I congratulate our military, our intelligence services, our national security team, and our Commander-in-Chief for the brilliantly successful attack into Pakistan which killed Osama Bin Laden and brought his body out to verify that result.
He was killed in "a firefight", as President Obama announced. I had imagined that an act of justice would've been to incinerate him with a flamethrower. I'm sure that our forces didn't do that, as retrieving the body would have been a priority, but I think bringing him back dead was the best outcome. Not just an anonymous drone strike, but our forces had the chance to look him in the eye and take him down once and for all. No need for offshore detention, vulnerable trials, interrogation (what would he be able to tell us anyway, now that we had him?) "Shot while resisting" is better than "shot while trying to escape".
Clearly the government and military of Pakistan must have allowed our helicopters to enter their country and conduct this operation, which was in a small city not far from the country's capital. We need to recognize that at this critical moment, the mission was not compromised and the necessary permission for passage was given.
I have called for President Obama to bring to an end the "Global War on Terror" in his administration: it is premature to declare victory and an end to the struggle against terrorists inspired by religious extremism, but I do think this is the singular highlight of that effort and an important psychological triumph.
A Time to Review, and to Make Changes
Before this extraordinary event, I had been considering a posting on the idea that now, for the first time since September 11, 2001, it was becoming politically possible to consider major reductions in our military posture and our military expenditures.
Two or three recent developments prior to the Osama operation had led me to this conclusion. One is the major reorganization of the intelligence and military leadership, with CIA head Leon Panetta recently named to be the next Defense Secretary and Gen. Petraeus coming to CIA. Current Defense Secretary Gates has done great service to the US in his job (under both the Bush and Obama Administration), and he has broached the idea of cuts in spending. Now Panetta--a hero of the Bin Laden mission, which was run by the CIA--will be a savvy civilian leader who will continue Gates' efforts to trim the military, and he will also be politically in tune with the Administration and responsive to the political need to continue reductions in overseas troop commitments.
Another fascinating development has been the semi-anonymous publication of an article by a pair of high-ranking military officers. Under the name "Mr. Y"-a clear reference to the famous article outlining the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union by George Kennan, in the early days of the Cold War--their article makes a far-sighted appeal for America to change our focus toward investments, education, and a foreign policy based more on values and less on sheer military force. I encourage all to read it. If Mr. Y realizes that we need to move from empire-building and overdevelopment of the military-industrial complex for the future of our country's security, then the usual bureaucratic impediments to military spending reductions should not be operative.
In order to reorient our military strategy, it will be necessary to ramp down our military forces abroad, and in particular the major ground forces engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq adventure is finally coming to a conclusion, in full cooperation with the Iraqi government, and withdrawals are promised to being this year in Afghanistan. In this regard, I would recommend reading a second article, by an accomplished investigative reporter named Ahmed Rashid, in a recent Financial Times. Rashid reports that there are now real negotiations going on, with the cooperation of Pakistan and Afghanistan, to engage the Taliban, with the aim being an eventual agreement to bring the war to an end.
Then, of course, there is the running battle over government expenditures, and especially the need to set a series of stakes in the ground to mark expected levels of revenues, spending, and within them the amount committed to various government priorities. Any success we can make now in lowering the trajectory of future military spending--based on rational security needs, not pork-barrel considerations of local basing desires--will make it easier to develop multi-year budget plans that fit within the overall framework of $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.
Finally, there are the incredible developments of the Arab Spring--the successful overthrow of dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and elsewhere. Not all of these are going to end well, some are running into vicious resistance from the powers of the status quo, but there is a feeling that is ultimately unstoppable in these countries. To the extent that Mideast peoples feel they can accomplish changes in their authoritarian regimes, that will cut the legs right out from under al Qaeda and its rationale for violence.
Osama's killing is one more, huge piece of evidence of historic change. We need to adjust our strategy to new realities, and doing so will help us by reducing global tensions and will make possible needed reductions in our level of military spending.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Royal Scam
Nice Dress, Kate: Give a Kiss 'Ere, Duchess
I had to skip the nuptials of Prince William and the commoner, Kate Middleton this morning at 4:30 a.m. (Mountain time). It was my duty, I think, as an American not to be among the 2 billion who watched (or is that people who watched something? I am, unavoidably, seeing the highlights, so that might count me in.)
