On our Memorial Day, we remember those who gave their lives in battle for us. I want to honor their sacrifices, but my perspective differs from the common viewpoint of what it was for which they died.
Yes, it was for our country and flag, and some of the soldiers and sailors may not have gone to war willingly; however, I would argue that our forces have almost always been motivated to act by, and inspired by, something more than merely the concept of national self-interest (at least since the Mexican War of the 1840's). Self-defense is a valid principle, and it motivated some of our warriors, particularly in the early days of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and, to some extent World War II. More of our conflicts, though, have had some notion of confronting tyranny, aggression, or suffering. In our democracy, these ideas have been critical in mounting popular support for war, and when the substance behind these ideas has been seen to fade, so does the war effort.
The Truth We All Should Know, but Rarely Acknowledge
There are so many things about us that, when we examine them closely, do not have the importance we give them, or they are only of temporary significance, or only subjective value. There is one thing, though, that remains important above all else, and has been so for long, and it is our greatest duty to preserve for the future. That is the great experiment, the long-running story of human civilization.
Whether it has been with or without divine inspiration, civilization is something that has been built up, generation by generation, by us. It can be contrasted with our natural environment, which is something we as a species inherited some time ago, and which we have been very busy changing through our activity. Both the recognition of this fact, and full appreciation of our natural environment, are relatively modern phenomena. I would argue that is through overcoming this distinction, recognizing our own ability to preserve and enhance our natural inheritance, that we can achieve one of the key advances of human civilization in the centuries to come.
Mostly, though, it is the great challenge and opportunity of our time to bring some of the great benefits of civilization to those who would enjoy them but cannot yet do so. One aspect of that, largely achieved in the century before last, was the elimination of slavery from human society. In the 20th century, working people, particularly in what we refer to as the "Western" countries (though they include nations like Japan and Australia), experienced improved standards of living--better health and life expectancy, greater purchasing power and leisure.
The current phase of development has expanded some of these benefits to new, even larger, segments of the global population, in countries like China and India (as well as others like Thailand, Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil). One challenge to this current progress is a mixed record in some of these countries, and others like them, on whether essential liberties like freedom of speech, press, assembly, rule of law, and democratic self-government can be sustained for these people; another challenge is a pessimistic view which argues that civilization is preserved and advanced by the elite of society and that the expansion of prosperity and freedom for the many is not a necessary condition for our great adventure to survive and develop.
I associate myself with the aspiration for the broader extension of liberty and prosperity, and for a modern society which can learn to preserve the best parts of our natural environment, toward the aim of the best standard of living for the greatest number in a sustainable form. This is what I mean when I say I am a "progressive".
Monday, May 27, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Ray Manzarek
I must recognize the death this past weekend of Manzarek, keyboard player for The Doors. Hardly a sideman, he added more than his share to their sound. He was also the most steadying influence this volatile rock band ever had.
As a classically trained musician, he performed relatively difficult rock keyboard parts well, but I would think he also had a major role in writing the music (writing credit was generally shared). If one reviews The Doors membership and the instruments they played, you'll see that, very rare for a rock band, they had no bass player: Manzarek also played the bass line on his keyboards for most of the pieces.
In the history of rock 'n roll, Manzarek has a prominent place. The late Sixties/early Seventies was the heyday period for featured keyboards, and his performances were right in the heart of that movement, which burst into full flame with progressive rock and the full emergence of the synthesizer after Jim Morrison died in 1971 and The Doors ended their meteoric career in 1973.
After Morrison, Manzarek largely faded from view for quite a long time, while admiration for the Doors' music re-emerged periodically as each new generation discovered its subversive appeal. Praise for their music was mingled with hero worship of Morrison the rogue, and Manzarek's role became witness and explainer of his sometimes inexplicable lyrics and behavior. He did reunite with guitarist Robbie Krieger in the later years to play the old favorites.
