2013 Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decriminalizing Pot: A No-Brainer*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Usual Chaos and Disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doris Lessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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