Though I certainly don't begrudge the lovely couple their chance to have a proper marriage, certainly there is something incongruous about a nation which is leading the world in government austerity having such a lavish ceremony. Yes, the royals are supposed to be footing the bills, though I am sure there is a sizeable cost overrun for security, military overflights (William's a Flight Lieutenant--that's "lef-ten-ant"). Maybe all that deficit spending and voyeuristic tourism will assist their nation's flagging recovery a bit--I'm willing to hope so.
The fact is that the royal family is an incredibly large, government-subsidized luxury burden on the nation, a long-running private enterprise of huge wealth (does Fortune bother to include them in their table?) The Queen and her grandson should make the country a wedding gift of a billion pounds or so to help pay for their share of the belt-tightening that everyone else has been told they must take.
And Now, for Something Completely More Interesting
I'm working on a significant project for the blog; its working title is "My Playlist of All Time". I'm planning it as a list of 200 songs, with no more than one from each artist (though I will allow myself to mention one or two others from artists who have multiple cuts of greatness). It'll be rock-centered, with some blues and soul, songs released during my conscious lifetime. The idea would be a playlist that is long enough, diverse enough, and with songs of good enough quality that I would never tire of it (though I may never actually put together the physical collection of the music, and will certainly never listen to it in 24-hour continuous fashion).
Sometimes the line is blurry as to the bounds enclosed by a single artist: for example, think of all the different groups Eric Clapton has played with--how many songs from Clapton will I include? (the answer is, I haven't decided yet). With regard to the Beatles, I will go by lifetime recordings by songwriter--Harrisongs, songs by John Lennon, as a solo artist or ones that he wrote for the band (as best as I can determine, and I took a stab at it last December on the anniversary of his murder), and McCartney's solo songs or ones written for the band.
It will still be a hugely difficult task for some artists--there's only one Bob Dylan, one Stevie Wonder (though I'm going in thinking I will allow myself to differentiate Rolling Stones with Brian Jones and without him). So it is with Steely Dan, defined as Becker + Fagen + whoever (their solo efforts could, in theory, get separate entries).
So, in honor of the royal couple, here is an effort to rank my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, counting down. The music in all these is so good, it's hard to have much preference. That comes more from the songs effect on my emotions, and from a fairly close study to try and figure out the lyrics. As you'll see, I like least their snobby put-downs (despite great music, such as 'Barrytown' and 'Gaucho' are not included here), not so crazy about their pervasive perversity, I appreciate their "character studies", and love their offbeat philosophical statements.
25: The Royal Scam--A big-time con, not something about the royals. The tone is an admiring one.
24: Haitian Divorce--I like this song for its offbeat musical styling, not for its story of illegitimacy and accidental miscegenation.
23: Two Against Nature--Nice pace in this one, as the duo re-emerge from retirement to take on everything. I have to say I share their point of view on this one more than I usually do.
22: Cousin Dupree--I'm going to hope that this popular recent ditty, about some old geezer's fling with his underage cousin, has no basis in their reality.
21: Your Gold Teeth II--A rarity--the groove was so good, the band had to continue it in a cut from a successive album.
20: Brooklyn--There's a clear tone of nostalgia in this rambling early piece.
19: Sign In Stranger--It's about plastic surgery for mobbed-up criminals, but that doesn't really matter.
18: Third World Man--Satire about the suburbs and desegregation, with a false tension and lyrics perfectly fitting the slow rhythm.
17: Reelin' in the Years--The first SD song I knew, for a long time the only one. Catchy chorus, tight soloing; it's got to be about waste (of time and oneself), but it's hard to tell if the viewpoint is supportive or just nasty.
16: Charlie Freak--A brilliantly-layered musical construction with great tension. The subject? Some poor sap's drug overdose.