As keyboard player and part-time vocalist in an early-Seventies cover band, Manzarek was one of my role models and heroes (he also sang, as needed, especially after Morrison's death or when he was too trashed to perform properly). I learned note-for-note the opening/closing organ solo on "Light My Fire"--that was pretty much required at the time, and, as for the longer solo in the middle, I basically knew where I needed to start and end up (for the segue to the guitar solo) and faked my way through the rest OK. Doing the vocal part was more of a challenge, though I certainly wasn't going to go the Jose Feliciano short-cut route. I didn't have the whiskey-hardened tone of Morrison nor a fully-formed baritone, though I could yell a pretty good "Try to set the night on fire!"
Anyway, thanks, Ray! I would say he did a real fine job of maintaining both his professionalism and his public support for the Doors' transgressive philosophy, all the way through "UNTIL THE END!"
My favorite Doors songs: "Break on Through" (their first single), "Five to One", and "L.A. Woman".
As a classically trained musician, he performed relatively difficult rock keyboard parts well, but I would think he also had a major role in writing the music (writing credit was generally shared). If one reviews The Doors membership and the instruments they played, you'll see that, very rare for a rock band, they had no bass player: Manzarek also played the bass line on his keyboards for most of the pieces.
In the history of rock 'n roll, Manzarek has a prominent place. The late Sixties/early Seventies was the heyday period for featured keyboards, and his performances were right in the heart of that movement, which burst into full flame with progressive rock and the full emergence of the synthesizer after Jim Morrison died in 1971 and The Doors ended their meteoric career in 1973.
After Morrison, Manzarek largely faded from view for quite a long time, while admiration for the Doors' music re-emerged periodically as each new generation discovered its subversive appeal. Praise for their music was mingled with hero worship of Morrison the rogue, and Manzarek's role became witness and explainer of his sometimes inexplicable lyrics and behavior. He did reunite with guitarist Robbie Krieger in the later years to play the old favorites.
As keyboard player and part-time vocalist in an early-Seventies cover band, Manzarek was one of my role models and heroes (he also sang, as needed, especially after Morrison's death or when he was too trashed to perform properly). I learned note-for-note the opening/closing organ solo on "Light My Fire"--that was pretty much required at the time, and, as for the longer solo in the middle, I basically knew where I needed to start and end up (for the segue to the guitar solo) and faked my way through the rest OK. Doing the vocal part was more of a challenge, though I certainly wasn't going to go the Jose Feliciano short-cut route. I didn't have the whiskey-hardened tone of Morrison nor a fully-formed baritone, though I could yell a pretty good "Try to set the night on fire!"
Anyway, thanks, Ray! I would say he did a real fine job of maintaining both his professionalism and his public support for the Doors' transgressive philosophy, all the way through "UNTIL THE END!"
My favorite Doors songs: "Break on Through" (their first single), "Five to One", and "L.A. Woman".
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Events Not So Current or Great
I'm a bit behind in commenting on recent events. Most of them are both unfortunate and unredeemed.
An Unholy Armageddon
Syria continues to go downhill, and the Western powers edge closer to involvement. Israel strikes in Syria; reports suggest the attack is not taking sides in the civil war, but is apparently to block the transfer of Iranian missiles through to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is closer to direct involvement on behalf of Syria's ruling Shiite minority (Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite). Next would be the beginning of indications that Iran would not be inclined to stand back and watch the annihilation of Syria's Shiites, probably in the context of the upcoming Iranian Presidential election, which promises to be a wild and woolly affair once again.
My sub-head title suggests one destination where all this could be seen to be heading, as those who are prone to claim The End Is Near have already figured out. The traditional interpretation of the place referred to as Armageddon in the Bible's Book of Revelations is the plain of Megiddo, where there have been innumerable battles staged since the days of the pharaohs (and beyond, probably); however, there are other interpretations which debunk that as a faulty translation and place the reference in Syria.
I'm looking for a broad agreement that Syria must be left to work out its problems without any direct incursions of foreign forces. It is far too much to expect that Russia, Iran, and the West (by which I mean the US, Europe, Turkey, and Israel) will forego providing arms to the warring parties--that train was never in the station. Let's just agree to prevent the gathering of armies described in all those Judeo-Christian-Islamic prophecies; it can happen some other time than this one.
Benghazi: More Hearing or More Herring?
