2013 Review

This is the time when the custom of the country is to  look back and review the year just ending. It's somewhat random, the idea of the December review of the year gone by, not what I'd call natural:  In times past, the calendars of most classical societies began the year in the spring. If we followed that pattern, we'd have the whole winter to stay in from the cold and think (in the dark, or by candlelight) about the growing season and harvest season of the past twelve months.

That might not sound too attractive, but it would make more sense to review the past year when it is actually over, instead of sometime in the middle of December, when more could still happen that's worth including in the recap.  I'm waiting until the very end, so there isn't much chance of that (just over 0.1% of the year remaining).  One year, I might do a Meta-Review in January--"the year's 10 best '10 best'"--maybe drawing one from news, music, sports, movies, etc.--but it's not going to be this year; I haven't got time for the research now.  More about that in some future posts.

The Year in Obama
I'm sure you are reading elsewhere that this was a disastrously bad year for the Obama Administration. In particular, the media-borne criticism has been that he is an incompetent executive and that the public has lost confidence in him.  I would argue, on the contrary, that in 2013 he was vindicated, time after time, despite the increasingly desperate efforts to defeat him.  I will argue--in my preview of 2014--that the efforts will become even more desperate, and that they will be defeated even more comprehensively.  (link to follow)

First, though, we must stipulate three points, ones that I have made before, but must reiterate for purposes of the argument:

1. the President does not control the economy; 
2. the President does not control Congress; and 
3. expectations for reform must be limited by an appreciation of the difficulties involved. 

Instead of a portrait, initially sketchy but refined over time, we get this perpetual cycle of creation and destruction of our great and famous.  Presidents are an extreme case.

President Obama was exalted more than he deserved for his victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. His campaign performance was never as great as it was made out afterwards, nor as poor as it was described when he was perceived to have a subpar TV appearance in the first debate.  Romney was just the strongest of a weak field of Republican candidates; I'll admit it wasn't quite as close as I thought, but just by a couple of states' worth of electoral votes.

The tear-down started almost immediately, with the Benghazi affair.  Although it occurred two months before the election, it didn't connect as a serious campaign issue;  however, early this year came the craziness of Susan Rice's media and Congressional crucifixion following her appearances after the incident on the talk-show circuit, then the hearings, and John Kerry's rise as Secretary of State.  Now, finally, the story comes full circle as the Times reveals that, in fact, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the riot and it was fomented by militia groups we had once supported. The right wing blog Townhall concedes the point and says, in effect, that detail didn't matter.  True, but a little late.  And Kerry?  He is on a bit of a roll, if a fragile one, with the interim deal on Iran and the success (so far) in avoiding a seemingly inevitable military involvement in Syria.

Congressional affairs can't be said to have given what Obama wanted (no immigration reform, no background check requirement for all gun purchases), but he ended up with the upper hand in two critical cases.  The "nuclear" confrontation came and was overcome, in the manner I suggested back in November of 2005, when the shoe was on the other foot:  Save the protracted filibuster dramatics for the big ones, the Supreme Court appointments that can change the direction of the whole government. The government "shutdown", of course, was just round 5 of a 12-round bout, but one that was won overwhelmingly, including a "standing eight count", the boxing term for the equivalent of a knockdown with the opponent on his feet but staggered, accomplished by the defending champion in the dark (blue) trunks.

And then there was the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  I first heard of the impending website fiasco only days before it was due to go live, from former Gov. Howard Dean, the man who should probably have been given responsibility for the implementation in the first place.  OK, the President is responsible for the execution of the law, and it was fumbled; and, he did fail to put the correct qualifier "if it is adequate" on his promise that "you can keep your insurance" (and he did allow the standard of adequacy to be placed a lot higher than it needed to be, as part of his deal--let's face it--with the insurers); however, Obamacare will end up doing most of what it was designed to do.  The real problems are that it was not designed to do nearly enough and that now Obama has been associated with ownership of US healthcare in general, and the responsibility for remedying its every defect.  One can only hope that this particular cycle will end with a separation announcement, in which Obama can put the hurting where it belongs, on the insurers and on those states which tried to prevent the ACA's implementation through every means they had.

I'm sure Obama will be feeling unloved and injured by the harsh treatment he received in 2013, but I hope he realizes it is just part of the circle of (political) life and his fall from grace is not as real as it may seem.

Fall Sports Preview Reviewed
A lot of the preview topics (for example, basketball and soccer) have not yet had definitive results--my hopes for the Bulls were dashed with DRose's new injury, and Chelsea remains in the middle of a crowded group at the top in England--so the predictions/comments which I made and must now assess are the ones about the regular season of football, NCAA and NFL, and the post-season of baseball.

My early-season NFL comments (dated Oct. 1) were right on the mark.  I was pleased by the changing of the leadership, citing the bad starts of the Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, and the Packers--only that last team made it into the playoffs, and that one just barely.  I identified the Seahawks and Broncos as the early standouts (and they ended up as the #1 conference seeds) and the Saints and Patriots as veteran teams that could threaten to go deep in the playoffs.  Those were good guesses, too, though the Saints' narrow loss of the division title to Carolina means they will have a very tough time getting through. My prediction at this point is that the Broncos, this season's team earmarked for destiny, whipped into line by Peyton Manning's extraordinary ambition, will face whatever team in the NFC can muster a bit of defensive prowess (the Eagles, maybe?)

For the NCAA, the appropriate internal reference point is my later post on the subject, and my follow-up comment to that.  As for my commentary now, I refer to Daft Punk and lyrics from their big 2013 hit:

Like the legend of the phoenix/All ends with beginnings/What keeps the planet spinning/The force from the beginning/We've come too far to give up who we are/So let's raise the bar and our cups to the stars...We're up all night to get lucky

Yes, the BCS and NCAA got lucky in their drunken stagger to the end of the current cycle of chaos and stupidity, as two teams with appropriate records, one from the predominant SEC, made it to the championship.  I wish them slightly more luck in the future as they improve their system slightly, and I urge all fans of Something-other-than-Chaos to avoid all conference championship games, live or on TV, in all collegiate sports, as a form of protest to the corruption and venality of the college presidents, TV networks, and conference directorates.

Baseball:  there is little to say except that I failed to recognize the Botox-driven Beards of Destiny for what they were.  The Tigers should have beaten them but manager Jim Leyland failed to keep sufficient faith with his starters and was punished for it. I can't take much credit (or pleasure) in the Cardinals' run to the Series, as it was quite likely all along.  I do find the NL the more interesting league upon which to speculate with regard to 2014 (even though it's the AL doing most of the free agent spending, as usual):  were the 2013 Pirates the equivalent of the 2012 Nationals?  Are the Dodgers or Reds contenders next year?  Are the Nationals?  Tune in next spring, when we know what the starting rotations' composition and their health status look like.

Preliminary Review of 2013 Movies
Even though the year is essentially over--and it looks to be a top-drawer one in the overall assessment--my review is only preliminary:  mostly it's the fault of the movie studios' scheduling, a perennial irritant for me which is worse this year.  The game, for the producers of serious films which are not commercially as competitive, is to do a phony release before 12/31 and distribute the film out to the Academy in the hope that it will reward them and boost their subsequent box office.

The prime offenders this year are Nebraska, August: Osage County, Wolf of Wall Street, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Her.   A couple of them--in particular, the last two I named--are ones that I am very excited to see (and don't know when I will--more on this later).  August and Wolf are two that I am quite willing to ignore despite their pre-release hype and star power.  What, August:  Osage County is a comedy (as nominated for the Golden Globes--probably trying to avoid the ultra-competitive drama categories)?  Wolf of Wall Street has some of the worst word of mouth I have ever seen, especially a killer diss from the daughter of one of the real-life principal villains, which made me resolve not to ever give a penny to the movie--directly or indirectly--if any of the money goes to the guilty-as-sin author of the book from which it was drawn.

So, let us instead celebrate those movies which dared to release properly during this season:  American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, Hobbit pt. 2 (Desolation of Smaug), and Hunger Games: Catching Fire.  The last two were well-made but commercially certain, so the decision to release was not risky (and made long ago).  I have not seen Saving Mr. Banks, which emerged late and could be a dark horse, but I would say--provisionally, because of the offending, really-released-in-2014 movies castigated above--that most of the award honors for 2013 should go to three movies: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, and Gravity. 

I notice a direct comparison between each of the three and one of the top movies of recent years:  American Hustle vs. last year's Oscar Best Picture, Argo; 12 Years a Slave vs. last year's best picture, Lincoln; and Gravity vs. the similarly ground-breaking space travel-and-special-effects flick Avatar.   All of these are fine, worthwhile movies, but I think the 2013 efforts are at least as good as their counterparts. Hustle is the one that most surprised me--I didn't even have it in my fall movie preview--and seeing it proved even better than my raised expectations.  The dialogue is first-rate, as is the acting level of the ensemble; I think it should garner 8-10 Oscar nominations and several awards.  Also, versus Argo (and Zero Dark Thirty, for that matter), they are very much up-front about the fact that they mix truth and art, and I like Hustle's artistic additions (like the main characters' development, and the critical, brief performance of Robert DeNiro as a top gangster) better than those of the other two.  Like Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave is a difficult movie with an 1800's theme; this kind of boldness should be rewarded.  Like Avatar, Gravity has a storyline full of holes, but the payoff is well worth it--Avatar won three of the more technical awards, and Gravity should get those and possibly more.