15: FM--To me, this is nothing more than a razor-sharp recorded paean to the glory of modern sound reproduction, which the Dan exploited to the max.
14: My Old School--One of the few songs that I think is definitely about the boys themselves, rather than the voice of some twisted folks they know or imagine. The key word is "Annandale", a reference to Annandale-on-Hudson, the location of Bard College, where they went ("studied" would be the wrong word) for a year or so.
13: Chain Lightning--I don't know what it's about, not sure I want to (smoking crack?) Great guitar work.
12: Doctor Wu--See comments on "Chain Lightning".
11: Do It Again--The subject is recidivism--on criminality, gambling, bad romance--and the outlook is clearly pessimistic, the tone reproving, the music uplifting.
10: Your Gold Teeth--A piece that is seriously underrated in the pantheon; one practically never hears it. It has a complex musical format and lyrics that actually approach profundity for once. It's about using the I Ching to answer one's short-term questions, and how that fantasy somehow fits life's real strangeness.
9: Show Biz Kids--This, and the next three titles, are about as political as they get. This one's message is unmistakable, about the phony, self-absorbed Hollywood culture.
8: With A Gun--This one's condemning violent criminality. Perennially relevant in the US.
7: Black Friday--a typical upbeat song on a very dark subject, about heading for the hills when it all comes tumbling down.
6: King of the World--following on the "Black Friday" apocalypse theme; it seems to be about a nuclear holocaust in our area, the Rio Grande. I remember the band playing it on an outdoor stage near Albuquerque in '07(?), a plague of moths--attracted by the light, no doubt--getting in their faces and bugging them.
5: West of Hollywood--My clear favorite from the albums of the Nouveau Dan. Great, long sax solo, piercing lyrics about slacker-ism.
4: Kid Charlemagne--Can a groove be both dark and happy? Invokes nostalgia for the early hippie days, I think--could the title character be Owsley, the king of early-day LSD production?
3: Bodhisattva--I have always loved the Buddhist concept of the enlightened ones staying with us mortal fools to help us fiind the way (meaning of the title). I don't focus on SD's (no doubt perverted) use of the idea; instead I love the non-stop, infectious energy of the song.
2: Pretzel Logic--The band making a statement, I think. A great slow-rocking platform for soloing, with historical and philosophic references, all twisted up. The point of it is exactly that it is not all so straightforward.
1: Aja-Perhaps a bit of a surprise. I remember listening to it repeatedly as I walked the streets of Hong Kong with my new Walkman in 1987. I'm still not sure what it's about (I have a feeling it's something about drug dealing--"when all my dime dancing is through"--but it's seductive and affecting).
I had to skip the nuptials of Prince William and the commoner, Kate Middleton this morning at 4:30 a.m. (Mountain time). It was my duty, I think, as an American not to be among the 2 billion who watched (or is that people who watched something? I am, unavoidably, seeing the highlights, so that might count me in.)
Though I certainly don't begrudge the lovely couple their chance to have a proper marriage, certainly there is something incongruous about a nation which is leading the world in government austerity having such a lavish ceremony. Yes, the royals are supposed to be footing the bills, though I am sure there is a sizeable cost overrun for security, military overflights (William's a Flight Lieutenant--that's "lef-ten-ant"). Maybe all that deficit spending and voyeuristic tourism will assist their nation's flagging recovery a bit--I'm willing to hope so.
The fact is that the royal family is an incredibly large, government-subsidized luxury burden on the nation, a long-running private enterprise of huge wealth (does Fortune bother to include them in their table?) The Queen and her grandson should make the country a wedding gift of a billion pounds or so to help pay for their share of the belt-tightening that everyone else has been told they must take.
And Now, for Something Completely More Interesting
I'm working on a significant project for the blog; its working title is "My Playlist of All Time". I'm planning it as a list of 200 songs, with no more than one from each artist (though I will allow myself to mention one or two others from artists who have multiple cuts of greatness). It'll be rock-centered, with some blues and soul, songs released during my conscious lifetime. The idea would be a playlist that is long enough, diverse enough, and with songs of good enough quality that I would never tire of it (though I may never actually put together the physical collection of the music, and will certainly never listen to it in 24-hour continuous fashion).
