The Oscars program was a good one; entertaining and less boring than usual. I thought Anne Hathaway's performance was livening, in particular, and I enjoyed the opening and the fake-musical sequences prepared for the show.
In terms of the awards themselves, there were few surprises. We got 16 out of 24 right, a creditable performance, but not an outstanding one. We took chances on Hallie Steinfeld for Supporting Actress and Geoffrey Rush as Supporting Actor and went with the favorite for director, David Fincher of Social Network, and got burned a bit on those. Some will have gotten those right (it was considered very close between Fincher and the winner, Tom Hooper of The King's Speech--as was the race for Best Picture), so I'm not expecting to win any prizes in the award-winner picking pools, but a decent result, still.
We have to give some credit to Gold Derby, which compiled the picks of 28 notable critics; their consensus got 19 or 20 out of 24 (one was tied, at least when we consulted the site); I didn't see a single critic's picks that were particularly accurate, but the group of them produced a Delphi group that was near-perfect. Their picks helped us navigate relatively successfully through the impossible categories of documentaries and short films. The only one we got right going strongly against the consensus was "Alice in Wonderland" for Art Direction (I could see both sides of that argument); the only big upset was for Cinematography ("Inception" over "True Grit"--definitely not right).
So, if you want to win your pool next year, go there--and not to Nate Silver's blog, which claimed to tell you how to win your pool, and which had picks for only six categories, all pretty obvious.
Postscript: That the award winners' identities became identifiable does not excuse the choices. How is that "True Grit", the year's best movie, in the sense of quality of form and content, the best story told the best way, was good enough for 10 nominations but failed to win a single award? One can go through most of the categories--but not all--and find reasons for other movies to take the awards--as I argued before, recent awards for Bridges and the Coens providing a good reason not to reward them again. Still, one is left with the conclusion, so tediously and unconvincingly repeated during the acceptance speeches and elsewhere, that the nomination itself is the honor. So, why not give an award to all the nominees?
Here's one more suggestion: most of the movies that I indicated previously that "I might have liked, if I had seen them" are now available in DVD, and I've had a chance to see most (including "127 Hours", "Get Low", and "Never Let You Go"), and the same is true of the feature-length documentaries (managed to catch the Banksy one). At this point in the year, the first-run (or even return-run) of the contenders is over and the box-office 99% complete; what we're talking about now is the film rentals/DVD sales/Netflix receipts. So, do the "show" about the nominations--a bit earlier, when the nominations do come out--and let a combination of votes--the Academy, and yes, the viewers--determine winners in a separate "People's" event (and just invite the winners, jazz it up as they do now).
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Political Update
I find myself having to hit the political trail again a little sooner than I thought I would, as the budget/debt ceiling process has gone off the rails even faster than it should have, the '012 Presidential and Senate races are worthy of comment, and there is a new major issue rising: the struggles of states to deal with revenue shortfalls from above (Federal funds disappearing) and below, along with huge unfunded pension liabilities. We will start with the latter topic.
So Far, It's On Wisconsin!
The emerging debt crisis of the states is partly the product of the aging population, partly a reckoning deferred through various tricks of financial engineering, and largely a result of the Great Crater, which sharply diminished the value of the states' pension funds. There were already large, under-funded pension obligations to state workers across the nation (though concentrated in some states), but the funds set aside to help pay for them were decimated. The 2009 Federal stimulus program provided funds to the states in various forms which delayed the crisis, but now those programs are ending and, with the new Congress, it is clear they will not be renewed.
The more aggressive state fund managers have invested wisely in equities and other rising assets in the past couple of years and recovered much of the ground lost, though "getting back to even" (as CNBC's "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer calls getting out of the Crater) would still mean a loss of precious time for growth of their money. Some were probably obligated to take more conservative investment strategies, which would leave them further behind (and in position for it to get worse). Many--or most--states are in a position where they will have to make major changes to prevent insolvency--soon, or in the foreseeable future.
Give Wall Street some credit: the danger of defaults in municipal bonds has been a hot topic there for months--the consensus there is that municipalities may be allowed to fail, but states will not. If states fail to take measures to address their issues, though, the cost of borrowing will rise sharply, exacerbating their problems, and there will eventually be a specter of a new despised bailout.
The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, and 2009-elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have dared to speak this truth to their states' voters and have survived politically. This has emboldened the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, to take a more provocative stance. He has pushed forward legislation to require larger pension and healthcare contributions from state workers. Even more, the legislation would take away the state workers' right to collective bargaining. Democrats in the legislature, unable to vote the legislation down but in sufficient numbers to deny a quorum, took to the hills.
The rallying cry has been sounded by the journals of the left and union organizations across the country to support Wisconsin's public workers, who have taken to the streets. They are right to do so, though their arguments--to the effect that "balancing the budget on the back of the workers is wrong!"--only recognize one side. Concessions will have to be made by public workers, sacrifice will need to be shared, revenues will need to be raised, and--in some cases--states will appeal to the Federal government for assistance. The statement made on the right that public workers are paid more than private ones is a canard (a bald lie), but they have enjoyed greater job security, better benefits, and their defined-benefit pension plans (usually after only 20 years' service) are a bit rich. A compromise could be found--precisely through the collective bargaining process Walker wants to eliminate (with the unions a bit hampered in the negotiations by the law's prohibition of strikes by public workers).
Taking away their right to collective bargaining is the political red meat in the battle--a measure probably exceeding states' authority under Federal labor legislation, but surely a sop to Republicans and fighting words to Democrats and their base. The public unions make up a numerous, well-funded part of that base, easily the best-organized one. President Obama has been forced to take a stand against the Wisconsin Governor, identifying the legislation as "an assault on unions" and putting his Organizing for America political machinery into action on behalf of the public employee unions.
Governor Walker is motivated by ideology and may find this issue to be a political catapult into the front ranks of his party, but his is not the solution to the larger issue--it will end up making his state even harder to govern, and it may ultimately backfire for him. If he is successful, though, there are many other states that will jump on the bandwagon, so this is a battle with implications that go beyond Wisconsin.
Frankly, I need to study the labor history and labor law more to be expert on this topic, but this has blown the political lid off the month or so of relative peace and civility which followed the Tucson murders.
The Slow-Motion Train Wreck To Beat All
The 19th-century version of Radical Republicans went to extreme lengths--several Constitutional amendments, impeachment of President Andrew Johnson--to punish the Southern states for their secession, the Civil War, and the postwar denial of rights to the freed slaves. In the 20th century, Republicans started by heading the Progresive movement, but quickly moved to the forefront of reaction and resistance to liberal ideas of political equality and broadened economic opportunity; their defeat by the New Deal eventually forced them into an uneasy cooperation with progress. Now, there is a new breed of Radical Republicans for the 21st-century, and Walker's Wisconsin and the Republican-led House of Representatives are the new battlegrounds.
In Congress, the House of Orangeman Speaker John Boehner has commenced war against the Obama Administration with its version of the continuing resolution needed by March 4 to keep the Federal government operating. The cuts they passed this week, without a single Democratic vote--$61 billion for the remaining two-thirds of the current fiscal year--are only part of the assault; more radical still are amendments included in it to prevent the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act against large-scale greenhouse gas emitters and to block funding for measures required by the health insurance reform bill approved last year. The Senate, backed by President Obama's certain veto, will not pass the House's resolution in any recognizable form, so it is unlikely there will be any agreement by March 4 to continue normal operations of the Federal government. The Senate Democrats have suggested the presence of a door in the form of a short-term resolution, but the RR of the House of Orange have not yet acknowledged the presence of any door nor any need for one.
President Obama's budget proposal--considered too austere by many on the left--had about half as many cuts in Federal programs, but it was not seriously considered by the House (which, constitutionally, is required to begin the budget process). Neither side has yet taken up the elephants in the room--Medicare, or Social Security, or growth in Defense spending--so the posturing on both sides is limited to a few percent of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit for the year, and neither side is proposing significant assistance to states or much in the way of job creation.
A train wreck which has been developing for years and which takes 30 days to happen is pretty slow, but the trains are clearly on the same track, going in opposite directions, and braking hasn't even started.
'012 Electoral Drumroll Begins Softly, Slowly
The importance of state political battles has been underlined by their financial problems, as it will by the coming fights over House redistricting, but the main event in 2012 will be the battle for control of the Federal government: in the House, in the Senate, and for the Presidency itself.
House: The big breaker waves have gone in both directions in recent years, and at this point the next big wave has not yet formed. If the budget/deficit train wreck happens, though, for more than a couple of days anyway, blame is likely to settle on the Radical Republicans and the House of Orange may have a very short dynasty.
Without a major breaker, the numbers would suggest a reduced Republican majority coming out of 2012. Voters in the general election are likely to lean more Democratic than in the midyear election, and there are a number of seats the Republicans won last time that will be tough to hang onto (just as there were many won by the Democrats in '08 that were successfully targeted in '010). The target increase for the Democrats is 25, which is likely to be made harder by five or so net seats that redistricting in the states will design in the Republicans' favor.
The Intrade betting currently gives the Democrats a 45% chance of regaining control, up from 25% last month and from 35% last November. I think that quote is a bit high.
Senate: Defense of the Democrats' narrow Senate majority will be a major, expensive challenge. The Democrats have to defend 23 seats (including both of the Independents allied with them), the Republicans only 10. If the incumbent party holds 80% of seats on each side, the Democrats would hold on by 51-49; if they hold 60%, the Republicans would lead 52-48. So, along with swings in popular opinion toward one side or the other, the perception of the Senate's effectiveness will be important, especially for the Democrats.
The biggest development so far has been the announcement by six of the incumbent Senators that they will not run for re-election. The latest one is very significant: five-term Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who would have been a heavy favorite to win again. Of the other retirements, the Democrats are strong favorites to hold Joe Lieberman's seat, and the Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson's, while Kent Conrad's North Dakota seat is likely to go Republican, and Jon Kyl's in Arizona will favor a Republican hold (unless, of course, Gabrielle Giffords can ride her so-far miraculous recovery all the way to the upper house). Finally, Jim Webb's Virginia seat will certainly be vigorously contested, though I like the Democrats' chances if they can unite behind a candidate, such as former Governor Tim Kaine, and face "macaca" George Allen.
