries and become world leaders in this. At any rate, the facts are that the Chinese are the world leaders in producing solar panels and wind turbines, and have moved to the lead in the effort to produce clean energy with coal (which, like the US, it has in great quantity). At the last UN conference on climate change in Cancun in December, China announced it would no longer oppose firm limits on greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries like itself. The limits they would support are voluntary, and would be verified internally, rather than internationally, but this position is a key improvement and may, eventually, allow the #2 polluter, the US, to move from its own intransigent position against international policy on our pollutants.

President Obama is in a difficult position: he would like to do the right thing in this area, but he can not do anything that would be seen to--even possibly--reduce job growth. The last elections brought in a few tons of greenhouse gas-spouting Republican blowhards who do not recognize the validity of climate change science. As cap-and-trade or, even better, a carbon tax are political non-starters at present, something like the Chinese position--voluntary reductions in growth of greenhouse gas emissions--may be the best short-run strategy. These would be accomplished through the improved standards for autos, continuing investment in green technologies, and defending the EPA's statutory authority to regulate smokestack pollution. Finally, the UN conference produced an agreement to provide funding to developing countries to help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions; unpopular politically as it will be, the US owes it to all to announce some significant contribution to that fund, and this would be a good time (subject to Congressional approval, I'm afraid; and perhaps coupled with some sort of offsetting budget reduction announcement).

Fourth item might be to consider the modernization of the UN Security council. The five permanent members with veto powers are the five leaders of the winning side of World War II--the US, Britain, France, China, and Russia. A number of other countries have emerged in the 65 years since the UN was founded which are at least as important as Britain and France in today's geopolitics, and they want their voices heard. Meanwhile, China is reluctant to have its power diluted. I recommend a compromise, in which six countries--Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria--would get permanent membership in the Security Council, but without a veto (perhaps two of their "no" votes would constitute a veto).

Fifth and last would be the discussion of human rights. It doesn't have to be last in order on the agenda, but in priority, the Chinese will consider it last, and the Mandarin language version of the agenda which the Chinese will be utilizing would be the equivalent of "give the Americans shit about their own internal problems". The Chinese do not consider their one-party rule, suppression of dissent, political prisoners, or stifling of Internet content to be fit subjects for discussion in a summit, but the US will insist on bringing them up and the Chinese will parry these topics with accusations against our own policies, or lack thereof--such as the lack of gun control, fiscal responsibility, detainees in Guantanamo, military hegemonism, persecution of undocumented aliens, etc.

Theme Music for the Summit
Note: Sarcasm/facetiousness disclosure: it will be plentiful in the following

I thought we should honor Mr. Hu's visit with a theme, and naturally my thoughts went toward bad puns.

I used to have a colleague with the same surname, and we would sometimes immaturely tease her by calling her "first base"--a reference to the Abbott & Costello classic comedy routine, "Who's On First?" I would suggest that phrase could be used waggishly by President Obama, just at the edge of the microphone's range, in the moments prior to beginning the final, post-summit press conference--as our guest, Mr. Hu's turn at the mike should be first. (There are precedents for such Presidential humor in bad taste--remember President Reagan's microphone test when he pretended to announce a Russian nuclear attack and our massive retaliation?)

In terms of theme music, I think of one of my favorite rock bands, The Who (or, in this case, The Hu). Maybe one album from the catalog has a name (and their names often have these double meanings) that fits the event.

I could eliminate several of them as seemingly having no relevance: Tommy (no deaf, dumb, blind, or pinball), Quadrophenia (no four-way split personality in sight), Live at Leeds (wrong locale), Face Dances (not sure what that means), Maximum R&B (I could probably invent an "R" and "B" that could fit--"Renmin & Bi"?--but it wouldn't be rhythm and blues), Odds & Sods, the Kids are Alright (just agree on that principle, and move on), or Meaty Beaty Big & Bouncy (won't touch that one).

