Sports Report

In football, the preliminaries are over--time for the playoffs.

I am grateful that the big-time colleges have seen fit to add a round to their championship; now the issue is no longer "Who's #3?" but "Who's #5?"  This is progress.  I hope, and believe, that this stage of evolution will be successful, and that the next move will be to expand the playoffs to six teams, of which the #6 team should be the best chosen from the mid-major level (and should face #3 in the first round).  They will be glad to have the opportunity.

One lesson should have been clear from the final selections of the four playoff teams:  the "Big 12" needs to get two more teams, so that they really are "12"--that lack, according to the "rules", prevented them from having a conference championship game.  The result was that number 5 and number 6, both from the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor) both had final games which earned them no credit and they end up missing out on the playoffs.  The conference will need to pick up a couple of stragglers and fill out their roster--that or get the rule changed so they can have their conference championship game next year.  That being noted, I really have no complaint with the four teams chosen.  I would expect Alabama to make it to the final, but that Florida State-Oregon game is a very interesting matchup. .

In a year in which the SEC teams beat each other up all year, the main interest in the other bowl games will be to see whether the conference's #2-#9, all of which are in prominent bowls, will be able to preserve their sterling record against all comers.   I would recommend betting SEC throughout--except for any cases when SEC teams' top players get arrested in the leadup to their bowl games..

In the NFL, the big story (which I didn't hear covered) was the question of which team was playing its last game before moving to Los Angeles.  I would put my money on it being the San Diego Chargers, which played a gutless game and blew a playoff spot for which it had the inside track.  The other two leading contenders for the LA lottery, the Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams, should be disqualified as teams that have had the blessing of an LA franchise and left there.  I do feel for the SD fans, though, who deserve better: theirs is one of the original AFC franchises, one that has stayed in place through thick and thin and no SB championships --I think it and Buffalo are the only ones.

There were some new developments in the league during the regular season--I note the rise of the Arizona Cardinals and the surprising shortcomings of the 49ers--but the end product has a familiar look.  The defending champion Seattle Seahawks gave their fans some anxious moments early but came on strong late in the season and secured the top seed in the conference.  In a sign of the increased parity evident, no team did better than a 12-4 regular season record (five teams had that mark), but in spite of that, it would be disappointing if the conference final matchups are anything other than #1 vs. #2 (Green Bay vs. Seattle; Denver vs. New England).  I will stick with my preseason prediction of the final being the QB showdown of Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady.

Speaking of parity, baseball seems to be in a bit of a leaderless confusion; although the Giants won their third World Series in five years in 2014, I would say they are far from being a favorite next year.  I would generalize the offseason thus far by saying the bad teams have gotten better while the teams which have been good are not very convincing.  The Dodgers are the case in point for the latter; they should be favored but have not yet demonstrated any passion or quest for postseason excellence.

The opposite of parity is occurring in college basketball these days, as a few teams scoop all the top prospects in this era of "one and done", year after year.  Those that can convince their charges to stay more than one year have a bit of an edge.  Last year's mediocre U of Kentucky team made it to the national championship final, but a number of their stars were unfulfilled, career-wise (i.e., not going to be drafted among the lottery picks) and stayed around--that combined with yet another stellar crop of freshman recruits makes the Wildcats one of the most potent 10-man-rotation teams ever seen in college hoops and a massive favorite to go through the regular season unbeaten.  It has been a very long time since a team did that and won that championship--if that occurs it will be historic, but there are a few other fat cat teams with talent that will challenge them in the tourney.

Finally, the NBA regular season is about half over and the standings are in total chaos.  Injuries to stars for the top teams of recent years has been a major factor, along with major adjustments in the personnel of some of those teams.  As a result, upstart teams like Portland, Golden State, Toronto, and Washington are riding atop the conferences--not that I believe these teams will end up playing for the titles.   I like Houston and Oklahoma City (assuming they get healthy) to be the best in the West, with Chicago and Cleveland (when LeBron & Co. finally get their act together) my prediction for the finalists in the East.  So, like the NFL, not so different from the usual contenders in the end, though I think San Antonio's run may finally come to an end (and they may not even make the playoffs this year).

"Interstellar" - Pt. 1: Science Fiction and Fantasy

I am inspired to write this little essay by watching "Interstellar"; I had the good fortune to find it in a cinema here in Milano yesterday evening in the original language, with subtitles.   That's pretty rare here:  the dubbing industry remains very strong, with skilled practitioners, and most Italians prefer to watch most films in Italian.  I did find that having the original dialogue helped a lot with this movie, as it was not so much that the dialogue was complex, but that it retained the emotional content and inflections of the original actors.  The titles (in Italian, of course) actually helped to keep from losing those parts which were "mumbled", an issue I see increasingly in American films.  I guess it's realistic to portray speaking roles in the way people actually speak--in the opposite direction from the hearer, asides barely heard--as opposed to declaiming theatrically.

Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about.  I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour.  That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post-Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it.  I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.

Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Let's start by making a distinction between what was the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future).  Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible.   Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality:  instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.

Both contribute to our ability to imagine alternatives.  Science fiction has the additional benefit of sometimes guiding popular understanding of where experience may be heading--in some cases, it has actually contributed to new paths of scientific exploration. Fantasy rises or falls on the completeness of the imagined world and the plausibility of the stories, given their situations and nature, and with a bit stronger suspension of disbelief involved.

I think it's fair to credit (or blame) the relative rise of fantasy to J.R.R. Tolkien's popularity starting from the Sixties, and to blame the decline of science fiction on a combination of the divergence between the recent historical development of science-based lifestyle changes and what science fiction seemed to predict for us a few decades ago (as Steve Earle put it in his excellent recent song, "21st Century Blues", "Where the Hell's my flying car?").  In other words, there has been a lowering of our expectations, or a reduction in our imagination, of what science can do for our future.  Science fiction has always had a percentage of apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories; I would guess that percentage has increased with the development of the eco-apocalyptic vein ("ecolyptic"?), but I doubt that such downers have done much recently for the broad commercial potential of the genre, whereas the successfully-imagined worlds of fantasy supply the opportunity for serialized continuations ad infinitum, even beyond the lifespans of its authors. That has meant a clear path toward continuing employment as a motivator for authors of imaginative fiction, and there are plenty of cases of authors switching from sci-fi to fantasy in the course of their careers.

Space Fantasy
To sum up, all fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real.  Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality.  I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.

To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops.  Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk.  The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out.  A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.

One little problem:  interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future.  Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct.  Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.

This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though.  What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior.  There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy.  It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor.  As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one:  complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)

I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar".  I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan).  Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it.  "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves--even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss").  Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy:  "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).

Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much.  Check the time capsule in a few months.

My guess for Oscar:  about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins. 

Response to Democracy For America's Poll Question

I received a survey recently from Democracy for America, which, if I am not mistaken, is the PAC founded by Howard Dean--progressive, mostly within the Democratic party tent. They asked me to pick my three preferred choices, from a list of about 15, for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  My first choice was Hillary Clinton, my second was Kirsten Gillenbrand (an agreeable Hillary surrogate, should HRC decide she can't run or some such thing), and my third was Joaquin Castro (he must be too young to run for President, but I like putting his name out there).

