Candidate I: The New Pope
Pope Benedict's most interesting move as Pope was his last--choosing to abdicate. There seemed not to be a rule against it, but no pope had left vertically from the job in 600 years or so. I have heard all the gossip about the supposed "real reason" why he left--gay intrigue, financial shenanigans, cover-up of whatever. They may all be true, but I don't believe any of them is the reason he is leaving: he saw how his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was reduced at the end and didn't want to go out that way. I give him credit, and I recommend his example to future popes who can see their faculties irreversibly slipping away.
Pope Benedict's term officially ends now, and the conclave of Cardinals of the church will begin to select a new pope. I do not pretend to have followed the politics of the Vatican enough to be able to guess on whose feet will be fitted "The Shoes of the Fisherman", ready or not, but I do think the rest of the world (and not just the Catholics) has an interest in their judgment.
I do not have any expectation that the new pope will be any kind of an innovator, one who will change the current state of papal bull. What I have read is that all of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Pope Benedict or by his predecessor, and that means it is unlikely that the next pope will be even slightly inclined to change things, or that even any of those who will be voting will be so inclined. That means no prospect of female priests, no change to celibacy rules, no change to policies on contraception, etc.
That being said, there are some things that could change, and selection of the right Pope could help with them. What I am looking for above all is a change to the Eurocentric, even Italocentric, focus of the papacy and of the College of Cardinals. There are many more Catholics in Latin America than in Europe, and if one adds the Catholics from Asia, Africa, and North America to those in South and Central America, one realizes that 100% of modern popes (in the last ten centuries or so) have come from the continent of 25% of modern Catholics. The last two popes were not Italian--so the Italian cardinals think they are due, no doubt--but the previous fifty or so were, and of course Italians represent a much smaller, steadily shrinking, percentage. The origin of the cardinals themselves has been broadening; a non-European pope might assist that process, which--since the church is such a hierarchical, patriarchal organization--might lead to those in the rest of the world feeling a little less like second-class Catholics. More likely, I will be disappointed at the end, as I was when the current pope was chosen.
Candidate II: The New Prime Minister
Italians went to the polls this week to choose a new Parliament. The results were shocking, but not very significant. How can this be true? To answer this, we must delve a little into the morass of Italian politics, one of my favorite subjects.
Italy is a true multi-party Parliamentary democracy, one of the purest in the world (Israel is another). Unlike Great Britain, where the parties are stable, with long history and hereditary patterns of membership, Italian parties come and go, burning brightly then burning out, and, even more so, the groupings of parties are short-lived. Credibility is the big issue for Italian parties; in order to come into governing coalitions, parties bend their principles out of shape until no one believes their platforms anymore. Then, the parties, or their leaders, usually do something which confirms peoples' worst impressions of them.
It's been going on for more than six decades, since WWII, and it went on for several decades before then, from independence through WWI. The one party which remained true to its principles, in many Italians' minds, was the Fascist party of Mussolini. That was the good part, the bad side was that most of their principles, in fact, were ugly, repressive, and self-destructive.*
The Italians made an effort in the last decade to develop something like a two-party system. Their (excessively) proportional representation was revised to give a sizable bonus of seats in the lower house to the party winning the most votes. Two big groupings formed, one around "The Cavalier"--Silvio Berlusconi, multimillionaire industrialist, media magnate, and self-imagined ladies' man--and one called "The Olive Tree" of all the groups which couldn't stand him. Of course, Italian politics being what they are, both groups fractured within a few years.
The elections this month occurred in a more typical fragmented environment, but there were really only four major parties contesting the election. The first two were the renamed remnants of the Berlusconi coalition and the anti-Berlusconi one, Berlusconi's we will refer to as "center-right" and the other "center-left". The center-left coalition's largest group is the Democratic Party (PD), which is really the former Italian Communists and Socialists of the postwar period (both of their parties self-destructed). Italian Communists are like no other Communists in the world: they have a long tradition for clean government, support of labor unions, using the rules of electoral democracy to achieve their ends, and responsible, bourgeois bureaucracy. The leader of the PD for this election was Pier Luigi Bersani, another in a series of former Euro-Communists with impeccable democratic credentials. Berlusconi's supporters are middle-class patriots, businesspeople, and a significant bloc of Northern Italians sick of subsidies in favor of the relatively poor South of the country,
As you might imagine from the descriptions above, your average non-special interest, free-thinking iconoclastic Italian hates both of them. The third force is made up of the technocrats who rallied behind central banker Mario Monti, Prime Minister of the last governing coalition (destroyed by the tidal pulls of austerity), while the fourth is a unique Italian phenomenon, the Five Stars Movement of comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo ("grillo" means "cricket", and I'm assuming that is not his real name). Grillo is anti-everything, and particularly anti-Berlusconi and anti-EuroCommunist, and in his long career his humor has been satiric, vicious, and often vulgar.
In Italy, organization is everything, and the many who hate politics and politicians have organized, and their man with a megaphone is currently Grillo, who has been very adept at using the Internet, cell phones, and flash mobs to create a political movement of the disaffected. Grillo is the latest in a unique Italian tradition which I would call the "vafanculo" party. The one I would compare him most to is Marco Pannella, head of the new-Left Radicals of the Seventies through Nineties. Pannella and the Radicals accomplished much--through hunger strikes, referendums, political organizing for issues--but never went into the government. Eventually, time passed them by, and now these random elements converged on Grillo, who made a late run. Bersani's coalition had a sizable lead, but it shrunk by the day.