Sometimes the line is blurry as to the bounds enclosed by a single artist: for example, think of all the different groups Eric Clapton has played with--how many songs from Clapton will I include? (the answer is, I haven't decided yet). With regard to the Beatles, I will go by lifetime recordings by songwriter--Harrisongs, songs by John Lennon, as a solo artist or ones that he wrote for the band (as best as I can determine, and I took a stab at it last December on the anniversary of his murder), and McCartney's solo songs or ones written for the band.
It will still be a hugely difficult task for some artists--there's only one Bob Dylan, one Stevie Wonder (though I'm going in thinking I will allow myself to differentiate Rolling Stones with Brian Jones and without him). So it is with Steely Dan, defined as Becker + Fagen + whoever (their solo efforts could, in theory, get separate entries).
So, in honor of the royal couple, here is an effort to rank my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, counting down. The music in all these is so good, it's hard to have much preference. That comes more from the songs effect on my emotions, and from a fairly close study to try and figure out the lyrics. As you'll see, I like least their snobby put-downs (despite great music, such as 'Barrytown' and 'Gaucho' are not included here), not so crazy about their pervasive perversity, I appreciate their "character studies", and love their offbeat philosophical statements.
25: The Royal Scam--A big-time con, not something about the royals. The tone is an admiring one.
24: Haitian Divorce--I like this song for its offbeat musical styling, not for its story of illegitimacy and accidental miscegenation.
23: Two Against Nature--Nice pace in this one, as the duo re-emerge from retirement to take on everything. I have to say I share their point of view on this one more than I usually do.
22: Cousin Dupree--I'm going to hope that this popular recent ditty, about some old geezer's fling with his underage cousin, has no basis in their reality.
21: Your Gold Teeth II--A rarity--the groove was so good, the band had to continue it in a cut from a successive album.
20: Brooklyn--There's a clear tone of nostalgia in this rambling early piece.
19: Sign In Stranger--It's about plastic surgery for mobbed-up criminals, but that doesn't really matter.
18: Third World Man--Satire about the suburbs and desegregation, with a false tension and lyrics perfectly fitting the slow rhythm.
17: Reelin' in the Years--The first SD song I knew, for a long time the only one. Catchy chorus, tight soloing; it's got to be about waste (of time and oneself), but it's hard to tell if the viewpoint is supportive or just nasty.
16: Charlie Freak--A brilliantly-layered musical construction with great tension. The subject? Some poor sap's drug overdose.
15: FM--To me, this is nothing more than a razor-sharp recorded paean to the glory of modern sound reproduction, which the Dan exploited to the max.
14: My Old School--One of the few songs that I think is definitely about the boys themselves, rather than the voice of some twisted folks they know or imagine. The key word is "Annandale", a reference to Annandale-on-Hudson, the location of Bard College, where they went ("studied" would be the wrong word) for a year or so.
13: Chain Lightning--I don't know what it's about, not sure I want to (smoking crack?) Great guitar work.
12: Doctor Wu--See comments on "Chain Lightning".
11: Do It Again--The subject is recidivism--on criminality, gambling, bad romance--and the outlook is clearly pessimistic, the tone reproving, the music uplifting.
10: Your Gold Teeth--A piece that is seriously underrated in the pantheon; one practically never hears it. It has a complex musical format and lyrics that actually approach profundity for once. It's about using the I Ching to answer one's short-term questions, and how that fantasy somehow fits life's real strangeness.
9: Show Biz Kids--This, and the next three titles, are about as political as they get. This one's message is unmistakable, about the phony, self-absorbed Hollywood culture.
8: With A Gun--This one's condemning violent criminality. Perennially relevant in the US.
7: Black Friday--a typical upbeat song on a very dark subject, about heading for the hills when it all comes tumbling down.
6: King of the World--following on the "Black Friday" apocalypse theme; it seems to be about a nuclear holocaust in our area, the Rio Grande. I remember the band playing it on an outdoor stage near Albuquerque in '07(?), a plague of moths--attracted by the light, no doubt--getting in their faces and bugging them.