Here are the finalists, then, and comments about their relevance:
Who (Hu) Sell Out--The "sellout" by the Chinese Communists, if you want to call it that, from Marxist/Leninist/Maoist command economics to a partially free economy partially directed by the one-party state, happened some 30 years ago, before Hu's time. Mr. Hu himself, I just saw, has a salary of about $10,000 per year, and I've heard no rumors that he's making big bucks on the side. There's also a subject-verb agreement issue.

Who (Hu) Are You--Again, subject-verb agreement. Mr. Hu may not be well-known to us, but it's a bit late now to get to know him, as he's moving on in a couple of years. As for the American China experts and our top foreign policy officials, they know him.

Who (Hu) By Numbers--This one is more difficult because of the multiple meanings of the original album title. The cover art suggests connecting the dots rather than painting by numbers, and the contents were a lot of catchy little numbers. While economic statistics will play a supporting role in the discussion, and there are some dots to join, I think the objective should be quality, not quantity.

A Quick One (Happy Jack)--This meeting is not the quick, one-day version, but a proper state visit. In terms of "Happy Jack" and its underground meaning, I will only comment that the meeting is of two men, not three.

Who's (Hu's) Next--It makes sense in this way: the title was not originally a question, and Mr. Hu is the next in the series of Chinese party technocrats to occupy his office. This meeting is not yet the time for planning for who's next; and Hu himself shouldn't be a novelty.

The Who Sings My Generation--Maybe, but which generation? The generation of which they sang was the baby boomers, particularly the older ones, and they have some concerns as they approach retirement. Both Hu and Obama are from the younger cohort of that broad demographic group, and this is their time to lead. I would argue, though, that the Who's perennial target group are the young, and, while that should be a particular concern here in America, it isn't likely to feature too importantly in Obama-Hu meeting topics.

It's Hard--Yes, it certainly is hard (meaning difficult) for Obama and Hu--the challenges of leading the World's Only Remaining Superpower and The Next Superpopwer are each mighty ones. This is not the time for whining about their personal, or national, complaints, though; it is a time for solving problems.

Endless Wire--The latest Who release might well have been called "Who's Last"--with John Entwistle's death, Pete Townshend possibly losing his hearing, and it being a fairly weak studio album accompanied by a truly pathetic live recording, one might even hope so. There may or may not be another summit with Obama in Hu's term (more likely, "a quick one"), but I think the concept of perpetually treading a tightrope in their own countries and in the delicate, complex issues they have to face in the bilateral relationship is one that each leader would understand well. Obama must stay true to his liberal principles, satisfy the moderates, and somehow deal with the reinvigorated right-wing Republicans; Hu must continue to tolerate, encourage, and even prop up free enterprise, while satisfying his party leadership's control freak values.

So, I would propose "Endless Wire" as the background music for their meeting. Given its dubious quality, probably keep the volume knob at '5' or less.

Topics with Pakistan

Today, President Obama meets with Pakistan's President Zardari. Zardari is here to attend the memorial for the U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.

Holbrooke is a clear reminder to us all not to let the job kill us, as I feel the stress of his nearly-impossible job was probably a major contributor to the ruptured aorta which killed him very quickly last month. He will be remembered fondly by all surviving Democratic leaders (Presidents and Secretaries of State) of the past century, for whom he was a willing, persistent, and successful diplomat. His crowning achievement was inducing Serbian President Milosevic to agree to a peace treaty ending the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina (a few bombing runs helped a lot, also, but the way Holbrooke used them to advance his diplomacy was a textbook example of good technique).

The topic of discussion clearly has to be what to do in the Af-Pak (or, as some suggest changing the billings to reflect importance Pak-Af) sub-region. I recently understood why NATO agreed to continue military operations until 2014: that is when Afghan President Karzai's current term ends. This will give us (the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, NATO, Iran, Russia....) more than 36 months to figure out an agreement that will allow the conflict to end, and develop a plan to keep the peace, through succession to a regime of reconciliation and reconstruction.