No mention in my ballot of the two whom I knew were the preferred votegetters of this group's members (and who got the most votes in the end, Hillary being third), Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  Warren has flat out, repeatedly, said she is not running.  Bernie has hedged on that and now does seem to be about to run, I am guessing because of the renewed war footing Obama has recently placed us on, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.   But let's be serious:  Bernie has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination--he's not even a Democrat--and even less chance (a negative probability, if such a thing were to exist) of winning in a general election.

If anyone should understand this, it's Howard Dean, who was branded a slightly-left winger (i.e., a wacko) and couldn't make it out of New Hampshire as a party favorite.   The Democrats have had one national candidate since FDR who dared to tell the truth and was more than a little left-of-center:  his name was George McGovern, and he won 17 electoral votes out of 538, against one of the most cynical, corrupt Presidents in modern history (Richard Nixon, for you young people unaware of history)--and McGovern was an authentic WWII hero, a decent man, a loyal American, and they threw everything in the book at him.  Those who saw Barack Obama as such a person were either reacting in fear or deluded by hope--they never looked at the reality of his political stances, which were, again, slightly left-of-center (if one insists on a single left-right spectrum, something I resist, but will accept for purposes of argument). Sanders and Warren have no chance of being elected in these United States--maybe in some other, hypothetical one, with a fair electoral process, equal access to media, and less vested-interest talking heads getting in their way, but not this one.

Anyway, the folks at Democracy for America were nice enough to come back to me a few days later and ask me to explain my choice.  Here is my verbatim answer to them: 

Hillary Clinton has the best chance to win the general election, and that is the objective--to win, and win big (so as to win back Congress).
She can be a leader to unify the Democrats, if she has the right program, which in my view should be the following:*
1) A Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and support for a variety of measures--such as ease of registration, Federal control over redistricting abuse, absentee or early voting- to open up and facilitate popular (as opposed to elitist) participation in the political process;
2)  A new set of environmental measures suited to addressing the challenge of climate change;
3) Investment in infrastructure, education, and retraining for a competitive future economy;
4) Settling the long-term budgetary issues of the retirement and healthcare programs in a way that deals equitably with each generation's concerns and assures the programs' long-term survival; and
5) She should announce--before her nomination acceptance speech, maybe when she has the nomination locked up, that she will serve for one term only!
The only problem for some will be her close relations with business and with the military-industrial complex (she is a hawk, no doubt).  The key will be her strong stance for helping the middle-and lower-classes economically and to propose a clear plan to wind up the war in the middle east (if it is still going on in 2016).
Obviously, serving for just one term will break the glass ceiling, she will avoid nasty comments about being old, and avoid the Second-Term Syndrome (which has affected every Presidency in 50 years).  The Democrats can have their battle over future leadership four years later, having accomplished a great deal in her single, historic term in office.  I call it "The Polk Option", after Pres. Polk in the 1840's who did something comparable.
I am Ready for Hillary!  
*And I have a catchy name for the program:  "Vision 20/20"
(as in, seeing things clearly, getting it done by 2020). 

Attentive readers will recognize many of the same points in the above that I made in my previous post on "The Polk Option" earlier this year--I have not changed my mind one iota on this topic, and I am willing to spout freely on the subject as long as space permits, to anyone who might listen.  My next recipients of this unsolicited advice will probably be James Carville--a noted, though untitled, Clintonian--and Stephanie Schriock, a journalist/political advisor/Emily's list director whom I like a lot, and who is rumored to be in contention to be Hillary's campaign manager.

I am not asking for Hillary to announce her one-term plan so early, or as a condition for my support (though I will enthusiastically support the idea if I hear it is being considered):  She should think--and discuss with her advisors--about the optimum timing for such an announcement (above, I suggest either her nomination acceptance speech, or to keep things interesting once she has wrapped up the nomination).  I do feel very strongly that this is the right thing for her to do, the politically most advantageous approach, and one that will cost her none of her effectiveness as President--it will help her win a big majority in Congress, which she will need to accomplish her reforms.

I do ask--require--that she have a plan for what she wants to accomplish as President, in order to earn my support, and for me to feel it appropriate to advocate her Presidency to anyone else.  I also am concerned about the ISIS/Afghanistan moves President Obama has made recently--not their validity in the sense of the war against the pathological ISIS, or the intransigent reactionaries of the Taliban--but the political box they may end up putting Hillary into if the wars do not go well enough to permit Obama to begin pulling back by 2016.

Finally,  I would like to provide a little historical backup for my contention above that the last President who has had a successful second term is Eisenhower--in the sense of being able to continue effectively the policies and approach of the first term.  It's probably out of the question now for Obama; though I feel he can still accomplish a great deal, possibly more than he has in the first six years, whatever he does from here on would be as the result of a complete change of approach, one in which he may have already made a few dramatic steps.  The clock is ticking, though, and Congress is against him.

JFK - didn't make it to a second term
LBJ - the second half of his second term (counting the 1 1/2 years from '63-'65 as his first) was totally ruined by the Vietnam War morass he allowed the US to sink into
Nixon - didn't make it through the second term (Watergate)
Ford - not re-elected
Carter - not re-elected
Reagan - Iran-Contra was just the clearest example of a second-term Presidency with lights on, nobody home (the man was senile in his second term, face it)
Poppy Bush - not- re-elected
Clinton - Didn't get much done in the second term, except surviving impeachment and getting some backlash support in the '98 midterm elections.
Dubya - To my way of thinking, he was not nearly as odious in the second term as in the first, but his popularity hit the skids by 2006 and never rebounded.  Plus, he presided over the collapse of the economy into the Great Crater--if you call that presiding.
Obama - Political pattern paralleling Dubya, only for the other party.  Gets zero credit for the slow but steady recovery of the economy from the worst recession since the '30's (or early '80's, if you want to argue the point). 

Ferguson This, Ferguson That

I have ignored this simmering pot and its frequent spillovers up until now, but I think it's time to make a few points, which should be clearer than they are from all the attention being given to the case:*

1)  Mothers (and fathers), you need to tell your children not to pick fights with armed police officers.  Not just black kids, all kids should understand that.  Whatever irrelevant details about Michael Brown and his life are thrown around, one fact is clear:  he made a big mistake challenging the police officer, and he ended up paying with his life.

2)  The DA is being totally disingenuous with his "all of the evidence" line.  A grand jury exists to indict the people the DA wants indicted, end of story.  I don't need to examine the reams of evidence to figure out that his strategy was to baffle them with b.s. so they would not return an indictment.

As an aside, I recommend watching the film "Q and A" (1990, good performances from Nick Nolte as the bad cop, Tim Hutton as the conflicted Assistant D.A., and others as well).  It was written by a State Circuit Judge named Edwin Torres, who knew what he was talking about from experience. (I actually had the occasion to be a juror in his courtroom roughly around that time--a typically lousy case, the only kind that actually goes to a jury these days.)  The movie's fictional case was quite different from Ferguson's, but the principles which apply to the Ferguson case are the same that are spelled out in the movie (though, slight spoiler, the case is not resolved in the courtroom):  the DA selects the facts that are presented to the grand jury, and thus the outcome.

3)  The cop was genuinely scared--maybe angry, somewhat legitimately--and overreacted with excessive use of force.  He didn't have the right equipment to subdue Brown in a non-lethal way, nor did he have a partner who would have balanced out the power relationship in the incident.  So, yes, the officer is to blame, but no, the blame is hardly exclusively on him.