5: West of Hollywood--My clear favorite from the albums of the Nouveau Dan. Great, long sax solo, piercing lyrics about slacker-ism.
4: Kid Charlemagne--Can a groove be both dark and happy? Invokes nostalgia for the early hippie days, I think--could the title character be Owsley, the king of early-day LSD production?
3: Bodhisattva--I have always loved the Buddhist concept of the enlightened ones staying with us mortal fools to help us fiind the way (meaning of the title). I don't focus on SD's (no doubt perverted) use of the idea; instead I love the non-stop, infectious energy of the song.
2: Pretzel Logic--The band making a statement, I think. A great slow-rocking platform for soloing, with historical and philosophic references, all twisted up. The point of it is exactly that it is not all so straightforward.
1: Aja-Perhaps a bit of a surprise. I remember listening to it repeatedly as I walked the streets of Hong Kong with my new Walkman in 1987. I'm still not sure what it's about (I have a feeling it's something about drug dealing--"when all my dime dancing is through"--but it's seductive and affecting).
Their Gold, Our Blues
With professional sports, our enjoyment is hostage to the whims of unfeeling plutocrats.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Enhancement through Lower Regard?
Today the leading credit rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) announced that they have given a "negative outlook" to US government debt. This is not a downgrade in itself, but does provide a more specific qualitative assessment when combined with the rating itself.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Miral
I have been lax in documenting and reviewing the movie "Miral", the new movie directed by Julian Schnabel ("The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", one of my top 10 movies of the last decade). On a recent visit to New York about two weeks ago, I happened upon the opportunity to watch the movie, followed by a Q&A session with Schnabel himself, and with the writer of the screenplay and the memoir upon which the movie was based, Israeli Palestinian Rula Jebreal.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
The Obama Plan
I watched most of President Obama's speech on deficit reduction today and later read the text of it. I have no problems with any of it, including the political positioning, which is clearly front and center, and I disagree with those who want or expect more specifics at this point.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Trump's Birther Baloney
It is shameful that Donald Trump has seized on the question of President Obama's birth certificate as a means of pandering to the right wing of the Republican party. Like most things he does, it's a publicity stunt, but it is one that is part of a plan that aims at a thought almost too terrible to consider, the first stage of which is to get enough support among Republicans that he can win primaries and delegates.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Intrade Odds
...of this moment (Friday, April 8, at 3:39 p.m. EDT)
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
It's Shutdown Friday!
Actually, it will be Shutdown Saturday tomorrow; today is Brinkmanship Friday, as Senate Democrats and Congressional Republicans posture about the nature of the disagreement: Speaker of the House of Orange John Boehner claims it's because Democrats won't agree to enough cuts in the budget, while Senate Majority Leader Reid says it's because the Republicans insist on a policy of defunding Planned Parenthood. For his part, President Obama, trying to preserve a role of impartiality to help get a deal done, is staying silent about which of the two is lying (and it could be both).
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
A noble man...can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor.
---Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
(Almost) No Apologies Necessary
Whether the US is a "confessional" society might make for a good debate. The term refers usually to a nation's being organized around religion, and on that point one could argue both for the prominence of religion in the expressions of our social life, including its politics, and on the other hand for its secular nature and the strong wall usually existing between state and formal religious groups.
In the terms of the classic dilemma for those about to get involved in transgressive behavior, America, compared to most countries, is much more a "beg forgiveness" country than an "ask permission" one. This is really one of our great strengths, a key source of our history of innovation, and one of the clearest expressions of the sense of liberty that Americans feel in their daily lives.
The "confessional" is that little closet where believers go to confess their sins in the Catholic church and in some of the others. A "confessional society" contains a paradox: beliefs fundamentally revolving around those private, secret admissions emerge into direct influence on public policy. American society is confessional in a different way: it is the public confessional which is important. In our legal system, the degree of punishment is very much affected if the guilty admit to their crimes; so it is in our trials of public opinion of the famous. It is not enough that our celebrity face up to his/her sins privately, in the confessional, the A.A. group meeting, or face-to-face with those wronged--we expect a public apology as the first step in rehabilitation.