Zardari would be a very good person with whom to begin pushing this peanut forward. Pakistan's accord is a sine qua non for an agreement in Afghanistan, and it would be good to understand, in some detail, what that country's minimum requirements would be to respect the peace. A few basic agreed goals would then permit us to agree with the Pakistanis on the parameters for drone attacks in Pakistani territory. For example, attacks on positions probably holding high-level Al Qaeda would be agreed to in advance (no contact required in the instant), those on Pakistani Talibans would require agreement (which would probably be forthcoming), those on the Afghan Taliban shura would require confirmation of the presence of the exact persons targeted. This latter qualification might be required because some of the Afghan Taliban would be considered more likely to observe a peace agreement and thus would not be good targets for remote-controlled destruction.

Finally, there may be some need to coordinate on reconstruction projects (against the recent flood disaster in the Punjab), and some additional discussion on military aid and the restrictions thereupon (like not using them for their perennial facedowns with India).

Constructing a proper, sustainable agreement to end the decades-long, occasionally-interrupted Afghan Civil War (in which we have gotten rather deeply involved) is a slow slog; we probably have plenty of input from the current Afghan leaders, but not enough from Pakistan's, nor from those current opponents which Pakistan either shelters, tolerates, or just can't root out.

Psycho-Killer in Tucson

Today, a young assassin attempted to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona while she was holding a public meeting outside a Tucson grocery store. Details of the incident are somewhat sketchy, but this much is known: she was shot in the head at close range, then the shooter began shooting many other people nearby. Six people were killed, including a Federal judge who was a friend of Giffords, a nine-year-old girl, one of Giffords' staff, and three different seventy-year-old ladies, mostly people who just happened to be there. Giffords, miraculously, may survive and recover, as the bullet went straight through her head.

We had highlighted Congresswoman Giffords' re-election race in November--it was one of the closest races in the country, and she escaped defeat to a right-winger by only a few hundred votes. Apparently we erred when we described her multicultural district, one very close to the border with Mexico, as being less subjected to the overheated passions--particularly those rising from Arizona's recent bill directed at intercepting and deporting illegal immigrants--than the Phoenix area. In fact, her office there had been broken into, and Giffords--a moderate Democrat, in fact a Blue Dog--had spoken about the overheated rhetoric, which had led to public incidents and threats. Nevertheless, Giffords was conducting a fairly normal public meeting with no added security when this outrage occurred.

The sheriff of Tucson's Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, came on tonight for a heated news conference, one in which he disclosed a great deal, including that the young assassin may have had an older accomplice. A friend and colleague of both Giffords and the murdered U.S. judge John Roll, Dupnik was perhaps too closely involved and emotional and said more than he might. In particular, he spoke quite harshly about the level of "vitriol" in the political discourse as something which may have pushed this unbalanced individual over the edge to commit this terrible act. Whether he has a basis for this accusation is unclear, but I would agree that this incident is more than just an isolated bit of madness, but a sign of a madness infecting the country more broadly.

Politically, there is nothing much of value that can be or will be said in the short run. All, even those whose vitriolic speech may have contributed to the poisonous political environment, say nothing other than the appropriate: condemn the act, sympathy for the victims, pray the ired recover. Nobody's going to admit that it was his/her/their own inflammatory rhetoric that contributed. Ironically, Giffords was something of a favorite of Fox News, and she often and willingly appeared on interviews for them.

The alleged shooter--about whose identity there can be little doubt, as he was tackled, at great personal danger, by two persons present at the scene of the crime--has refused to talk. He has left, on YouTube and Facebook, plenty of evidence suggesting that he was disturbed, very angry about the Federal government, possibly deranged. Whatever his motivation, his actions are psychotic.

It is an unfortunate fact that Arizona has a gun-happy culture as well as the overheated political environment. That area is a great destination used by the Mexican drug cartel to buy guns, because it's easy there. There may be too much focus on the political demagogues who ginned up this perpetrator's confused mind, and not enough on the fact this nutjob--who the Sheriff has said made threats and has had recent trouble with the law--was allowed legally to own a semiautomatic 9mm handgun (which he apparently fitted with an extra-large magazine--probably illegally--which allowed him to shoot 15-20 times or more without reloading).