Bingaman's surprise announcement creates a wide-open race here, just as Pete Domenici did in 2008. Some of the same names are likely for the Republicans: newly-restored Representative Steve Pearce from the Republican-leaning Southern part of the state, and Heather Wilson, who gave up her Albuquerque seat in a losing bid for the seat won by Tom Udall. A Republican wild card might be former Governor Gary Johnson, who might give up his quixotic Presidential campaign and has unusually high crossover appeal. The Democrats might field former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, loser in the 2010 gubernatorial race, or current representatives Martin Heinrich (Albuquerque) or our Ben Ray Lujan, each of whom just won their second terms in the House. With New Mexico polling quite strongly in favor of President Obama, I like the Democrats' chances to hold the seat.
Apart from the seats being vacated, there will be a lot of difficult contests for incumbents whatever the political climate. Several of the Democratic seats will be relatively easy holds, but Montana's Jon Tester will surely be tested, Ben Nelson in Nebraska will be favored to lose, and three difficult holds will also be critical Presidential battlegrounds: Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, and Bill Nelson in Florida. The Republicans may face more Tea Party primary challenges in Tennessee (Bob Corker) and Maine (Olympia Snowe) which could either weaken the incumbent or bring forward a relatively weak insurgent. Two seats that the Republicans could easily lose are scandal-weakened John Ensign in Nevada (currently favored to lose a primary) and Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's old Massachusetts seat. One of the more interesting initiatives I saw recently was a movement to draft Elizabeth Warren--a key Obama adviser on financial reform--to run against him.
The Intrade betting on Senate control after 2012 has been light; the current quote for the Republican side is 69%, which seems way too high. I see the contest as a 50-50 proposition, and that result itself is far from unlikely--which would put control of the Senate in the hands of the party winning the Presidential election.
The Big Ticket:
The battle for the White House will be monstrous, ugly, and expensive, so it's a welcome, small blessing that it hasn't really started yet. President Obama has been able to stake out some advantageous, high-ground positions in domestic battles--brokering the tax cut deal, proposing moderate cuts on spending--which have earned him some points with independents and improved his ratings. His foreign policy, though hardly brilliant, has dealt with the Mideast crisis well enough that his critics have been few, even among Republicans. His left flank, though grumbling, should not mutiny as long as he sticks to the plan to complete withdrawal from Iraq and begin it in Afghanistan before 2012.
So, it's perhaps not surprising that, at least until the train wreck occurs, Republicans have not been springing forward to announce their challenges to the titleholder. There are some who I consider nearly certain to run: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich (and lesser contenders Herman Cain, John Bolton, Rick Santorum). It's now looking likely that Mitch Daniels will run, also (and, so far, only positive signals from Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, and the ridiculous Donald Trump). But it also is starting to appear that neither of the right-wing's favorites, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, will make the decision to run (and Sen. John Thune may opt to continue his current gig, as well). Equally important, the odds on any of the big-time decliners (Marco Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry) choosing to run continue to lengthen.
If Palin or Huckabee runs, he/she will be a rallying point for primary voters seeking to avoid Romney's nomination. If neither runs, it should help the viability of Ron Paul, who's a favorite among the libertarian portion of the Tea Party, and it will allow any of the other Republicans to pander to the more conventional party right-wing. Romney will certainly be among them, and he can pander more effectively than most. He is starting to look like 2012's version of 2004's John Kerry.
One interesting recent poll result showed Obama with a narrower lead over a generic Republican than for any named opponent (except Huckabee). Obviously, this reflects the perceived absence of any specific individual as a strong opponent, but I would say it is also due to Republican poll subjects imagining "their" preferred candidate as the opponent. Once it is clear that their candidate will not be the nominee, it will be up to the party winner to impress upon the rank-and-file that he/she is "close enough" to their ideal. That means, above all, gaining unity in the party.
The Democratic party's Intrade quote for winning the 2012 election is holding at about 60%, as is Obama's personal quote (though the combined percentages on the name-the-winner bet for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are another 4% in that market). I find that likelihood considerably too low, train wreck or no, unless there is some sort of foreign policy disaster.
So Far, It's On Wisconsin!
The emerging debt crisis of the states is partly the product of the aging population, partly a reckoning deferred through various tricks of financial engineering, and largely a result of the Great Crater, which sharply diminished the value of the states' pension funds. There were already large, under-funded pension obligations to state workers across the nation (though concentrated in some states), but the funds set aside to help pay for them were decimated. The 2009 Federal stimulus program provided funds to the states in various forms which delayed the crisis, but now those programs are ending and, with the new Congress, it is clear they will not be renewed.
The more aggressive state fund managers have invested wisely in equities and other rising assets in the past couple of years and recovered much of the ground lost, though "getting back to even" (as CNBC's "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer calls getting out of the Crater) would still mean a loss of precious time for growth of their money. Some were probably obligated to take more conservative investment strategies, which would leave them further behind (and in position for it to get worse). Many--or most--states are in a position where they will have to make major changes to prevent insolvency--soon, or in the foreseeable future.
Give Wall Street some credit: the danger of defaults in municipal bonds has been a hot topic there for months--the consensus there is that municipalities may be allowed to fail, but states will not. If states fail to take measures to address their issues, though, the cost of borrowing will rise sharply, exacerbating their problems, and there will eventually be a specter of a new despised bailout.
The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, and 2009-elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have dared to speak this truth to their states' voters and have survived politically. This has emboldened the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, to take a more provocative stance. He has pushed forward legislation to require larger pension and healthcare contributions from state workers. Even more, the legislation would take away the state workers' right to collective bargaining. Democrats in the legislature, unable to vote the legislation down but in sufficient numbers to deny a quorum, took to the hills.
The rallying cry has been sounded by the journals of the left and union organizations across the country to support Wisconsin's public workers, who have taken to the streets. They are right to do so, though their arguments--to the effect that "balancing the budget on the back of the workers is wrong!"--only recognize one side. Concessions will have to be made by public workers, sacrifice will need to be shared, revenues will need to be raised, and--in some cases--states will appeal to the Federal government for assistance. The statement made on the right that public workers are paid more than private ones is a canard (a bald lie), but they have enjoyed greater job security, better benefits, and their defined-benefit pension plans (usually after only 20 years' service) are a bit rich. A compromise could be found--precisely through the collective bargaining process Walker wants to eliminate (with the unions a bit hampered in the negotiations by the law's prohibition of strikes by public workers).
Taking away their right to collective bargaining is the political red meat in the battle--a measure probably exceeding states' authority under Federal labor legislation, but surely a sop to Republicans and fighting words to Democrats and their base. The public unions make up a numerous, well-funded part of that base, easily the best-organized one. President Obama has been forced to take a stand against the Wisconsin Governor, identifying the legislation as "an assault on unions" and putting his Organizing for America political machinery into action on behalf of the public employee unions.
Governor Walker is motivated by ideology and may find this issue to be a political catapult into the front ranks of his party, but his is not the solution to the larger issue--it will end up making his state even harder to govern, and it may ultimately backfire for him. If he is successful, though, there are many other states that will jump on the bandwagon, so this is a battle with implications that go beyond Wisconsin.
Frankly, I need to study the labor history and labor law more to be expert on this topic, but this has blown the political lid off the month or so of relative peace and civility which followed the Tucson murders.
The Slow-Motion Train Wreck To Beat All
The 19th-century version of Radical Republicans went to extreme lengths--several Constitutional amendments, impeachment of President Andrew Johnson--to punish the Southern states for their secession, the Civil War, and the postwar denial of rights to the freed slaves. In the 20th century, Republicans started by heading the Progresive movement, but quickly moved to the forefront of reaction and resistance to liberal ideas of political equality and broadened economic opportunity; their defeat by the New Deal eventually forced them into an uneasy cooperation with progress. Now, there is a new breed of Radical Republicans for the 21st-century, and Walker's Wisconsin and the Republican-led House of Representatives are the new battlegrounds.
In Congress, the House of Orangeman Speaker John Boehner has commenced war against the Obama Administration with its version of the continuing resolution needed by March 4 to keep the Federal government operating. The cuts they passed this week, without a single Democratic vote--$61 billion for the remaining two-thirds of the current fiscal year--are only part of the assault; more radical still are amendments included in it to prevent the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act against large-scale greenhouse gas emitters and to block funding for measures required by the health insurance reform bill approved last year. The Senate, backed by President Obama's certain veto, will not pass the House's resolution in any recognizable form, so it is unlikely there will be any agreement by March 4 to continue normal operations of the Federal government. The Senate Democrats have suggested the presence of a door in the form of a short-term resolution, but the RR of the House of Orange have not yet acknowledged the presence of any door nor any need for one.
President Obama's budget proposal--considered too austere by many on the left--had about half as many cuts in Federal programs, but it was not seriously considered by the House (which, constitutionally, is required to begin the budget process). Neither side has yet taken up the elephants in the room--Medicare, or Social Security, or growth in Defense spending--so the posturing on both sides is limited to a few percent of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit for the year, and neither side is proposing significant assistance to states or much in the way of job creation.
A train wreck which has been developing for years and which takes 30 days to happen is pretty slow, but the trains are clearly on the same track, going in opposite directions, and braking hasn't even started.
'012 Electoral Drumroll Begins Softly, Slowly
The importance of state political battles has been underlined by their financial problems, as it will by the coming fights over House redistricting, but the main event in 2012 will be the battle for control of the Federal government: in the House, in the Senate, and for the Presidency itself.
House: The big breaker waves have gone in both directions in recent years, and at this point the next big wave has not yet formed. If the budget/deficit train wreck happens, though, for more than a couple of days anyway, blame is likely to settle on the Radical Republicans and the House of Orange may have a very short dynasty.