4)  It's not over.  There will be a civil case, and the officer may lose it.  Cops in the US are almost never criminally indicted for bad policing, and that's true whether the cop is black, white, or brown, and also with regard to the victims of it.  A civil case is a different matter, and it will largely depend on the skill of jury selection, to which both sides are likely to apply high-priced legal/statistical muscle.

5) The real issue hasn't seemed to come up lately:  Why is a town with a black majority being run by a bunch of prejudiced whiteys?  There was an election between the actual incident and the current crisis:  did the blacks show up and vote them out?  Why or why not?

Final, heavily-opinionated note:  I am taken back in my musings to the days of the late '60's/early '70's, when "pigs" was a name often applied to the forces of law-and-order (police, also the National Guard).  That kind of epithet drew a strong counter-reaction, one which was entirely successful for some 30-40 years.  That extreme action/reaction produced a synthesis which basically has left any kind of police behavior beyond reproach from the judicial system.  Violent reaction is, of course, not the right answer, but a little bit more translation of healthy skepticism into policies which reduce lethal use of force and put review of police actions in the hands of more independent authorities would be worth a sober examination.   It's hard to imagine the Ferguson hysterics leading to that, however.

*Way too much attention, in my view:  for me, the Florida Trayvon Martin case was a clearer case of unusual injustice--this is just the "normal" kind.

Whirl D'Oh Fares

This wordplay title restacking the more pedestrian expression "world affairs" (as if we really had any other kind of meaningful affairs than the ones here on this planet) may not fit together as a phrase, but each component has been carefully considered.  First, think of of the events around us today as a wild ride, a "Tilt-a-Whirl",  full of centrifugal forces throwing us apart.  "D'Oh" is a Homeric reference, as in the dullard of Simpsons fame, not the blind Greek bard, and should be understood to connote the awkward and lamebrained methods the nation-states and international bodies use to confront the issues of the moment; while "fares" is a synonym for prices, as in the prices we pay now, and will pay even more in the future, for our reckless disregard for consequences. 

One thing that has become clear in recent months is that a number of powerful nation-states are seeking to fill perceived vacuums and increase their ability to affect, coercively, other nations.  This is called asserting a nation's "sphere of influence", and I have heard the term applied recently to Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, India, and most frequently, China and Russia.  

Really, though, there is only one country with a "sphere of influence", and that is the US, which can project its influence almost anywhere on the globe.  The rest of them only have "nearby regions of influence"--even Russia, which, with the possible exception of Syria, really can only bully the neighbors that are contiguous to it.  

So, let's start with a nation close to my heart which is, as ever in recent decades, critical, but not determinative to the outcome of current events on the surface of our sphere.  We begin with its internal issues, which are often  closely connected with its behavior in the world at large. 

D'oh-mestic Matters   
(These observations on the US are rather obvious--to me, at least.)
The Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections proved they could win the Senate without any Hispanic votes;  this is good for them because they are currently ensuring they will never get any in the future. President Obama has had plenty of time to plan the immigration Executive Order he announced this week, and it seems he has used the time well:  they are outfoxed, spluttering with anger, unable to counter. 

Those who looked for Obama's true colors to emerge in a second term (like me, I must admit) had to wait two more years;  now he really doesn't have to concern himself about electoral consequences.  That being said, "Obama being Obama" will probably have a net positive effect for his party. 

Following this line of thought, Obama is racing against the clock to achieve successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that he can leave the legacy of beating down the Taliban and ISIS, without leaving troops on the battlefield.  This will help Hillary Clinton in her campaign; it is essential to avoid an antiwar schism in her party which could be fatal.

The Keystone pipeline is an issue of only symbolic importance to all participants.  It's now clearly established that it's not a jobs issue, there is no current problem of high oil prices that it would help affect, it's not about energy independence (as the oil will be exported elsewhere), and, finally, the Canadian tar sands oil will be developed, when it is economical to do so (now is questionable for the oil companies), whether there is a pipeline or not (they would use rail lines to send it to ports, if necessary).   I predict it will be hung up in litigation for several more years, then quietly forgotten.  The alternative is that someone foolishly gives the go-ahead, which would lead to massive, possibly violent, resistance. In either case, I do not think the pipeline will ever be completed, nor do I think the tar sands will remain undeveloped for long. 

All these late-stage fossil fuel sources--tar sands, dirty coal, oil shale, deep gas, undersea deposits--are best left in the ground for our grandchildren to exploit, when technologies will be far more advanced, resulting in much lower social costs.  It's OK to experiment with some of these new methods (preferably in relatively uninhabited areas)  and develop the techniques, but we really should be investing now in the renewable sources and slowing the drain of these irreplaceable non-renewable sources.  We will still need petrochemicals for some purposes a century from now.   

As for the polar bears--the poster children for charities looking to hold back climate change--we may as well face the fact that Arctic Sea ice is going away.  I'd like to suggest an idea, inspired by the nests we put on poles for the raptors in some locations:  we should put floating platforms, anchored in some way, out on the Arctic Sea, spaced properly to support a desired number of polar bears in their aquatic foraging.  It seems like a good idea to me--let's see how the bears like it (I'm sure there would be a certain amount of pushing and shoving for space on the platforms.)

There is now a single US meta-issue:  to use Tolkien's phrasing, "one issue to rule them all and in the darkness bind them".  It's the failure, so far, to come up with the means or the strategy which will make the meaningful electoral/political reforms we need.  Until this is addressed, the Republicans will continue to come up with tricks to hide their strategy of preventing "popular sovereignty" (a phrase from the political slavery battles of the 1800's; it means the untrammeled exercise of the people's will); elites will continue to control legislation, or the blocking of legislation; the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, the middle-class scarcer.  This needs to become the central campaign issue of 2016, but it needs to be done in the right way to achieve progress. 

The Democrats' biggest problem right now is the inability to distinguish between the fundamentally non-partisan nature of the meta-issue of electoral reform (as all of us will benefit from progress in democratic institutions) and their own partisan interest in it--as greater democracy will inevitably benefit the Democratic party.   According to a HuffPost poll, a 53-23 majority support a Constitutional amendment (48% among Republicans) to overturn Citizens United; the trick will be getting the 22% "unsure" to weigh in for democracy, and not to forget about this ugly 2014 campaign until the next one comes up with even more waste and negativity.  Even Bernie Sanders, who hardly qualifies as a Democrat, makes the mistake of seeing this as a partisan issue, differentiating between the Democratic and Republican positions on Citizens United, voter ID, and the like

The latest trick is trying to leverage the states' power to control the method of selecting their Electors to the odious Electoral College.  There are two states that consistently vote Democratic for President and have a Republican governor with Republican-dominated state legislatures, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both states are candidates to go the Maine/Nebraska route and assign most of their electoral votes based on the popular vote of the individual Congressional districts, which could send half or more of the EV to the Republicans. (Florida could become another candidate before long,  if the national Republican party keeps alienating the Hispanics.)  This is a fairly desperate move, and its passage would reflect badly on the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan, both of whom may end up being candidates for the Presidential nomination (or, more likely, the Vice-Presidential one)--their support would indicate they recognize their inability to carry their home state in a national election. . 

Of course, the Electoral College itself (the all-or-nothing voting; its separation from the popular vote) is another example, though in this case the Democrats seem to be benefiting from its un-democratic nature:  if the Presidential election were decided based on the majority vote by Congressional district, for example, the Democrats' Presidential near-lock would be long gone.  