We have already covered more than once the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi which led to the deaths of four Americans and the issues it raised: four days afterward, it was clear that extremists had seized a gap in our security shield and that the handling of the Arab Spring uprisings was leading to dangerous conditions; later, in covering the debate on foreign policy we brought up one more issue, the inadequate funding for security in America's diplomatic outposts. By that time, it was already clear that Congress' funding cuts, as much as any State Department negligence, was responsible for the inadequate security--the only real scandal in the affair. The matter was thoroughly exposed to the American electorate before they voted.
So what is new in the current round of hearings and hand-wringing? The "shocking" discovery that the talking points Susan Rice took round to the Sunday talk shows had been edited and modified by people's points of view. Well, I hate to inform those who are new to such processes, but talking points, by their very nature, are an edited version.
Is that it? No, there are a couple of other new developments: Rand Paul wants to run for President, he'd like to prevent Hillary Clinton from running, and the Republicans are losing the public's support in issue after issue. They want another bite of this apple, but they will find that it tastes like red herring.
IRS' Faulty Targeting
If you're looking for a more authentic scandal, it appears the IRS has caused one by seeking out Tea Party groups for investigation of the use of funds given to the ostensibly charitable organizations which served as funding vehicles for political action groups in 2012.
Investigating these groups was not in itself the problem; in fact, it's something I would loudly praise. There is supposed to be a requirement that these groups' primary purpose is socially beneficial activities, though they are allowed to use a minority of their funding in political activity. Finding out whether they followed the rules is entirely within the IRS' permissible range of activity.
The problem is that evidence exists that the agency specifically targeted certain types of groups--specifically Tea Party-type groups--for investigation, which violates the principle of impartial application of the law to all. What was lacking, and what would have totally eliminated scandal, would be for the IRS to investigate equally these fundraising groups of all political flavors. I hope it's not too late; I want them all to be eviscerated and discredited.
President Obama has clearly denounced the unfair treatment, and apparently the head of the IRS has done so, too. There will be those who will lose their jobs as a result; they will be people who understood poorly how they were supposed to perform their duties.
Bomb, Terror in West, Texas
The explosion of the fertilizer plant that ended up killing fourteen persons, the great majority of them firefighters, points out some of the dangers of poor regulation. The ammonium nitrate which exploded is the same chemical used by the domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City in 1995; since then, the law has required that quantities greater than 500 pounds of the compound need to be reported. Over ten times that amount, stored--unreported--inside the warehouse there, caused the gigantic, deadly conflagration. Photos from the scene show ordinary houses next door, and a school nearby--a good example of zoning, Texas-style. The broader issue was the failure in the enforcement of regulation of workplace safety revealed by the disaster. It's simply been starved to the point that the likes of Rick Perry can drown it in the bathtub. Until it blows up.
The Mother of All Workplace Accidents
The collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh provides a crystal-clear example where the logic of neglecting workplace safety ends up. This was no ordinary workplace accident; the building was constructed poorly (even if it had the trappings of a modern, safe workplace), and at the time the building collapsed the owners were adding to the building--while it was full of workers. Over 1000 people died in the tragedy, which will no doubt mark a turning point in the devil's bargain the government and the elite in the country have made to attract contract work to produce goods more cheaply than everyone else. It may also mark a turning point in the willingness of American consumers to buy cheaply made manufactured goods, or more likely of American retailers to allow the cheapest providers to win the bids with insufficient consideration of workplace conditions and of the risk that those conditions may backfire upon them.
Economic theory says such "externalities" need to be factored into the cost calculations. How much more would we/should we pay so as not to subject hundreds or thousands to untimely death, and millions more to work in substandard conditions? Can we leave such a decision to the whim of the marketplace and the sensitivity and empathy of the consumer?
A Couple of Nuggets of Good News
We should mention the woman who was rescued alive from the Bangladesh disaster 17 days after it occurred.
Also, I should mention that the recovery no longer is looking so shaky. We will be hoping that we can avoid falling back into the Crater. A couple of cautionary notes, regardless: I don't see the labor glut in the US--for ordinary labor, not the most highly skilled or in-demand jobs--ending anytime soon, or in the next decade or two, for that matter. We have gone too far in creating that global marketplace for jobs and disadvantaging ourselves in that competition. Secondly, I see the housing market re-inflating very rapidly. This will pass, but a return to the expectation of inevitable growth in housing prices could cause some recurrence of the kind of problems which led, when combined with the market collapse caused by speculation on the same housing bubble, to an uncontrolled freefall in housing prices.