Without a major breaker, the numbers would suggest a reduced Republican majority coming out of 2012. Voters in the general election are likely to lean more Democratic than in the midyear election, and there are a number of seats the Republicans won last time that will be tough to hang onto (just as there were many won by the Democrats in '08 that were successfully targeted in '010). The target increase for the Democrats is 25, which is likely to be made harder by five or so net seats that redistricting in the states will design in the Republicans' favor.
The Intrade betting currently gives the Democrats a 45% chance of regaining control, up from 25% last month and from 35% last November. I think that quote is a bit high.
Senate: Defense of the Democrats' narrow Senate majority will be a major, expensive challenge. The Democrats have to defend 23 seats (including both of the Independents allied with them), the Republicans only 10. If the incumbent party holds 80% of seats on each side, the Democrats would hold on by 51-49; if they hold 60%, the Republicans would lead 52-48. So, along with swings in popular opinion toward one side or the other, the perception of the Senate's effectiveness will be important, especially for the Democrats.
The biggest development so far has been the announcement by six of the incumbent Senators that they will not run for re-election. The latest one is very significant: five-term Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who would have been a heavy favorite to win again. Of the other retirements, the Democrats are strong favorites to hold Joe Lieberman's seat, and the Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson's, while Kent Conrad's North Dakota seat is likely to go Republican, and Jon Kyl's in Arizona will favor a Republican hold (unless, of course, Gabrielle Giffords can ride her so-far miraculous recovery all the way to the upper house). Finally, Jim Webb's Virginia seat will certainly be vigorously contested, though I like the Democrats' chances if they can unite behind a candidate, such as former Governor Tim Kaine, and face "macaca" George Allen.
Bingaman's surprise announcement creates a wide-open race here, just as Pete Domenici did in 2008. Some of the same names are likely for the Republicans: newly-restored Representative Steve Pearce from the Republican-leaning Southern part of the state, and Heather Wilson, who gave up her Albuquerque seat in a losing bid for the seat won by Tom Udall. A Republican wild card might be former Governor Gary Johnson, who might give up his quixotic Presidential campaign and has unusually high crossover appeal. The Democrats might field former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, loser in the 2010 gubernatorial race, or current representatives Martin Heinrich (Albuquerque) or our Ben Ray Lujan, each of whom just won their second terms in the House. With New Mexico polling quite strongly in favor of President Obama, I like the Democrats' chances to hold the seat.
Apart from the seats being vacated, there will be a lot of difficult contests for incumbents whatever the political climate. Several of the Democratic seats will be relatively easy holds, but Montana's Jon Tester will surely be tested, Ben Nelson in Nebraska will be favored to lose, and three difficult holds will also be critical Presidential battlegrounds: Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, and Bill Nelson in Florida. The Republicans may face more Tea Party primary challenges in Tennessee (Bob Corker) and Maine (Olympia Snowe) which could either weaken the incumbent or bring forward a relatively weak insurgent. Two seats that the Republicans could easily lose are scandal-weakened John Ensign in Nevada (currently favored to lose a primary) and Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's old Massachusetts seat. One of the more interesting initiatives I saw recently was a movement to draft Elizabeth Warren--a key Obama adviser on financial reform--to run against him.
The Intrade betting on Senate control after 2012 has been light; the current quote for the Republican side is 69%, which seems way too high. I see the contest as a 50-50 proposition, and that result itself is far from unlikely--which would put control of the Senate in the hands of the party winning the Presidential election.
The Big Ticket:
The battle for the White House will be monstrous, ugly, and expensive, so it's a welcome, small blessing that it hasn't really started yet. President Obama has been able to stake out some advantageous, high-ground positions in domestic battles--brokering the tax cut deal, proposing moderate cuts on spending--which have earned him some points with independents and improved his ratings. His foreign policy, though hardly brilliant, has dealt with the Mideast crisis well enough that his critics have been few, even among Republicans. His left flank, though grumbling, should not mutiny as long as he sticks to the plan to complete withdrawal from Iraq and begin it in Afghanistan before 2012.
So, it's perhaps not surprising that, at least until the train wreck occurs, Republicans have not been springing forward to announce their challenges to the titleholder. There are some who I consider nearly certain to run: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich (and lesser contenders Herman Cain, John Bolton, Rick Santorum). It's now looking likely that Mitch Daniels will run, also (and, so far, only positive signals from Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, and the ridiculous Donald Trump). But it also is starting to appear that neither of the right-wing's favorites, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, will make the decision to run (and Sen. John Thune may opt to continue his current gig, as well). Equally important, the odds on any of the big-time decliners (Marco Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry) choosing to run continue to lengthen.
If Palin or Huckabee runs, he/she will be a rallying point for primary voters seeking to avoid Romney's nomination. If neither runs, it should help the viability of Ron Paul, who's a favorite among the libertarian portion of the Tea Party, and it will allow any of the other Republicans to pander to the more conventional party right-wing. Romney will certainly be among them, and he can pander more effectively than most. He is starting to look like 2012's version of 2004's John Kerry.
One interesting recent poll result showed Obama with a narrower lead over a generic Republican than for any named opponent (except Huckabee). Obviously, this reflects the perceived absence of any specific individual as a strong opponent, but I would say it is also due to Republican poll subjects imagining "their" preferred candidate as the opponent. Once it is clear that their candidate will not be the nominee, it will be up to the party winner to impress upon the rank-and-file that he/she is "close enough" to their ideal. That means, above all, gaining unity in the party.
The Democratic party's Intrade quote for winning the 2012 election is holding at about 60%, as is Obama's personal quote (though the combined percentages on the name-the-winner bet for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are another 4% in that market). I find that likelihood considerably too low, train wreck or no, unless there is some sort of foreign policy disaster.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Humanity in Jeopardy!?
I've been watching the game show Jeopardy! since the early days of Art Fleming hosting it, something like 40 years! I would immodestly claim to be pretty good at its particular brand of diverse trivia, word association, and punning punditry (though my recall is not as instantaneous as it was once), and I've always wanted the chance to get on there.
So, the special program this week, in which two of the greatest champions ever are taking on an IBM-programmed computer called "Watson", has a great deal of interest for me. The contest has completed two of three half-hour segments, and Watson is mopping the floor with the two humans.
I watched the PBS Nova program in which the development of Watson's Jeopardy prowess was investigated in more depth, and the programming is remarkable for its subtlety, its breadth, and its rapidity. It is that last factor which seems to account for the computer's overwhelming performance.
Its accuracy, particularly in coming up with fact-based answers (OK, questions), has been impressive, though not perfect. The problem the humans are having is getting beat to the buzzer. I have a bit of complaint here: the mechanics of who buzzes first has always been mostly hidden from the viewer. Supposedly, the buzzers are suppressed until our intrepid host Alex Trebek has finished reading the question, to avoid interrupting the flow of the show; I suspect that Watson has not been inhibited in that way (as it would be too hard to implement). There's also the mechanics of how the computer is fed the "answer", which is not going to be the same way that a human contestant would do it (visually, while hearing it).
In terms of accuracy, I wouldn't rate the computer higher than the humans--at least these two humans, who rarely get one wrong. In the final questions of the first day's Single Jeopardy!, and in today's first-round Final Jeopardy!, Watson made glaring errors (I notice that one flaw remains uncorrected--after Ken Jennings missed one clue, the computer gave the same erroneous response). It almost seemed as if Watson was tanking on a few to keep the match close and the ratings from doing the same, but that would be anthropmorphizing--giving the computer motivations which it would be unlikely their programmers could include.
Very interesting has been the graphic provided by Watson showing the top three possible answers considered by the computer and their evaluated probabilities of being correct. It's a well-designed entertainment, but not a fair contest, and the human contestants should not feel compelled to burst their hearts (or brains), John Henry fashion, in what will surely be a failed attempt to beat the machine.
So, the special program this week, in which two of the greatest champions ever are taking on an IBM-programmed computer called "Watson", has a great deal of interest for me. The contest has completed two of three half-hour segments, and Watson is mopping the floor with the two humans.
I watched the PBS Nova program in which the development of Watson's Jeopardy prowess was investigated in more depth, and the programming is remarkable for its subtlety, its breadth, and its rapidity. It is that last factor which seems to account for the computer's overwhelming performance.
Its accuracy, particularly in coming up with fact-based answers (OK, questions), has been impressive, though not perfect. The problem the humans are having is getting beat to the buzzer. I have a bit of complaint here: the mechanics of who buzzes first has always been mostly hidden from the viewer. Supposedly, the buzzers are suppressed until our intrepid host Alex Trebek has finished reading the question, to avoid interrupting the flow of the show; I suspect that Watson has not been inhibited in that way (as it would be too hard to implement). There's also the mechanics of how the computer is fed the "answer", which is not going to be the same way that a human contestant would do it (visually, while hearing it).
In terms of accuracy, I wouldn't rate the computer higher than the humans--at least these two humans, who rarely get one wrong. In the final questions of the first day's Single Jeopardy!, and in today's first-round Final Jeopardy!, Watson made glaring errors (I notice that one flaw remains uncorrected--after Ken Jennings missed one clue, the computer gave the same erroneous response). It almost seemed as if Watson was tanking on a few to keep the match close and the ratings from doing the same, but that would be anthropmorphizing--giving the computer motivations which it would be unlikely their programmers could include.
Very interesting has been the graphic provided by Watson showing the top three possible answers considered by the computer and their evaluated probabilities of being correct. It's a well-designed entertainment, but not a fair contest, and the human contestants should not feel compelled to burst their hearts (or brains), John Henry fashion, in what will surely be a failed attempt to beat the machine.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Lightning Revolution
Whoa! Just 24 hours ago, the day of deliverance was postponed, and though it seemed the form of the finale was likely, I was not sure just how soon it would come. Though President Mubarak rained on the sunny hopes yesterday, the postponement was less than a day; today's events were a double-header's worth.
The whole thing took 17 days from the first protests, on Egypt's Police Day January 25, to Mubarak's resignation and departure (from his Presidential Palace to his beach house in Sharm al Sheikh, at least so far). Given the determination and persistence of the protest movement, the outcome lay in the hands of the army, and their signal, fairly early on, that they would not fire on the protesters meant that Mubarak's days as President were numbered. Just how small that number ended up being was certainly a surprise.