The final results were a very narrow popular vote victory for the center-left coalition over the Berlusconi forces (29.5% to 29.1% in the lower house; 31.6% to 30.7% in the Senate). Grillo's M5S (Movimento 5 Stelle) came in a very strong third, with 25.5% in the lower house and 23.8% in the Senate, while Monti's group finished fourth, around 10%, but still high enough to get a strategically-important slice of representatives.
Thanks to Bersani's narrow win in the lower House of Deputies and the bonus he received, the only conceivable choice for Prime Minister, really, is Bersani--his party has an absolute majority in that house with 345 of 630 seats. (Results, and some of the background are from the online version of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.) In order to be confirmed in office, though, his Cabinet will need to be approved by both houses, and in the Senate his party has only 123 of 315 seats (Berlusconi controls 117, Grillo 54, and Monti 19). The immediate reaction was that no government can be formed, a hasty judgment, and one that does not give full credit to the Italians' creativity, though it does recognize their ability to dispute endlessly.
Anyway, Bersani will surely get the initial chance to form a government, which will be granted by President Napolitano, an aged former PCI and WWII partisan leader, who was quoted on a visit to Germany this week calling both Berlusconi and Grillo "clowns". Subsequently, he walked back his comment, saying it was "out of place"--but not mistaken, for surely it is correct. Italian politics is nothing if not a stage play with its leaders as dramatic actors, and the role these two play are that of "pagliacci" for sure (sorry for the opera reference). The amusement factor should be multiplied, though, now that there are two clowns at the very front of the stage beating each other over the head with rubber bats.
If no one can put together a government--the Italians call that not-unusal situation a government "crisis in the dark"--eventually the President would call for new elections. One alternative that I saw mentioned in my research is the possibility that new elections might be called for just the Senate--I didn't know that was possible, and it might not have the desired effect. My reading of the math is that Bersani--who would normally be able to count on Monti's group for support and to fill responsibly key positions in the Cabinet--will have to deal with either Berlusconi or Grillo. Berlusconi's price might well be to make Monti the PM in a unity government; Grillo's might be to water down the austerity in exchange for his willingness to abstain in a vote of no confidence in the Senate. In any of these outcomes, the answer to the title question will be: Nobody.
But, Really...
It is a debatable proposition which authority has more influence, the secular government of the Republic of Italy, or the presumed holy one of Vatican City. The Italian central government has always--since the nation's unification in the 19th century--been a relatively weak one, hardly able to manage the disputatious and endlessly politically creative Italian people. Both before and after the Risorgimento, Italy was a land in which the Roman Catholic church meddled, often, frequently in a decisive way, and not necessarily to the benefit of the native population.
The current equation governing power in the Italian peninsula was worked out during the rule of Mussolini, and it has survived both his fall and the Italian monarchy that was in place at the time. Basically, Italy--the secular state--has agreed to leave the Vatican alone and sovereign within its walls, and the Vatican agreed to stay out of domestic politics. The formula has worked to allow the Vatican to project its power worldwide, probably more effectively than it had for centuries, and the state has eliminated a messy distraction from its many obstacles to effective government.
Italy now has a new distraction, one that overpowers the relatively puny efforts of its central government and the regions, provinces, and comuni (the localities). The relatively impotent European Community government provided a neutral battleground for Italians to exercise their volatile political arguments but didn't rule their world, but the European central bankers responsible (mostly to the various national governments, and especially to Germany's) for safeguarding the Euro have not been able to leave Italy alone in the past few years. Italy entered the Euro under somewhat false pretenses, not really meeting the requirements for government debt or budget-balancing, but the European Community needed Italy in the deal. And, they still do: while Greece is a relatively small appendage to the Eurozone which could be excised if it were done before its corruption spread to the rest of the body, Italy is a pound of flesh too near the heart.
So, I would say that the near-universal perception in Italy (I will confirm it this summer) is that the shots are being called by the Eurobankers, on behalf of the "tedeschi" (Germans). This is different from what I often experienced in the past, when the Italians were convinced their country was controlled by the CIA (and they had plenty of evidence of such conspiracy), but this would not be a system of order that will appeal much, either. Economically, they may not have any better alternative, but a lot of Italians have very little invested in the globalized national economy, relatively successful though it appears.
In summary, a very combustible situation; one could conclude that there is the potential for massive, even revolutionary, upheaval, but that is often the case in Italy and it occurs much less frequently than would seem possible.
*Another group remaining true to its principles--even now-- that I discovered in my research is the Italian Republican Party, which dates back to the 19th century. It has always stood for respectable, democratic government and has produced many of the leading figures of modern Italian history--though I don't think it has ever attained more than 5% of the vote in postwar Italy. The leader of its leading fragment (there was a PRI list that got about 5000 votes nationally) now is Oscar Giannino, his party is called "Fare" (to do/to make) and its slogan is "to stop the decline". It got about 1% of the vote (300,000 or so) and no seats in Parliament. Draw your own conclusions.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Slowest Train-Wreck of All Time
In a couple of days, the sequester of spending will begin to apply. This reduction in spending--a percentage of the total, with entitlement areas excluded--had been agreed by Congress and the President in 2011 as a compromise to end the debt ceiling crisis of that time. The across-the-board reductions were supposed to be replaced by a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Super-committee's decisions on prudent deficit reduction measures, but they could come to no agreement by the time deadline they were given. The cuts were postponed, kicked down the road, but there was still no agreement on spending priorities, and so we are come to this. Two trains heading toward each other on the same track, a game of low-speed chicken.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Here's to the Losers!