There are countless examples, from Tiger Woods to Eliot Spitzer to Larry Craig. If the mea culpa is deemed sufficiently sincere, the American people will forgive almost anything; if not, they will punish endlessly and ostracize ruthlessly. Think of O.J. Simpson, of Roman Polanski.
Still, there are those whose behavior is publicly criticized who, I would argue, have no need to apologize. For example, Charlie Sheen may be wrong about his level of talent, the demand for it, and his popularity--I would say probably he is wrong--but he is not wrong in his "arrogant" posture that he does not owe the public an apology. His show, "Two and a Half Men", may have been simple-minded entertainment, but it was entertaining, and his lifestyle probably contributed to its success (by adding authenticity to his portrayal of an amoral, womanizing rake) more than it detracted from it. He certainly does not need to apologize for it, in the face of dozens of shows of much more embarrassing quality.
The Libya Thing
I don't see that President Obama has anything to apologize for in the case of the US' involvement in establishing--by force--the "no fly zone". Neither to us, nor to Congress, nor to the world community. Regardless of what he said while campaigning, prior approval for hostilities is not required by US law. There are dozens of precedents, including several in recent decades. I would argue that Obama should get Congressional approval before putting any troops, or military advisers, on the ground in Libya (and I think he will not choose to take that further step, anyway).
In terms of lack of clarity on objectives, exit strategy, and all those other criticisms, those reflect a desire to over-simplify a complex situation, rather than a defect on strategy or execution. Obama's decisions were careful to go up to the line of what the U.N. resolution authorized, but not beyond. Once the no-fly zone had been established, he moved quickly to end US direction and leadership of military action, passing the responsibility to NATO, which was more eager for the role than our own military chiefs.
Will the mission succeed? This is very much in doubt, though the immediate aims of the U.N. resolution and US military action--protecting civilian populations in the east of the country from being overrun by Qadhafi forces, and the expected reprisals--were largely accomplished. Eastern Libya is still not out of danger, though, Qadhafi lives and continues to repress Libyans in most of the west of the country, and it is unclear whether the emerging stalemate will cost more innocent lives than a cathartic bloodletting would. Probably not, but the preferred outcome remains Qadhafi dead, his sons disinherited and exiled, and letting Libya be governed--for good or ill--by different Libyans. Obama has been clear enough about this (except for the part about Qadhafi's mortal expiration), and again has no reason to apologize.
Perhaps I need to apologize, though, for calling for the bad Colonel's assassination by willing agents of the Libyans. After all, the one major American political figure who I've seen espouse "my" policy is John Bolton, the never-confirmed former US Ambassador to the U.N. Generally, one can count on Bolton's undiplomatic pronouncements to be 100% in error. In this case, he's no more than 5% off, though; I would differ with him only in that the assassination should not be a product of US policy, but something done by Libyans, with private encouragement as necessary (OK, maybe a little "persuasion" in the form of attacks on Qadhafi's hometown base). The fact Qadhafi still breathes is not a deficiency of the Obama Administration's policy, then, just an incomplete development of events to date.
Anyway, to whom would I apologize? Colonel Qaddafi? No way.
Talking about the Men's NCAA Tournament
Next on the list of criticized entities that need no apologies are the four teams of the Final Four. Though the semifinal and championship games may not have met the artistic standards some desired (particularly in offensive execution), these teams reached their stations in the traditional way, winning at least five games in a row in single elimination.
Yes, they had some dicey moments: Butler's win over Pittsburgh came after two highly improbable mental error fouls, but the highly-favored Panthers had their chance and failed. Kentucky needed a last-second basket to beat Princeton in the first round; Butler should have lost to Florida, and VCU to Florida State, had those teams executed their offenses properly in their final offensive plays in regulation time. This was a tournament of close games and fateful accidents, but also of some surprising one-sided defeats of higher-seeded teams, like VCU's destruction of regional #2 and #1 seeds Notre Dame and Kansas.
