Democrats say "YEA!"
Nobody got blown up, no document got flash-fried, no edifice of our governmental institution was levelled. References to "fallout" were a natural headline selection, but there is no radiation leaking from the Senate's 52-48 vote to change its own rules and allow simple majorities to bring cloture on their constitutional "advice and consent" role of approving Presidential nominations to Executive branch positions and Federal judiciary posts (with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court).
Instead, this was a thoroughly pragmatic decision to allow qualified nominees to break through the party lines and perform their duties. The fall of previous accommodations to allow a limited number of individuals to run through the gauntlet and preserve the unlimited debate, enforced by the lack of a super-majority,which was no debate, just a block--this was driven to a fairly extreme measure by the unlimited recalcitrance by the Republican minority. Their ability to block selected nominations was ruined by their inability to limit it to selected ones. Nominees, particularly for the agencies the Republicans didn't like, had to put their careers on hold for years while waiting for action that was not forthcoming. That kind of sacrifice was impeding the ability of the Administration to govern, so something needed to be done.
We should not make too much of the change involved--this does not create "tyranny of the majority", as it does not pertain to legislation. This blocking ability was not enshrined in the constitution in any way, and I suspect that minority members will still be able to filibuster--retain the floor and speak indefinitely--a given nomination if they can muster the lungpower and the support of colleagues, and that, rather than this perverse application of the rules that was occurring, is much more in line with the tradition of Senate filibuster*.
The thing that is most ominous to me about it is that the particular resolution--no change to legislative rules, the Republicans bearing it and promising revenge--is based on a somewhat shared set of calculations: no big change to the Republican House majority or to the narrow edge (one way or the other) in the Senate, and a probability that the Republicans gaining control of both Houses and the White House in 2016 is more likely than the Democrats' doing so.
I don't actually share that calculation: I think the Republicans are headed for a major collapse in the next general election (2016, not 2014) unless they change their ways. I salute the young Democratic Senators--particularly Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who refused to accommodate themselves to ineffectiveness--and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was moved to act by a combination of careful calculation and by the refusal of his counterparts to heed his threats.
Iran Says, "Not Quite So Much"
The achievement of an interim deal between Iran and the global community--to freeze Iran's nuclear enrichment program for six months, while releasing a small amount of funds impounded by the sanctions--is a success above all for new Iranian President Rouhani and his policy of seeking more regular relations with the rest of the world, particularly the West. The second winner is President Obama, who said he would talk with Iran and had gained nothing from that willingness until now. The third winner is the countries of Russia and China; they were uncomfortable with the severity of the sanctions with which they had reluctantly agreed. Now they see the benefits of working with the West to achieve a goal, which will encourage more participation and more leverage for them in the future.
Are there any losers? Only those who sought the military option in the near future. I figure those--some elements of Israel's ruling coalition, some of the Sunni Islam forces, maybe some of the hawks in the US--guessed that they could stay out of the mess which would ensue, and then sweep up more power from the chaos that would follow when Iran's ambitions would be definitively thwarted. Secretary of State John Kerry is a potential loser; if this policy fails, he will be the one blamed. Even the more hardline factions in Iran should be able to benefit from supporting relaxation of tensions, if it helps with the economy and prevents the devastation of the regime.
I think we should all be realistic about the longer-term result, something that will become clear over the next six months if Iran complies with the agreement, as I believe it will. Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program, albeit with renewed supervision. They will pass off uranium enriched to the danger level or beyond, but they can make more (or buy more) if tensions rise again. From a game theory point of view, Iran has correctly concluded that their leverage is maximized when they maintain the potential to make nuclear weapons in a fairly short time, but don't actually do so. We can hold the clock/calendar of potential nuclear war with Iran at 90 days or so. Real improvement in relations with the US may be possible, but it will not happen through a comprehensive rollback of the nuclear program, but with a change in Iran's level of destructive participation in the internal wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. These may not be likely. I don't see a peace treaty signing occurring between Obama and Supreme Leader Khamenei (or his successor, if he dies)--and Obama should meet with no one else, as I pointed out years ago.
* For the classic novelistic treatment of the Senate's role and the filibuster's role in nomination approval, by a rabid anti-Communist, see Allan Drury's Advice and Consent, a favorite from my childhood.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
November 23, 1963
This date is memorable, I've been told, for the premier episode of the BBC science fiction series Doctor Who. Dr. Who is notable for its high concept--the desperate adventures of a time-travelling friend of humanity (who needs to regenerate himself every so often in order to keep himself young and geekily handsome), the last of his breed, saving us from a series of consistently gruesome alien invaders--its amusing, very British, dialogue, and its comically low production values. The program is celebrating its 50th anniversary with a new episode, which I am viewing as I post this.