An Unholy Armageddon
Syria continues to go downhill, and the Western powers edge closer to involvement. Israel strikes in Syria; reports suggest the attack is not taking sides in the civil war, but is apparently to block the transfer of Iranian missiles through to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is closer to direct involvement on behalf of Syria's ruling Shiite minority (Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite). Next would be the beginning of indications that Iran would not be inclined to stand back and watch the annihilation of Syria's Shiites, probably in the context of the upcoming Iranian Presidential election, which promises to be a wild and woolly affair once again.
My sub-head title suggests one destination where all this could be seen to be heading, as those who are prone to claim The End Is Near have already figured out. The traditional interpretation of the place referred to as Armageddon in the Bible's Book of Revelations is the plain of Megiddo, where there have been innumerable battles staged since the days of the pharaohs (and beyond, probably); however, there are other interpretations which debunk that as a faulty translation and place the reference in Syria.
I'm looking for a broad agreement that Syria must be left to work out its problems without any direct incursions of foreign forces. It is far too much to expect that Russia, Iran, and the West (by which I mean the US, Europe, Turkey, and Israel) will forego providing arms to the warring parties--that train was never in the station. Let's just agree to prevent the gathering of armies described in all those Judeo-Christian-Islamic prophecies; it can happen some other time than this one.
Benghazi: More Hearing or More Herring?
We have already covered more than once the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi which led to the deaths of four Americans and the issues it raised: four days afterward, it was clear that extremists had seized a gap in our security shield and that the handling of the Arab Spring uprisings was leading to dangerous conditions; later, in covering the debate on foreign policy we brought up one more issue, the inadequate funding for security in America's diplomatic outposts. By that time, it was already clear that Congress' funding cuts, as much as any State Department negligence, was responsible for the inadequate security--the only real scandal in the affair. The matter was thoroughly exposed to the American electorate before they voted.
So what is new in the current round of hearings and hand-wringing? The "shocking" discovery that the talking points Susan Rice took round to the Sunday talk shows had been edited and modified by people's points of view. Well, I hate to inform those who are new to such processes, but talking points, by their very nature, are an edited version.
Is that it? No, there are a couple of other new developments: Rand Paul wants to run for President, he'd like to prevent Hillary Clinton from running, and the Republicans are losing the public's support in issue after issue. They want another bite of this apple, but they will find that it tastes like red herring.
IRS' Faulty Targeting
If you're looking for a more authentic scandal, it appears the IRS has caused one by seeking out Tea Party groups for investigation of the use of funds given to the ostensibly charitable organizations which served as funding vehicles for political action groups in 2012.
Investigating these groups was not in itself the problem; in fact, it's something I would loudly praise. There is supposed to be a requirement that these groups' primary purpose is socially beneficial activities, though they are allowed to use a minority of their funding in political activity. Finding out whether they followed the rules is entirely within the IRS' permissible range of activity.
The problem is that evidence exists that the agency specifically targeted certain types of groups--specifically Tea Party-type groups--for investigation, which violates the principle of impartial application of the law to all. What was lacking, and what would have totally eliminated scandal, would be for the IRS to investigate equally these fundraising groups of all political flavors. I hope it's not too late; I want them all to be eviscerated and discredited.
President Obama has clearly denounced the unfair treatment, and apparently the head of the IRS has done so, too. There will be those who will lose their jobs as a result; they will be people who understood poorly how they were supposed to perform their duties.
Bomb, Terror in West, Texas
The explosion of the fertilizer plant that ended up killing fourteen persons, the great majority of them firefighters, points out some of the dangers of poor regulation. The ammonium nitrate which exploded is the same chemical used by the domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City in 1995; since then, the law has required that quantities greater than 500 pounds of the compound need to be reported. Over ten times that amount, stored--unreported--inside the warehouse there, caused the gigantic, deadly conflagration. Photos from the scene show ordinary houses next door, and a school nearby--a good example of zoning, Texas-style. The broader issue was the failure in the enforcement of regulation of workplace safety revealed by the disaster. It's simply been starved to the point that the likes of Rick Perry can drown it in the bathtub. Until it blows up.