Certainly the Connecticut Huskies have nothing for which to apologize. They followed up a fantastic series of wins in the Big East conference tourney with similar successes all the way through the NCAA tourney. The only thing to wonder about is what happened in the regular-season conference play, when they could only win half their games, but they came from nowhere early in the season to establish their credentials, then put it together again "when it counted" at the end.
VCU's run troubled me, though: this was a team which did very little to earn its bid in the tournament. They did not win their conference, or their conference tourney, or beat any powerful teams in non-conference games, or even put up an impressive overall won-lost record (19-11 going into the tournament, I believe). Their selection was justifiably highly criticized, but they had the last laugh; they were strong enough to win through to the semis, including a decisive win against the team considered second-best in the country going into the tournament (if not the best), Kansas. What all this means is some demeaning of the importance of quality of performance in the regular season: just do enough to get in, don't show your methods of competing against the best, and prep your athletes for a surprise run. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the game is already too close to a semi-pro league, and coasting through the regular season to get into "the playoffs" is not the behavior the college game needs.
Finally, my picks: neither the dream Kentucky-Louisville final nor the chalky varieties of Kansas and Ohio State made it to the final, so I didn't win any money. I did have one of my ESPN picks with Connecticut winning the tourney (and some other good picks along the way; I had only one of the Final Four, but I had all four of the regional finalist losers making it that far), and that one made it above 99 percent of entries. So, no need to apologize for lack of prognostication excellence.
I do have to apologize to my wife, though: I meant to make one of my ESPN entries (they allow 10, I did eight) be her picks, but I made a key mistake or two in entering them, which caused her some de-motivation in watching the games. Sorry, dear!
In the terms of the classic dilemma for those about to get involved in transgressive behavior, America, compared to most countries, is much more a "beg forgiveness" country than an "ask permission" one. This is really one of our great strengths, a key source of our history of innovation, and one of the clearest expressions of the sense of liberty that Americans feel in their daily lives.
The "confessional" is that little closet where believers go to confess their sins in the Catholic church and in some of the others. A "confessional society" contains a paradox: beliefs fundamentally revolving around those private, secret admissions emerge into direct influence on public policy. American society is confessional in a different way: it is the public confessional which is important. In our legal system, the degree of punishment is very much affected if the guilty admit to their crimes; so it is in our trials of public opinion of the famous. It is not enough that our celebrity face up to his/her sins privately, in the confessional, the A.A. group meeting, or face-to-face with those wronged--we expect a public apology as the first step in rehabilitation.
There are countless examples, from Tiger Woods to Eliot Spitzer to Larry Craig. If the mea culpa is deemed sufficiently sincere, the American people will forgive almost anything; if not, they will punish endlessly and ostracize ruthlessly. Think of O.J. Simpson, of Roman Polanski.
Still, there are those whose behavior is publicly criticized who, I would argue, have no need to apologize. For example, Charlie Sheen may be wrong about his level of talent, the demand for it, and his popularity--I would say probably he is wrong--but he is not wrong in his "arrogant" posture that he does not owe the public an apology. His show, "Two and a Half Men", may have been simple-minded entertainment, but it was entertaining, and his lifestyle probably contributed to its success (by adding authenticity to his portrayal of an amoral, womanizing rake) more than it detracted from it. He certainly does not need to apologize for it, in the face of dozens of shows of much more embarrassing quality.
The Libya Thing
I don't see that President Obama has anything to apologize for in the case of the US' involvement in establishing--by force--the "no fly zone". Neither to us, nor to Congress, nor to the world community. Regardless of what he said while campaigning, prior approval for hostilities is not required by US law. There are dozens of precedents, including several in recent decades. I would argue that Obama should get Congressional approval before putting any troops, or military advisers, on the ground in Libya (and I think he will not choose to take that further step, anyway).
In terms of lack of clarity on objectives, exit strategy, and all those other criticisms, those reflect a desire to over-simplify a complex situation, rather than a defect on strategy or execution. Obama's decisions were careful to go up to the line of what the U.N. resolution authorized, but not beyond. Once the no-fly zone had been established, he moved quickly to end US direction and leadership of military action, passing the responsibility to NATO, which was more eager for the role than our own military chiefs.