I have to endorse the sentiment of the Oscars-closing song that Seth McFarlane and Kristen Chenoweth performed. Rather than last night's winners, I want to praise the losers.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
My 10's
In honor of the Academy Awards, here are the ones I've rated as 10 on imdb.com (out of 713 items rated, at last count). In order to rate a 10 with me, a movie needs to change the way I think, forever, and for better.
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
Monday, February 18, 2013
Background Checks: Do or Die!
I read a shocking story on the front page of The Chicago Tribune yesterday, about a couple of young men--one a seemingly respectable college student--who ran guns to the gangs in Chicago. Or anyone, really--they got caught selling a couple dozen of them to a Federal informant.
All they had to do was go across the border into northwest Indiana and go to the gun shows. The "licensed gun dealers" there are required to do background checks, but there is no waiting period, and the checks can easily be avoided through access to "private sales" also present at the gun shows.
Here is the answer to those gun apologists who would suggest that, because Chicago has strict gun laws but a high homicide rate, those gun laws don't work. The answer is that they would work, except our borders between communities and states are open! This is the clearest evidence possible that Federally-mandated standards on all gun sales are required--the "background checks" that are part of the legislation that President Obama has proposed.
It doesn't look too promising for the banning of sale and manufacture of semi-automatic rifles, or even for the smaller "magazine" for such guns--so we would still be under the threat of those uncertified lunatics who prefer such killing machines for their convenience and capacity to produce mass slaughter. However, far more people are being killed through the access criminals and would-be criminals get for underground weapons of all kinds.
Those who vote against this provision, or if somehow they can block a vote, deserve the fate that results nowadays to too many of us--to be shot by gunmen bearing unlicensed arms (of which I am not one). I wish them only their just rewards.
All they had to do was go across the border into northwest Indiana and go to the gun shows. The "licensed gun dealers" there are required to do background checks, but there is no waiting period, and the checks can easily be avoided through access to "private sales" also present at the gun shows.
Here is the answer to those gun apologists who would suggest that, because Chicago has strict gun laws but a high homicide rate, those gun laws don't work. The answer is that they would work, except our borders between communities and states are open! This is the clearest evidence possible that Federally-mandated standards on all gun sales are required--the "background checks" that are part of the legislation that President Obama has proposed.
It doesn't look too promising for the banning of sale and manufacture of semi-automatic rifles, or even for the smaller "magazine" for such guns--so we would still be under the threat of those uncertified lunatics who prefer such killing machines for their convenience and capacity to produce mass slaughter. However, far more people are being killed through the access criminals and would-be criminals get for underground weapons of all kinds.
Those who vote against this provision, or if somehow they can block a vote, deserve the fate that results nowadays to too many of us--to be shot by gunmen bearing unlicensed arms (of which I am not one). I wish them only their just rewards.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Manic Hoops
College: Riot of Upsets
On college basketball, let me make my feelings clear: I am an enthusiastic fan, almost an uncritical one. This year's wide-open regular season, with its revolving door at the top, has been fascinating and promises an incredible championship tourney, one that is almost impossible to forecast.
I know there are aspects of the game that are not as they should be. The clearest issue is the "one and done" rule that the NBA has practiced with regard to its draft, thus preserving the NCAA game's role as training and proving ground for the pros, yet not requiring the top pro prospects to waste more than a single year in unpaid practice of their profession. I can live with it, but I don't like it. The second biggest problem I have is how the conferences have been de-stabilized by the madness of college football and the search for playoff and conference championship money there. Since basketball's tourney has long-since opened up sufficient at-large bids that the winners of conference regular season and postseason conference tourneys have little advantage, the main problem is the breaking of treasured rivalries, but with basketball's busy season there is room to re-schedule the most important ones.
The "one-and-done" rule certainly has its effect on the recruitment of top high school players. Certain colleges, or more precisely, certain college coaches, have earned a reputation for developing guys who can make it in the pros and for not holding them back. Foremost among them is John Calipari, who has inherited the seat--an honored one, but a very hot one--as head coach of the University of Kentucky, my #1 team. I am one of the rare Kentucky fans who also roots openly for the Wildcats' instate rivals, the University of Louisville, coached for several years now by Rick Pitino, another who does well in preparing NBA players (though as pros they don't have to work quite as hard as Pitino makes them do with his all-time, full-court press--it didn't go over too well in his stint as an NBA coach). I've also got rooting interest in two more proven NBA star producers, U. of Indiana and Syracuse University. Bottom line, I seem perfectly willing to attach myself emotionally to the efforts of those who utilize and develop the talents of future pros.
As is true in many or most years, these teams are right at the heart of this year's drama for NCAA basketball leadership: Indiana, Louisville, and Syracuse have all had their moments to be the #1 team in the rankings (not that they really matter). Defending champion Kentucky had to rebuild its team after five players turned pro; it became clear very quickly that it had been rated too highly in the preseason, based on a strong freshman class and the dominating performance of the previous year's freshmen, and U of K's ranking fell off quickly. Kentucky was showing signs of recovering and competing, but its top freshman, center Merlen Noels, was injured for the season and they are floundering once again.