The Day Before
No one sentient then and now can ever forget that day. I was in second grade; we were sent into an unscheduled recess after the announcement over the intercom of President Kennedy's wounding. History buff that I was at that age, I remember telling one of my classmates of the story of President Garfield (1881), who was wounded by an assassin, had largely recovered, then relapsed and died. Kennedy's fate, his skull torn apart by the mortal third shot, was not in such doubt. The imagery of the funeral parade through the capital, his coffin lying in state, and the burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery are what remain clear in my memory, fifty years later.
The Day After
I wasn't watching, but I was not far away from the TV when the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas jail house. Shocking as Kennedy's killing was, I think this event was even more shocking; that such a suspect would be paraded before the TV cameras, that some guy, a nightclub owner with a dicey history--so not a peace officer, or even a reporter--would be let into such a public, secure facility with the opportunity to pull his gun and plug him at point-blank range. I can't recall another instance in which cold-blooded murder was shown on live national TV.
I think it was Ruby-on-Oswald, rather than Oswald-on-Kennedy, that really caused the conspiracy stories to proliferate and persist. It's a very reasonable question: why would this guy ruin his life--there was no question of possible innocence, and no chance of leaving prison ever afterwards--as though it was a personal vendetta or crime of honor?
Contrary to what some maintain, I think the scientific exposition shown on PBS' Nova some years ago (and re-broadcast this week, of course) provided some pretty clear evidence that it was Oswald, and no one else, who pulled the trigger. The first shot missed, the second had the incredible fortune of going through Kennedy's neck, into and through Texas Governor John Connally's back and then breaking his wrist, while the third was the fatal shot which shattered Kennedy's skull. There was also the fact that a Dallas policeman was killed less than an hour later, apparently trying to detain Oswald from his escape, which points to probable guilt.
Still, there is the question of why these men--Oswald and Ruby--would destroy their lives for their separate purposes. Oswald, it's clear, despite some head feints on his part, was a committed Communist, enamored of the Soviets and a defender of Fidel Castro's Cuba. Ruby, for his, was an anti-Castro activist, and an associate of Chicago Mafia figures who had plenty of reason to oppose Castro (their big investments in Cuban casinos having been ruined by the Communist takeover there). Each could have been a willing tool in the designs of their guiding figures, though the evidence of any actual push is lacking, and the evidence of mental instability in each is plentiful.
There is a third possible conspiracy, though, and it is the one that is most convincing to me as a back story for a conspiracy to lie behind what happened fifty years ago yesterday. It is now a well-documented fact that Kennedy was trying to have Castro killed in the months prior to his death. Castro could well have concluded that it was "kill or be killed", and that finding the right person--one who was a sufficiently skilled marksman, someone who would stubbornly protest both the righteousness of his cause and at the same time his innocence--was actually the magic bullet. The fact that Castro needed to deny any involvement at the time, and that he has maintained that ever since (even, recently, questioning whether Oswald was the killer) means nothing, one way or the other.
Ultimately, though, it was fate that was the hunter. Without the third shot--and Kennedy's back brace which held him up in position for a clean look--he probably would have survived (as Reagan did, as FDR did the assassination attempt before he had ever begun his administration, as Kennedy himself survived an attempt before his inauguration). Ruby's path to his fateful shot at Oswald also seemed random, his attack spontaneous.
JFK in History
Apart from the days of his death and the fireworks which followed, the only other memory I have of his Presidency was the fear of annihilation that came with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Yes, we were taught to "duck and cover" under our desks in my first-grade class, which would at least have made our bodies easier to find. Subsequent research has indicated that, far from being responsible for the threatened escalation toward a potential nuclear war, Kennedy was the voice of reason on our side which was critical in keeping things from blowing up. So, let us praise his judgment at the decisive moment, after recognizing that he had already gone through the hard experience of being bamboozled into the Bay of Pigs, into increasing the Vietnam involvement, and into placing nuclear missiles into Turkey (which, again, gave the Communists a private justification for the aggressive act of putting missiles into Cuba).