This kind of thing is happening way too often in the US. There should be political consequences in the longer run, and I hope Giffords herself--or if she cannot, others who act on her behalf--will begin the difficult task of legislating limits on the "right" of nutjobs to continue to bear arms. If someone gets a restraining order, is arrested for drunk driving, is arrested for disorderly conduct, is subject to mandatory psychiatric treatment, the guns should be taken away.

It is high time that we recognize that this is a matter of public safety; it is an obligation of government under the social contract to have a monopoly control on armaments (especially those such as handguns or assault rifles which are only useful for killing people) so as to protect the public from the dangerous ones in our midst. We need an anti-NRA, a powerful organization to oppose the NRA's extreme positions in favor of access to all arms for all people all the time.

'012 GOP Nod: Somebody's Got to Get It, Right?

Now that we're fully into 2011, it must be time to look at the 2012 Presidential election, right?

One could argue the contrary: I'm not sure anyone has yet dared to announce he/she is running yet--though several folks clearly are in the race. Certainly I am one who has long argued that these campaigns are ridiculously long (there has been some progress for this cycle, with the first four electoral tests--still Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada--moving back a month or so), so I should welcome the delay in the launch of the campaign.

The fact is, though, that the first shots in the campaign have already been fired, by President Obama in the wake of his party's shellacking--his word for it, and so accurate it is accepted without quotation marks--in the midterms. His leadership of the lame-duck sessions' legislative whirlwind have positioned him well for the run-up to 2012. In the wake of the tax-cut deal and the progressive legislation he got through subsequently, he has improved his ratings with moderates--who were hungry for some sort of bipartisan agreement--and Democratic progressives have generally accepted that he will be their nominee and that they will support him.

So, then, who will he face? There have certainly been plenty of efforts to handicap the field, and I won't shirk from my own effort.

2012 GOPreview We start with the basic premise. The Republicans have two wings to their tent, the Old Guard and the invigorated Insurgents, and each will seek to promote their candidate(s), but at the end, they will converge on the candidate most likely to be able to compete on the national stage. I would argue that has been true of the Republicans in every election cycle since 1964. In this regard, the Republicans' Presidential nomination game is very different from their state party primaries, which often (as in 2010) produce extremist candidates poorly designed for general elections.

Second, the basic scenario, driven by the early primaries. Iowa's caucuses will produce a right-wing winner; New Hampshire a more moderate winner, probably Mitt Romney. South Carolina will confirm the New Hampshire winner and a right-wing challenger as the leading candidates. Nevada's caucuses may decide whether Romney can be stopped (it is worth noting that the state has a significant Mormon population); if not, the Super Tuesday primaries, especially Florida, would establish a clear leader, and the party would pull together quickly.

It sort of boils down to a) whether the insurgents, the right wing, and the TP faithful will be able to stop Romney, and right now many feel that they will, and b) who would be the one who wins the nomination in that case. This year could be the exception to the basic scenario and basic premise, though, in particular because Romney seems so vulnerable and there are no clear standouts to take his place. Certainly, if I were the party's mastermind director, I would want something like the 2008 Obama-Clinton knockdown/dragout battle, going all the way through the season, to keep the focus on the party and not on Obama and the Democrats.

I quote Jonah Goldberg of the National Review Online in his syndicated posting on the topic dated December 21:

By my count, there are 24 people who are beneficiaries of nontrivial presidential buzz: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Pence, Rick Santorum, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, David Petraeus, Ron Paul, Jeb Bush, John Bolton, Bob McDonnell, Jim DeMint, Chris Christie, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Judd Gregg, Marco Rubio and Rick Perry.

And that is omitting some additional faces who admit to considering a run of their own: Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer.

Like Goldberg, I have to deal rather summarily with a number of these 29 candidates to get down to a manageable analysis. Many of these clearly will not, and should not, run (2016 would be a much more strategic year to go for it, for one thing): Off the bat, I would eliminate Bush, Jindal, Petraeus, McDonnell, DeMint, Christie, Rubio, and Perry, as people who will not run this time. (The latter's going to have a big mess in Texas, now that his low-tax paradise state government has been revealed to have a huge budget deficit. See Paul Krugman's excellent discussion. ) Then there are those who may run or will run, but who clearly will not have a significant impact: Bolton, Johnson, Santorum, Roemer.