Compared to last year, what is different this year is the uncontrolled chaos at the top. Besides those three I mentioned above, Duke, Michigan, Florida,and Kansas have all had their turns at the top, some of those runs lasting just days, or even fractions of days. The common theme is that the best teams in the top conferences can not win consistently on the road. Since the NCAA tourney is, after the first couple of rounds, conducted in neutral arenas, the performance of these homers suggests that none of them are going to earn the title; instead, I would look to outsiders like Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, or, most surprisingly, ACC leader Miami (Fla.), teams which have proven they can win big games against the top teams outside their home gyms. This would be the year to bet on a relative longshot; the only prediction I will make at this point, with the brackets yet to be determined, is a huge number of upsets and several teams from the "mid-majors" among the final 16.
NBA: Midseason Assessment
Tonight is the All-Star game; not much of a game, really, but a good time to review the course of the season so far and where it is likely to go. In terms of the regular season, teams have played between 50 and 56 games so far (a surprisingly wide range) of the 82 games, so 60-65%, but when one considers the two-months of playoffs (somewhere between 16-28 additional games for the finalists), it's about halfway for the better teams.
First, I am struck by the number of teams which have been profoundly affected by injuries and trades. A few examples: Derrick Rose not able to return yet for the Bulls, Rajan Rondo's season-ending injury for the Celtics, Pau Gasol's injuries, the ramifications of the Dwight Howard trade to the Lakers, the ascendancy of the New York teams--the Knicks, and now the Brooklyn nets--assembled through ambitious trades, the Grizzlies' trading Rudy Gay in midseason, and the trades which may be coming up before the deadline: the Clippers and Celtics? the Lakers?
Second is the mix of new and old among the contenders, and, logically, among those not contending. The Mavs and the Lakers are, at this point, not playoff teams at all, while rising teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Clippers, and Nets figure among those which seem headed for home-court advantage in the first and even the second round. Then there are the San Antonio Spurs, the most successful team over the last 15 years or so, which have the best record in the league and have a 9-1 record in their last ten games; those ten included their longest road-trip of the year, and they did not have their perennial All-Star Tim Duncan for most of it. It is unclear how they are doing it and whether they can continue, but they have earned respect and consideration as the favorite in the West.
In the East, there is Miami and then the rest; the Heat have opened a significant lead over several teams that will vie for the second spot. This does not mean that Miami will sail through the playoffs unchallenged: Indiana, the Bulls, and the Knicks all have the kind of defensive prowess and front-line scoring that can pose a problem; even the Celtics could be a difficult first-round opponent if the conference standings end up setting them up (right now, the Celtics are in 7th, so it would be 8th-place Milwaukee that would be the Heat's first-round opponent).
The biggest news of the season, so far, is the continued emergence of LeBron James as the king of the NBA; he is beginning to draw awed comparison to Michael Jordan; though their games have different stylistic features, they are alike in terms of the difficulty of stopping them from scoring and the way they control the games at the finish. Jordan is drawing a lot of press notice here in Chicago this weekend for his 50th birthday, but he has so far not emerged to make any public statements; he remains a mystery to most; a bit of a loner in a team game who overwhelmed with his desire to win above all else. From the games I watched him play, I remember thinking that he was relatively slight and skinny next to many of the league's behemoths, but his skills and speed were what impressed daily, and his ruthless leadership what impressed in the clutch. James, instead, is an awesome power on the court; and his basketball IQ (for playing) seems just as high as Jordan's. If he can continue to improve--and add to his number of championship rings--the comparison to the man most consider the game's greatest acheiver may yet become apt.
On college basketball, let me make my feelings clear: I am an enthusiastic fan, almost an uncritical one. This year's wide-open regular season, with its revolving door at the top, has been fascinating and promises an incredible championship tourney, one that is almost impossible to forecast.
I know there are aspects of the game that are not as they should be. The clearest issue is the "one and done" rule that the NBA has practiced with regard to its draft, thus preserving the NCAA game's role as training and proving ground for the pros, yet not requiring the top pro prospects to waste more than a single year in unpaid practice of their profession. I can live with it, but I don't like it. The second biggest problem I have is how the conferences have been de-stabilized by the madness of college football and the search for playoff and conference championship money there. Since basketball's tourney has long-since opened up sufficient at-large bids that the winners of conference regular season and postseason conference tourneys have little advantage, the main problem is the breaking of treasured rivalries, but with basketball's busy season there is room to re-schedule the most important ones.
The "one-and-done" rule certainly has its effect on the recruitment of top high school players. Certain colleges, or more precisely, certain college coaches, have earned a reputation for developing guys who can make it in the pros and for not holding them back. Foremost among them is John Calipari, who has inherited the seat--an honored one, but a very hot one--as head coach of the University of Kentucky, my #1 team. I am one of the rare Kentucky fans who also roots openly for the Wildcats' instate rivals, the University of Louisville, coached for several years now by Rick Pitino, another who does well in preparing NBA players (though as pros they don't have to work quite as hard as Pitino makes them do with his all-time, full-court press--it didn't go over too well in his stint as an NBA coach). I've also got rooting interest in two more proven NBA star producers, U. of Indiana and Syracuse University. Bottom line, I seem perfectly willing to attach myself emotionally to the efforts of those who utilize and develop the talents of future pros.
As is true in many or most years, these teams are right at the heart of this year's drama for NCAA basketball leadership: Indiana, Louisville, and Syracuse have all had their moments to be the #1 team in the rankings (not that they really matter). Defending champion Kentucky had to rebuild its team after five players turned pro; it became clear very quickly that it had been rated too highly in the preseason, based on a strong freshman class and the dominating performance of the previous year's freshmen, and U of K's ranking fell off quickly. Kentucky was showing signs of recovering and competing, but its top freshman, center Merlen Noels, was injured for the season and they are floundering once again.