The smart Democratic strategy is to assist in riling up the electorate about the deficiencies in our political process--the constant appeals for money, the dark money, the constant negative ads, gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc.--then let the anger move forward on its own, non-partisan momentum, and reap the benefits afterwards. 

Over the Horizon
As a transition, let's start with a few comments about Ebola.  It has become a major problem this year in several African countries, and its containment has not yet been achieved,  but the idea that it became a significant campaign issue this year in the US was beyond "D'oh"--it was malicious misinformation.  There have been a handful of cases in the US, of people working in healthcare in the outbreak areas in Africa who have caught it and come back for treatment, and two healthcare workers who caught it from one of those people. That's it.  It presents a serious challenge to public health, but not in the US.  If there is an issue of concern outside the affected region, it was about the slow response of the formal international health agencies to the evidence that the Ebola outbreak was surging beyond levels previously seen. 

I would compare Ebola to be most similar, in the nature of the course of the disease in humans, to the plague.  Although Ebola is a virus, not a bacterium like the plague, they have in common several facts:  outbreaks begin with the transmission from an animal to a person, they produce very acute infections with high mortality rates, they are moderately contagious, difficult but not impossible to treat, and outbreaks can be controlled by modern medicine with some basic precautions.  This is not to minimize the severity of the plague, which killed a large percentage of the population of Europe in the 14th century, with serious outbreaks for centuries afterwards, but to say that, though the plague is still around, we can handle the outbreaks if we use some intelligence. 

Much more dangerous in America are the continuous outbreaks of Nutballs with Guns; in some other countries, Nostalgic Jihadi Fever.  I feel sad for those impressionable youths in many countries who are inspired to go, voluntarily, into the hellholes of ISIS-occupied Syria and Iraq; I should have much more sympathy still for those who live there and cannot leave, but both groups should be made aware that any illusions of tranquil, Sharia-inspired, religiously orthodox life there are impossible under a regime such as ISIS', as impossible as ISIS' dreams of world dominion.  There are only two possible outcomes for those there:  moderation and integration, or collective doom.    

Even if Obama is successful in bringing Iraq and Afghanistan to some kind of positive result, though, there will still be huge problems for the next President to deal with:  Syria--even apart from the tumor of ISIS--has no solution in sight, Iran could become a huge issue if the current nuclear talks fail, and now it looks as though the stagnant Israel-Palestine issue may be about to overheat.   It's now Jerusalem, not just Gaza, or even the West Bank, which is the hot spot of the confrontation, which to me indicates the issue is heading for a climax; meanwhile, the possibility of an agreement on the "two-state solution" is ever more remote. 

I come back often to the rising importance of Turkey in the 21st century whirl. Along with Russia (maybe Israel), it is the only country with ambitions to be a direct player in both Europe and in Asia.  Its lengthy borders with Syria and with Iran will make it a critical component in the international efforts directed toward those countries, whether in war or in peace.  Turkey is a longtime ally of the US and a critical member of NATO (it has its second-largest standing military); its role is consistently underrated.  It has been a critical counterweight to Russian expansionism since the Tsarist period, and it is once again in countering the new czar, Putin. As the only significant democracy in an Islamic-majority nation in the region  (a possible argument could be made for Lebanon), its behavior is an important indicator of how events are perceived by moderate Muslims there.  A good example is its up-and-down relationship with Israel, a barometer of that country's ability to get along with its neighbors. 

Turkey aims to join the European Community (if not the European Union); its dynamic economy could provide a boost to that somewhat stagnant (economically and demographically) group, but doing so in a way that explains the resistance:  Europe fears integration with such a large Islamic population--superficially for concerns about immigration and job security, but xenophobia is just as strong a factor.  In fact, Turkey's people, in terms of per capita GDP, are more wealthy than several states already in the EU.         

Turkey was criticized for a lack of alacrity in springing to the US' call to arms against ISIS; it has moved forward, but its hesitancy and ambivalence are apparent.  This is a complex problem for President Erdogan:  Turkey is strongly opposed to the regime of Syrian President Assad, who has oppressed the country's Sunni majority (Turkey has a Sunni majority, as well), and Turkey has had to absorb milions of refugees from the Syrian Civil War.  ISIS' gruesome aggression has inflamed the passions of the Kurds, who are in a life-and-death struggle in parts of Syria (read this eyewitness account of the epic Kobane battle) and in Iraq, and who have been fighting for decades for autonomy in Turkey:  Erdogan has sought a middle ground between support for Kurdish separatists and pacifying his anguished Kurdish minority.  And, there is the inescapable fact that any help he gives to the battle against ISIS will inevitably help Assad.  At the end of the day, the help Turkey will give to contain and destroy ISIS will be conditioned on taking actions to prevent Assad's taking advantage, or it will be passive assistance. 

Pivot to (East) Asia

This post is getting long, and we haven't gotten to the populous hub of the world.  We hope to return soon to the broader topic and pick up some other areas:  Western Europe and its doldrums, Africa, Latin America and Mexico (dealing with a climactic moment in its struggle against the narco-trafficking mobs), Canada (which recently showed us once again its greater maturity in dealing with a security crisis), South Asia, our antipodal mirror image Australia, and Antarctica.  

Among our US Presidents, there have been various sportsmen:  Teddy Roosevelt the big-game hunter, Gerald Ford was an All-American football player, Poppy Bush a star baseball first baseman (I think Reagan and Nixon played football, too; Dubya was a cheerleader....)  I feel confident saying that our current President is the only basketball player among them, so when Obama talks about making a pivot to Asia, he actually knows what he is talking about.  Keep one foot planted in the home turf, and spin body and front foot to the East....

One of the most significant developments in recent months has been the rise of Xi Jinping as the undisputed top leader in China.  Unlike some of his recent predecessors, his style is less being first among many and more using his decision-making authority to focus it even more on himself.  He is surely the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. 

China flexes its muscles in trying to shoulder aside the claims of Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines around disputed islands in the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan.  The objective appears to be economic, not territorial expansion, as control of these islands may permit offshore drilling, and China remains highly dependent on imported oil.  So far, Xi has not weighed in on the Hong Kong democracy movement's challenge to Beijing's limitations on the free election of the territory's chief executive; when he does so, the matter will be settled.  I would imagine he is looking for a peaceful outcome and wishes to avoid another Tienanmen-style heavy-handed one. 

Japan seems to be falling back into recession yet again.  Prime Minister Abe seized the moment of the announcement of a negative GDP to announce early Parliamentary elections.  To be honest, I don't understand the logic, unless it's that he is so confident of winning, and then subsequently he plans to do something to upset the electorate.  Like, stimulating the economy, maybe? 

Finally, I want to congratulate the new President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, or as he's known, Jokowi.  He seems to have the popular touch, and so a bit different from previous Indonesian heads of state, who were from rich, dynastic families or prominent military figures.  Indonesia is another country whose importance to the US and to the world economy is not fully understood, a vast, multicultural population with a Muslim majority, and now a liberal democracy.  

In this month of the 25th anniversary of the annus mirabilis when the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain parted, we should recognize the enormous positive changes that have occurred in our lifetime.  We still have wars, famines, pestilence, and death, but the quality of life has improved for billions.  My note for Thanksgiving!

Mike Nichols

I subscribe to a service with CNN that provides me brief email notices of "Breaking News". Mysteriously, I received a couple yesterday that were empty--no news item contained within.  I figure now that one of them must have been the notification of the death of Mike Nichols.