In terms of awards, the hot categories will be the lead actor/actress ones and director, which have extremely rich fields of contenders.  I will be rooting for American Hustle's Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and for Joaquin Phoenix in Her, at least to get nominations.  What I think, though, is that the actual winner for actor will be Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years, and it would be thoroughly deserved.  For Best Actress, I feel Sandra Bullock in Gravity would have been close to a lock for Best Actress if she had not won for Blind Side a couple of years ago.  Given that,  Adams might squeak through, as she may be the only nominee in the category who has not previously won an Oscar (vs., say, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Bullock).  Wow--that's quality!  As for Director--it's tough:  there are so many good candidates, they should expand the category in 2013 to 10 nominees, as they have done with Best Picture (auteur theory salute).  Just to be nominated in this category this year is a high honor. My guess is that the winner will be Steve McQueen, for 12 Years a Slave, over Alfonso Cuaron (for Gravity), David O. Russell (for American Hustle), Spike Jonze (for Her), and either Alexander Payne (for Nebraska) or Paul Greengrass (for Captain Phillips).

This last-named movie leads me to the final point in my movie review: My condolences to those movies of quality released in long ago September or October (Captain Phillips, Rush, The Spectacular Now) or even before (Great Gatsby, Mud)--memories are too short, you had no chance for award consideration.

Oh--Best Picture?  An afterthought for me, a popularity contest among the Academy based on their guilt trips and other social impulses.  Probably 12 Years a Slave.

Last Notes
My apologies to Arcade Fire, Daft Punk, and Jack White--all of them had strong 2013 releases to which I paid insufficient heed.

This year in Death:  Nelson Mandela, Doris Lessing, Lou Reed, Charlie Trotter, Ray Manzarek, Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, and Ed Koch.  Peace be unto you all. *

*According to a recent survey (you can see the map in The Economist, if you've paid them), that's the second-person-plural form used most often just in Kentucky (and it comes naturally to me); it's "yinz" in western Pennsylvania (you-ins?),  "you guys" in most of the US, and, of course, "y'all" in the Southeast.  And "you lot" in much of England. 

Decriminalizing Pot: A No-Brainer*

Joking aside, I am fully in favor of changing the Federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.  I have indicated this before (for example, here and here), but not as clearly and unambiguously as I should have done.

Here I follow the example of The Nation magazine, which devoted most of its Nov. 18 issue to the argument that now, as always, is a good time to change the law.  The lead was a "full-throated", signed editorial (titled "Waiting to Exhale") by Katrina vanden Heuvel (one of my editorial heroes, to be sure), which endorsed all the main arguments and came up with a couple of unusual ones:

• The last three Presidents have all been pot smokers at some point in their life;
• So has she, and she finds it difficult to explain to her daughter;
• The enforcement of the law has been unjust, focused on the poor and minorities;
• It is not as harmful as legal substances like tobacco and alcohol; and, most meaningfully,
• Public opinion has come around so that it is no longer political suicide to advocate it. 

The terms of the change advocated by the various Nation contributors are somewhat unclear, and the most frequently-used word is "legalize".  What they consistently mean, and what I advocate, is to repeal the Federal prohibition and permit states to allow its personal use under some common-sense regulations, as opposed to the current status, in which Federal enforcement of prohibition is always a threat.

Marijuana is not good for everyone, I would contend:  it's not for children, it can accentuate the problems of those tending toward paranoia, unhygenic use of it can spread respiratory illness, and its persistent use might adversely affect those with a tendency toward diabetes (by causing dramatic change in the blood sugar level; on the other hand, it might help, too!)  Its use while driving is problematic, rather than disastrous, as is the case with elevated levels of alcohol consumption: my unscientific observations suggest it causes slower driving, with more risk of distraction and drowsiness. All in all, hardly a catalog of demerits which justifies prosecution, much less persecution, of all use by responsible adults.

The formula on the table is a bill which would allow folks its use in compliance with state laws.  This is a good idea to gain possible support from some Republicans with libertarian leanings (as opposed to the reactionary "big-government conservative" types), which would be essential if the current Congress is going to pass anything worthwhile.  That would allow the varieties of more permissive State laws, from the Colorado/Washington legal personal use, to the permissive use of medical marijuana (as in California) to the more restricted ones, and would clear the way for more initiatives in the states.  It would also permit those states whose economic conditions and/or contractual commitments require them to continue to build more prisons and to  incarcerate large numbers of people for this nonviolent behavior, and would permit small-s stoners to do their homework and be clearer about the states/localities they should avoid.

*I came to the conclusion, and the witticism, on my own, but such an obvious remark could hardly be original.  Sure enough, Google traced it for me back to a comment made by the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, Bill Piper. It's a serious subject for him, as for me, but that doesn't mean one can't have a little fun with it. 

Transitions

As I recall it, that was the old Newsweek magazine's title for its obituary page.  Yeah, there were a few other items on it, people retiring or taking on new roles, but mostly the transitions were to a more permanent status (like the one Newsweek made, recently).

 A Great, Good Man
The history of the twentieth century, it is already clear, will be one which features a number of Great Men:  national leaders who came to dominate the landscape, who provided the leadership which induced their followers to produce the great changes, for good and for ill, which marked the century.  Stalin, Mao, Churchill, FDR, Tito, Mussolini, Nehru....the list goes on.  The last of these Great Men still standing was Nelson Mandela, the father of modern, post-apartheid South Africa, who died this week.  Unlike many of these, he seemed to be also a good person, one who cared about the "little people", and one who did not crave power for its own sake.

Mandela suffered greatly, but his victory was all the more massive in the end for his pain.  I do not know his religion, but for me he demonstrated the ideals of Christianity through his life more than most.

First, he was a communitarian, one who believed in the sharing of wealth.  He was not a Communist, as such, though he did ally himself and the African National Congress which he led with the South African Communists during the darkest days of his revolutionary opposition to the apartheid regime.

His greatest example for us all came upon his release from prison after 27 years, when he spoke without bitterness and sought reconciliation with white South Africa.  Then, again, he yielded power voluntarily after a single term as President, when he could easily have stepped into the usual "President for life" role seen far too often in Africa's post-colonial history.

Mandela became an advocate for the poor and powerless all over the world, a leader of the non-aligned movement.  That meant he was not a friend of the US government for the most part.  When the chips were down, as in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to support the sanctions of the apartheid regime, our government rarely met the test, so his alliances were often with our political enemies, like the Soviets, Red China, Yasir Arafat, and Fidel Castro (Castro could be counted as one of those Great Men I mentioned, and he's still alive, but I'd hardly consider him "still standing".)

Yes, he did advocate and lead violent actions, though from what I have read, they were not what we think of as being "terrorism"--acts designed to kill innocent civilians--but ones designed to disrupt and sabotage the tyrannical, racist system. In his day, when he had to be, he was a warrior, but one for justice, and then he became a notable peacemaker.

I have to thank The Special A.K.A. for the song named for him (a/k/a "Free Nelson Mandela") from 1983, which introduced me for the first time to the growing legend.  And what a song, by the way!

The US Men's Soccer Team's World Cup Chances
OK, they're not dead yet--the draw was just announced, the games are several months away--but it looks very doubtful that the USA team will make it out of the first round in the World Cup in Brazil next year.  They are in a group with Germany, which is one of the top favorites, with Portugal, a squad full of top-rated international talent, and Ghana, which has been the immediate cause of our elimination in the last two World Cups. Two teams will advance.  The US will seek revenge against Ghana, and will be a target of revenge for Portugal, but is unlikely to be more than a troublesome obstacle for Germany, the team for which our coach Jurgen Klinsmann performed so well in past WC's.

The USA team emerged to its potential in recent months, playing well in the final round of our regional qualifying and finishing first in the group (after a putrid set of performances in the preliminary round, which we barely escaped).  This got us exactly nothing in the draw--we were not one of the eight top-seeded teams--so we took our chances and got hosed. Mexico, in contrast, which under-performed in the final round, finishing fourth and having to win a playoff with New Zealand to make it in at all, got a more comfortable group and is quite likely to go through if it can edge out Croatia.

Two countries whose seeding I have to question are Uruguay, which has proven tough in the past but finished fifth in South American qualifying and also had to play in for a spot, and mighty Switzerland. Uruguay got put in the absolute toughest group, with unseeded England and Italy (and poor Costa Rica), while Switzerland has a relatively easy road to the second round (with France, Honduras, and Ecuador).

Just as the groups show wide disparity in quality, the pairings for the following rounds suggest there will be easy and extremely challenging brackets.  Probably the most critical first-round game will be the matchup between Spain and Netherlands, the two finalists in 2010.  Paired in the same group, one would expect them both to advance fairly easily (over Chile and Australia), but one of them will face Brazil in the second round.  Brazil's path to the Cup semifinals looks difficult to me; after a fairly easy group (the one including Mexico) for the first stage would likely come Spain or Netherlands, then Italy (assuming they finish second in the group, as they always seem to do, but then win in the first knockout round).

Assuming Brazil wins its group, it almost behooves Spain or Netherlands to lose that game and finish second, where its path will likely be easier.  In the bottom half of the brackets, though, I see few obstacles for Germany and Argentina to win through to the semis (and face Brazil and Netherlands/Spain, respectively).  My prediction is for a Brazil-Argentina final, with the home team a big favorite to win it all--and a big target for any quality team looking to make its name with an upset of historic proportions.  It's not likely, but it can happen--after all, Brazil is always a favorite and has won "only" five times, and it lost (to Uruguay) in the one previous instance that the World Cup final was in Brazil.