That still leaves 17 names! So, let's start knocking them out with some brief rationales:
Bachmann--I see her as a stand-in for Sarah Palin; if Palin announces she will withdraw and challenge (unsuccessfully) Amy Klobuchar for a Senate seat. If Palin doesn't run, she will run--badly. (Still, probably a better scenario for her than losing a Senate race--she can fail quickly and still run for re-election in her safe seat.)
Giuliani--He went into 2008 as something like a favorite and failed dismally; why should he have a better chance in 2012? We have almost forgotten he exists.
Trump--He'd be willing to spend lots of other people's money; I think he's shown that. Even more of an egotistical phony than Romney, it's hard to imagine his candidacy getting traction.
Cain--Sorry, I had to look up who he is: a black man, considered fairly intelligent but hard-core right, former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. The Tea Party's substitute for Clarence Thomas. Please.
Huntsman--He's Obama's ambassador to China, a former moderate governor of Utah. He has no constituency whatsoever.
Gregg--I don't think he will run, but Romney should make him his best buddy, take him on the side and offer him the V.P. job on his ticket, just in case, in order to make sure he doesn't run in New Hampshire as a favorite son. If he did that, he could stop Romney's bid right out of the gate. One of the better minds in the party, Obama offered him a Cabinet job but he turned him down.
Pence--I see him as one of the few with the intellectual heft to take on an Obama. A right-winger, he is playing it cagily: it seems he will probably run for Indiana governor if Mitch Daniels goes for the Presidential race, but he might throw his hat into the ring if Daniels doesn't, in which case he could be a serious candidate for the Insurgents.
Paul--I think he will run, and he will do a little better than he did in '08: there is a significant portion of Tea Party supporters who are real libertarians like him. Not enough, though, and his antiwar stances make him totally unacceptable to the Old Guard.
Ryan--He will have a chance to make a name for himself as chairman of the House Budget Committee and has a legitimate longshot opportunity. He's got to get a makeover, though: not only does he part his hair on the "wrong" side, it's practically on top of his head! I don't think most Republicans will think the winning strategy is to out-geek Obama, and I'd bet ultimately he won't run.
Pawlenty--He'll run--he's been running for years already--but few will notice and less will care. Hopefully, an also-ran result in Iowa will take care of him.
Thune--see Pawlenty. He is from neighboring South Dakota and thinks he can make an impression in Iowa--perhaps he will. I don't see him making the cut to top Insurgent, but I guess someone will (see below).
Barbour--an Old Guard governor of Mississippi, his political acumen is evident, but I think he will rightly be viewed as a man too much from the South's racist past, someone who could not beat Obama. Ultimately, I don't think he will run; he'd be a decent V.P. candidate except nobody needs him to win Mississippi for them.

This leaves five names: Daniels, Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. I think Daniels is too much a moderate, but if he can stay in the race, he might have a chance to pick up the pieces if Romney fades and the alternative is a sure November loser like Palin. Gingrich has good name recognition, but only a small core of loyal supporters, and his private morality is suspect to the right-wing purists, so his constituency is narrow. He will debate well but fall short when the race gets to larger-state popularity contests.

I still see the basic scenario playing out, with either Huckabee or Palin trying to stop Romney. Of the two, Huckabee would seem to have the better chance under the basic electability premise. And, there's still the possibility that either or both will not run (if neither runs, then Thune or Pence might make the final cut). Romney will definitely run, and he will win the nomination unless someone can stop him. His best shot is to neutralize the Insurgent threat, and he is trying to do that with maneuvers like opposing the tax cut deal. It looks as though he may have South Carolina's Senator Lindsey Graham in his camp, which will make him credible there but not necessarily a winner; Graham may even face a primary challenge from the right in '014, so he will be cautious about endorsing Romney if Mitt goes too far to the party's left.

Iowa's straw poll this August will be the first real data, and it may indicate who are the real Insurgent candidates with money, organization, and fire in the belly. With so many possible choices, there are bound to be at least a couple of them.
The question I have left is whether Huckabee has the desire and the organizational savvy to mount a credible campaign. If he does, Palin--who violates the basic premise, and who is better suited to be the gadfly rather than the workhorse--may step aside in his favor. Some of the Insurgent types will not be pleased, but the party and its money will rally to Huckabee if he shows he can win some primaries.