Let's call him a film director, as he was one of huge importance.  He, along with a few others--I would name Altman, Scorsese, maybe Coppola, Woody Allen, the odious Brian De Palma--were the key figures in the Renaissance of Hollywood film making in the late '60's and early '70's, a wave to which others gave additional impetus, and is just now, maybe, starting to break.  In his heyday, he made the big movies--movies with big actors, big scripts, big budgets--but they were not like today's movies, about Big Toys, or The Most Amazing Thing That Ever Could Have Been Accomplished If It Were True.  His characters were not superheroes; sometimes antiheroes, sometimes villains, sometimes just regular folks. His movies, without exception I would think, were stories of people, and the portrayal through people's actions of their motivations, their inner feelings, their place in society, their anger, their sense of humor.   His art was very humane.

His first films were like cannon shots:  "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", "The Graduate".  If he stopped there, with that film (his only Academy Award winner), his place in film history would be secure.  Then he made "Catch-22" and "Carnal Knowledge"--at that time, the release of a Mike Nichols film was major entertainment news.  He would cool off, put out his share of flops, but still he came up with some winners through the decades:  "Silkwood", "Working Girl", "The Birdcage", and his last major release (in 2007), "Charlie Wilson's War", about the secret aid in the '80's to the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets.

He was also much more than a film director, though I didn't know so much about the other parts. With Elaine May, he had a successful comedy team in the 1950's (!) and was instrumental in starting Second City, the improvisational troupe that sourced most of the stars of Saturday Night Live, through all of its run to date.  He was a producer of stage, very successfully, and movies as well. Most notably, he was the producer and director of the TV miniseries version of "Angels in America", one of the finest TV productions in the history of the medium.

We will probably now learn more about his life; he seems to have been a private person.  His imdb.com biography points out that he was real name was "Michael Igor Peschkowsky", born in Berlin in 1931.  That should mean something that we should learn more about; how did he become "Mike Nichols"?

The younger generation may not know Mike Nichols.  They should watch some of his work, but doing so they should be careful not to conclude that he was just working the same vein as all the '60's rehash nostalgia stuff.  Instead, they should realize that, like the Beatles, or the Kennedys, his work is one of the motherlodes, where it all came from.

Accomplished: 0; Spent: $4 billion--A few lessons

Of course, that's just my perspective.  Based on my scoring proposed in my final Pre-election post, absolutely none of the objectives were accomplished.  A few things of a negative nature were accomplished, though I did not put a pre-election valuation on them:

The face of the miserable short-term future chosen by the Florida voters "in their wisdom". 

• The Republicans will have drawn the conclusion that they have just the thing to offset the Democrats' Get-Out-the-Vote strategy:  dumping a couple hundred million in attack ads from dark sources in the last days of the campaign.  That's what they did this time, and it moved the needle 2-3% across the board, about the equivalent of what the Democrats' GOTV can accomplish in its best days.  Unfortunately, the massive money dump worked for the Republicans this time, while the Democrats' "we don't spend as much, but we do it better" did not.  So, the Republicans will be even less open to the idea of spending restrictions. 
• Some Democrats will have learned that their strategy--avoiding their party and their nation's leader in the hopes of maintaining some sort of squishy moderate, non-Obama Democratic posture in states where Obama approval was weak and Democratic identification also--reeked of hypocrisy and failed miserably. Those Democrats may not have much of a political career to come back to after that failure, though. A few who fell honorably and did not fail miserably as campaigners--I'm thinking of Kay Hagan, possibly Mary Landrieu if her runoff does not succeed, a few of the Congressional candidates--may live to fight another day. 
• The American electorate--those low-participation, low-information voters who allowed themselves to be numbed into staying home or browbeaten into voting against their economic interests by the wave of negative ads--they will experience the joy of continued gridlock and obstruction (the Democrats might get into blocking things more, now, to give the Republicans a taste of frustration) which they have richly earned ("in their wisdom"). 
• The central Democratic committees will have learned that they cannot "localize" Federal elections anymore; further, state legislative and gubernatorial elections must be understood to directly impact the Federal elections through rules on voter ID, vote counting, redistricting, and now, perhaps, even Electoral College vote allocation.   Also, it might help to have something like an issue to point to as a reason voters might want to choose their candidates. 

What did I learn?  No more money for piecemeal contributions to individual candidates, trying to leverage close races (my miserable $5-$10 bits, spread around too widely, were drowned by megabucks, even if they added up to more than 1 or 2 ninety-millionths of that $4 billion in wasted money, 90,000,000 being the approximate number of voters in the elections); almost all of the candidates I backed lost (and it is stupid to try to improve that percentage by only contributing to candidates who are going to win, at my level).   It was like throwing a coin to a few selected beggars who were all crowded around me;  there were always more of them, and even the ones who received my pittance immediately came back for more.

Although President Obama will continue to labor tirelessly for us ingrates, I don't feel there is much he can do or could have done this time around.  What, exactly (without getting into name-calling), is the problem with him, anyway?  (That's directed to those who "disapprove" of him.)  To give just the most obvious example,  the economy was in shambles and falling into a deep Crater when he came in; his policies helped get us out, and onto a reasonably healthy basis.  How much credit did he get in the campaign for that?  Similar things could be said about healthcare, diplomacy, involvement in wars.  And Ebola?  Please.

I will never draw the lesson that politics, the art and science of large-scale human interaction through the advocacy and administration of public policy, doesn't matter in this country (a conclusion many seem to have drawn);  it is among the things that matter most, in the long-term view of a society which is critical for the future success of the human experiment.  I will say that this election's failure will have effects that are mostly transitory (loss of opportunity), because I expect them to be washed away in two years by a larger wave, in an opposite direction, by leaders with a plan and a new organizational approach to win elections.   We'll just have to muddle through a couple more years of asinine Congressional behavior,  with some of the leading protagonists being the donkeys who just won their elections with their dirty money.

News, Reviews

Jack Bruce, R.I.P. 
Bruce died last Saturday at the age of 71. One of the great rock bass players, an accomplished songwriter and vocalist, known particularly for his work with the supergroup Cream in the late '60's, he brought great musical talent and an eccentric nature to his work.

Fame and success in the '60's were not good elements in combination with Bruce's mercurial personality.  He became addicted to drugs--needed a liver transplant some 10-15 years ago--and I am sure he was the proximate cause of Cream's breakup.  Still, Eric Clapton and Ginger Baker thought enough of him to reunite the band in 2005 for a memorable series of concerts in London and New York, mostly to benefit him for his medical expenses.  He had a long career, both before and after Cream, playing with a variety of musicians, particularly in hard rock, blues, and jazz.  I'm no expert on the bass, but his lines were clean, powerful, inventive, and he had good improvisational skills.  His singing was unusually good for rock, musical and emotive; he was a tenor but could also perform well with falsetto.

My three favorite songs by Bruce:
"Theme for an Imaginary Western" (w/Pete Brown for the lyrics) - Bruce recorded it first, for his solo album "Songs for a Tailor" released after the Cream breakup;  Mountain (with Felix Pappalardi, Leslie West) made it famous at Woodstock.  Supposedly there is a hidden meaning about some of Bruce's pre-Cream band partners, but it works on the literal level, referring to the pioneers crossing the Plains to the Old West ("the sun was in their eyes"), the bravery of going out into the unknown. Bruce's version has some beautiful keyboards (not sure who), both piano and organ.   I'm still waiting for the music video, let alone the film with this as the track over the opening credits.