Where Do They Go From Here?
One claim I made earlier in this crisis was that prospective leaders lay hidden among the crowds at Tahrir Square. I still believe that is true, though none of the reports so far have identified those opposition leaders. On the one hand, analysts praise the well-developed civil society (unions, lawyers' guilds, professionals, academics, social organizations), on the other hand, there is a complete absence of credible political organizations--other than the long-standing, previously-banned, fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
The M.B. was not a leader of this nearly-spontaneous uprising, but they are probably the best poised to move forward. Their perspective (as outlined in a Times editorial published three days ago) is a combination of peaceful opposition, from a orthodox Muslim perspective. to the old fallen regime, and opposition to a new secular democracy. Their support is estimated at 20-30% of the population.
The vacuum of popular leaders untainted by involvement with Mubarak's party, or the phony opposition parties he ginned up, will be filled quickly. What type of leaders they will be is hard to read at this point, but I would expect that young professionals will become the equivalent of the "Young Turk" military officers of Turkey's revolution of the 1920's, the symbols of the new Egypt. There will be, in some form, a split over whether Egypt should be a "Muslim democracy" or a "secular democracy", something Turkey has struggled with for eight decades. The Turkish military was the guarantor of secular, modern governance--not of democracy--and it has taken this long for the military to allow a moderate Islamic party to take political control.
I expect that the Egyptian military may similarly block an Iranian-style takeover by any fundamentalist Muslim movement. There may be a triangle of forces, with a moderate Islamic party taking a lead role, the M.B. supporting their rise but not entering the government, and the military giving moral and physical support to ensure the survival of one or more secular opposition parties. Such a government would allow the headscarves and religious instruction that have been controversial in some predominantly Muslim countries (as well as some countries with significant Muslim minorities), but probably not go so far as Saudi Arabia's prohibitions on alcohol or women driving. There may be other cleavages that form over time (for example, how much tourism is optimal? To what degree will the Coptic Christian minority be tolerated, or protected?), but I expect all major parties to be nationalistic, supporting centralized authority: Egypt settled that question in their country about 5000 years ago with the unification of the kingdoms of the Upper and Lower Nile.
The old Constitution seems doomed, and a Constitutional convention will probably be necessary, but formation of a new government and a framework for elections can not wait so long. The work that needs to be done is comparable to that completed to go from the end of the American Revolution to the beginning of government under our Constitution--that took about eight years! I think it may be more of a top-down, fast-forward affair, with a Presidential election (with candidates vetted by the military) in six months, and new Parliamentary elections within a year. The military seems likely to want to ensure peace, get something started, then step out of the political battle (though they may reserve the right, Turkey-style, to re-enter the fray if it endangers the minimally acceptable conditions).
Contrary to what some say, I think the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohammed el-Baradei (a Nobel prize-winner) would be a great choice to be the first elected President of the new Egypt, their George Washington. He is a bit above it all, but as a respected national figure of international stature, that's not so bad for the time being.
And What About The Rest Of Us?
This is not about the US--our President's balancing act was classic American foreign policy, with equal measures of standing up for our values, of backing the realpolitik objectives of our selfish interest and those of our allies, and of hypocrisy. As with other such episodes in American foreign policy history, it got bipartisan--nearly universal--support. What we did or didn't do had little effect on the outcome, which as I say was basically determined by the Egyptian military and their consideration of the moral force of the uprising. Our strongest potential threat was to cut off our $1 billion or so of annual military aid (about $12 per Egyptian); this might have had a significant effect on the quantity of governmental graft in the system, but was not determinative. We may be able to provide some economic assistance in the transition period, but I think the Egyptians will decline--either politely or not so politely--our political guidance, so we shouldn't even try.
This is not about Israel, either. I don't expect the military council, or the first elected government, to reject unilaterally the peace treaty Anwar Sadat (Mubarak's one-party predecessor) signed with Menachim Begin in the Carter Administration. I do think that there will be a lot more questioning of the relationship, strong support for the Palestinians in neighboring Gaza (and possibly the West Bank), and a higher level of tension with Israel if that government doesn't move to reduce Israeli-Palestinian tensions.
There may be an interesting phase in which Israel and Egypt compete for their shares of a shrinking American foreign aid pie. I see one possible repercussion being a fall of the current Israeli governing coalition, with the right-wing Avigdor Lieberman party leaving the governing coalition and the Kadima party (Ariel Sharon's creation, designed to fill the middle between Likud and Labour) going in--that would not require a change in leadership from Netanyahu, but would require him to show a bit more flexibility on issues such as Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
To a secondary extent, Egypt's change IS about the other Arab states, and about Iran's government. Taking the latter first, we saw two years ago that the difference there was the Iranian military's willingness to take on the insurgents and suppress them violently--at the crunch, there was no space between the Iranian military leadership and the internal police forces, whereas in Egypt that gap showed up very quickly. The best hope for change in Iran is probably generational change when the Supreme Leader dies and his successor boots Ahmadinejad (hardly a sure thing, but something to hope for).
As we saw with Iran, there are some states that should not try Egyptian-style uprisings, as they would simply precipitate massacres. Syria would be one of those, Libya probably another. In other states, we should fear such an uprising because what would follow would be worse than the present: Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian West Bank, Yemen. Jordan's King Abdullah saw the threat early and made timely concessions which may preserve his rule for a few more years (though the mix in that country is very unstable); Iraq's political classes have been tempered by years of intense flame and are probably not too susceptible to the popular fervent; Algeria's recent brutal history may provide them some insulation against explosive protest. Some of the other Arabian peninsula states may find their internal contradictions overwhelming (though they have more resources to placate their underclass). I wouldn't be too surprised to see major issues arise in Morocco. Lebanon, as always, is a powder keg that was already blowing up before Tunisia's uprising started this thing.
A World-Historical Event
In terms of global significance, these events probably rate as more important than the movement toward democracy in South America in recent decades, or even than the hugely inspirational victory over apartheid in South Africa. This is more comparable in its potential to the breaching and destruction of the Berlin Wall in Germany, followed by the collapse of the other Eastern European Communist nations and finally the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Do not forget that the latter event was preceded by an attempted military coup, which was successfully resisted by Boris Yeltsin and his supporters in the Russian state (which led to their replacing the Soviet Union as the dominant force in the region), and those events were contemporaneous with the disastrous student sit-in, the massacre in Tienanmen Square, and the subsequent repression of dissidents in China, so the events were not all in one direction.
Although I would agree with President Obama that "Egypt will never be the same," we should not expect the international sequence to ripple--or better, rip--in the same pattern as occurred at the end of the Cold War. The economic problems of the region are deeper still than the former Second World had in 1991 (and not all of those states have turned out so well); the Mideast populations lack such things as political sophistication, literacy, McDonald's. The potential for outside interference--whether Iran, Israel, the US, or other countries--is very strong; the prizes in Mideast oil may be very tempting.
There are also dangers that autocracy may re-establish itself in Egypt, as that has been the prevailing theme there for more generations than the number of years Mubarak has lived. I think of the Egyptian reign of Akhenaton (1380-1362 B.C.), who suddenly unified all their deities into a monotheistic sun worship. He unified the old order's priests against him, and they had him killed, then put his teenage son Tutankamun on the throne and put things back the way they were--and convinced whoever needed to be convinced that was the way they were supposed to be. There may be a very strong reaction at some point against the rise of the Young Egyptians, though Egypt--the oldest of countries--does have one of the youngest populations in the world. If the Egyptian military--the new high priests--do not like the trends, they may feel forced to find and install a new pharaoh.
The whole thing took 17 days from the first protests, on Egypt's Police Day January 25, to Mubarak's resignation and departure (from his Presidential Palace to his beach house in Sharm al Sheikh, at least so far). Given the determination and persistence of the protest movement, the outcome lay in the hands of the army, and their signal, fairly early on, that they would not fire on the protesters meant that Mubarak's days as President were numbered. Just how small that number ended up being was certainly a surprise.
Where Do They Go From Here?
One claim I made earlier in this crisis was that prospective leaders lay hidden among the crowds at Tahrir Square. I still believe that is true, though none of the reports so far have identified those opposition leaders. On the one hand, analysts praise the well-developed civil society (unions, lawyers' guilds, professionals, academics, social organizations), on the other hand, there is a complete absence of credible political organizations--other than the long-standing, previously-banned, fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
The M.B. was not a leader of this nearly-spontaneous uprising, but they are probably the best poised to move forward. Their perspective (as outlined in a Times editorial published three days ago) is a combination of peaceful opposition, from a orthodox Muslim perspective. to the old fallen regime, and opposition to a new secular democracy. Their support is estimated at 20-30% of the population.
The vacuum of popular leaders untainted by involvement with Mubarak's party, or the phony opposition parties he ginned up, will be filled quickly. What type of leaders they will be is hard to read at this point, but I would expect that young professionals will become the equivalent of the "Young Turk" military officers of Turkey's revolution of the 1920's, the symbols of the new Egypt. There will be, in some form, a split over whether Egypt should be a "Muslim democracy" or a "secular democracy", something Turkey has struggled with for eight decades. The Turkish military was the guarantor of secular, modern governance--not of democracy--and it has taken this long for the military to allow a moderate Islamic party to take political control.
I expect that the Egyptian military may similarly block an Iranian-style takeover by any fundamentalist Muslim movement. There may be a triangle of forces, with a moderate Islamic party taking a lead role, the M.B. supporting their rise but not entering the government, and the military giving moral and physical support to ensure the survival of one or more secular opposition parties. Such a government would allow the headscarves and religious instruction that have been controversial in some predominantly Muslim countries (as well as some countries with significant Muslim minorities), but probably not go so far as Saudi Arabia's prohibitions on alcohol or women driving. There may be other cleavages that form over time (for example, how much tourism is optimal? To what degree will the Coptic Christian minority be tolerated, or protected?), but I expect all major parties to be nationalistic, supporting centralized authority: Egypt settled that question in their country about 5000 years ago with the unification of the kingdoms of the Upper and Lower Nile.