Will the mission succeed? This is very much in doubt, though the immediate aims of the U.N. resolution and US military action--protecting civilian populations in the east of the country from being overrun by Qadhafi forces, and the expected reprisals--were largely accomplished. Eastern Libya is still not out of danger, though, Qadhafi lives and continues to repress Libyans in most of the west of the country, and it is unclear whether the emerging stalemate will cost more innocent lives than a cathartic bloodletting would. Probably not, but the preferred outcome remains Qadhafi dead, his sons disinherited and exiled, and letting Libya be governed--for good or ill--by different Libyans. Obama has been clear enough about this (except for the part about Qadhafi's mortal expiration), and again has no reason to apologize.
Perhaps I need to apologize, though, for calling for the bad Colonel's assassination by willing agents of the Libyans. After all, the one major American political figure who I've seen espouse "my" policy is John Bolton, the never-confirmed former US Ambassador to the U.N. Generally, one can count on Bolton's undiplomatic pronouncements to be 100% in error. In this case, he's no more than 5% off, though; I would differ with him only in that the assassination should not be a product of US policy, but something done by Libyans, with private encouragement as necessary (OK, maybe a little "persuasion" in the form of attacks on Qadhafi's hometown base). The fact Qadhafi still breathes is not a deficiency of the Obama Administration's policy, then, just an incomplete development of events to date.
Anyway, to whom would I apologize? Colonel Qaddafi? No way.
Talking about the Men's NCAA Tournament
Next on the list of criticized entities that need no apologies are the four teams of the Final Four. Though the semifinal and championship games may not have met the artistic standards some desired (particularly in offensive execution), these teams reached their stations in the traditional way, winning at least five games in a row in single elimination.
Yes, they had some dicey moments: Butler's win over Pittsburgh came after two highly improbable mental error fouls, but the highly-favored Panthers had their chance and failed. Kentucky needed a last-second basket to beat Princeton in the first round; Butler should have lost to Florida, and VCU to Florida State, had those teams executed their offenses properly in their final offensive plays in regulation time. This was a tournament of close games and fateful accidents, but also of some surprising one-sided defeats of higher-seeded teams, like VCU's destruction of regional #2 and #1 seeds Notre Dame and Kansas.
Certainly the Connecticut Huskies have nothing for which to apologize. They followed up a fantastic series of wins in the Big East conference tourney with similar successes all the way through the NCAA tourney. The only thing to wonder about is what happened in the regular-season conference play, when they could only win half their games, but they came from nowhere early in the season to establish their credentials, then put it together again "when it counted" at the end.
VCU's run troubled me, though: this was a team which did very little to earn its bid in the tournament. They did not win their conference, or their conference tourney, or beat any powerful teams in non-conference games, or even put up an impressive overall won-lost record (19-11 going into the tournament, I believe). Their selection was justifiably highly criticized, but they had the last laugh; they were strong enough to win through to the semis, including a decisive win against the team considered second-best in the country going into the tournament (if not the best), Kansas. What all this means is some demeaning of the importance of quality of performance in the regular season: just do enough to get in, don't show your methods of competing against the best, and prep your athletes for a surprise run. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the game is already too close to a semi-pro league, and coasting through the regular season to get into "the playoffs" is not the behavior the college game needs.
Finally, my picks: neither the dream Kentucky-Louisville final nor the chalky varieties of Kansas and Ohio State made it to the final, so I didn't win any money. I did have one of my ESPN picks with Connecticut winning the tourney (and some other good picks along the way; I had only one of the Final Four, but I had all four of the regional finalist losers making it that far), and that one made it above 99 percent of entries. So, no need to apologize for lack of prognostication excellence.
I do have to apologize to my wife, though: I meant to make one of my ESPN entries (they allow 10, I did eight) be her picks, but I made a key mistake or two in entering them, which caused her some de-motivation in watching the games. Sorry, dear!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