"We're Going Wrong" - Bruce didn't need Brown for this one; there are only about 10 short lines of lyrics, but their meaning, and Bruce's passionate delivery of the song, are crystal clear.  The music is hard to describe--extremely simple, slow-paced, with a biting Clapton solo which builds to a dramatic climax.  It's one of the lesser-known songs on Cream's greatest album, "Disraeli Gears", in the miraculous year for rock which was 1967.  All of the songs are excellent, but this one rarely fails to get my heart pounding.

"White Room" -  Number two of Cream's all-time hits (after "Sunshine of Your Love", of course, which Bruce also co-wrote with Brown); it came out a couple of years after Disraeli, by which time I was actually aware of the band (thanks to my cousin John, the most socially attuned of our little group of pre-teen intellectuals--he also gets "credit" for my discovering Firesign Theatre).  I had always thought it was about a guy in a prison cell;  now, with the benefit of lyrics posted online, I see that it was about a guy returning to his lonely hotel room after seeing off his love at the station.  But still, metaphorically, the prison room.   The Clapton solo on this one--to which Bruce played wild counterpoint runs--is a classic in the early use of the wah-wah pedal.

I bought, and still have, the 45 rpm record for "White Room"--the B-side was a song, not a great one, called "Those Were the Days".   Indeed.

A Couple Movies You May Have Missed (I caught these on a long plane trip recently)--CAUTION: some Spoilers!
The last movie released with Robin Williams in it before his suicide was "The Angriest Man in Brooklyn", and I would say it deserves to be seen.  It's your basic story of a guy told he has terminal illness, no treatment, and only hours to live, and how he chooses to spend them.

It came out in May and didn't do well; it was criticized (justly) for a fairly obvious plot dynamic, and I have to point out one completely ridiculous part of the story:  a cop stops the Williams character and his partner in misdemeanor, Mila Kunis' doctor character.  They are in a stolen taxicab; they convince the cop that they need to go to the hospital immediately (which they do need), the cop agrees to provide them an escort, then they go the other way.  And the cop isn't going to go after them?

Anyway,  three excellent elements to note:  Williams' performance as a typical angry New Yorker at the beginning of the movie, before he gets his terminal diagnosis (his litany of the things he hates in the City at the beginning is great stuff); Kunis' role as the harried young doctor, covering for her abusive lover colleague who dumped the case on her, who makes the mistake of telling Williams too much, and then her guilt drives her to track him down and help him; and a cameo with the great James Earl Jones, playing a pawn shop owner with a stutter, as he and Williams go through a variation of a classic shaggy-dog story.

I have to think this movie--shot in 2012, according to the imdb notes, to be fair--with its images of a suicidal Williams character (he jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge, but survives it), may have weighed on Williams' mind (it ends with a tombstone of the character, with the correct years--1951-2014--of Williams' own lifespan) in those last days.  That gives it some extra weight for viewing it in the context of Williams' career and tragic ending.

In my fall movie preview, I suggested that The Book of Life, del Toro's fabulous film about zozobra (a Mexican celebration of the pagan holiday, the Day of the Dead) might be the favorite for the year's Oscar for Animated Film.  It might be, but I take back the casual guess and instead put forward "The Lego Movie", which is one great piece of work.  Which piece, exactly, I couldn't say, but it is a hand-crafted one that combines some great writing and production values (check out the voice credits) with millions of ordinary tiles assembled with the tedium required of stop-action.

If you have not seen it, I recommend it, for you and all members of your family.  It is great humor, witty and satiric, but without the scatology, fascination with excrement, or politically incorrect crudeness of "South Park" or "Family Guy".   The basic story is a take-off on "The Matrix" but goes in all kinds of unexpected directions.  And it has a great Will Farrell cameo and a wonderful, catchy theme song.

Turn Blue
It has been a long, strange journey for the Black Keys.  They do keep trying to change, while keeping unchanged a couple of basic elements--the pounding drums, the soulful vocals.  They have come a long way from punks playing blues with a garage sound.  Now they have the current king of record producers, Danger Mouse, providing production atmospherics and a lot more keyboards.  I like the sound, but it will hardly please the purists who fell in love with them in their raw early days.  It's an old story, the "decline" from simplicity toward artistic complexity and sonic beauty.  Or, as some would have it, the sell out.

The turning point was "Brothers",  which will probably prove to be a peak that they will never be able to rise above.  Its inventive rhythms, extremely danceable but with plenty of edge and surprising twists, catapulted them into the mass market.  "El Camino" provided some big hits and kept the momentum going forward.

This newest album is a bit of departure, as the style of Danger Mouse, the current king of leading edge record production, comes close to taking over the sound.  He was also the producer for El Camino, but here we have an album that is a studio production in the extreme.  When I saw they were coming to town for a big arena concert, I had to see how it would play.

The first tune I had heard from this album on the radio is "The Weight of Love", which is also the first cut on the album, and the first song they played in the encore in their recent concert.  It allows guitarist/vocalist Dan Auerbach room to roam, with extended solos (a second guitar was a necessary concession they made live).  To me it suggested old Allman Brothers, a song that meanders, with its dynamics rising and falling.  It's a great piece, one of their best ever, and well-placed in the concert setlist.

There are a couple of the new songs--I would name "Bullet to the Brain" and "Its Up to You Now"--reminiscent of the steady rocking we associate with the band, but too many fall in the category of ballads, ones which suffer a bit live; even with the sounds reproduced by the concert group, they sound a bit too canned, with a bit too much concession to pop.  Less falsetto from Dan, more gutbusting bellowing, please.  I'm referring specifically to "10 Lovers", here, and I'm not a fan of their closing piece, "Gotta Get Away", with that awful line "I went from San Berdoo/to Kalamazoo/Just to get away form you".  Kalamazoo is not really far enough--it should be "to Timbucktu" to make the cliche more impressive. Their hit from the album, "Fever" is a 60's pop song, complete with Farfisa.  The theme of love as being a malady, with the specific reference to that condition characterized by elevated body temperature, had been explored fairly thoroughly, by name, a couple of other times in that period they recall.

Their concert did not disappoint the crowd--the big hits from "Brothers" and "El Camino" drew good reaction--though I think it might have disappointed the band.  Dan kept calling out "Chicago" to get more audience participation, but we are talking about 20,000 people now, and the sense of intimacy is gone, perhaps forever.

Lastly, I will mention "In Our Prime", the next to last cut on the album, and one that I don't think was played live.  It is an interesting piece, somewhat like one of the Beatles' later ones, starting with soft piano, whimsical lyrics in the midtempo middle section, and a hard guitar sound toward the end.  I have to interpret it as a comment on their own history; already they can look back and see the road they have traveled.

Bone Clocks

David Mitchell's writing skill shines above all else in this modern fantasy/horror story. I find this one more "cinema-ready" than "Cloud Atlas" (credit to those who defied the odds and commercial necessity and made that film anyway). In this novel, I saw that he is just as adept in building the story around a multi-faceted female main character (Holly Sykes) as he has proven in the past with his masculine heroes.

The sophistication of his references, both historical and fictional (Mitchell fans will find tie-ins to both "Cloud Atlas" and to "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob DeZoet") gives the reader a good chance to learn something, while paging through a long story that is rarely dull. I found the subject matter--basically, demons and angels with superpowers--a lot less convincing than his previous novels. He does go on a bit long: Halfway through, I was comparing it to an Umberto Eco novel (specifically, "Foucault's Pendulum"), told better. It is confusing at times, but Mitchell successfully brings the strands together for an exciting climax. 