The Mother of All Workplace Accidents
The collapse of the garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh provides a crystal-clear example where the logic of neglecting workplace safety ends up. This was no ordinary workplace accident; the building was constructed poorly (even if it had the trappings of a modern, safe workplace), and at the time the building collapsed the owners were adding to the building--while it was full of workers. Over 1000 people died in the tragedy, which will no doubt mark a turning point in the devil's bargain the government and the elite in the country have made to attract contract work to produce goods more cheaply than everyone else. It may also mark a turning point in the willingness of American consumers to buy cheaply made manufactured goods, or more likely of American retailers to allow the cheapest providers to win the bids with insufficient consideration of workplace conditions and of the risk that those conditions may backfire upon them.
Economic theory says such "externalities" need to be factored into the cost calculations. How much more would we/should we pay so as not to subject hundreds or thousands to untimely death, and millions more to work in substandard conditions? Can we leave such a decision to the whim of the marketplace and the sensitivity and empathy of the consumer?
A Couple of Nuggets of Good News
We should mention the woman who was rescued alive from the Bangladesh disaster 17 days after it occurred.
Also, I should mention that the recovery no longer is looking so shaky. We will be hoping that we can avoid falling back into the Crater. A couple of cautionary notes, regardless: I don't see the labor glut in the US--for ordinary labor, not the most highly skilled or in-demand jobs--ending anytime soon, or in the next decade or two, for that matter. We have gone too far in creating that global marketplace for jobs and disadvantaging ourselves in that competition. Secondly, I see the housing market re-inflating very rapidly. This will pass, but a return to the expectation of inevitable growth in housing prices could cause some recurrence of the kind of problems which led, when combined with the market collapse caused by speculation on the same housing bubble, to an uncontrolled freefall in housing prices.
Friday, May 10, 2013
NBA Playoff Status
There was an unusual day off in the playoffs yesterday (Thursday, May 9), and it was at an interesting point: all four conference semifinal series were tied at 1-1. This means that the higher-seeded teams had all lost one of the first two games at home, essentially giving up the home-court advantage their better records provided. Thus, the status of each series allows for a definite possibility of an upset, and upsets--particularly of something more than adjacent seeds--don't happen that often in the NBA playoffs. In order to be in a position to win the series, though, the underdog must now win both games at home; to contest it properly they must win one of the two, so in a sense the pressure is now on the lower-seeded teams. We will take a brief look at each series, then guess current odds and step out boldly and make some predictions.
Chicago (#5) vs. Miami (#1) - The Bulls have overachieved, no matter what happens from here forward. As I write, they are tied after three quarters in Game 3, playing at home, and they are still playing without three key players: Derrick Rose, his replacement Kirk Hinrich, and key wingman Luol Deng; however, the bench has stepped up, and Joachim Noah has played like an All-Star. That being said, though, it seems impossible for the Bulls to win three more games to take the series, and getting two more wins would be a stretch.
Indiana (#3) vs. New York (#2) - As they are adjacent seeds, this is the closest matchup and Indiana's winning would not really qualify as an upset. Still, New York played very well at the end of the season and the Pacers did not, and the Knicks do not have any particular excuse not to play their best. I don't give either team much of a chance against the Heat in the Eastern finals; Indiana maybe would have a slight edge as a better defensive team and rougher style, probably the best way to play Miami.
Golden State (#6) vs. San Antonio (#2) - The Spurs should be solid favorites, as they are healthy, and they are the Spurs, which means a serious playoff team. The fact is, though, the Warriors have outplayed the Spurs by a fair margin in the two games in San Antonio, showing the same dynamic attack and tough defense which allowed them to defeat third-seeded Denver in the first round. The loss in Game 1, in which they blew a 16-point lead in the final minutes, then lost in double overtime, should have devastated Golden State. Instead, they came back strongly and still came away from San Antonio with a win. Now, they have two games at home: I would expect them to win at least one of them. This series looks to be going to seven games.