The old Constitution seems doomed, and a Constitutional convention will probably be necessary, but formation of a new government and a framework for elections can not wait so long. The work that needs to be done is comparable to that completed to go from the end of the American Revolution to the beginning of government under our Constitution--that took about eight years! I think it may be more of a top-down, fast-forward affair, with a Presidential election (with candidates vetted by the military) in six months, and new Parliamentary elections within a year. The military seems likely to want to ensure peace, get something started, then step out of the political battle (though they may reserve the right, Turkey-style, to re-enter the fray if it endangers the minimally acceptable conditions).
Contrary to what some say, I think the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohammed el-Baradei (a Nobel prize-winner) would be a great choice to be the first elected President of the new Egypt, their George Washington. He is a bit above it all, but as a respected national figure of international stature, that's not so bad for the time being.
And What About The Rest Of Us?
This is not about the US--our President's balancing act was classic American foreign policy, with equal measures of standing up for our values, of backing the realpolitik objectives of our selfish interest and those of our allies, and of hypocrisy. As with other such episodes in American foreign policy history, it got bipartisan--nearly universal--support. What we did or didn't do had little effect on the outcome, which as I say was basically determined by the Egyptian military and their consideration of the moral force of the uprising. Our strongest potential threat was to cut off our $1 billion or so of annual military aid (about $12 per Egyptian); this might have had a significant effect on the quantity of governmental graft in the system, but was not determinative. We may be able to provide some economic assistance in the transition period, but I think the Egyptians will decline--either politely or not so politely--our political guidance, so we shouldn't even try.
This is not about Israel, either. I don't expect the military council, or the first elected government, to reject unilaterally the peace treaty Anwar Sadat (Mubarak's one-party predecessor) signed with Menachim Begin in the Carter Administration. I do think that there will be a lot more questioning of the relationship, strong support for the Palestinians in neighboring Gaza (and possibly the West Bank), and a higher level of tension with Israel if that government doesn't move to reduce Israeli-Palestinian tensions.
There may be an interesting phase in which Israel and Egypt compete for their shares of a shrinking American foreign aid pie. I see one possible repercussion being a fall of the current Israeli governing coalition, with the right-wing Avigdor Lieberman party leaving the governing coalition and the Kadima party (Ariel Sharon's creation, designed to fill the middle between Likud and Labour) going in--that would not require a change in leadership from Netanyahu, but would require him to show a bit more flexibility on issues such as Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
To a secondary extent, Egypt's change IS about the other Arab states, and about Iran's government. Taking the latter first, we saw two years ago that the difference there was the Iranian military's willingness to take on the insurgents and suppress them violently--at the crunch, there was no space between the Iranian military leadership and the internal police forces, whereas in Egypt that gap showed up very quickly. The best hope for change in Iran is probably generational change when the Supreme Leader dies and his successor boots Ahmadinejad (hardly a sure thing, but something to hope for).
As we saw with Iran, there are some states that should not try Egyptian-style uprisings, as they would simply precipitate massacres. Syria would be one of those, Libya probably another. In other states, we should fear such an uprising because what would follow would be worse than the present: Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian West Bank, Yemen. Jordan's King Abdullah saw the threat early and made timely concessions which may preserve his rule for a few more years (though the mix in that country is very unstable); Iraq's political classes have been tempered by years of intense flame and are probably not too susceptible to the popular fervent; Algeria's recent brutal history may provide them some insulation against explosive protest. Some of the other Arabian peninsula states may find their internal contradictions overwhelming (though they have more resources to placate their underclass). I wouldn't be too surprised to see major issues arise in Morocco. Lebanon, as always, is a powder keg that was already blowing up before Tunisia's uprising started this thing.
A World-Historical Event
In terms of global significance, these events probably rate as more important than the movement toward democracy in South America in recent decades, or even than the hugely inspirational victory over apartheid in South Africa. This is more comparable in its potential to the breaching and destruction of the Berlin Wall in Germany, followed by the collapse of the other Eastern European Communist nations and finally the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Do not forget that the latter event was preceded by an attempted military coup, which was successfully resisted by Boris Yeltsin and his supporters in the Russian state (which led to their replacing the Soviet Union as the dominant force in the region), and those events were contemporaneous with the disastrous student sit-in, the massacre in Tienanmen Square, and the subsequent repression of dissidents in China, so the events were not all in one direction.
Although I would agree with President Obama that "Egypt will never be the same," we should not expect the international sequence to ripple--or better, rip--in the same pattern as occurred at the end of the Cold War. The economic problems of the region are deeper still than the former Second World had in 1991 (and not all of those states have turned out so well); the Mideast populations lack such things as political sophistication, literacy, McDonald's. The potential for outside interference--whether Iran, Israel, the US, or other countries--is very strong; the prizes in Mideast oil may be very tempting.
There are also dangers that autocracy may re-establish itself in Egypt, as that has been the prevailing theme there for more generations than the number of years Mubarak has lived. I think of the Egyptian reign of Akhenaton (1380-1362 B.C.), who suddenly unified all their deities into a monotheistic sun worship. He unified the old order's priests against him, and they had him killed, then put his teenage son Tutankamun on the throne and put things back the way they were--and convinced whoever needed to be convinced that was the way they were supposed to be. There may be a very strong reaction at some point against the rise of the Young Egyptians, though Egypt--the oldest of countries--does have one of the youngest populations in the world. If the Egyptian military--the new high priests--do not like the trends, they may feel forced to find and install a new pharaoh.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Toast for Giffords
Word came out yesterday that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson had spoken for the first time, asking for toast. I certainly hope she got her burnt bread, but here's an additional toast, unsubtly influenced by the news today (coincidentally?) that Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has decided not to run for re-election in 2012:
"Here's to you, Representative Giffords! Thanks for your courageous public service and the good grace with which you've addressed all your challenges, both before the cruel assault and afterwards. May you have a speedy, full recovery, and, if it's possible and if it's what you want, May you be our next U.S. Senator from Arizona!"
"Here's to you, Representative Giffords! Thanks for your courageous public service and the good grace with which you've addressed all your challenges, both before the cruel assault and afterwards. May you have a speedy, full recovery, and, if it's possible and if it's what you want, May you be our next U.S. Senator from Arizona!"
Not Just Yet
There is an old saw in the legal industry that "Justice delayed is justice denied." As I watched Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's non-resignation speech and the reaction of the disappointed protesters in Cairo's Tahfir Square, that statement--which usually refers to the issue of a speedy trial--seems to apply. As long as Mubarak and his deputies are delaying their departure, there remains the threat that the prevarications and temporizing could threaten the ultimate outcome. If the protesters can be made to back off their pressure, the whole insurgency could dissipate and business as usual could resume, and that's clearly what they are seeking. The insurgents' maximalist demands show full awareness of that threat and, though they are worryingly vague about exactly how things might proceed after a Mubarak departure, they are justified on that score.
I posted recently on some of the parallels to recent decades' "People Power" movements in Asia and how their country's armies have suppressed them, or not. It occurs to me that there is something of an American parallel, a crisis of legitimacy, and some of that experience may guide our expectations. I'm referring to the last days of the Nixon Administration in 1973-74.
A couple things that are similar are that Nixon seemed securely in power after his 1972 landslide election (as Mubarak may have seemed secure just months ago in Egypt's rigged parliamentary election). Out of nowhere, almost, came the movement which undermined his regime (in that case, the Watergate hearings and the discovery of the tapes which fatally undercut his cover-up). What was really noticeably similar was how Nixon would go on national TV every couple of months through the crisis, telling his side of the story, gradually giving up some of his underlings when he couldn't protect them, but insisting that he would tough it out. Waiting for the last shoe to drop, we would all watch each time but come away disappointed, as Nixon tried to rally his shrinking base of supporters. Then, finally, once he'd played all his cards and calculating that he had no more room to maneuver, he suddenly resigned, and his unelected Vice President moved quickly to pardon him. Vice President Ford did his constitutional duty, but when it came time to face the electorate, he was shown the door, too.
That's pretty much the way I expect the Mubarak drama to end, with his appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman covering his tracks to ensure Mubarak's successful retreat and retirement, with whatever dignity can be preserved. That's probably the most important thing from his perspective. The difference here is the crowd of hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding immediate justice.
I posted recently on some of the parallels to recent decades' "People Power" movements in Asia and how their country's armies have suppressed them, or not. It occurs to me that there is something of an American parallel, a crisis of legitimacy, and some of that experience may guide our expectations. I'm referring to the last days of the Nixon Administration in 1973-74.
A couple things that are similar are that Nixon seemed securely in power after his 1972 landslide election (as Mubarak may have seemed secure just months ago in Egypt's rigged parliamentary election). Out of nowhere, almost, came the movement which undermined his regime (in that case, the Watergate hearings and the discovery of the tapes which fatally undercut his cover-up). What was really noticeably similar was how Nixon would go on national TV every couple of months through the crisis, telling his side of the story, gradually giving up some of his underlings when he couldn't protect them, but insisting that he would tough it out. Waiting for the last shoe to drop, we would all watch each time but come away disappointed, as Nixon tried to rally his shrinking base of supporters. Then, finally, once he'd played all his cards and calculating that he had no more room to maneuver, he suddenly resigned, and his unelected Vice President moved quickly to pardon him. Vice President Ford did his constitutional duty, but when it came time to face the electorate, he was shown the door, too.
That's pretty much the way I expect the Mubarak drama to end, with his appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman covering his tracks to ensure Mubarak's successful retreat and retirement, with whatever dignity can be preserved. That's probably the most important thing from his perspective. The difference here is the crowd of hundreds of thousands of protesters demanding immediate justice.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Got Gas?
No, not indigestion.
The title has been a frequent greeting here in Taos over the last 5 days.