The denouement, though, is depressing: Mitchell shows himself once again to be a pessimist on the future of the great adventure that is human civilization. He leaves a bit of didactic possibility for us--"if only we could....", but I don't find him to be a believer in the promise of our collective future.

Apart from the basic subject matter--in which he draws on the literature of esoteric groups, gnostics, vampire legends and the like, not my favorite topics--Mitchell takes us on a whirlwind tour around the globe to a lot of very interesting locales (cinematic candy). We hear sometimes about an author "finding his voice": Mitchell is way beyond that, finding voices of people very unlike him and presenting their thoughts and dialogue convincingly. His strong points remain depiction of character, and placing them properly in place and time (past, present, and future).+

The book is an obvious must for Mitchell fans (they don't need me to tell them that, though); for those who are new to Mitchell and would like an upscale version of "Angels and Demons" or "Da Vinci Code", I recommend it: Mitchell is much more subtle than Dan Brown about signalling his future plot twists. For those new to Mitchell, I would still recommend Cloud Atlas above all others, though. 

A recurring theme (also present in Cloud Atlas) is the social tribulation and commercial challenges of being a bestselling novelist--he presents them humorously, through a character (hopefully) quite unlike himself. This one isn't Mitchell's Desiccated Embryos*:  that's a reference to the most famous book of the writer character (Crispin Hershey), which in the critical and popular view put all the others in the shade; one might guess Mitchell is laboring under the spell of some such fear.   As for myself, I have no fear that Mitchell will get in a rut of repeating himself, his range seems nearly endless; though I would hope, for his sake and that of his readers, that he is not in a contract that requires him to deliver product on a short schedule.  His kind of writing takes time. 

+One minor beef, though: two references to "stoner", as a word, pre-date the words's entrance into common dialogue without the shock quotation marks. I should know!

*-"Desiccated Embryos"--I looked it up. It may be a reference to "Powdered Eggs", by Charles Simmons, from 1964. A great first novel (as deemed by some, won awards as such), with later follow-ups deemed not so great. Definitely some parallels to the Hershey's arc of publication history.

Here Come the Helicopters!

The zone just south of Milan's Duomo where I currently have my humble apartment is normally very quiet in the evenings:  the students at the Universita' go home (most of them) and the businesses close up early.  This week, though, we had helicopters coming in low twice in the late evenings.  Milano is heating up.

Wednesday I noticed, for the first time in months, fully-uniformed local police with their fancy white helmets on all the major street corners, making a show of directing traffic.  I was a little concerned at first, thinking that their presence might be due to an unknown threat of terroristic nature, but I was advised of a major conference of European and Asian heads of government taking place in Milano. Some 50 heads of government, from powers large and small, including China, Britain, France--with Italy as host.  The idea of the conference is to facilitate trade, and assistance, between regions.

Great, not terrorism.  Also good that they don't need the Americans to get involved in every cross-national endeavor--not that we're not interested, or that we are quite ready to dispense with the notion that we are indispensable, or as the politicians like to say, "exceptional". .

Wednesday while lunching in the park near my office --a beautiful day, I might add--I noticed helicopters coming in to the city center ("Il Centro"), I guessed they were from Linate Airport, the one nearest the city.  There were also various escorts of police and other unmarked cars with flashing lights moving people around, and the police directing them through traffic as needed. When I went home in the evening, more helicopters.

The real surprise was the sound of helicopters, flying low, at 11 at night.  Turns out it was Russian Vladimir Putin, making a big, late entrance after the gala dinner held at the Palazzo Reale (in the Piazza Duomo, just blocks away).  Milano mostly has a low ceiling in the Centro, except for the Duomo itself and the ugliest building in town, the Torre Velasca (even closer to my place), so it would not be too hard to navigate, but I have no idea where a helicopter could land (maybe the Arco della Pace, in the Parco Sempione?  It's a pretty big open space.  The piazza itself could serve, but only if it was cleared--which normally wouldn't be too hard at 11 p.m.)

Putin kept German Chancellor Angela Merkel waiting for two hours for their meeting--Merkel, the closest thing he has to a friend in the European Union.  (He had stayed longer than planned in Serbia, where he is a hero.)  Then he bopped off to see his buddy Silvio Berlusconi at 2 a.m.--they have a lot in common as media manipulators and politicians with big business interests, probably similar proclivities in partying, too;  the only difference being that Berlusconi is outside the local power center, looking to get back in.  Putin got up early for a meeting with the Ukrainian president, with a couple leading European lights there to referee and provide any letters of credit Poroshenko might need.  The deal was struck, at least for this winter--the one that counts;  Ukraine will get its gas, but not on credit.   Everyone left at various times Thursday or Friday and things went back to normal.

Saturday, though, the helicopters were back.  This time, they were police helicopters, monitoring a large gathering of the Lega Nord.  This is a party which has major support in the regions of Northern Italy, and its entire program is based on provocation, status anxiety and xenophobia.  Its rise to significance drew upon the resentment of many Northern Italians to the preferential treatment given to the underdeveloped South, along with that region's evident inability to rise despite the assistance. This is due to a number of factors, including organized crime and disorganized local government, but there is also the fact, which both complicates and aggravates the argument, that large numbers of Italians from the South work in the Northern cities.  So, the appeal, historically, was to the working-class people of the North who felt the Southerners were taking their jobs, and to the elites in the North who felt their tax dollars were being wasted, and the program was to call for a referendum on separation from the Italian state.

That never happened--it probably never would have won in any significant portion of the North, it was more a bluff and a focus for the party's complaints.  At any rate, the LN has changed its program, seemingly accepting the inevitability of staying in Italy (and trying not to antagonize the South quite so much, for purposes of remaining viable on the national level) and turning its focus to repelling the invasion of foreigners.

The term "foreign invaders" does resonate with Italians.  The unification of Italy (the "Risorgimento") dates back to the 1860's-1870's; before that there is a long succession of foreign powers occupying most of the peninsula, often using it as a battleground for their power plays.  (The 1943-44 battle for Italy between the U.S./Britain allies, relatively benign invaders, and the Nazis, who occupied it militarily when the domestic Fascists were insufficiently vigorous in keeping the Allies out, is a modern example of the model of how it often played out in the medieval and early modern periods). As a nation heavily dependent on tourism, Italy welcomes its visitors (well, usually), but tends to have a different view towards those who choose to stay more permanently.

So, who are these invaders?  The rallying point is the "clandestine" immigrants, who come here without legal right to stay or work.  In recent months, the volume of these people has increased dramatically, as the sea route from Libya to Italy offered a way into Europe for Africans, and especially recently, Syrians and other Arabs escaping the bloodbath there. There are other routes, such as the Spanish enclaves in Morocco, or the southeastern routes through Bulgaria, Greece, or Cyprus, but this one has had appeal for large numbers.  They pay Southern Mediterranean version of the Mexico/US border "coyotes" exorbitant fees for sea passage, then they are crowded into unsafe boats and, with luck, dumped out on Italian shores.  Those who still have some means head for the Northern European countries with more job prospects or paid unemployment benefits, especially for those granted political asylum, which leaves the ones in Italy who generally don't have contacts, prospects, but have strong economic needs and usually a willingness to work in any capacity.