Apart from that, clearly he is and will always be the symbol of American power at its proudest moment--challenging the Soviets on all fronts, challenging Americans to serve and to go into space, to end Jim Crow segregation and, it's been pointed out recently, to broach the idea of universal health care--America still undefeated and potentially limitless. That pride, it's clear now, was due for a fall, but the great potential he saw still remains.
The grade on Kennedy's Presidency has to be incomplete--he had set the stage for the key battles on civil rights, for critical decisions on Vietnam, that happened without him (perhaps influenced by his memory).
The Day Before
No one sentient then and now can ever forget that day. I was in second grade; we were sent into an unscheduled recess after the announcement over the intercom of President Kennedy's wounding. History buff that I was at that age, I remember telling one of my classmates of the story of President Garfield (1881), who was wounded by an assassin, had largely recovered, then relapsed and died. Kennedy's fate, his skull torn apart by the mortal third shot, was not in such doubt. The imagery of the funeral parade through the capital, his coffin lying in state, and the burial ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery are what remain clear in my memory, fifty years later.
The Day After
I wasn't watching, but I was not far away from the TV when the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby in the Dallas jail house. Shocking as Kennedy's killing was, I think this event was even more shocking; that such a suspect would be paraded before the TV cameras, that some guy, a nightclub owner with a dicey history--so not a peace officer, or even a reporter--would be let into such a public, secure facility with the opportunity to pull his gun and plug him at point-blank range. I can't recall another instance in which cold-blooded murder was shown on live national TV.
I think it was Ruby-on-Oswald, rather than Oswald-on-Kennedy, that really caused the conspiracy stories to proliferate and persist. It's a very reasonable question: why would this guy ruin his life--there was no question of possible innocence, and no chance of leaving prison ever afterwards--as though it was a personal vendetta or crime of honor?
Contrary to what some maintain, I think the scientific exposition shown on PBS' Nova some years ago (and re-broadcast this week, of course) provided some pretty clear evidence that it was Oswald, and no one else, who pulled the trigger. The first shot missed, the second had the incredible fortune of going through Kennedy's neck, into and through Texas Governor John Connally's back and then breaking his wrist, while the third was the fatal shot which shattered Kennedy's skull. There was also the fact that a Dallas policeman was killed less than an hour later, apparently trying to detain Oswald from his escape, which points to probable guilt.
Still, there is the question of why these men--Oswald and Ruby--would destroy their lives for their separate purposes. Oswald, it's clear, despite some head feints on his part, was a committed Communist, enamored of the Soviets and a defender of Fidel Castro's Cuba. Ruby, for his, was an anti-Castro activist, and an associate of Chicago Mafia figures who had plenty of reason to oppose Castro (their big investments in Cuban casinos having been ruined by the Communist takeover there). Each could have been a willing tool in the designs of their guiding figures, though the evidence of any actual push is lacking, and the evidence of mental instability in each is plentiful.
There is a third possible conspiracy, though, and it is the one that is most convincing to me as a back story for a conspiracy to lie behind what happened fifty years ago yesterday. It is now a well-documented fact that Kennedy was trying to have Castro killed in the months prior to his death. Castro could well have concluded that it was "kill or be killed", and that finding the right person--one who was a sufficiently skilled marksman, someone who would stubbornly protest both the righteousness of his cause and at the same time his innocence--was actually the magic bullet. The fact that Castro needed to deny any involvement at the time, and that he has maintained that ever since (even, recently, questioning whether Oswald was the killer) means nothing, one way or the other.
Ultimately, though, it was fate that was the hunter. Without the third shot--and Kennedy's back brace which held him up in position for a clean look--he probably would have survived (as Reagan did, as FDR did the assassination attempt before he had ever begun his administration, as Kennedy himself survived an attempt before his inauguration). Ruby's path to his fateful shot at Oswald also seemed random, his attack spontaneous.
JFK in History
Apart from the days of his death and the fireworks which followed, the only other memory I have of his Presidency was the fear of annihilation that came with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Yes, we were taught to "duck and cover" under our desks in my first-grade class, which would at least have made our bodies easier to find. Subsequent research has indicated that, far from being responsible for the threatened escalation toward a potential nuclear war, Kennedy was the voice of reason on our side which was critical in keeping things from blowing up. So, let us praise his judgment at the decisive moment, after recognizing that he had already gone through the hard experience of being bamboozled into the Bay of Pigs, into increasing the Vietnam involvement, and into placing nuclear missiles into Turkey (which, again, gave the Communists a private justification for the aggressive act of putting missiles into Cuba).