It's a bit of a long story, and the story is far from clear, but here are some of the facts:
o) Taos had -24 degrees F Thursday morning, the most severe of a cold snap that affected all of New Mexico and Texas;
o) By midday Thursday, we found out that Taos and a few other communities in New Mexico were having their natural gas shut off by the local company, now called New Mexico Gas;
o) The company's line is more or less this: in West Texas, the cold caused overuse of electricity and gas--gas is used for some of the electricity production there--and the system (which gets gas both from Texas and New Mexico) was losing pressure fast;
o) So, the company made some strategic decisions about cutting off gas to some of the places at the end of their pipeline system: Taos, Espanola (30 mi. south of here), some of the pueblos around here, Bernalillo (a small city near Albuquerque) the rest of our county, and some places in the south of the state (Silver City, Alamogordo);
o) Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Texas (where they had the Super Bowl on Sunday, giant heated stadium) didn't get cut off;
o) They've been restoring the gas since Saturday--first they have to cut it off at each house or business, then once the area's all shut off, they turn it back on, first for the area, then for each house or business;
o) By yesterday, most of the areas except Taos, Espanola, and some pueblos had their gas back.
Today, the Gas Company's people came to Taos, and they've been turning the gas back on--we got ours about 4 p.m. They're not quite finished, and may not finish for another 24 or 48 hours.
So, we were without heat, hot water, or cooking gas for five days. Nearly every business and restaurant in town was closed, along with the schools on Friday and today. It was especially frustrating because the gas company has been very vague about when the gas would be turned back on, yet people had to stay at their houses for when they showed up.
People have helped each other out a lot here, and there were few or no casualties--for example, we had dinner at a friend's house (who had a propane tank), the kids stayed there, people loaned us electric space heaters, etc. However, there is a lot of anger at the gas company, who clearly chose to cut us off (they say, to avoid greater system failures)--coincidentally, or not, they were poorer communities, not the local money or power centers, and at our new Republican governor, who's been less than helpful (she got slaughtered in both Taos and Espanola).
People here are looking for revenge, but I think the material damages--apart from businesses having to close for some days because of no gas--will be fairly small. The Gas Company has had to spend a lot of money bringing in plumbers, pipe fitters, etc. from all over to help restore service. There is always a lot of resentment of Texas here (Governor Martinez was born in El Paso and was derisively referred to as "Susana la Tejana" in the election campaign), so that's part of the mix; also, there is an area near here called Valle Vidal with great natural beauty which was blocked for gas development a couple of years ago by Gov. Richardson after a major public campaign, so there is also the theory that the gas company is getting back to us for that.
So far, though there has been some talk of it, the Taosenos have not "gone all Egyptian" on the gas company--yet. I think it will be a long time before Gov. Martinez shows her face up here.
All systems are go here, which is good because they're calling for another snowstorm tonight! I've laid up a lot of firewood, and haven't returned our electric heaters to our friends just yet.
The title has been a frequent greeting here in Taos over the last 5 days.
It's a bit of a long story, and the story is far from clear, but here are some of the facts:
o) Taos had -24 degrees F Thursday morning, the most severe of a cold snap that affected all of New Mexico and Texas;
o) By midday Thursday, we found out that Taos and a few other communities in New Mexico were having their natural gas shut off by the local company, now called New Mexico Gas;
o) The company's line is more or less this: in West Texas, the cold caused overuse of electricity and gas--gas is used for some of the electricity production there--and the system (which gets gas both from Texas and New Mexico) was losing pressure fast;
o) So, the company made some strategic decisions about cutting off gas to some of the places at the end of their pipeline system: Taos, Espanola (30 mi. south of here), some of the pueblos around here, Bernalillo (a small city near Albuquerque) the rest of our county, and some places in the south of the state (Silver City, Alamogordo);
o) Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Texas (where they had the Super Bowl on Sunday, giant heated stadium) didn't get cut off;
o) They've been restoring the gas since Saturday--first they have to cut it off at each house or business, then once the area's all shut off, they turn it back on, first for the area, then for each house or business;
o) By yesterday, most of the areas except Taos, Espanola, and some pueblos had their gas back.
Today, the Gas Company's people came to Taos, and they've been turning the gas back on--we got ours about 4 p.m. They're not quite finished, and may not finish for another 24 or 48 hours.
So, we were without heat, hot water, or cooking gas for five days. Nearly every business and restaurant in town was closed, along with the schools on Friday and today. It was especially frustrating because the gas company has been very vague about when the gas would be turned back on, yet people had to stay at their houses for when they showed up.
People have helped each other out a lot here, and there were few or no casualties--for example, we had dinner at a friend's house (who had a propane tank), the kids stayed there, people loaned us electric space heaters, etc. However, there is a lot of anger at the gas company, who clearly chose to cut us off (they say, to avoid greater system failures)--coincidentally, or not, they were poorer communities, not the local money or power centers, and at our new Republican governor, who's been less than helpful (she got slaughtered in both Taos and Espanola).
People here are looking for revenge, but I think the material damages--apart from businesses having to close for some days because of no gas--will be fairly small. The Gas Company has had to spend a lot of money bringing in plumbers, pipe fitters, etc. from all over to help restore service. There is always a lot of resentment of Texas here (Governor Martinez was born in El Paso and was derisively referred to as "Susana la Tejana" in the election campaign), so that's part of the mix; also, there is an area near here called Valle Vidal with great natural beauty which was blocked for gas development a couple of years ago by Gov. Richardson after a major public campaign, so there is also the theory that the gas company is getting back to us for that.
So far, though there has been some talk of it, the Taosenos have not "gone all Egyptian" on the gas company--yet. I think it will be a long time before Gov. Martinez shows her face up here.
All systems are go here, which is good because they're calling for another snowstorm tonight! I've laid up a lot of firewood, and haven't returned our electric heaters to our friends just yet.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
The SPBLORG, Pt. 2
Tennis: Dawn of the New Decade
The Australian Open just finished marked the start of this decade's Grand Slam tournaments, and there were definite signs of change at the top of the pyramid for both the men's and women's singles competition.
The profile of the pyramid for the women's game is sleeker, though there's considerable doubt who occupies the capstone. Technically, the #1 player in the world is Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark; she occupies the top spot on the merit of consistent play over the last 52 weeks, but she has never won a Grand Slam and didn't seem particularly close to winning the Aussie. She fell to the #9-seeded player, Li Na of China, in the semifinals, and Ms. Li lost to #3 Kim Clijsters of Belgium in three sets.
Clijsters was the only one of the dominant women's players of the last decade to make a decent showing in this year's Australian, and she is apparently considering retiring after this year. Justine Henin lost fairly early and announced she was going back into retirement; Venus Williams showed up out of shape and got hurt at the end of her second-round match; Serena--who, regardless of the point system, is considered Queen of the Hill still if she plays--has not yet recovered from a deep cut in her foot that she suffered in a freakish accident last summer (and then she'll probably have to work for a month or two to get in shape). Big-serving Aussie Sam Stosur went out surprisingly early. The ground-game princesses like Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic have faded, and new Eastern European duchesses with big serves like Petkevich, Wozniacki herself, and Kvitova have not yet emerged, or, in the case of Maria Sharapova, have not yet fully re-emerged.
It is clear that the field for the next Slam event, the French Open, will be a wide-open one (though Clijsters will again probably be the favorite), and the same will be true for Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, unless Serena proves herself fully fit by then. Two to watch for in the French will be Svetlana Kuznetzova and Francesca Schiavone; Schiavone is the defending French champ, and Kuznetzova ("Svettie") showed up in Melbourne in her best shape ever. They cancelled each other out, though, in their matchup in the round of 16, the longest women's Grand Slam match ever; Schiavone outlasted Svettie 16-14 in the final set and played gamely but couldn't stay with Wozniacki in the next round.
Men's Game: The Australian Open favors men who cover the court well, and by that token the finals matchup of Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray--two of the fittest, fleetest court-coverers around--was no surprise. What was a surprise was the absence in the final, for the first time in years, of both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Federer lost to Djokovic in straight sets in the semifinals--possibly a match of historic significance, though we'll have to see if the Fed is able to revenge himself at Wimbledon before we demote him to the second tier--while Nadal looked very strong until he suffered a hamstring injury in his quarterfinal match against countryman David Ferrer and went down to him in three painful sets. For Nadal, the first test in the future will be whether he is able to get fit enough to restore his dominance on clay in the French Open.
In the longer run, I think it is likely that the Federer-Nadal exclusivity at the top of the game is near its end (though not necessarily over just yet). Djokovic has shown that he can battle the duo on even terms when his game is at its best; Murray has a good record against them, as well, though he still seems a bit psyched out when it comes to Grand Slam finals; then there is Juan Martin Del Potro of Argentina. Del Potro may have the most intimidating all-round power game ever, and his sweep through the top tier of tennis to win the U.S. Open was no fluke. The problem has been his health (his shoulder, I believe) ever since. Del Potro could become the top player in the world within two years if he can come back healthy.
Stupor Bowl XLV--
Today is Super Bowl Sunday and all red-blooded American males (and those females somehow drawn in, or shackled in) will be watching impatiently for the endless pregame show to end and the event finally to begin. Then, if it is like the majority of Super Bowls, one hour later the game will be all but over (with 2 hours left in the game's telecast, not to mention the postgame) and we'll be looking for something else to do.
The matchup is a very good one in football terms. It is not the ratings dream (especially for the network executivees) matchup of the two largest markets with NFL teams which could have come out of the Conference championships, but rather two rather dinky, aging markets in the economically dreary Rust Bowl. Still, the sales of advertisements (at $2 million a minute) don't seem to be flagging. The Packers and Steelers are two original NFL teams, still in their original locations, each with rich traditions and a history of success in Super Bowls. Their teams are old school, rugged outfits, but with high-quality quarterbacks heading their offenses.
I would predict a slow start, as each team tries to establish a running game to help protect their QB's from all-out blitz defensive strategies. If there are no big errors (defenders will be looking to force fumbles, for example), a low score at halftime, then both teams will come out swinging for the fences (baseball metaphor) by throwing long bombs (more appropriately, war metaphor). I'd predict a wild second half, and a moderately close game. The Steelers have a lot more recent success in Super Bowls, so I would make them the favorite, and I'd predict a final score of 34-24.