Intrade Betting
Here are the latest quotes, for those rating better than 99-1 odds, and any significant movement in them from two weeks ago: Romney 21.5 and steady; Palin 16.9 (down from 19.8 two weeks ago); Thune 10.7 and steady; Huckabee 9.0 (up from 7.0); Gingrich 4.9 and rising slowly; Daniels 9.5 (rising from 7.0); Pawlenty 6.4, slowly rising; Pence 4.2 (declining slowly); Barbour 2.2; Christie 2.8; Johnson 1.4; Paul 1.8; Rubio 1.7; Jeb Bush 1.4.

If I were investing, I would still say Huckabee's number is a bit low despite its increase, and that Daniels, Pawlenty, and Thune are too high (along with Christie, Johnson, Paul, Rubio, and Bush, who are all nothing more than sentimental longshot choices), and Paul Ryan's is a bit low at only 0.5. The real point of these odds is how low is Romney, the betting favorite.

The Democrats are seen to have a 58-59% chance of winning the 2012 Presidential election (up a couple of points recently), and Obama a 90% chance of getting the Democratic nomination. I'm looking forward to seeing odds on key 2012 states like Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri, along with those on key Republican primaries, but the first won't happen until the Republican field boils down, and the second until some major candidates announce they're running, probably early this spring.

Foreign Policy Challenges

Like a monk fixated on his own navel, the discussion in previews of our political scene leading up to the apocalyptic 2012 election is entirely focused on the upcoming battle royale/gridlock over domestic issues like the budget, the debt limit, undoing the limited progress made last year in health care, and efforts to create more job (whatever those might be). It occurs to me, though, that the most important developments in the next year are likely to be in the fields of diplomacy and "diplomacy by other means" (also known as war).

After all, the challenges are major: China's raising interest rates, leading the rest of the world to wonder how that will effect the economic recovery; Israel and Palestine have broken off talks, and the danger of renewed conflict seems to be rising; in Pakistan, the key country in our efforts to prevent global terrorism, the government has fallen (and doesn't seem to be able to get up), and Punjab's governor was just assassinated because he dared to advocate releasing a Christian woman condemned to death for blasphemy; North Korea threatens South Korea, and South Korea threatens to retaliate this time; Iran and the world continue on a slow path toward a massive collision; the nations of the world will try to follow on the moderate successes of the global warming summit in Cancun, leading to the one next year in Durban; and that's not even to mention the challenges facing us in various African locales, or those from our continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would argue that in the next 12-18 months President Obama will spend more time tackling these challenges, and less dealing with the wrangling on Capitol Hill, and that his performance in foreign and military policy are a much better measure of his Administration's value, and the degree he deserves to be re-elected, than his "ability to create jobs" or to herd the cats in Congress.

And, fortunately, I see no reason to doubt the ability he and his team will bring to these problems. Success in some or all is uncertain, but in this realm Obama will be able to operate relatively unimpeded.

Senate Rules OK?

One of the very first items of business in the new Congress is setting each house's overarching rules, which will apply at least throughout the first session (the first year). The House plans some new rules for transparency--posting proposed legislation for 72 hours so all can read what they're voting on, requiring a statement of the Constitutional authority under which the legislation is proposed--things the Republicans want and which will not cause too much angst.

The Senate has a more interesting, and potentially very important, matter that will arise now--it must arise now, because it can not be addressed later--and that is the rules for cloture, also known as the filibuster. The Senate has a tradition of unlimited debate, controlled by the two party leaders. Debate ends when the majority leader and minority leader agree to end it (though others can object to end of debate, as well, they only generally do that when they want to block votes on appointments), or, under the current rules, when 60 Senators or more vote to end debate.