Apart from that, clearly he is and will always be the symbol of American power at its proudest moment--challenging the Soviets on all fronts, challenging Americans to serve and to go into space, to end Jim Crow segregation and, it's been pointed out recently, to broach the idea of universal health care--America still undefeated and potentially limitless. That pride, it's clear now, was due for a fall, but the great potential he saw still remains.
The grade on Kennedy's Presidency has to be incomplete--he had set the stage for the key battles on civil rights, for critical decisions on Vietnam, that happened without him (perhaps influenced by his memory).
Thursday, November 07, 2013
Tutti Morti
That's the day Italians remember their dead friends and relatives; it means "all the dead". It's actually Nov. 2, the day after All Saints' Day, which is in turn the day after Hallowe'en night. So, though I'm late, let's start with an Italian:
Lucio Dalla
My favorite (non-operatic) Italian singer actually died, suddenly, last year, but I only found out about it recently. Dalla's peak was in the '70's and '80's; he was fun-loving, romantic, and serious, all at the same time (or at least that's the impression he gave to me). He gave off a bit of an anarchic, post-hippie kind of vibe, one which probably didn't survive the insanity and paranoia of the Red Brigades era (their crimes, their punishment) too well. At any rate, though he continued to produce and was still revered, I don't think he captured the moment there quite so well after that.
He had good musical arrangements and was skilled at several instruments, but his particular appeal came from his lyrics. They appealed to the popular sensibility and were written in a colloquial, but not vulgar, style. He sang about normal people and their aspirations, the craziness of society, things like that. His political stance was to stay non-politicized. He was sort of their Bruce Springsteen.
Lou Reed
Speaking of Italy (where Reed was very popular), when I first went there people commented to me about the play on words of his name: "Lou Reed= Lurid" (with an Italian pronunciation; their word is "lurido", and it's not a compliment, either). I had to tell them that if it was intentional, it was news to me. Looking on wikipedia, it turns out his real name was Lewis Reed, so the nickname was a natural one, even if the transgressive suggestion of the stage name was intentional.
I am one of those hipster/anti-hipster types, so I have to disagree with the Conventional Wisdom of the elitist rock critics who worship the Velvet Underground. They may have made some local commotion in the East Village and thereabouts in their day, but they were basically gone before they ever got anywhere. Their music is about 50% OK and 50% totally unlistenable. I recognize they were avant-garde, but so are a lot of others who never get the publicity; the fact that they were edgy is not so unusual or ground-breaking. I don't find the evidence of "influence" on everything that came afterward very convincing.
On the other hand, the group did give birth to a couple of folks who made enduring impacts on popular music, "post-punk" (as those elitist critics like to say). One was Brian Eno--a topic for another day, but let's just admit that this guy's far-out methods and vision have continued to break ground ever since. The other was Lou Reed, who was both a genuine rocker and a bit of a poet.
I won't say that everything he did was brilliant (I think I covered that idea already)--he did, after all, release "Metal Machine Music", one of the worst (if not the worst) albums I have ever heard all or in part. He did do "Sweet Jane", "Walk on the Wild Side", and a lot more over the decades. He had legs. I think he was also a decent guy; otherwise, he would never have won over Laurie Anderson, his wife in the later years, who just published a very moving obit for Rolling Stone.
Charlie Trotter
He ruled the Chicago restaurant scene for a couple of decades, and that's saying something. There are a dozen or more of Trotter-knockoff-type restaurants in the area now. I'm not sure that's a good thing: basically the idea is that the chef is king, you eat what he wants you to eat and pay a lot for the privilege and the exclusivity, and if you work in the kitchen, you cringe and learn.
His influence seems to have gone well beyond Chicago. He has contributed greatly to making nouvelle cuisine more than a fad and to inventing the fad which is molecular gastronomy.
I never ate at any of his restaurants. I wouldn't say that I never would, but I'd have to think twice (once for the cost, the other for surrendering to a subservient consuming role). He closed his main one a year ago. I'm not sure if he knew then that he was going to die soon, which he did two days ago, aged only 54. We'll probably find out the back story on that pretty soon.
The Tea Party
OK, I exaggerate. When the death-wagon comes around and the call comes out to "Bring out your dead!", they're the ones who'll pipe up and say "Not dead yet!" There will still be many Tea-baggers re-elected in 2014 in extreme right-wing districts (with limited exceptions, they've had very little success ever in statewide elections), and they will poison wells in Republican primaries probably for decades to come.