The Australian Open just finished marked the start of this decade's Grand Slam tournaments, and there were definite signs of change at the top of the pyramid for both the men's and women's singles competition.
The profile of the pyramid for the women's game is sleeker, though there's considerable doubt who occupies the capstone. Technically, the #1 player in the world is Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark; she occupies the top spot on the merit of consistent play over the last 52 weeks, but she has never won a Grand Slam and didn't seem particularly close to winning the Aussie. She fell to the #9-seeded player, Li Na of China, in the semifinals, and Ms. Li lost to #3 Kim Clijsters of Belgium in three sets.
Clijsters was the only one of the dominant women's players of the last decade to make a decent showing in this year's Australian, and she is apparently considering retiring after this year. Justine Henin lost fairly early and announced she was going back into retirement; Venus Williams showed up out of shape and got hurt at the end of her second-round match; Serena--who, regardless of the point system, is considered Queen of the Hill still if she plays--has not yet recovered from a deep cut in her foot that she suffered in a freakish accident last summer (and then she'll probably have to work for a month or two to get in shape). Big-serving Aussie Sam Stosur went out surprisingly early. The ground-game princesses like Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic have faded, and new Eastern European duchesses with big serves like Petkevich, Wozniacki herself, and Kvitova have not yet emerged, or, in the case of Maria Sharapova, have not yet fully re-emerged.
It is clear that the field for the next Slam event, the French Open, will be a wide-open one (though Clijsters will again probably be the favorite), and the same will be true for Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, unless Serena proves herself fully fit by then. Two to watch for in the French will be Svetlana Kuznetzova and Francesca Schiavone; Schiavone is the defending French champ, and Kuznetzova ("Svettie") showed up in Melbourne in her best shape ever. They cancelled each other out, though, in their matchup in the round of 16, the longest women's Grand Slam match ever; Schiavone outlasted Svettie 16-14 in the final set and played gamely but couldn't stay with Wozniacki in the next round.
Men's Game: The Australian Open favors men who cover the court well, and by that token the finals matchup of Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray--two of the fittest, fleetest court-coverers around--was no surprise. What was a surprise was the absence in the final, for the first time in years, of both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Federer lost to Djokovic in straight sets in the semifinals--possibly a match of historic significance, though we'll have to see if the Fed is able to revenge himself at Wimbledon before we demote him to the second tier--while Nadal looked very strong until he suffered a hamstring injury in his quarterfinal match against countryman David Ferrer and went down to him in three painful sets. For Nadal, the first test in the future will be whether he is able to get fit enough to restore his dominance on clay in the French Open.
In the longer run, I think it is likely that the Federer-Nadal exclusivity at the top of the game is near its end (though not necessarily over just yet). Djokovic has shown that he can battle the duo on even terms when his game is at its best; Murray has a good record against them, as well, though he still seems a bit psyched out when it comes to Grand Slam finals; then there is Juan Martin Del Potro of Argentina. Del Potro may have the most intimidating all-round power game ever, and his sweep through the top tier of tennis to win the U.S. Open was no fluke. The problem has been his health (his shoulder, I believe) ever since. Del Potro could become the top player in the world within two years if he can come back healthy.
Stupor Bowl XLV--
Today is Super Bowl Sunday and all red-blooded American males (and those females somehow drawn in, or shackled in) will be watching impatiently for the endless pregame show to end and the event finally to begin. Then, if it is like the majority of Super Bowls, one hour later the game will be all but over (with 2 hours left in the game's telecast, not to mention the postgame) and we'll be looking for something else to do.
The matchup is a very good one in football terms. It is not the ratings dream (especially for the network executivees) matchup of the two largest markets with NFL teams which could have come out of the Conference championships, but rather two rather dinky, aging markets in the economically dreary Rust Bowl. Still, the sales of advertisements (at $2 million a minute) don't seem to be flagging. The Packers and Steelers are two original NFL teams, still in their original locations, each with rich traditions and a history of success in Super Bowls. Their teams are old school, rugged outfits, but with high-quality quarterbacks heading their offenses.
I would predict a slow start, as each team tries to establish a running game to help protect their QB's from all-out blitz defensive strategies. If there are no big errors (defenders will be looking to force fumbles, for example), a low score at halftime, then both teams will come out swinging for the fences (baseball metaphor) by throwing long bombs (more appropriately, war metaphor). I'd predict a wild second half, and a moderately close game. The Steelers have a lot more recent success in Super Bowls, so I would make them the favorite, and I'd predict a final score of 34-24.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Jet Stream Vagaries
Our little high plains town was treated to -24F this morning. The New Mexico Gas Company found that its supplies from West Texas were insufficient, though the pipeline is intact, so they made some strategic decisions about which communities would get gas, and which would get shut off. The money-and-power locus of Santa Fe and Albuquerque was spared; somehow Taos, Espanola, a couple of towns in the south and several of the pueblos have been cut off.
The good news is that the sun came out today and the temperature rose as high as 20F during the day. Also, the rolling blackouts from Kit Carson electric are largely over. The bad news: it got colder again, there's no gas on the horizon for tomorrow, and everyone will have to re-light their pilot flames once they get word the gas is back.
Our mayor got on the phone with new Governor Susana Martinez to see if NM Gas would extend its work efforts through the night. The answer was no.
The good news is that the sun came out today and the temperature rose as high as 20F during the day. Also, the rolling blackouts from Kit Carson electric are largely over. The bad news: it got colder again, there's no gas on the horizon for tomorrow, and everyone will have to re-light their pilot flames once they get word the gas is back.
Our mayor got on the phone with new Governor Susana Martinez to see if NM Gas would extend its work efforts through the night. The answer was no.
The SPBLORG
(The above is my new header for the recurring, but previously mundanely-titled "Sports Notes"; it's a combination of "sport" and "blog" with just a hint of "The Borg"--that fictional name itself probably a rip-off of famed Swedish sportsman Bjorn.)
Much Ado about Next to Nothing
Tonight the reserves for the NBA All-Star game will be announced. There has been a whole lot of blather about this; it is a pretty big honor to be named, after all, since, unlike the MLB one, there's not enough spots to go around--24 vs. 60.
The talk has mostly been about the surfeit of good candidates in the West and the paucity of them in the East. The NHL had a good idea for its A-S this year and placed them more or less randomly, ignoring nominal Conference borders, and some have suggested the same for the NBA, but they don't have much imagination (I think I pointed this out before).
The key fact to consider in predicting these is that Doc Rivers of the Celtics and Greg Popovich of the Spurs will be choosing. Rivers will make up for the complete absence of his players among the starters elected, while Popovich--who, if anything, is embarrassed by how healthy and well his playoff-based squad is doing in the regular season--should not care so much.
Here are my predictions (as well as preferences):
East: To go with fan-voted starters Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, LeBron James, Derrick Rose, and Dwayne Ward (no problems for anyone with those choices): Paul Pierce, Rajan Rondo, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen of the Celtics, Joe Johnson and Al Horford of the Hawks, and the third of the Miami Big 3, Chris Bosh. (My next name would be Danny Grainger of the Pacers, but I don't think he's needed.)
West: Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, and Chris Paul were elected, along with (horrible choice) Yao Ming: reserves Manu Ginobili of the Spurs, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavs, Pau Gasol of the Lakers, Blake Griffin of the Clippers, Kevin Love of the Timberwolves, Russell Westbrook of the Hornets, and Deron Williams of the Jazz. Yao, definitely, and Williams, probably, will need to be replaced: Spurs' coach Pop will see whether his players, Duncan and Parker, want to get rest or the work (probably rest for Tim and work for Tony). (If needed, the next spot would then go to Lamarcus Aldridge of the Trail Blazers.) With all those names and teams included, the one who's most unfairly overlooked is Steve Nash, but there are already plenty of point guards on the West team.
More NBA There may be (there is!) more all-star quality talent in the West, but in terms of playoff-worthy teams, I'd say the East has (finally!) almost achieved parity. There are really five good teams in each conference at present (in order of playoff-worthiness): Boston, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, and Atlanta in the East; and Los Angeles, (first-place) San Antonio, Dallas, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans in the West. If #1 seed in the East played #1 West, #2 vs. #2 etc., as in a match of tennis teams, I'd say it would be a toss-up, but of course that's not how the playoffs go. Still, Boston has great depth now (Miami does not), and I wouldn't hesitate to back the Celtics against either the Lakers or the Spurs in the Finals.
There will be three pretenders in the playoffs in each conference (New York could get a bump up in quality, if not in the standings, if it makes the Melo trade without giving up too much present value). The key thing, then, in terms of the lead-up to the playoffs, is for the top teams in each conference to avoid finishing 4th or 5th, which would put them in a tough first-round matchup, and I will be watching Orlando and Dallas closely to see if they can make the necessary push to be worthy of 3rd spot. (Right now, Chicago is tied for second and Orlando/Atlanta are tied for 4th, but I expect Orlando to do better down the stretch.)
College Hoops The most exciting development for me so far this year was St. John's destruction of Duke last Sunday in a non-conference game at Madison Square Garden. It was kind of an unimportant game, in a way: Both teams are immersed now in their conference season, Duke had a key backcourt injury, and the Blue Devils simply didn't show up on the day. On the other hand, I find it significant that, deprived of the home court advantage Duke usually gets for matchups against good non-conference opponents, they surrendered early and often to a team that is about the 12th-best in the Big East (I'm not kidding!). It should be a good omen for the NCAA tournament.
As things stand, I would rate Pittsburgh--the team with the best record in the best conference, with a couple of first-rate guards--as top pick for the national championship, with Kansas and Texas as #2 and 3. Kentucky looks like a good dark-horse candidate as a regional seed in the 3-5 range (especially if they manage to lose in the SEC tourney), as do Louisville and Syracuse (the other two top-level schools for which I routinely root) in their hugely-competitive Big East competition. The field looks a bit thin this year--though there was one day last week when seven Top 25 teams lost to unrated teams--and even though the Big East teams will be knocking each other steadily for the next month, there should be at least 10, maybe 12, that make the field (which has expanded slightly, to 68 teams, this year). That's because hardly any B.E. teams have lost to any teams outside the conference, and the St. John's-Duke game at least meant that perspective was maintained.