The Usual Chaos and Disaster

It's the BCS, of course.  Two critical games yesterday set the stage for yet another--thankfully, final--mess in college football's attempts to set up a conclusive single game for the national championship.

The first was the narrow victory of Ohio State over a mediocre Michigan team, 42-41, when Michigan went for a two-point conversion late in the contest rather than a more certain tie and the randomness of college football's overtime scheme.  (The result would not be random if the teams were unequally matched, but, of course, overtime presumes the teams have ended up tied after 60 minutes of play. One could argue that Michigan's coach knew their team was weaker, thus the gamble rather than opting for a fair chance at a 50-50 proposition.) The victory allowed the Buckeyes to finish their regular season undefeated and, as such, hold onto their bid for a berth in the finale, if they can win their conference championship game next week, a game against a very respectable 11-1 Michigan State team.

The second result was the real wild card, though, as #1 Alabama lost on the final play of the game to their in-state rival, Auburn (which was once defeated and ranked #5 going into the game).  The improbable finish was a 100+-yard return of a missed field goal attempt--itself the result of other improbable outcomes, most immediately a referee's decision to put one second back on the clock and give Alabama that chance for a long field goal try.  Auburn, which had escaped defeat in its previous game on a last-minute desperation "Hail Mary" pass, has to qualify as one of the most fortunate potential champions in history, but they did hold their own against, and finally defeat, a team which has had a historic run of quality over the last three years, winning two national championships and which seemed headed for another one this year until yesterday.

Besides Ohio State and Alabama, there was one other team from a "top-level conference" (defined as being one that has an automatic berth in one of the four BCS games) which entered yesterday undefeated. That was Florida State, and they closed out their regular season with a decisive victory over Florida, normally a close matchup but not with this year's underperforming Gators.  Florida State still needs to win the ACC championship against #20 Duke to earn its berth in the championship game, but it seems very likely.

The problem is that today the SEC has the #3 (Auburn), #4 (Alabama), and #5 teams (once-beaten Missouri), as well as several more top 10-quality teams (#8 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #22 Georgia, and #24 Texas A&M, all of which dropped down only because they have to play so many games against other SEC teams).  Also worth noting is that the SEC is 7-for-7 in the championship game since it was established, usually defeating its opponents decisively.  Effectively, the winner of the SEC championship game has been the uncrowned national champion even before the championship game most years--it was that obvious.  Only the absence of an SEC team with an unblemished record (Auburn lost to LSU fairly early in the season), combined with unbeaten teams from two of the stronger also-ran conferences, could produce an  outcome in which an SEC team would not get an invite.

I am no fan of the SEC football establishment--it is truly the AAA pro league training "amateurs" for the NFL--but, honestly speaking, having a national championship game in which no SEC team is included would be yet another sad BCS joke.  There is some possibility Florida State or Ohio State could lose, just as it was conceivable Auburn could beat Alabama before it happened, and if Auburn should lose to Missouri in its conference championship (more likely but still not probable), there would be a less-strong top claimant from the conference.   More likely, though,  there will be a sham championship game between OSU and FSU, while the two best teams in the country--Alabama and Auburn--will be excluded.  I would love to see them play each other in a rematch, for "the real heavyweight title".

If the NCAA had just moved a little faster, the scheme they have planned for next year, with four teams in a two-round playoff, would have worked perfectly.  Match the four of them (assuming Auburn, Ohio St., and Florida St. each win their conferences, and adding the defending champs) any way you want, you would have gotten an honest championship game out of the winners. I predict that this format, although improved, will still prove to be more than a little faulty, with the problem then moving to the identity of the fourth-best team (as opposed to the fifth-best), because that's just the way the BCS ball bounces.  Their karma is bad enough that I think they will have to continue to pay for their sins.

Doris Lessing

The Nobel prize-winning author died two weeks ago today.

Lessing was a prolific writer who covered a wide range of subject matter over a long period of time (she was aged 94 at her death), but there were certain persistent elements in her art.  Number one is the clinical precision with which she addressed emotion in her fiction.  This seems like a contradiction, but what one can find on virtually any page of any of her novels (I have not read her non-fiction)  is close attention to the emotional state of her character, always described succinctly.

Number two is a cross-cultural approach; she was a person who traveled widely and lived in various societies.  She tended to look for the universal characteristics, but she drew upon her awareness of the specifics of many cultures.

Number three would be the frustration which comes from a search for universal justice.  She was a Communist before that got too repugnant; she wrote one of the great treatises on women's liberation but then denied that she was a feminist; she had a phase, in the '70's and '80's, in which she examined the motivations which drove people to become "terrorists".

I think that eventually she concluded that she could not identify the way out of our political morass for all of us, and that drove her to what I considered her most interesting work:  her "science fiction" series.  The books were collectively called by her "Canopus in Argos: Archives".  The series had an almost impossible ambition:  to explain--fictionally--the largest themes that we can imagine.  It was essentially a retelling of some key aspects, focusing on the commonalities, of all the sacred texts of the ages--the Bible, Koran, the Hindu classics, Buddhism, etc.

Her version was the archives of "godlike", immortal emissaries of an interstellar empire challenged by rival empires with less pure motives. The Canopeans possess(ed) certain powers--powers over nature, and great physical capabilities sufficient to move planets--but also to move through different planes of existence, and even to inhabit the minds of mortals.  Still, the powers were not unlimited. and the interplay of Canopus' plans with the interference of rivals created the world we live in, one which repeatedly disappointed Those Who Formed Us; they regarded us with pity, exasperation, but recognized their responsibility for our fate.  I would describe the theory as "intelligent design--imperfectly executed", and I imagine it to be somewhat like the way our dear President looks upon our flawed society (!)

Two of the novels, The Sirian Experiments and Shikasta, dealt primarily with Earth and the evolution of life and human society here.  The others dealt with various universal themes, like social decay, and love.  Shikasta, the first of the series (1979), is the one to which she applied her most powerful efforts of creativity and synthesis.  Among the topics she "explains" are the shifting of the geologic and magnetic poles, the separation of Pangaea into continents, the near-universal Great Flood legends, the reason why so many of our religions arose during a fairly short period of time (+/- 600 B.C./A.D.), and, most provocatively, our future.  She anticipated the Chinese resurgence, predicting that their superior administrative skills would prove irresistible to most of the world; however this would not bring universal harmony, but a doomed endgame.  (This was, of course, written before the definitive change toward a more pragmatic economic approach and the rise of China as an international player, as well as before the end of the Cold War, which she apparently foresaw as being but a transitional phase.)

It boils down to a hypothesis, one which either does or doesn't help explain the phenomena of our lives.  As I say, incredibly ambitious.  It's the kind of work which might be considered 200 years from now as a bold attempt to try to go beyond the limitations of our own life experiences and gain a greater understanding.  For that, I definitely think that the Nobel prize--which came to her at age 89, and which honored the body of her work--was well earned.

Sorry I didn't get to this a little sooner; that little problem with Google to which I referred recently contributed  to my delay but does not totally excuse my tardiness.  I will say that, with an obituary post, it's better to think twice and write once (and to edit multiple times)

Going Nuclear

Democrats say "YEA!"
Nobody got blown up, no document got flash-fried, no edifice of our governmental institution was levelled. References to "fallout" were a natural headline selection, but there is no radiation leaking from the Senate's 52-48 vote to change its own rules and allow simple majorities to bring cloture on their constitutional "advice and consent" role of approving Presidential nominations to Executive branch positions and Federal judiciary posts (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court).

Instead, this was a thoroughly pragmatic decision to allow qualified nominees to break through the party lines and perform their duties.  The fall of previous accommodations to allow a limited number of individuals to run through the gauntlet and preserve the unlimited debate, enforced by the lack of a super-majority,which was no debate, just a block--this was driven to a fairly extreme measure by the unlimited recalcitrance by the Republican minority.  Their ability to block selected nominations was ruined by their inability to limit it to selected ones.  Nominees, particularly for the agencies the Republicans didn't like, had to put their careers on hold for years while waiting for action that was not forthcoming.  That kind of sacrifice was impeding the ability of the Administration to govern, so something needed to be done.

We should not make too much of the change involved--this does not create "tyranny of the majority", as it does not pertain to legislation.  This blocking ability was not enshrined in the constitution in any way, and I suspect that minority members will still be able to filibuster--retain the floor and speak indefinitely--a given nomination if they can muster the lungpower and the support of colleagues, and that, rather than this perverse application of the rules that was occurring, is much more in line with the tradition of Senate filibuster*.

The thing that is most ominous to me about it is that the particular resolution--no change to legislative rules, the Republicans bearing it and promising revenge--is based on a somewhat shared set of calculations:  no big change to the Republican House majority or to the narrow edge (one way or the other) in the Senate, and a probability that the Republicans gaining control of both Houses and the White House in 2016 is more likely than the Democrats' doing so.

I don't actually share that calculation:  I think the Republicans are headed for a major collapse in the next general election (2016, not 2014) unless they change their ways.  I salute the young Democratic Senators--particularly Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who refused to accommodate themselves to ineffectiveness--and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was moved to act by a combination of careful calculation and by the refusal of his counterparts to heed his threats.