Compared to last year, what is different this year is the uncontrolled chaos at the top. Besides those three I mentioned above, Duke, Michigan, Florida,and Kansas have all had their turns at the top, some of those runs lasting just days, or even fractions of days. The common theme is that the best teams in the top conferences can not win consistently on the road. Since the NCAA tourney is, after the first couple of rounds, conducted in neutral arenas, the performance of these homers suggests that none of them are going to earn the title; instead, I would look to outsiders like Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, or, most surprisingly, ACC leader Miami (Fla.), teams which have proven they can win big games against the top teams outside their home gyms. This would be the year to bet on a relative longshot; the only prediction I will make at this point, with the brackets yet to be determined, is a huge number of upsets and several teams from the "mid-majors" among the final 16.
NBA: Midseason Assessment
Tonight is the All-Star game; not much of a game, really, but a good time to review the course of the season so far and where it is likely to go. In terms of the regular season, teams have played between 50 and 56 games so far (a surprisingly wide range) of the 82 games, so 60-65%, but when one considers the two-months of playoffs (somewhere between 16-28 additional games for the finalists), it's about halfway for the better teams.
First, I am struck by the number of teams which have been profoundly affected by injuries and trades. A few examples: Derrick Rose not able to return yet for the Bulls, Rajan Rondo's season-ending injury for the Celtics, Pau Gasol's injuries, the ramifications of the Dwight Howard trade to the Lakers, the ascendancy of the New York teams--the Knicks, and now the Brooklyn nets--assembled through ambitious trades, the Grizzlies' trading Rudy Gay in midseason, and the trades which may be coming up before the deadline: the Clippers and Celtics? the Lakers?
Second is the mix of new and old among the contenders, and, logically, among those not contending. The Mavs and the Lakers are, at this point, not playoff teams at all, while rising teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Clippers, and Nets figure among those which seem headed for home-court advantage in the first and even the second round. Then there are the San Antonio Spurs, the most successful team over the last 15 years or so, which have the best record in the league and have a 9-1 record in their last ten games; those ten included their longest road-trip of the year, and they did not have their perennial All-Star Tim Duncan for most of it. It is unclear how they are doing it and whether they can continue, but they have earned respect and consideration as the favorite in the West.
In the East, there is Miami and then the rest; the Heat have opened a significant lead over several teams that will vie for the second spot. This does not mean that Miami will sail through the playoffs unchallenged: Indiana, the Bulls, and the Knicks all have the kind of defensive prowess and front-line scoring that can pose a problem; even the Celtics could be a difficult first-round opponent if the conference standings end up setting them up (right now, the Celtics are in 7th, so it would be 8th-place Milwaukee that would be the Heat's first-round opponent).
The biggest news of the season, so far, is the continued emergence of LeBron James as the king of the NBA; he is beginning to draw awed comparison to Michael Jordan; though their games have different stylistic features, they are alike in terms of the difficulty of stopping them from scoring and the way they control the games at the finish. Jordan is drawing a lot of press notice here in Chicago this weekend for his 50th birthday, but he has so far not emerged to make any public statements; he remains a mystery to most; a bit of a loner in a team game who overwhelmed with his desire to win above all else. From the games I watched him play, I remember thinking that he was relatively slight and skinny next to many of the league's behemoths, but his skills and speed were what impressed daily, and his ruthless leadership what impressed in the clutch. James, instead, is an awesome power on the court; and his basketball IQ (for playing) seems just as high as Jordan's. If he can continue to improve--and add to his number of championship rings--the comparison to the man most consider the game's greatest acheiver may yet become apt.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Finally, the First Shoe Drops
The Justice Department's announcement of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Standard and Poor's could be a one-off cherry-picking against one of the most egregious culprits of the financial collapse, but I think it is the beginning of a new phase of long-suppressed recriminations. Now that we are finally out of the Great Crater, it's time to see why we fell in, and S&P is a good place to start--we pointed the finger at the rating agencies' role 4 1/2 years ago (in our essential Bailout FAQ post).
No doubt there was considerable jockeying (years' worth, I'm guessing), as the Attorney General sought to obtain a settlement, but not just any settlement: One that admitted some culpability. And, I'm guessing that S&P--due to the tsunami of lawsuits they would then expect from investors, banks, insurance companies--basically everybody who lost money in the landslide (i.e. everybody)--couldn't do it. Now the game has gone public, and even if S&P (owned by McGraw-Hill, mentioned in case you may own some of its stock; but never mind, it's already too late!*) can make a settlement now, it will still be subject to the derivative lawsuits. Derivatives are what this is about, after all, and the second derivative of their prospects has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
What's it all about? The problem is that the rating agencies were available for hire to the big banks and other financial institutions to rate their re-packaged credit products. The process was anything but transparent; the rating agencies' motivations all too transparent. A lot of attention has been given to the emails and other accounts of bad behavior within the organization which demonstrated that people there knew their ratings were deceiving the purchasers; proving bad intent is necessary to get fraud convictions, but the facts--that the agencies' ratings proved worthless and misleading--should be indictment enough for S&P and the way they did (and still do) business. As for "Analyst D" and his mangled lyrics of Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House", to say "nice try" would be way off target; the concept (we are destroying our own food chain through our self-destructive and short-sighted approach) was right, but the meter was all wrong, the wit lacking. (I do think "Analyst D" has some potential as a handle for a rap artist who attacks capitalism, something in itself I'd like to see.) The Justice Department's case is not a criminal one, but David Byrne would be right to accuse them of criminal misuse of artistic license.