There is a proposal, headed by our own Tom Udall and supported by a letter signed by all 53 senators of the Democratic caucus, to use this opportunity to reduce the ability of a minority to block cloture indefinitely. This change could take a variety of forms: the ones that make most sense are: 1) to have a progressively reducing vote for cloture, say 60 votes the first time, 55 the second a week later, and then reducing by one or two a week thereafter to 51; 2) to require filibustering Senators to debate items continuously--a team of three or four could block all new business as long as they want by staying on the floor "debating" the bill (under current rules, when there is no vote for cloture the Senate moves onto other business); 3) a more limited move to limit the ability of any Senator to block a vote on nominations.

Any of these would make some progress and make Congress less an object of ridicule in the nation. There is an issue actually about the rule under which a change of rules would be considered: there is an existing rule requiring a two-thirds vote to change the rules, and it is very unlikely that Democrats could get enough Republican votes for any change under that rule, but there is also--explicitly in the Constitution--a principle that the Senate sets its own rules. Under that principle, a simple majority could allow either a change in the rules or a change in the rule to change the rules (!), an approach that could lead first to a parilamentary challenge within the Senate (the parliamentarian there would rule on whether the rule change--or change to rule changes--was out of order) and then possibly to some sort of court challenge.

The way to avoid such a slow-motion train wreck would be for some agreement to be reached, particularly between the Majority and Minority Leaders, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, respectively. Reid somewhat improbably kept his role as his party kept a diminished majority and he survived a close scare for his own seat; both he and McConnell derive a lot of their success as party leaders from their in-depth knowledge of the Senate's rules and how to manipulate them to their advantage. Reid may be nominally in favor of a change, but such a change could reduce his power. McConnell will probably need to be convinced that the change will help his overarching goal--to deprive President Obama of a second term--which may be tough to do.

One form of compromise might be for Reid to guarantee McConnell a floor vote on the Republicans' biggest political agenda item--some sort of repeal of last year's healthcare reform bill--once the House approves it. Such a bill would be unable to get cloture under the current rules, which would be very frustrating for the Republicans' political agenda; at the same time, though, if given a floor vote it would be unlikely to pass, and if it did, would certainly be vetoed by Obama and not overridden. Therefore, the Democratic Senate might decide it is worthwhile to give the Republicans their symbolic floor vote, in exchange for rules which would allow some more important legislation the Democrats and the nation will need--like a budget, debt ceiling increase, or whatever--to be able to get to the floor in the future.

Former Senator Walter Mondale, a leader of the change in the cloture rule from 67 to 60 votes some 30 years ago, made a strong argument for a change in a Times editorial this weekend. It appears that Wednesday, January 5 will be the day this item will come up on the Senate's calendar.

Jetstream Shifts Bring Powder

We were blessed (!?) with a massive snowfall on Thursday (Dec. 30), followed by some intense cold for a couple of days, which may have worked to keep the crowds down on the ski slopes. Now, though, the weather has cleared and the sun has come out; there should still be some significant powder up there, so optimal conditions for skiing approach.

The storm we got was the continuation of the one that dumped heavy rains and caused flooding in southern California. The storm's track shifted north at our longitude and headed for the upper Midwest.

Trying to understand a little about our fate and what drives it, we are inevitably drawn to examination of the jetstream--the high atmospheric current which circles the northern temperate zones with strong west-to-east currents. It is the north-south movement within the jetstream, though, which causes the aberrations like the current storm.

So would seem to be saying environmental scientist Judah Cohen, who posted an editorial called "Bundle Up: It's Global Warming" in the Times on Christmas, then followed up with a blog/discussion on their Opinionator site. He puts emphasis on fall snowfall in the Siberian hills north of the Himalayas as a driver of a shift in Arctic melting, which is affecting the jetstream path this winter, leading to colder weather and higher snowfall in the Eastern U.S. and in Europe. It is his view that the variable depth of fall snowpack in that region, rather than the oscillation between El Nino/La Nina (sorry, no tildaes) currents in the central Pacific, which is more of a causational factor for season-to-season climate variation.

Re-reading the article, I noticed an interesting additional point he made that I missed the first time: the variation in the jetstream is also vertical. Maybe I don't have it quite right--you should read up on it. Another thing you should do is come here--soon--and ski.