Iran Says, "Not Quite So Much"
The achievement of an interim deal between Iran and the global community--to freeze Iran's nuclear enrichment program for six months, while releasing a small amount of funds impounded by the sanctions--is a success above all for new Iranian President Rouhani and his policy of seeking more regular relations with the rest of the world, particularly the West.  The second winner is President Obama, who said he would talk with Iran and had gained nothing from that willingness until now. The third winner is the countries of Russia and China; they were uncomfortable with the severity of the sanctions with which they had reluctantly agreed.  Now they see the benefits of working with the West to achieve a goal, which will encourage more participation and more leverage for them in the future.

Are there any losers?  Only those who sought the military option in the near future.  I figure those--some elements of Israel's ruling coalition, some of the Sunni Islam forces, maybe some of the hawks in the US--guessed that they could stay out of the mess which would ensue, and then sweep up more power from the chaos that would follow when Iran's ambitions would be definitively thwarted.  Secretary of State John Kerry is a potential loser; if this policy fails, he will be the one blamed.  Even the more hardline factions in Iran should be able to benefit from supporting relaxation of tensions, if it helps with the economy and prevents the devastation of the regime.

I think we should all be realistic about the longer-term result, something that will become clear over the next six months if Iran complies with the agreement, as I believe it will.  Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program, albeit with renewed supervision.  They will pass off uranium enriched to the danger level or beyond, but they can make more (or buy more) if tensions rise again.  From a game theory point of view, Iran has correctly concluded that their leverage is maximized when they maintain the potential to make nuclear weapons in a fairly short time, but don't actually do so.  We can hold the clock/calendar of potential nuclear war with Iran at 90 days or so.   Real improvement in relations with the US may be possible, but it will not happen through a comprehensive rollback of the nuclear program, but with a change in Iran's level of destructive participation in the internal wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.  These may not be likely.   I don't see a peace treaty signing occurring between Obama and Supreme Leader Khamenei (or his successor, if he dies)--and Obama should meet with no one else, as I pointed out years ago.

* For the classic novelistic treatment of the Senate's role and the filibuster's role in nomination approval, by a rabid anti-Communist, see Allan Drury's Advice and Consent, a favorite from my childhood.

November 23, 1963

This date is memorable, I've been told, for the premier episode of the BBC science fiction series Doctor Who.  Dr. Who is notable for its high concept--the desperate adventures of a time-travelling friend of humanity (who needs to regenerate himself every so often in order to keep himself young and geekily handsome), the last of his breed, saving us from a series of consistently gruesome alien invaders--its amusing, very British, dialogue, and its comically low production values.  The program is celebrating its 50th anniversary with a new episode, which I am viewing as I post this.

The Day Before
No one sentient then and now can ever forget that day.  I was in second grade; we were sent into an unscheduled recess after the announcement over the intercom of President Kennedy's wounding.  History buff that I was at that age, I remember telling one of my classmates of the story of President Garfield (1881), who was wounded by an assassin, had largely recovered, then relapsed and died.  Kennedy's fate, his skull torn apart by the mortal third shot, was not in such doubt.  The imagery of the funeral parade through the capital, his coffin lying in state, and the burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery are what remain clear in my memory, fifty years later.

The Day After
I wasn't watching, but I was not far away from the TV when the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas jail house.  Shocking as Kennedy's killing was, I think this event was even more shocking; that such a suspect would be paraded before the TV cameras, that some guy, a nightclub owner with a dicey history--so not a peace officer, or even a reporter--would be let into such a public, secure facility with the opportunity to pull his gun and plug him at point-blank range.  I can't recall another instance in which cold-blooded murder was shown on live national TV.

I think it was Ruby-on-Oswald, rather than Oswald-on-Kennedy, that really caused the conspiracy stories to proliferate and persist.  It's a very reasonable question:  why would this guy ruin his life--there was no question of possible innocence, and no chance of leaving prison ever afterwards--as though it was a personal vendetta or crime of honor?

Contrary to what some maintain, I think the scientific exposition shown on PBS' Nova some years ago (and re-broadcast this week, of course) provided some pretty clear evidence that it was Oswald, and no one else, who pulled the trigger.  The first shot missed, the second had the incredible fortune of going through Kennedy's neck, into and through Texas Governor John Connally's back and then breaking his wrist, while the third was the fatal shot which shattered Kennedy's skull.  There was also the fact that a Dallas policeman was killed less than an hour later, apparently trying to detain Oswald from his escape, which points to probable guilt.

Still, there is the question of why these men--Oswald and Ruby--would destroy their lives for their separate purposes.  Oswald, it's clear, despite some head feints on his part, was a committed Communist, enamored of the Soviets and a defender of Fidel Castro's Cuba.  Ruby, for his, was an anti-Castro activist, and an associate of Chicago Mafia figures who had plenty of reason to oppose Castro (their big investments in Cuban casinos having been ruined by the Communist takeover there).  Each could have been a willing tool in the designs of their guiding figures, though the evidence of any actual push is lacking, and the evidence of mental instability in each is plentiful.

There is a third possible conspiracy, though, and it is the one that is most convincing to me as a back story  for a conspiracy to lie behind what happened fifty years ago yesterday.  It is now a well-documented fact that Kennedy was trying to have Castro killed in the months prior to his death.   Castro could well have concluded that it was "kill or be killed", and that finding the right person--one who was a sufficiently skilled marksman, someone who would stubbornly protest both the righteousness of his cause and at the same time his innocence--was actually the magic bullet.  The fact that Castro needed to deny any involvement at the time, and that he has maintained that ever since (even, recently, questioning whether Oswald was the killer)  means nothing, one way or the other.

Ultimately, though, it was fate that was the hunter.  Without the third shot--and Kennedy's back brace which held him up in position for a clean look--he probably would have survived (as Reagan did, as FDR did the assassination attempt before he had ever begun his administration, as Kennedy himself survived an attempt before his inauguration).  Ruby's path to his fateful shot at Oswald also seemed random, his attack spontaneous.

JFK in History
Apart from the days of his death and the fireworks which followed, the only other memory I have of his Presidency was the fear of annihilation that came with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  Yes, we were taught to "duck and cover" under our desks in my first-grade class, which would at least have made our bodies easier to find. Subsequent research has indicated that, far from being responsible for the threatened escalation toward a potential nuclear war, Kennedy was the voice of reason on our side which was critical in keeping things from blowing up.  So, let us praise his judgment at the decisive moment, after recognizing that he had already gone through the hard experience of being bamboozled into the Bay of Pigs, into increasing the Vietnam involvement, and into placing nuclear missiles into Turkey (which, again, gave the Communists a private justification for the aggressive act of putting missiles into Cuba).

Apart from that, clearly he is and will always be the symbol of American power at its proudest moment--challenging the Soviets on all fronts, challenging Americans to serve and to go into space, to end Jim Crow segregation and, it's been pointed out recently, to broach the idea of universal health care--America still undefeated and potentially limitless.  That pride, it's clear now, was due for a fall, but the great potential he saw still remains.

The grade on Kennedy's Presidency has to be incomplete--he had set the stage for the key battles on civil rights, for critical decisions on Vietnam, that happened without him (perhaps influenced by his memory).

Tutti Morti

That's the day Italians remember their dead friends and relatives; it means "all the dead". It's actually Nov. 2, the day after All Saints' Day, which is in turn the day after Hallowe'en night. So, though I'm late, let's start with an Italian:

Lucio Dalla 
My favorite (non-operatic) Italian singer actually died, suddenly, last year, but I only found out about it recently.  Dalla's peak was in the '70's and '80's; he was fun-loving, romantic, and serious, all at the same time (or at least that's the impression he gave to me).  He gave off a bit of an anarchic, post-hippie kind of vibe, one which probably didn't survive the insanity and paranoia of the Red Brigades era (their crimes, their punishment) too well.   At any rate, though he continued to produce and was still revered, I don't think he captured the moment there quite so well after that.
He had good musical arrangements and was skilled at several instruments, but his particular appeal came from his lyrics.  They appealed to the popular sensibility and were written in a colloquial, but not vulgar, style. He sang about normal people and their aspirations, the craziness of society, things like that.  His political stance was to stay non-politicized. He was sort of their Bruce Springsteen.

Lou Reed  
Speaking of Italy (where Reed was very popular), when I first went there people commented to me about the play on words of his name:  "Lou Reed= Lurid" (with an Italian pronunciation; their word is "lurido", and it's not a compliment, either).   I had to tell them that if it was intentional, it was news to me.  Looking on wikipedia, it turns out his real name was Lewis Reed, so the nickname was a natural one, even if the transgressive suggestion of the stage name was intentional.

I am one of those hipster/anti-hipster types, so I have to disagree with the Conventional Wisdom of the elitist rock critics who worship the Velvet Underground.  They may have made some local commotion in the East Village and thereabouts in their day, but they were basically gone before they ever got anywhere.  Their music is about 50% OK and 50% totally unlistenable.   I recognize they were avant-garde, but so are a lot of others who never get the publicity; the fact that they were edgy is not so unusual or ground-breaking.   I don't find the evidence of "influence" on everything that came afterward very convincing.

On the other hand, the group did give birth to a couple of folks who made enduring impacts on popular music, "post-punk" (as those elitist critics like to say).  One was Brian Eno--a topic for another day, but let's just admit that this guy's far-out methods and vision have continued to break ground ever since.  The other was Lou Reed, who was both a genuine rocker and a bit of a poet.  