S&P is the largest of the three major rating agencies; Moody's and Fitch should be quaking with fear, as well as many of the banks and insurance companies that were packaging up the garbage, polishing it, and selling off their risk. There may be opportunities to prove broader conspiracy to defraud, once the Feds get S&P under their thumb, and to get pre-emptive settlements from the agencies who did the same things S&P did. Ultimately, though, it is the system--in which the sellers of the products pay for their ratings, and know the rules that will ensure top investment-grade ratings, and the buyers must beware--that is the long-term issue to be fixed. Snakes will be snakes.
*McGraw-Hill's stock price dropped 10% from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, 2/4; 10% more from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 2/5; and 10% more since Tuesday 10 a.m. Probably three or four more hits of that magnitude are yet to follow. Moody's has also taken a hit last week.
John Cassidy's New Yorker blog post, which has the link cited above to read Analyst D's original lyrics, confirms many of the thoughts I wrote above, especially regarding the prolonged negotiations which preceded the announcement of the lawsuit. I'd already written those guesses up and posted this; it was just--after completing it--when I Googled for a link with the full lyrics hat I found his article.
No doubt there was considerable jockeying (years' worth, I'm guessing), as the Attorney General sought to obtain a settlement, but not just any settlement: One that admitted some culpability. And, I'm guessing that S&P--due to the tsunami of lawsuits they would then expect from investors, banks, insurance companies--basically everybody who lost money in the landslide (i.e. everybody)--couldn't do it. Now the game has gone public, and even if S&P (owned by McGraw-Hill, mentioned in case you may own some of its stock; but never mind, it's already too late!*) can make a settlement now, it will still be subject to the derivative lawsuits. Derivatives are what this is about, after all, and the second derivative of their prospects has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
What's it all about? The problem is that the rating agencies were available for hire to the big banks and other financial institutions to rate their re-packaged credit products. The process was anything but transparent; the rating agencies' motivations all too transparent. A lot of attention has been given to the emails and other accounts of bad behavior within the organization which demonstrated that people there knew their ratings were deceiving the purchasers; proving bad intent is necessary to get fraud convictions, but the facts--that the agencies' ratings proved worthless and misleading--should be indictment enough for S&P and the way they did (and still do) business. As for "Analyst D" and his mangled lyrics of Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House", to say "nice try" would be way off target; the concept (we are destroying our own food chain through our self-destructive and short-sighted approach) was right, but the meter was all wrong, the wit lacking. (I do think "Analyst D" has some potential as a handle for a rap artist who attacks capitalism, something in itself I'd like to see.) The Justice Department's case is not a criminal one, but David Byrne would be right to accuse them of criminal misuse of artistic license.
S&P is the largest of the three major rating agencies; Moody's and Fitch should be quaking with fear, as well as many of the banks and insurance companies that were packaging up the garbage, polishing it, and selling off their risk. There may be opportunities to prove broader conspiracy to defraud, once the Feds get S&P under their thumb, and to get pre-emptive settlements from the agencies who did the same things S&P did. Ultimately, though, it is the system--in which the sellers of the products pay for their ratings, and know the rules that will ensure top investment-grade ratings, and the buyers must beware--that is the long-term issue to be fixed. Snakes will be snakes.
*McGraw-Hill's stock price dropped 10% from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, 2/4; 10% more from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 2/5; and 10% more since Tuesday 10 a.m. Probably three or four more hits of that magnitude are yet to follow. Moody's has also taken a hit last week.
John Cassidy's New Yorker blog post, which has the link cited above to read Analyst D's original lyrics, confirms many of the thoughts I wrote above, especially regarding the prolonged negotiations which preceded the announcement of the lawsuit. I'd already written those guesses up and posted this; it was just--after completing it--when I Googled for a link with the full lyrics hat I found his article.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
One of the Best
Like most of America, I enjoyed the Super Bowl without getting too emotionally caught up in the outcome. The first half of most Super Bowls is when the game gets decided; for the players, the game goes by too fast, things happen, and suddenly it's out of control. That almost happened here, and the kickoff runback by Jacoby Jones which put the Ravens ahead 28-6 seemed to signal the rout was on.
Instead, the power outage came, a couple of minutes later. It wasn't a matter of night and day (with the lights, either; there was enough light to play, but not for the many support systems, and leaving the fans to fend in partial darkness was a security issue), but the break gave the 49ers one more chance to recover their poise; they did, and the Ravens almost lost theirs.
For keeping his cool, when the 49ers rush was on--they scored 17 points incredibly fast--Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco deserved the MVP award that he got when they finally held off SF's final charge. I would've voted for Jones, though; besides the 108-yard kickoff return, he had a receiving touchdown, and a little change from the usual diet of winning quarterback MVP awards would have been nice. (For the record, Joe Flacco was quoted as a flaccid 2-1 choice in the proposition bet for the winner, while Jones was not even one of the named candidates, just part of "the field", at 8-1).
It was a Super Bowl without any major disasters (though yet another with an "equipment malfunction"); there were injuries--most notably, to the Ravens defensive nose tackle, which contributed to the 49ers comeback. The ending was a surprise one; the 49ers were so sure they would score from 1st-and-goal that they let the clock run down to the two-minute warning, giving up 15 seconds they would have dearly loved to have at the end (forget about the wasted timeout; that was the real waste). The play calling was not the best on that final series, about the only beef I had with either of the Harbaugh head coaches.