But still, their movement is clearly headed for demise. It's not so much Chris Christie's big win, which points to a path of hope for those Republicans who are not willing to accept permanent second-place status (or even third, in time) in national politics. It's more that the Establishment of the party, which has tolerated them up until now, has decided to cut them off as being bad for business. It was the shutdown, and their arrogant approach to try to drive the federal government from their position controlling 10-15% of the electorate, that was the cause of their non-tragic fall.
Lucio Dalla
My favorite (non-operatic) Italian singer actually died, suddenly, last year, but I only found out about it recently. Dalla's peak was in the '70's and '80's; he was fun-loving, romantic, and serious, all at the same time (or at least that's the impression he gave to me). He gave off a bit of an anarchic, post-hippie kind of vibe, one which probably didn't survive the insanity and paranoia of the Red Brigades era (their crimes, their punishment) too well. At any rate, though he continued to produce and was still revered, I don't think he captured the moment there quite so well after that.
He had good musical arrangements and was skilled at several instruments, but his particular appeal came from his lyrics. They appealed to the popular sensibility and were written in a colloquial, but not vulgar, style. He sang about normal people and their aspirations, the craziness of society, things like that. His political stance was to stay non-politicized. He was sort of their Bruce Springsteen.
Lou Reed
Speaking of Italy (where Reed was very popular), when I first went there people commented to me about the play on words of his name: "Lou Reed= Lurid" (with an Italian pronunciation; their word is "lurido", and it's not a compliment, either). I had to tell them that if it was intentional, it was news to me. Looking on wikipedia, it turns out his real name was Lewis Reed, so the nickname was a natural one, even if the transgressive suggestion of the stage name was intentional.
I am one of those hipster/anti-hipster types, so I have to disagree with the Conventional Wisdom of the elitist rock critics who worship the Velvet Underground. They may have made some local commotion in the East Village and thereabouts in their day, but they were basically gone before they ever got anywhere. Their music is about 50% OK and 50% totally unlistenable. I recognize they were avant-garde, but so are a lot of others who never get the publicity; the fact that they were edgy is not so unusual or ground-breaking. I don't find the evidence of "influence" on everything that came afterward very convincing.
On the other hand, the group did give birth to a couple of folks who made enduring impacts on popular music, "post-punk" (as those elitist critics like to say). One was Brian Eno--a topic for another day, but let's just admit that this guy's far-out methods and vision have continued to break ground ever since. The other was Lou Reed, who was both a genuine rocker and a bit of a poet.
I won't say that everything he did was brilliant (I think I covered that idea already)--he did, after all, release "Metal Machine Music", one of the worst (if not the worst) albums I have ever heard all or in part. He did do "Sweet Jane", "Walk on the Wild Side", and a lot more over the decades. He had legs. I think he was also a decent guy; otherwise, he would never have won over Laurie Anderson, his wife in the later years, who just published a very moving obit for Rolling Stone.
Charlie Trotter
He ruled the Chicago restaurant scene for a couple of decades, and that's saying something. There are a dozen or more of Trotter-knockoff-type restaurants in the area now. I'm not sure that's a good thing: basically the idea is that the chef is king, you eat what he wants you to eat and pay a lot for the privilege and the exclusivity, and if you work in the kitchen, you cringe and learn.
His influence seems to have gone well beyond Chicago. He has contributed greatly to making nouvelle cuisine more than a fad and to inventing the fad which is molecular gastronomy.
I never ate at any of his restaurants. I wouldn't say that I never would, but I'd have to think twice (once for the cost, the other for surrendering to a subservient consuming role). He closed his main one a year ago. I'm not sure if he knew then that he was going to die soon, which he did two days ago, aged only 54. We'll probably find out the back story on that pretty soon.
The Tea Party
OK, I exaggerate. When the death-wagon comes around and the call comes out to "Bring out your dead!", they're the ones who'll pipe up and say "Not dead yet!" There will still be many Tea-baggers re-elected in 2014 in extreme right-wing districts (with limited exceptions, they've had very little success ever in statewide elections), and they will poison wells in Republican primaries probably for decades to come.
But still, their movement is clearly headed for demise. It's not so much Chris Christie's big win, which points to a path of hope for those Republicans who are not willing to accept permanent second-place status (or even third, in time) in national politics. It's more that the Establishment of the party, which has tolerated them up until now, has decided to cut them off as being bad for business. It was the shutdown, and their arrogant approach to try to drive the federal government from their position controlling 10-15% of the electorate, that was the cause of their non-tragic fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