I won't say that everything he did was brilliant (I think I covered that idea already)--he did, after all, release "Metal Machine Music", one of the worst (if not the worst) albums I have ever heard all or in part.  He did do "Sweet Jane",  "Walk on the Wild Side", and a lot more over the decades.  He had legs.  I think he was also a decent guy; otherwise, he would never have won over Laurie Anderson, his wife in the later years, who just published a very moving obit for Rolling Stone.

Charlie Trotter
He ruled the Chicago restaurant scene for a couple of decades, and that's saying something.  There are a dozen or more of Trotter-knockoff-type restaurants in the area now.  I'm not sure that's a good thing:  basically the idea is that the chef is king, you eat what he wants you to eat and pay a lot for the privilege and the exclusivity, and if you work in the kitchen, you cringe and learn.

His influence seems to have gone well beyond Chicago.  He has contributed greatly to making nouvelle cuisine more than a fad and to inventing the fad which is molecular gastronomy.

I never ate at any of his restaurants.  I wouldn't say that I never would, but I'd have to think twice (once for the cost, the other for surrendering to a subservient consuming role).  He closed his main one a year ago.  I'm not sure if he knew then that he was going to die soon, which he did two days ago, aged only 54.  We'll probably find out the back story on that pretty soon.

The Tea Party
OK, I exaggerate.  When the death-wagon comes around and the call comes out to "Bring out your dead!", they're the ones who'll pipe up and say "Not dead yet!"   There will still be many Tea-baggers re-elected in 2014 in extreme right-wing districts (with limited exceptions, they've had very little success ever in statewide elections),  and they will poison wells in Republican primaries probably for decades to come.

But still, their movement is clearly headed for demise.  It's not so much Chris Christie's big win, which points to a path of hope for those Republicans who are not willing to accept permanent second-place status (or even third, in time) in national politics.  It's more that the Establishment of the party, which has tolerated them up until now, has decided to cut them off as being bad for business.  It was the shutdown, and their arrogant approach to try to drive the federal government from their position controlling 10-15% of the electorate, that was the cause of their non-tragic fall.

Now Don't YOU Be Evil Now, Google!

I'm having some trouble being able to edit posts with Blogger using Internet Explorer.  I can look at this blog, even make comments, but when I open the editor, it just says "Error on page."  There's no help being provided, and I've made some experiments:  it doesn't happen when I use Google Chrome (as I am right now, on my son's computer).  Another clue:  when I go to my gmail account ("chinshihtang@gmail.com", if you want to email my blogger ID) using Internet Explorer, Google gives me a hard time about it--every time.

My employer requires a justification to put Chrome on my business laptop, and I am not so silly as to tempt the anger of InfoSec by saying, "I need it so I can blog on my work computer".  So, the opportunities to post are less--I have to wait in line for access to the homey.

Google has a monopoly on search, and it gave out this blogging software and gmail account for free, so I guess they can pull Microsoft-type monopolistic tricks (remember how you couldn't get rid of IE on Windows?)  They are riding a huge investor fad in their stock price; no doubt they feel they got it all.  They just don't get to pretend they are holier than MSFT anymore.  (I'm sure you're watching this, GOOG, so take heed:  pride goeth before the fall--and it's almost winter.)

Fall Preview - Pt. 2 (Sports)

Let's start with baseball. (I write in the middle of the NL Wild Card game, Pittsburgh leading 3-1 in the 4th).

Last night's victory by the Tampa Bay Rays completes the official postseason roster. My preseason picks missed four of the ten teams that made it--three of them a surprise to all, really (Pirates, Red Sox, and Indians), and one of them I really should have known better than to overlook (the Cardinals). St. Louis, in particular, earned my grudging respect, overcoming major injuries and putting up the best record in the National League, tied for the best in the majors with the Red Sox. Boston, along with Cleveland, made colossal gains, improving their regular season records by over twenty games vs. 2012.   Then, of course, there are the Pirates, which made the postseason for the first time in over twenty years.

I feel that, despite the recurrence of drug scandal and the failure of the Hall of Fame voters to find anyone living that was worthy of honor, this was one of baseball's best seasons in decades.  The fact that overpriced Yankee and Angels teams came up short was a contributing factor, along with the turnabouts for longtime underdogs, and I personally like the realigned divisions and the expanded postseason.

Recent history suggests that it is the teams that come into the postseason the hottest, rather than the best regular season teams, that survive the brutal short-series elimination program and make it to the World Series.  This year, that would be the Cardinals in the NL, and #1 Wild Card Cleveland--which has a 10-game winning streak--in the AL.  If, and it's a big 'if", the Indians can get past the one-game Wild Card showdown with Tampa Bay, I do like their chances to take out #1 AL seed Boston.  Detroit comes into the playoffs with only a mediocre regular season record (given their talent), and not playing particularly well at the end, but one thing I did notice was that their once-and-future-ace Justin Verlander, in the final game of the regular season, had an outstanding performance.  (Few noticed it, as the attention all went to the opposing starter,  Henderson Alvarez of the Marlins, who pitched a no-hitter!) I would pick the Tigers over the winner of the Red Sox-Indians/Rays bracket (as usual, I overlook the A's, who were quietly, almost starlessly, brilliant once again this year).

My Reds have the cards stacked against them this year:  a one-game elim at Pittsburgh, with our presumed starter, Matt Latos, unable to go.  I would say it was a longshot, but that it is Johnny Cueto instead:  Cueto has magic stuff and could pull off a big win (note: didn't happen).  Last year, Cueto went down in the first inning of the first game of the playoffs; this year he could turn the tables.  Still, the winner of that one-gamer has to face the Cards, who take a lot of beating in the postseason.  Braves-Dodgers winner deserves respect but will not be favored in my book.

World Series Bottom line:  I'm  looking for a rematch of the classic '68 Tigers-Cardinals series. That one pitted 31-game winner Denny McLain against Hall of Famer Bob Gibson, but it was #2 Tigers starter Mickey Lolich, and long reliever Gary Waslewski, who ended up the heroes.

I am very interested in the first month of the English Premier League in football, as Manchester United is suffering predictably due to the absence of its godlike longtime manager (just ask him!) Alex Ferguson, and the dissatisfaction of their (now) second-best player, Wayne Rooney.  Once-again Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho did a great job messing with MU's minds; a little less great getting his team ready for a grueling season.  I still think they can do it, but they have to deal with resurgent squads from Arsenal and Liverpool enjoying early season success, along with deep, talented Manchester City, and still-competitive Tottenham and Everton.  I am not encouraged by Chelsea's early form in European competition, though, so I might have to settle for Premier title and yet another F.A. Cup. Easily done, for me, but what will Roman the Conquering Russian think?

NBA Basketball is still a month or so away, but the outlines of the upcoming season seem pretty clear:  Lebron James will try to three-peat in the last year he's committed to the Miami Heat, and everyone else will be targeting the Heat.  The team I am most interested in is the hometown Chicago Bulls, with Derrick Rose on the spot to show he has Jamesian leadership ability.  He has a supporting cast at least as good as Lebron's, even if they did foolishly give away center Omer Asik to the Rockets before last year.  The Brooklyn Nets should get an outsized share of press coverage; whether they can gell into a championship-caliber team remains to be seen.  Indiana is the team under the radar that can beat any of the others, and in particular I expect their rivalry with the Bulls to be intense. In the West, Oklahoma City is due to show they can win their conference, or fold their tent and move on, while San Antonio, as always, lurks, with a mixture of veterans and youth that is a proven winner.

In the "one and done" league, a/k/a NCAA basketball, I have no idea what to expect, really--I barely know what teams are in what conferences.  Not that it really matters; one of the best things about NCAA basketball is that the tournament that really counts does not depend much on who belongs to what conference.  There is a good tension between the teams that ride on outstanding freshmen (of which there are plenty this year) and those that depend on team chemistry, with their star players staying around long enough to learn to understand the concept.  I have personally been overjoyed with the last two seasons, with Kentucky and Louisville winning (yes, I defy the odds and root firmly for both), the first with the 1&Done concept and Louisville with the team approach.  Both seem stacked with top talent again this year.  I think there will be an exciting ACC season with strong teams from North Carolina and Duke (as always) being challenged by newcomer Syracuse.  I would add Michigan State and VCU as teams that know how to use their talent in the team concept.  Finally, I'm rooting for New Mexico to make Steve Alford wish he'd never left Albuquerque for UCLA.

I contrast the "flawed but coping" status of NCAA basketball with the "horribly broken and going downhill" description I would give to Football's AAA league (the BCS).  I like the High-A and AA versions of college football, but the top second-rate level of the sport is pathetic and ugly.  I missed the best game of the year (Alabama over Texas A&M, 49-42), so I think there is very little more to say or see.  I like Johnny Manziel, agree with his subdued challenge to NCAA's hypocritical rules, and I think he could be another Joe Willie Namath, if he doesn't get hurt too badly (it never stopped Namath).

The NFL promises a good season; some of the old familiars (Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, Packers) are off to bad starts, and that's good.  The Seahawks (I have to remind myself they are in the NFC) and the Broncos are the hot teams, while the Saints and Patriots would be the logical postseason choices.  I think the Super Bowl will be made up of two of those four, but I hesitate to predict at this point--depends on injuries, and breaks in the postseason.   The Bears will be either just short of the playoffs or just barely making it, which almost amounts to the same thing, as they will not be good enough to go too far.  At least that's the way I see them.