For Baltimore, it was a great last hurrah--Flacco will, presumably, be back, but they seem unlikely to scale the heights again--while for San Francisco and their sudden superstar Colin Kaepernick, it would seem there is plenty more to anticipate.
Finally, my vote for best Super Bowl ad was the Tide ad about the stain that looked like Joe Montana. It has a level of absurdity that was about right for the occasion.
The Big Deal for the NFL
As the liability issue burgeons, the league has to make a big decision about the head injury problems that are widespread among former players. Generally speaking, compared to other big-time professional sports leagues in the US, football players are underpaid (a few positions being the exceptions), and to ask them to ruin their lives to do it is too much--for the parents of the ballers, if not for the punchdrunk, starry-eyed players themselves.
Football faced a similar crisis in the early 1900's--the "flying wing" was leading to huge numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The play--in which the lines linked arms as they flew into each other--was banned, and safety improvements like pads and helmets followed, with the thing that really saved the sport--the forward pass, which opened things up--coming a decade or two later.
Football will need to re-invent itself again somewhat. The masters of the game might do well to look at rugby--a game almost as rough as our football, without pads, in which the rules of tackling prevent most of the serious injuries that occur (I don't know about the long-term brain deterioration-type illness, though). I would predict a massive fund to pay the retired players who suffer from it, some rule changes, and some equipment changes, with the NFL somehow surviving the emerging crisis and figuring out how to preserve their feeder systems (the high school and college games). The American way of life is at stake!
Instead, the power outage came, a couple of minutes later. It wasn't a matter of night and day (with the lights, either; there was enough light to play, but not for the many support systems, and leaving the fans to fend in partial darkness was a security issue), but the break gave the 49ers one more chance to recover their poise; they did, and the Ravens almost lost theirs.
For keeping his cool, when the 49ers rush was on--they scored 17 points incredibly fast--Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco deserved the MVP award that he got when they finally held off SF's final charge. I would've voted for Jones, though; besides the 108-yard kickoff return, he had a receiving touchdown, and a little change from the usual diet of winning quarterback MVP awards would have been nice. (For the record, Joe Flacco was quoted as a flaccid 2-1 choice in the proposition bet for the winner, while Jones was not even one of the named candidates, just part of "the field", at 8-1).
It was a Super Bowl without any major disasters (though yet another with an "equipment malfunction"); there were injuries--most notably, to the Ravens defensive nose tackle, which contributed to the 49ers comeback. The ending was a surprise one; the 49ers were so sure they would score from 1st-and-goal that they let the clock run down to the two-minute warning, giving up 15 seconds they would have dearly loved to have at the end (forget about the wasted timeout; that was the real waste). The play calling was not the best on that final series, about the only beef I had with either of the Harbaugh head coaches.
For Baltimore, it was a great last hurrah--Flacco will, presumably, be back, but they seem unlikely to scale the heights again--while for San Francisco and their sudden superstar Colin Kaepernick, it would seem there is plenty more to anticipate.
Finally, my vote for best Super Bowl ad was the Tide ad about the stain that looked like Joe Montana. It has a level of absurdity that was about right for the occasion.
The Big Deal for the NFL
As the liability issue burgeons, the league has to make a big decision about the head injury problems that are widespread among former players. Generally speaking, compared to other big-time professional sports leagues in the US, football players are underpaid (a few positions being the exceptions), and to ask them to ruin their lives to do it is too much--for the parents of the ballers, if not for the punchdrunk, starry-eyed players themselves.
Football faced a similar crisis in the early 1900's--the "flying wing" was leading to huge numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The play--in which the lines linked arms as they flew into each other--was banned, and safety improvements like pads and helmets followed, with the thing that really saved the sport--the forward pass, which opened things up--coming a decade or two later.
Football will need to re-invent itself again somewhat. The masters of the game might do well to look at rugby--a game almost as rough as our football, without pads, in which the rules of tackling prevent most of the serious injuries that occur (I don't know about the long-term brain deterioration-type illness, though). I would predict a massive fund to pay the retired players who suffer from it, some rule changes, and some equipment changes, with the NFL somehow surviving the emerging crisis and figuring out how to preserve their feeder systems (the high school and college games). The American way of life is at stake!
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Ed Koch, 1924-2013
As someone who lived in New York City through most of the Eighties, I had a good look at Hizzoner, who died yesterday at the ripe age of 89 or so. He was a very typical Homo Politico of his era (not referring to his sexuality; I'll get to that later); a hard worker, totally committed to his personal political ambition, full of bad motives but not financially corrupt, neither all good nor all evil. He was a man of longstanding grudges, most of them against fellow Democrats.
In terms of his lasting legacy, I'd say look at NYC, and specifically Manhattan, of today--if you like it, he showed the way for it to change from the unruly, dangerous place it was in the Seventies to the gentrified, safe (for wealthy whites), stopped-and-frisked (if you're a minority) theme park of the 21st century. He started the transformation with his 12-years in City Hall; then, after the brief, unhappy misdirection of David Dinkins' mayoralty, it returned to his path--law-and-order, fiscal sanity through challenge to the public unions--followed by Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.