Much Ado about Next to Nothing
Tonight the reserves for the NBA All-Star game will be announced. There has been a whole lot of blather about this; it is a pretty big honor to be named, after all, since, unlike the MLB one, there's not enough spots to go around--24 vs. 60.
The talk has mostly been about the surfeit of good candidates in the West and the paucity of them in the East. The NHL had a good idea for its A-S this year and placed them more or less randomly, ignoring nominal Conference borders, and some have suggested the same for the NBA, but they don't have much imagination (I think I pointed this out before).
The key fact to consider in predicting these is that Doc Rivers of the Celtics and Greg Popovich of the Spurs will be choosing. Rivers will make up for the complete absence of his players among the starters elected, while Popovich--who, if anything, is embarrassed by how healthy and well his playoff-based squad is doing in the regular season--should not care so much.
Here are my predictions (as well as preferences):
East: To go with fan-voted starters Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, LeBron James, Derrick Rose, and Dwayne Ward (no problems for anyone with those choices): Paul Pierce, Rajan Rondo, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen of the Celtics, Joe Johnson and Al Horford of the Hawks, and the third of the Miami Big 3, Chris Bosh. (My next name would be Danny Grainger of the Pacers, but I don't think he's needed.)
West: Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, and Chris Paul were elected, along with (horrible choice) Yao Ming: reserves Manu Ginobili of the Spurs, Dirk Nowitzki of the Mavs, Pau Gasol of the Lakers, Blake Griffin of the Clippers, Kevin Love of the Timberwolves, Russell Westbrook of the Hornets, and Deron Williams of the Jazz. Yao, definitely, and Williams, probably, will need to be replaced: Spurs' coach Pop will see whether his players, Duncan and Parker, want to get rest or the work (probably rest for Tim and work for Tony). (If needed, the next spot would then go to Lamarcus Aldridge of the Trail Blazers.) With all those names and teams included, the one who's most unfairly overlooked is Steve Nash, but there are already plenty of point guards on the West team.
More NBA There may be (there is!) more all-star quality talent in the West, but in terms of playoff-worthy teams, I'd say the East has (finally!) almost achieved parity. There are really five good teams in each conference at present (in order of playoff-worthiness): Boston, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, and Atlanta in the East; and Los Angeles, (first-place) San Antonio, Dallas, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans in the West. If #1 seed in the East played #1 West, #2 vs. #2 etc., as in a match of tennis teams, I'd say it would be a toss-up, but of course that's not how the playoffs go. Still, Boston has great depth now (Miami does not), and I wouldn't hesitate to back the Celtics against either the Lakers or the Spurs in the Finals.
There will be three pretenders in the playoffs in each conference (New York could get a bump up in quality, if not in the standings, if it makes the Melo trade without giving up too much present value). The key thing, then, in terms of the lead-up to the playoffs, is for the top teams in each conference to avoid finishing 4th or 5th, which would put them in a tough first-round matchup, and I will be watching Orlando and Dallas closely to see if they can make the necessary push to be worthy of 3rd spot. (Right now, Chicago is tied for second and Orlando/Atlanta are tied for 4th, but I expect Orlando to do better down the stretch.)
College Hoops The most exciting development for me so far this year was St. John's destruction of Duke last Sunday in a non-conference game at Madison Square Garden. It was kind of an unimportant game, in a way: Both teams are immersed now in their conference season, Duke had a key backcourt injury, and the Blue Devils simply didn't show up on the day. On the other hand, I find it significant that, deprived of the home court advantage Duke usually gets for matchups against good non-conference opponents, they surrendered early and often to a team that is about the 12th-best in the Big East (I'm not kidding!). It should be a good omen for the NCAA tournament.
As things stand, I would rate Pittsburgh--the team with the best record in the best conference, with a couple of first-rate guards--as top pick for the national championship, with Kansas and Texas as #2 and 3. Kentucky looks like a good dark-horse candidate as a regional seed in the 3-5 range (especially if they manage to lose in the SEC tourney), as do Louisville and Syracuse (the other two top-level schools for which I routinely root) in their hugely-competitive Big East competition. The field looks a bit thin this year--though there was one day last week when seven Top 25 teams lost to unrated teams--and even though the Big East teams will be knocking each other steadily for the next month, there should be at least 10, maybe 12, that make the field (which has expanded slightly, to 68 teams, this year). That's because hardly any B.E. teams have lost to any teams outside the conference, and the St. John's-Duke game at least meant that perspective was maintained.
Twilight for the Pharaoh
Just a couple of weeks ago, we predicted that it would be the foreign policy challenges, and not the likely domestic legislative gridlock, which would draw the focus of the country, the President, the world, and this blog over the next 18 months. Already, this is coming true, though from a region of the world from which I had not anticipated the eruption of political crisis. The Arab world is suddenly a hotbed of independent political activity, and the center of the crisis is Egypt.
Fall of the Patriarch
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is 82 years old; he has been President for 30 years, since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He knows that this is the last roundup, but he wants the dignity of leaving on his own terms. Mubarak helped preserve stability and the peace with Israel in his first years, but he has far outstayed his time, ever more the military dictator, suppressing rights and taking and mistreating political prisoners.
The whirlwind has come up so swiftly, he has not had time to think about it. The concessions he has made have been half-measures, too small and too late. Yesterday, he allowed the forces which support and depend upon him, his law and order irregulars, to bring mayhem and disorder against the protestors, and specifically to target foreigners and journalists.
Today may be the climax of the rapidly building story. Friday is the day for rallies in their culture, and today the largest assembly yet was planned, including a march on the Presidential palace. I think from the violence we saw yesterday, and from the forces built up to defend his palace, it would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions to test his will. There would be intense resistance, possibly armed.
People Power again to the Test
The army, which has maintained a neutral stance, keeping apart the protestors and the pro-Mubarak forces on a few critical occasions, would be forced by such a march, and by clashes in the street, to make a choice.
We have seen this so many times. There are the times when the army has sided with the people, refused to shoot, protected them, as in the Philippines, in Romania, or at the Berlin Wall. There are the times when they have melted before the assembled people, as with the Shah's forces in Iran; or they have simply stood aside and let the thugs do their work, as in Iran just two years ago. Finally, there are the times when the army has accepted the awful orders from above and attacked their own people, as with Tienanmen Square.
I am not so confident how this will turn out; the attacks on the journalists have the feeling of trying to shut down the reporting of news for something very terrible that might follow. The protestors have felt their power in recent days, shutting down the country, pushing Mubarak so far that he has agreed to step down in a matter of months, but they want more: quite naturally, they feel that Mubarak can not be trusted to keep his word. Mubarak, for his part, feels he has given all he can.
There is hope for an opposition coalition to end up governing Egypt, but it will take much more time than the protestors expect. So, the question is how to moderate their expectations without destroying their hope, or even exposing them to physical destruction. Now is the time for wise leaders to emerge to keep the place from exploding.
Fall of the Patriarch
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is 82 years old; he has been President for 30 years, since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He knows that this is the last roundup, but he wants the dignity of leaving on his own terms. Mubarak helped preserve stability and the peace with Israel in his first years, but he has far outstayed his time, ever more the military dictator, suppressing rights and taking and mistreating political prisoners.
The whirlwind has come up so swiftly, he has not had time to think about it. The concessions he has made have been half-measures, too small and too late. Yesterday, he allowed the forces which support and depend upon him, his law and order irregulars, to bring mayhem and disorder against the protestors, and specifically to target foreigners and journalists.
Today may be the climax of the rapidly building story. Friday is the day for rallies in their culture, and today the largest assembly yet was planned, including a march on the Presidential palace. I think from the violence we saw yesterday, and from the forces built up to defend his palace, it would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions to test his will. There would be intense resistance, possibly armed.
People Power again to the Test
The army, which has maintained a neutral stance, keeping apart the protestors and the pro-Mubarak forces on a few critical occasions, would be forced by such a march, and by clashes in the street, to make a choice.
We have seen this so many times. There are the times when the army has sided with the people, refused to shoot, protected them, as in the Philippines, in Romania, or at the Berlin Wall. There are the times when they have melted before the assembled people, as with the Shah's forces in Iran; or they have simply stood aside and let the thugs do their work, as in Iran just two years ago. Finally, there are the times when the army has accepted the awful orders from above and attacked their own people, as with Tienanmen Square.
I am not so confident how this will turn out; the attacks on the journalists have the feeling of trying to shut down the reporting of news for something very terrible that might follow. The protestors have felt their power in recent days, shutting down the country, pushing Mubarak so far that he has agreed to step down in a matter of months, but they want more: quite naturally, they feel that Mubarak can not be trusted to keep his word. Mubarak, for his part, feels he has given all he can.
Three Mistakes Often Seen from this Episode's Reporting
1) The worry about the ripple effects elsewhere is misplaced. Egypt is the main event; though it does not control the quantity of oil of some other Middle Eastern countries, what happens there is the most important result.
2) Belief that the protests are spontaneous and leaderless seems erroneous. There are leaders who will emerge if the effort to depose Mubarak is successful; they are laying low until that becomes more likely.
3) The notion that there are no models in the region for what Egypt faces politically. Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had it right in his interview last weekend with ABC's Christiane Amanpour (who is back in full glory, along with Anderson Cooper, on this story): Turkey is the model for what Egypt needs to do. The transition has been long and uneven in Turkey, the military has gotten involved too many times for its liking or for its people's, but a democratic, secular, Muslim-dominant state has emerged, and it is now prospering economically. The amazing thing is how few people realize it.
There is hope for an opposition coalition to end up governing Egypt, but it will take much more time than the protestors expect. So, the question is how to moderate their expectations without destroying their hope, or even exposing them to physical destruction. Now is the time for wise leaders to emerge to keep the place from exploding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