The NHL is playing, and the BlackHawks are defending, which is good for local hockey fans (of which I am not one).

Workin' for the Shutdown--

get along, get along.*

The next two weeks, the fifth round of a scheduled ten-rounder, will be the test of courage of John Boehner in his leadership of the House of Orange.  He's going into the fray with his chin sticking out, suggesting that he can take a punch and then get in his licks, but there's a good chance for a knockout.

A better analogy to a boxing match, single combat with well-defined rules, would be a steel cage match (all against all, no way out) or a gang streetfight.  He only gets to lead the Jets if he's willing to stand up front, his bully boys behind, and bear the brunt of the counter-attack.  His gang will put up a fight, regardless of whether his profile shows the false courage of a punk in a game of chicken, or whether he takes the truly courageous act and goes against his bloodthirsty backers' taste for "action".  But if he makes a deal, they will turn on him afterward.

In this opening encounter, expect Boehner to stand his ground.  No one is really afraid of the clock running out on the continuing resolution funding the government for a day or two or six.  In that sense, it will not prove to be the decisive proof of the Republicans' inability to be anywhere near the government that President Obama might hope for, going into the 2014 Congressional elections in which he will need a big win.

A few days of government furloughs will not cause too much pain to the public--fortunately, the peak season for the national parks, which will be closed, has passed.  If there is an agreement of some sort by the end of the round, even if only a temporary one that allows the sixth round to be scheduled for late this year, a few days of shutdown will be just another bump in the road.

The real crisis, the one that would do permanent damage, is the deadline of the debt ceiling, which Treasury Secretary Lew has indicated would occur around the middle of October.  I suspect that the resolution of the shutdown will be folded into the negotiation around the raising of the debt limit, something which absolutely must be approved in some form.  Treasury will come up with a formula to save the government a couple more days to work with, possibly using a "payday loan" to convert some of the shutdown/sequester savings into a temporary debt payment.

It is impossible to think that the Republicans can permit a default on Federal government debt and preserve intact anything like a semblance of a reputation as fiscal conservatives.  There would be one immediate, permanent result:  an increase in the cost of our national debt, as our bonds and T-bills would no longer be the safe instrument the markets crave.   Figure another $100 billion in the cost of our debts, every year, for the next generation or so (until all this crew are permanently gone from the scene and a more responsible elite emerges to run our government).  Compared to that, anything the Republicans could hope to achieve in entitlement reform or discretionary spending would be chicken feed (feeding a giant beast).

Boehner knows this, so his challenge is to get a deal which will not rupture the full faith and credit of the US, while not appearing to give up too easily to President Obama and getting something in return. A lot of the more reasonable, establishment Republicans, like McCain and Romney, realize this, and are not signing on for the suicide pact.  McConnell knows this--and he has a possibly difficult re-election campaign next year--so he will keep his head and wattle down as much as possible.  Obama knows this, so he will look to find some bone to offer the hungry dogs, something that is clearly a one-time, not to be repeated, concession of some kind.

I predict the concession will have two components, and that it will come in two parts on Oct. 18 (after a huge drop on Friday, and before the Monday trading session of the week when the limit would be breached):  1) agreement to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow some additional fossil fuel development (offshore, underground, or near but outside the Arctic preserves); and 2) when that is not enough, agreement to change the formula for the cost-of-living index for Social Security, beginning in 2017 or so.  As I've suggested before, 2) is not unthinkable, really, and is a reasonable trade-off to preserve the program's funding for the younger generation without much cost to today's retirees.  1) is a really bad idea that will cause him to be hated by the Left, which is beginning to rise up against him, but I feel that he is leaning that way anyway, and preserving the current low cost of gasoline will net him gains in popular support in 2014.  It's not exactly a Profile in Courage, but the rules of Chicken apply to him, too, and a head-on collision is the courage of a fool.

There is one other way for Obama to go, and I encourage him to threaten it, even to use it if these bids for compromise are spurned.  In the final days before the breach, he can announce that he simply will not allow the US to default on its obligations.  Whether it's by issuing platinum coins, or posting a challenge to the constitutionality of the debt ceiling (it can be argued that it is contrary to the 14th Amendment, which states that the debts of the US will not be questioned), or simply violating the statutory debt limit and daring Congress to take action.  This could be the "impeachable offense" the most rabid Tea Partiers have sought; I'd say bring on the challenge, as this is a battle Obama is sure to win, either in the courts or in the Senate (after a partisan Republican majority once again sinks to the level of a dubious impeachment vote).

*Cf. The Clash, "Clampdown", from "London Calling"

Fall Preview - Pt. 1 (The Arts)

The weather this week has convinced me:  Fall is here.  For some reason, most of the significant efforts in this country's art scenes on the large scale occur in the next three months.  So, let's take a very opinionated view of what's coming down the pike.

First among all, I mention "Bleeding Edge", the new novel from Thomas Pynchon, which just became available this week. ( I got my copy yesterday.)  I'm planning to savor it, not devour it, and at 500 pages, it should be a good part-time read for the fall.  A second successive detective novel, this one features a female New Yorker fraud investigator operating in the period between the burst of the dotcom bubble and 9/11.  To me it screams "Crying of Lot 49", more than "Inherent Vice".

Television
Next we move to "the tube", though of course there's no tubes involved anymore.  For me, television is programming transmitted over a specific channel at a specific time--the other stuff is "video", which is a form of entertainment but, because there is no shared simultaneous experience, not the same thing from the point of view of impact on popular culture.

The critics seem all convinced that this is a (Second?) Golden Age of Television, that it has surpassed the movies, not only in social importance or entertainment value, but in artistic quality.  This is an opinion to which I do not subscribe at all--there is more good TV out there than there used to be, but it is a function of quantity:  the number of channels has multiplied exponentially, and so have most forms of programming.  A few categories have multiplied disproportionately--I would name college football games both major and minor, programs in which people cook and other people rave convincingly about the delicious flavors (too far ahead of the inevitable development of "Smellovision Channel"), programs about obscure groups with unusual behavior patterns and other exhibitionists (e.g., "Duck Dynasty", "Wife Swap", "America's Got Talent", etc.), and programs about violent crime and the justice system.  Particularly the latter--I am so sick of programs about cops, about forensic crime research, prison drama, courtroom drama, criminal capers, legal hijinks, that I can no longer stand to watch even the better ones ("The Wire"?--I couldn't take it).

Anyway, to focus on the good side of TV, I guess a good place to start is with the Emmy awards tonight (Sunday, Sept. 22).  The Emmys do not have the same cachet or dramatic intensity of the Oscars, there are a whole lot of awards for things that are not very interesting, and they have had a historic tendency to give the same award to the same show or performer year after year (John Larroquette won how many times for "Night Court"?), but I think the profile of the awards has begun to rise.  I will be rooting for Tina Fey and "30 Rock" in their final Emmy appearances, and for her SNL compadre Amy Poehler of "Parks and Recreation", though "Modern Family" and its cast will be the huge favorites to repeat in the comedic categories.  (Fey and Poehler's performance in the combined TV/Movie Golden Globes, itself nominated for an Emmy is an example of what the Emmy program should strive to achieve.).  In terms of drama, I guess it's "Breaking Bad"--gritty meth crime isn't overdone so much yet-- over "Mad Men", "Downton Abbey", and "Homeland" (counterterrorism surely is), though I would've loved to see "Boss" (also outgoing) or "Newsroom" (based on its last episode, also halfway out the door).

In terms of the fall season, it's going to come fast and furious after this weekend.  I think it's Monday that we will finally meet Ya Mutha, as in "How I Met Your Mother", after years of tease. Most of the major networks' regular weekly series will begin this week.  In terms of new programs, I will give a look to 'The Goldbergs" (NBC,  Tuesday) and an eponymous Michael J. Fox show (Thursday).  The most successful program in TV history, "The Simpsons", returns next Sunday for what I believe is its 25th full season, and the second-most successful, "Saturday Night Live", will begin its new season next Saturday with Tina Fey as host, a bunch of replacement cast members, and SNL fave Arcade Fire as musical guest--will it be another slack period, and can it survive another? Tune in next spring.

What else?  I'm going to try to watch "Scandal" more; "Mad Men" should be interesting as it heads to its final episodes, "Dr. Who" is supposed to debut a new Doctor (so my daughter tells me; she's only OK with the selected new hero of time and space), and the BBC series of "Sherlock", starring the ubiquitous and ludicrously-named Benedict Cumberbatch (note: in the future I will refer to him as simply BdCb), is supposed to return for a few teasing episodes sometime around the holidays.

Mostly, though, I watch news programs and sports--the first can have no preview, and the latter will be considered in a separate post, as I still believe it qualifies as something other than just TV.

Music
The big, built-up album of this fall is the two-disc follow-up to "The Suburbs" by Arcade Fire.  One song, "Reflektor" (also the title of the album), has been released so far:  it sounds like the band, but disco.  I certainly sympathize with the challenges of maintaining the momentum from a superior release and sudden, massive fame, but "going disco" is not the correct response--not in this century, or any other one for that matter.  We will see if the song is the exception or the rule.

Two major artists who have promised to go back to their roots in their new releases are Paul McCartney, with "New", and Elton John,  with "The Diving Board".  Meanwhile, Elvis Costello literally has gone to The Roots for his, joining the band from Jimmy Fallon's late-night show for a funky new one, "Wise Up Ghost". I've heard one song, and it sounds like something good, not the lounge lizard act I heard on Elvis' last two albums.