Memphis (#5) vs. Oklahoma City (#1) - The Grizzlies have shown in the past that they are unafraid of Oklahoma City, and now the Thunder will be playing without their high-scoring point guard, Russell Westbrook. Memphis is dangerous against any team, having the best center/power forward combination in the league in Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph (the Lakers' Dwight Howard/Pau Gasol combo never proved itself, and now may never do so). The key for them is the play of their point guard, Mike Conley, who matched, or even outplayed, the Clippers' Chris Paul in the first round. He's a solid playmaker and defender but his shot selection sometimes is unsound. He's in a position to dominate the Thunder's reserve point guard, Reggie Jackson; if he can do so, the Grizzlies might justly be expected to win the series. In the Conference Finals, Memphis might be the team best suited to slow down the Warriors' Stephen Curry, who has been sensational, and they can match up well against San Antonio, as well.
Chances to Reach the Championship Series:
Miami 75%; Indiana 12%; New York 8%; Chicago 5%.
San Antonio 30%; Memphis 30%; Golden State 22%; Oklahoma City 18%.
Thus, by my reckoning, there is a little better than 50% chance for a #5 or #6 seed to make the Finals (not even counting the Bulls' slight chance). I'm thinking the last time a seed lower than #4 made the Finals was the #8-seeded Knicks, with Latrell Sprewell, in 1999. (?)
My pick: Miami to defeat Memphis in the Finals, 4-2.
Chicago (#5) vs. Miami (#1) - The Bulls have overachieved, no matter what happens from here forward. As I write, they are tied after three quarters in Game 3, playing at home, and they are still playing without three key players: Derrick Rose, his replacement Kirk Hinrich, and key wingman Luol Deng; however, the bench has stepped up, and Joachim Noah has played like an All-Star. That being said, though, it seems impossible for the Bulls to win three more games to take the series, and getting two more wins would be a stretch.
Indiana (#3) vs. New York (#2) - As they are adjacent seeds, this is the closest matchup and Indiana's winning would not really qualify as an upset. Still, New York played very well at the end of the season and the Pacers did not, and the Knicks do not have any particular excuse not to play their best. I don't give either team much of a chance against the Heat in the Eastern finals; Indiana maybe would have a slight edge as a better defensive team and rougher style, probably the best way to play Miami.
Golden State (#6) vs. San Antonio (#2) - The Spurs should be solid favorites, as they are healthy, and they are the Spurs, which means a serious playoff team. The fact is, though, the Warriors have outplayed the Spurs by a fair margin in the two games in San Antonio, showing the same dynamic attack and tough defense which allowed them to defeat third-seeded Denver in the first round. The loss in Game 1, in which they blew a 16-point lead in the final minutes, then lost in double overtime, should have devastated Golden State. Instead, they came back strongly and still came away from San Antonio with a win. Now, they have two games at home: I would expect them to win at least one of them. This series looks to be going to seven games.
Memphis (#5) vs. Oklahoma City (#1) - The Grizzlies have shown in the past that they are unafraid of Oklahoma City, and now the Thunder will be playing without their high-scoring point guard, Russell Westbrook. Memphis is dangerous against any team, having the best center/power forward combination in the league in Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph (the Lakers' Dwight Howard/Pau Gasol combo never proved itself, and now may never do so). The key for them is the play of their point guard, Mike Conley, who matched, or even outplayed, the Clippers' Chris Paul in the first round. He's a solid playmaker and defender but his shot selection sometimes is unsound. He's in a position to dominate the Thunder's reserve point guard, Reggie Jackson; if he can do so, the Grizzlies might justly be expected to win the series. In the Conference Finals, Memphis might be the team best suited to slow down the Warriors' Stephen Curry, who has been sensational, and they can match up well against San Antonio, as well.
Chances to Reach the Championship Series:
Miami 75%; Indiana 12%; New York 8%; Chicago 5%.
San Antonio 30%; Memphis 30%; Golden State 22%; Oklahoma City 18%.
Thus, by my reckoning, there is a little better than 50% chance for a #5 or #6 seed to make the Finals (not even counting the Bulls' slight chance). I'm thinking the last time a seed lower than #4 made the Finals was the #8-seeded Knicks, with Latrell Sprewell, in 1999. (?)
My pick: Miami to defeat Memphis in the Finals, 4-2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