He was an incredibly popular mayor in New York, winning against divided opposition by huge margins, until he rather suddenly was not; then he got "primaried" and dumped. That was probably his bitterest moment, even worse than his loss in the 1982 New York gubernatorial primary to his arch-enemy, Mario Cuomo; that loss pretty much ended any ambition Koch had of going beyond the city limits, but the loss of control in the city in 1989 was a deeper blow. He responded by opposing Dinkins at every turn, helping to ensure his failure, and then backed Republican Rudy Giuliani in his successful challenge to D.D. four years later.
His endorsement of Giuliani started a pattern of bizarre and ill-considered endorsements. His guiding principle seemed to be that of personal enmity. He fell out with Giuliani, endorsed the odious Republican ratfink Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and, worst of all, opted for George W. Bush in 2004 (that, probably, was out of a vain hope to get a job in his second-term Administration; needless to say, it didn't happen).
His endorsement, like that of someone like David Duke or, nowadays, Donald Trump, was a tainted thing. In 1988, his dislike of the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, led him to endorse Al Gore before the New York primary. I was supporting Gore, too, largely because I saw Dukakis and Jackson as sure losers and considered Gore a perfectly reasonable Democratic alternative (anticipating the moderate road Bill Clinton would take to victory in 1992), but Koch's backing put the sure stamp of stink on Gore's candidacy. Sure enough, his support in NY dropped like a rock, Dukakis won big, putting him on a clear path to the nomination, and Gore soon dropped out.
Koch's career as a Congressman from the city was before my time there; he seemed to be a standard-variety "limousine liberal" (in the memorable words of GeorgeWallace) who had successfully challenged the Democratic party machine in rising through Greenwich Village neighborhood organization. The turning point in his career from just another liberal House backbencher to a historical figure of significance was his bitter 1977 mayoral primary vs. Mario Cuomo. I was not there, but I have heard the tales of the cars roaming the streets with voices in bullhorns urging "Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo" (Cuomo, of course, disavowed the tactic). Koch narrowly won the primary, and his career hit the big time.
Koch was a lifelong bachelor who kept his private life private (bravo!), but it led to the rumors and their unkind, unsuccessful alleged exploitation by overzealous Cuomo backers. I would say the best description of him was asexual, turned on mostly by politics. He certainly didn't do ny favors to the gay community in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when he was the mayor in New York and could have done more.
In sum, with his ups and downs, personal vendettas, notable accomplishments and failures, and his general shifty politics, I would describe him as a Democratic version of Richard Nixon. The difference was that Koch outlived his political career by a quarter century of near-irrelevance, while Nixon faded from the scene and died much more quickly.
In terms of his lasting legacy, I'd say look at NYC, and specifically Manhattan, of today--if you like it, he showed the way for it to change from the unruly, dangerous place it was in the Seventies to the gentrified, safe (for wealthy whites), stopped-and-frisked (if you're a minority) theme park of the 21st century. He started the transformation with his 12-years in City Hall; then, after the brief, unhappy misdirection of David Dinkins' mayoralty, it returned to his path--law-and-order, fiscal sanity through challenge to the public unions--followed by Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.
He was an incredibly popular mayor in New York, winning against divided opposition by huge margins, until he rather suddenly was not; then he got "primaried" and dumped. That was probably his bitterest moment, even worse than his loss in the 1982 New York gubernatorial primary to his arch-enemy, Mario Cuomo; that loss pretty much ended any ambition Koch had of going beyond the city limits, but the loss of control in the city in 1989 was a deeper blow. He responded by opposing Dinkins at every turn, helping to ensure his failure, and then backed Republican Rudy Giuliani in his successful challenge to D.D. four years later.
His endorsement of Giuliani started a pattern of bizarre and ill-considered endorsements. His guiding principle seemed to be that of personal enmity. He fell out with Giuliani, endorsed the odious Republican ratfink Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and, worst of all, opted for George W. Bush in 2004 (that, probably, was out of a vain hope to get a job in his second-term Administration; needless to say, it didn't happen).
His endorsement, like that of someone like David Duke or, nowadays, Donald Trump, was a tainted thing. In 1988, his dislike of the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, led him to endorse Al Gore before the New York primary. I was supporting Gore, too, largely because I saw Dukakis and Jackson as sure losers and considered Gore a perfectly reasonable Democratic alternative (anticipating the moderate road Bill Clinton would take to victory in 1992), but Koch's backing put the sure stamp of stink on Gore's candidacy. Sure enough, his support in NY dropped like a rock, Dukakis won big, putting him on a clear path to the nomination, and Gore soon dropped out.
Koch's career as a Congressman from the city was before my time there; he seemed to be a standard-variety "limousine liberal" (in the memorable words of GeorgeWallace) who had successfully challenged the Democratic party machine in rising through Greenwich Village neighborhood organization. The turning point in his career from just another liberal House backbencher to a historical figure of significance was his bitter 1977 mayoral primary vs. Mario Cuomo. I was not there, but I have heard the tales of the cars roaming the streets with voices in bullhorns urging "Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo" (Cuomo, of course, disavowed the tactic). Koch narrowly won the primary, and his career hit the big time.
Koch was a lifelong bachelor who kept his private life private (bravo!), but it led to the rumors and their unkind, unsuccessful alleged exploitation by overzealous Cuomo backers. I would say the best description of him was asexual, turned on mostly by politics. He certainly didn't do ny favors to the gay community in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when he was the mayor in New York and could have done more.
In sum, with his ups and downs, personal vendettas, notable accomplishments and failures, and his general shifty politics, I would describe him as a Democratic version of Richard Nixon. The difference was that Koch outlived his political career by a quarter century of near-irrelevance, while Nixon faded from the scene and died much more quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