Anything else?  I'm hopeful about Katy Perry and her maturation process--she has an album coming out called "Prism" (slightly different light-bending effect than Arcade Fire's), which suggests she is trying to turn the excessive light constantly upon her into something colorful and beautiful.  Good idea, if you can pull it off. And U2 is working on a new album, though it's unclear whether it will make it into the market before the end of the year.

Film
The best trailer of the summer--the one that piqued my curiosity, not that showed off the best effects or jokes--was for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's "Don Jon".  The memorable line--repeated for effect--is that he just cares about a few things in his life:  "his body, his pad, his ride, his family, his church, his boys, his girls, and...his porn." Gordon-Levitt is a young talent; he's taking it to a new level as a first-time director.  The story of Don Juan, the mind of the seducer and his undoing with the right woman, is a worthy challenge that has drawn the talents of many of the greatest over the centuries, including Byron, Mozart, Kierkegaard, and Shaw.  He's got Scarlett Johansson as his foil, that foxy mix of naivete and worldly that she can do so well. It starts next weekend, and I think  this combination of old and new values, sex play both subliminal and overtly indiscreet, just might find the right moment in the key movie-going demographic, teens and young adults.

As always, there is a flood of the best movies this time of year.  The timing seems slightly different this year, as some of them are already out there in the film festivals, so the season will not be such a tease, with the real film powerhouses only hitting your neighborhood multiplex next year. This is a definite improvement--I may be missing something, but none of these have phony openings in the last week of the year.

I think the glum political outlook, which is likely to turn soon into bad economic feeling, will translate into movie viewers looking for solace, escape, and ways to express their suppressed anger. I've ordered the major studio releases for the fall based roughly in my level of skepticism about the projects' artistic and commercial success, from "Highly Doubtful" to "Little Doubt", but what do I really know about them at this point?

"Fifth Estate" - Looks like a whitewash of Julian Assange's story (with BdCb).  Data doesn't want to be free, it lies there waiting to be manipulated. Are moviegoers any different?  This one says "yes".
"Winnie Mandela" - see "The Fifth Estate".  Taking advantage of Nelson Mandela's name, when he will be too weak to say anything to the contrary.
"Great Expectations" - I never even liked the book, and the story seems ripe for political posturing:  the poor just need rich patrons and all will be fine.
"Enough Said" - I think it will be creepy to see the late James Gandolfini in a hopeful love story.  Enough said, indeed.
"Prisoners" - Teen-age abduction drama, with Hugh Jackman in the Liam Neeson "Taken" role as the Angry Dad.  Looks ugly, feels unnecessary.
"Carrie" - Didn't like it the first time; don't need it again.
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - The Scorsese/DiCaprio combo is fine by me, but I think I've seen too many of these Wall Street dramas where the big jerk gets his comeuppance at the end.
"August: Osage County" - All-star cast (including BdCb), Broadway stage play, but it looks too stagey for the big screen.  I'm sure it's no fun, but will it provide the uplift we want?
"Diana" - Naomi Watts looks dead-on as the martyred Princess, but it's either a phony conspiracy play or boring.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - There are a couple of items I'm looking forward to seeing (Smaug's dwarf-built cavern, the Wood-elves, BdCb as the Voice of Smaug), but mostly I think a relatively short novel is being dragged out into four full-length parts for bad reasons.
"Rush" - I would never underestimate Ron Howard's ability to produce a popular spectacle, but I think the heyday of Formula One auto racing is over for most people.
"Catching Fire" - Will people connect the dots between this dystopian society and ours, or is it just a good flick with Jennifer Lawrence?  Either way, it should be reasonably successful.
"All Is Lost" - Just Robert Redford and a sinking boat.  Somehow I think it will be OK.
"All is Bright" - Looks like a holiday charmer with Pauls Rudd and Giamatti.
"Gravity" - Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, directed by Alfonso Cuaron.  Space travel drama is the best possible genre for 3-D (slight edge over aviation), and Cuaron makes powerful film.  It could be awful, but I'm thinking 70% probability of magic.
"12 Years a Slave" - This story of a freed black man captured back into slavery could break hearts, if it manages to tell its story in a way that's not too familiar.
"Nebraska" - Alexander Payne has the strong track record of drawing great performances, not overplaying his hand.
"Captain Phillips" - Not a sure thing, and we do know how this Somali pirates vs. US merchant ship drama will turn out, but Tom Hanks will deliver the goods, as always.
"The Counselor" -  Very little substantial information available, but it looks like it could be a powerhouse (Ridley Scott directing, Cormac McCarthy story, with Javier Bardem and Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz).
"Ender's Game" - The sci-fi special of the season, a genre classic finally adapted for the big screen, with a teenage boy hero.  Should be a commercial success, even if not Oscar material.
"Inside Llewyn Davis" - The Coen Bros. are a sure thing, as far as I'm concerned.  Their popular success correlates negatively with my appreciation, but the latter is never too low.  I like this one, so it may be only a moderate public success.

My summary is a lot of ambitious, expensive failures, a few small-scale successes, few if any certain winners.  Maybe they are right about TV?--I hope not.

America Goes Part-time

One of my favorite topics is the decline in jobs in the US; my contention is that this is a secular trend that will continue (at least until a possible labor shortage in about 20 years), that this trend can and should be used to improve quality of life, and that politicians who pretend that more jobs are always needed are wrong, though no one ever criticizes them for that stance.  (I will grant that the US economy needed the fabrication of employment in the depths of the Great Crater, but we are now mostly out of that depression).

Obamacare and the Rise in Part-time Jobs
So now I am reading that some employers are converting some jobs to part-time in order to avoid a requirement of the Affordable Care Act that those who have more than 50 full-time employees (which has been defined, for purposes of this law's enforcement, as 30 or more hours per week) must offer health insurance or pay penalties.  This requirement's deadline has been postponed by the Obama administration because it does not want to be accused of reducing employment at this time (or any other time, probably); they are either stalling for time or looking for another approach.

I would like to suggest something.  Although I see this trend (to cut employees' hours so to dodge the requirement to provide health insurance) as a temporary phenomenon--eventually employers will decide if they want to stay small or go big, and those that choose the latter will inevitably need to pass that threshold and offer health insurance to their employees--the current trend is the right one, occurring for the wrong reason.  The problem is that all-or-nothing nature of the requirement; instead, all employers should derive a benefit from offering health insurance to their employees, and they should benefit whether the employers are full-time or part-time.  A simple suggestion, and an unequivocal one, but of course the devil would be in the details.  Something both Obamacare's supporters and its critics should be suggesting.

The fact that more employees are working less than full-time hours is not necessarily a problem, except to the extent that the reduction in hours causes deprivation, and for this problem of health insurance.  Gaining more people access to group health insurance plans is the best answer to the current uninsured dilemma (short of Medicare/Medicaid providing health insurance for all, and I'm afraid this country does not, and will not, have the dedication to do that).

For more of my posts on this topic from past years (I know you want them!), please see here, here, and my original essay on the topic, reprinted here.

Your Job is B.S.--No, You!
I ran across a related web dialogue the other day; I saw it on a blog sponsored by The Economist, and it derived from a posting on a site called "Strike" * by a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics named David Graeber.  Essentially what Graeber has provocatively charged is that most of the jobs that have been created in recent decades are service and administrative jobs that have no substance or creative/productive value.   Further, that most of the people in those jobs know their jobs are "bullshit", as he puts it, and that the corrosive impact of that on society is significant.

Now, Graeber is sufficiently self-aware to realize that he, as a professor of anthropology, is not superior to others in having a job that is indispensable to society, but still he is willing to downgrade most everone else's value--he makes exceptions for teachers, fire-fighters, and the disappearing classes of servants, farmers, and manufacturing jobs.  With the last one, though,  I would dispute the essential nature:  it is exactly the production of mass-produced objects of planned obsolescence (and I include guns, missiles, jet fighters among those) which are the most useless jobs, and the ones that I expect to be replaced rapidly by robotic means of production.  It is instead the providers of services, human services, whose work will be needed, and valued, into the future.

"R.A.", in The Economist jobs market forum, examines Graeber's arguments and points out that those manufacturing jobs were unpleasant, and that was why they needed to be paid higher in the earlier industrial ages.  I think Graeber is missing the real point, to which R.A. comes very close in the following:

The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work. Early in the industrial era real wages soared and hours worked declined. In the past generation, by contrast, real wages have grown slowly and workweeks haven't grown shorter.

What R.A. has hit upon is that the current trends are to pay less for overworked labor and to use less of it, with the result that society is being separated into the overworked and the underemployed. We need to push toward an economic system in which less hours of work are required to meet the standard of living which should be available for most or all--everywhere.  This is something within our power, but it is not something for which power is being applied to achieve.

*"Strike" magazine is an English publication--online and print, it seems--which describes itself as "anti-profit, radical" and lists its subjects in the top right of its home page as "Politics/Philosophy/Art/Subversion/Sedition".  I'd never heard of it before now.

Egypt Matters

That would seem to be the one thing that everyone agrees, that what happens in Egypt does matter--to them, and to the rest of us. Egypt is the most populous Arab state, and historically a pivotal one; its role in the recent political movement toward replacing dictatorships in the region, the Arab Spring, is pre-eminent.  It is extremely important to Israel that the peace with Egypt established in the 1970's remain in place, and Egypt's role would be central in helping to guarantee any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace (now that negotiations have begun again).

The way I see it, there has been a triangle of power relationships since deposed dictator Mubarak's crisis in the Arab Spring two years ago.  There is the military, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is People Power--the fractionalized, disorganized mass of civil society not working with the military or M.B.

Two of those groups were well-organized and prepared to act as the smoke cleared from the chaos surrounding Mubarak's fall:  the military and the Muslim Brotherhood.  They found a way to cooperate, or at least tolerate working with each other, to conduct elections for a Constituent Assembly and for the Presidency.  Mohammed Morsi was not a choice the military liked, but they accepted it. There are parties, political forces, among the third force--in fact, too many--but not much evidence of ability to act with a single purpose on a consistent basis, and that allowed Morsi to win the Presidency over a candidate who represented the military's interests.

Morsi, though, upset the power-sharing arrangement through overreach.  The third force rose up, and the military switched over.  The coup--and it was most assuredly a coup--was somewhat accepted by the masses, pending new arrangements.

The Muslim Brotherhood refused to accept the revised power alignment and insisted on Morsi's release (he has been arrested, pending charges) and reinstatement.  After some weeks of mobilizing its members in massive demonstrations, the military made a decision, reminiscent of the Chinese in the days of Tienanmen Square, that the insubordinate behavior should not be allowed to continue.

In fairness, some of the demonstrators have been armed and violent, and some of the demonstrations threatened government installations, but the military's overreaction in the past few days has been spectacular. It seems that the military made a calculation:  we have driven them underground before (for much of Mubarak's reign), we can do it again.  In this, though, I think they have made a miscalculation--conditions have changed.

The views of the third force, as usual, lack clarity:  I hear a call for new elections, but it is unclear the results would be much different (the Brotherhood may only have 30-40% support among Egyptian adults, but its unity can allow it to defeat a fractured opposition).  Not many, if any, call for reinstating Morsi, and that would seem to be out of the question at this point for the military.

The military's statements now suggest that they would like to lower tensions.  I think they will have to back away from threats to prosecute Morsi for allowing civil disorder. Making a martyr of him by imprisoning or executing him would be a disastrous move. I would see the most favorable outcome being some sort of promise that he would be released if the Brotherhood accepts the coup's outcome and agrees to some sort of new elections with a new power alignment.  I don't know that they will accept that, though; this is a group that has a maximalist, long-term agenda, and they will find it difficult to back down.

Our Many Ineffectual Options
There was a lot of internal debate in the US policy-making community (inside and outside of the government) after the latest massacre of civilians by the military, which occurred when they decided to stop tolerating daily demonstrations for Morsi and occupation of a major Cairo mosque by the M.B. Over a hundred were killed, and many more injured.

The initial response from the Obama Administration was the classic "strongly worded message".  The obvious leverage we had was the $billion-plus foreign aid we have given to Egypt every year since the Camp David accords.  In fact, our law requires that the aid be cut off in the case of a military coup.  The problem with that step (either suspending, or cancelling it) is that it might not make any difference in the military's behavior--it might make it worse--and then the leverage, such as it was, would be gone.  That was the problem with the aid during the Mubarak reign, and it has surfaced again.  Beyond that, our ally Israel (which feels a lot more comfortable with the military than it did with Morsi) would like us to keep the aid, and then there are the US arms manufacturers, who end up getting back a lot of the money in arms spending.

Finally, this week the US has announced it is suspending aid.  I think this is the right move; it can be reinstated if there are positive political developments.  I have to say I really don't care about any screams and moans from the US defense contractors.  They've been profiting for too long from the indirect largesse of our taxpayers, and if jobs are at stake, then this is a very good example of the kind of non-productive employment which will be eliminated, and should be eliminated, over time (there are ever less countries willing to engage in the arms purchase game).   Meanwhile, we should be looking at political aid to the third force, in the form of money to organize those forces .  If there's one area of great progress that Obama's movement has produced, it is the demonstrated ability to translate money into political power.

And Then There's Syria
Wednesday morning, rocket attacks on suburbs under rebel control near Damascus killed hundreds of civilians.  Many reported that victims appeared to have symptoms like those associated with sarin gas.  Everyone has put together 2+2 and concluded that Syria's government forces have conducted a chemical weapons attack; there have been such allegations before, even proven cases of sarin gas being used, but this was on a larger scale, and the signs of authorship are not ambiguous. It seems like an arrogant and outrageous violation of international law.

Nevertheless, it is unclear what the response of the international community, and of the US, will end up to be. In the U.N., Russia has cooperated only to the point of agreeing that there should be an investigation of the incident.  Syria has offered cooperation, then pulled back, then offered again--reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's gamesmanship on a similar topic back in the day:  it's called stalling for time.  Evidence of chemical weapons would tend to fade, and victims will be buried quickly, in accordance with Muslim requirements.  I am certain the Syrian regime will have developed some sort of alternate interpretation of the incident which would seek to distract or diffuse blame away from themselves.

The tricks will be figuring out how to act in spite of these obstacles, and what exactly to do.  NATO could be one means of rallying support, as I imagine countries like the U.K., France, and Turkey will be supportive of taking action.  Again, though, what type of action would be effective?  Personally, I would advocate the following sequence:  1) Establish a no-fly zone for military flights over Damascus; 2) Keep an eye on the Presidential palace and the other haunts of President Bashar al-Assad; and 3) Put a cruise missile through his office window when he's in there. Nothing else would be sufficient, and I think that would do the trick in ensuring no one else orders the use of such weapons in the civil war, which is certain to continue regardless of anything else that happens.

Rand Paul Ryan Rick Perry Chris Christie, etc.

Has anyone noticed how there's only one real last name among the whole series above, and it's one of their first names?  Of course, it's in honor of Ayn Rand, I presume.

This appears to be the field for 2016 for the Republicans.  At least they are the ones who seem already to be running for the nomination, and it looks as though, once again, it will be a proper bloodbath.

The one 2016 Republican candidate of significance not included above is Marco Rubio (I'm not including Ted Cruz, if you don't mind--he could not possibly be a serious candidate, even if he is a first-term Senator). Rubio is the exception to the crew, I guess.  He could be successful, both with the party and nationally, but I hasten to add the word "eventually"--I can not believe the Republicans would break with pattern so much, so quickly, as to nominate such a young Hispanic (OK, Cuban, not the same as a Mexican, but still....).  He will need to wait a few years so this sacrilege of suggesting amnesty for illegal Mexicans can be forgotten.

Then there is Jeb Bush.  If he were to run, I would consider him a serious threat, for the nomination and then in a general election, because unlike most of those mentioned above in the title, he has the political talent required.  The key would be the ability to forget and forgive him for the family name; personally I think it is very strong among many of us Americans (big brother Dubya's reputation already seems to have improved among the populace).  Jeb is reluctant to run until his last name no longer produces guffaws--I think he is wise to feel that way.

I guess Rick Santorum might run, under the mistaken belief that, because he finished second last time, it will be his turn in 2016.  He is an extraordinarily weak candidate.

It is way early, but I offer a prediction:  Chris Christie as the nominee, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico as the VP candidate.  I think Christie will start out with some baggage (not physical, but political) because of his relatively moderate positions on social issues and relatively tolerant view of President Obama, but when he shows his hard-hitting side, he will not be confused for anything but a partisan, while anything resembling a foreign policy question for any of the others would yield Sarah Palin-type ignorance.  I think Martinez will be the choice to provide a soggy bone to Hispanics and women; she is a team player and could fit with anyone not too obviously a Tea Party extremist.  She's basically a Texan, too, and a superior choice for running mate over Cruz.

With regard to the Democrats, I have nothing novel to say:  I do believe it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, and I presume she will, circumstances permitting.  I think she would choose a loyalist running mate who's a solid policy wonk, someone like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia.  She wouldn't want anyone too charismatic on his own (and she probably would want a male running mate).

Virginia is to 2016 as the Spanish Civil War was to WWII
There are two significant statewide races this off-year.  One is the expected easy win for Chris Christie over Barbara Buono for governor of New Jersey (and an expected easy win for Cory Booker to win Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat there); the other will be the governor's race in Virginia.

The Republicans have a right-winger, Attorney General Cuccinelli, he who originated the concept of the transvaginal sonic probe for pregnant women seeking an abortion.  He should be easy meat, but this is an off, off-year, and turnout may be abysmal.  The Democratic candidate is Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign manager.  He is acceptably middle-of-the-road for Virginia and should have a decent chance to win; polls show the race to be very close.

There are two notable facts about the Virginia race.  One is the huge money being raised on both sides; partially this is because the big money has nowhere else to go this year, and there is a lot of effort both behind the fundraising, and which will be needed to move a politics-weary public. This may be especially true in northern Virginia, a key political battleground in 2012, and home to many families of public servants getting beaten up in various ways this fall by the partisan games. McAuliffe should come out hard against Tea-bagging, sequestering government by repeal and default, and I believe his campaign will indeed be highly negative.  As for Cuccinelli, he is the mouthpiece for right-wing Republicans to try out their latest anti-Hillary taunts; that's the other key fact.  If the Republicans find that Cuccinelli's tactics work, they will apply them more broadly, and continuously, for the next three years.

This is not to ignore the fact that 2014 will be an expensive Boer War itself. A subject for later posts, but I'm just not that keen on the whole thing right now.