Most Italians, including the center-left government, would agree that something needs to be done to stem this disruptive flow--in particular, Italy seeks support from the EU for providing this Halfway House service, and particularly for the naval rescue missions which have been occurring frequently. The LN takes it a step further, though:  their leader, Matteo Salvini, called for a suspension of the Schwengen treaty, which allows for the free flow of people within the EU.  With Italy still experiencing high unemployment, the fact that people from lower-wage countries like Bulgaria and Romania can come here and work would bother some working-class people.  First, though, this is not going to be changed; second, why would they come to Italy, where there are few jobs?  It's just something to get people riled up, as is the LN's praise of President Putin,  which I really don't get.

Anyway, people in the march looked well stimulated but were not violently so.  The main part of the piazza was full as I returned to my home, but I was able to maneuver around them to the back of the Duomo and head toward home--when I ran into the real reason the helicopters were overhead:  a counter-demonstration from a smaller leftist group protesting the Lega Nord.  They were insulated by a wall of police with shields and the main road in my area, the Via Larga, was blocked off, I would guess to allow them to march through on it.  Still, I was able to thread my way through the cordon and all was well.

With the Expo coming next spring--after a rough start, it seems to be on track for the May opening--and a fall lineup of arts to draw attention to it, Milano has chosen to put itself in the spotlight.  I'm hoping the helicopter scene will not get out of control.

Final Midterm Election Preview

I promise this will be the last pre-election post; and I aim to keep it short. For more commentary I refer you to the ones I did last month, my extended one in March (on the three-ring circus), in July (on the deluge of campaign emails asking for money), and a brief one in May.

Of the many, many predictions I have seen so far, the best I have seen so far is from Taegan Goddard, that the battle for control of the Senate may not be determined Election Night (he used "may", not "will", but I will give him credit for making the call, as he supported it with a short, accurate list of arguments).  There are too many close races, plus a strong possibility of subsequent run-off elections in Louisiana, and now in Georgia, the uncertainty about which party Independent Greg Orman in Kansas may choose (if he wins, which is quite likely), and the possibility of indeterminate outcomes (requiring re-counts, or at least days of counting before final results are determined) in several more races.  So, even if you are keen on knowing the outcome, don't resolve to stay up until the question is determined

I have received numerous emails that present the prospect of "victory" in various forms.  As for me, I will consider the election outcome a modest victory for our democracy if the most hated targets go down, something which will help achieve the greater result of devaluing the idea that infinite amounts of big money contributions will buy our elections. To put a score on it, I will be happy if I get a result score of 100 or more points, with the following scoring:
 1) Republicans don't end up with clear control of the Senate, 51 committed seats in their caucus (40 points);
 2) Rick Scott loses--Gov. FL ( 30);
 3) Scott Walker loses--Gov. WI (30);
 4) Mitch McConnell loses--Sen. KY (40);
 5) Greg Abbott loses--Gov. TX (50);
 6) Rep. Steve King loses--IA (20);
 7) Thom Tillis loses - Sen. NC (20);
 8) Cory Gardner loses - Sen. CO (20);
 9) David Perdue loses - Sen. GA (20); and
10) Joni Ernst loses - Sen. IA (20).

As you can see, for me it's more about the bad guys losing the elections than the "good ones" winning them.  I don't have much hope that the Republicans' margin in the House will decrease.  There is also a correlation effect, in that numbers 4, and 7-10 all contribute to 1), so that it would be hard, though not impossible, for the Democrats to hold onto a majority unless a couple of those happen.  5) and 6) are considered long-shots by most of the pundits (but not, to read their emails, by those candidates' opponents, who are Wendy Davis and Jim Mowrer, respectively).   My over-under (median) prediction is 110 points, and a slightly more specific prediction is that the night will finish (when Alaska is called for the Republican candidate) with a 49-49 result, with two races (or party alignments) yet to be determined.

Moving On
As soon as the news value of the 2014 elections is played out (it may happen sooner than Election Day: One last prediction is that 2014 will set an all-time low for voter turnout, which is a victory of sorts for the Republicans, I suppose), attention will turn to 2016. I think the most likely outcome of 2016 will be a significant wave in the Democrats' favor, due partly to the weakness of the Republican candidates likely to run, and partly to Hillary Clinton's candidacy and probable election landslide.   Especially if she takes my advice and announces herself early on for "The Polk Option", promising she will serve only a single term.

The nature of the Clinton landslide, however, is far from clear.  The Republican primary should boil down to a three-man contest:  an Establishment candidate (I'm thinking Jeb Bush, probably not Mitt Romney or Chris Christie), the Tea Party loyalists' candidate (someone from the South, maybe Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, if he "rehabilitates" himself by sufficiently condemning "amnesty"), and Rand Paul.  Rand is by far the most interesting potential major candidate the Republicans can field, because he dares to challenge orthodox Republican beliefs, both Tea Party and Establishment, so I think he can carve out a large enough voting bloc within his party to last through the first rounds of primaries.  As for Hillary, unless something happens to her health or she commits a fatal error of some kind, she will have an easy time winning the nomination; I don't think either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren will run against her.

I do think there is the danger of party splits--for both parties--if it ends up being Clinton vs. Bush again.  (I say "again", though the only Clinton-Bush race so far was '92, Bill vs. George Herbert Walker Bush. The Bush family is aching still for revenge for that one, which is one reason I think Jeb will decide to run.)  That potential for splitting could manifest itself in a true 4-way race (the only real precedents are, 1948, to some extent, and 1860), or more likely, a major third candidate, someone who can place himself/herself in a position to attract the disaffected of both parties and Independents.  That's a tricky objective--both Clinton and Bush would have to be defined as middle-of-the-road, on the phony Liberal-Conservative spectrum, and that would tend to marginalize a rebel from the extremes of both parties--so it would probably be a hugely rich populist of some kind, someone who doesn't get along with either party but can be credibly portrayed as a friend of the downcast middle class, something like a native-born Arnold Schwarzenegger or a sane Ross Perot.   That person would be identified (or self-identified) in the spring of 2016 if it appears inevitable to be Hillary vs. Jeb.

Finally, I've got a couple more small donations to give--my last one was an impulse contribution for Michelle Nunn in Georgia, as David Perdue's incredible "I'm proud of my career in outsourcing" statement looks like it could be a self-inflicted mortal wound--and then I'm done.  The DCCC is getting my House money now--it's too hard to decide among the many money claimants--and I will probably finally give something to Wendy Davis in her quixotic struggle to redeem Texas' soul, as a reward for fighting this long and still having a puncher's chance at a knockout victory.

Songs of Innocence - U2

Like about 500 million others with the unfortunate distinction of possessing an iPhone with iTunes app, this showed up on my device a couple weeks ago and started downloading itself (as far as I could tell).  I am not a fan of iAnything; I object to their claim to the pronoun or initial, and I don't like their products much, their business practices even less. I do have two devices that have been given me by my employer, and, while my iTunes app was previously devoid of downloaded music, the downloads to iTunes did at least work properly (and the music sounds great with earphones, I will admit).

I don't recommend this mode of distribution, in general; there will be few words of praise for something that is free (as it is generally expected, when it comes to Internet), while the intense wails of invasion of privacy, unwanted use of a lot of megabytes (for those who have to pay by the gig), and pushback against this push marketing approach would proliferate if coming from your ordinary popster, rapster, etc.  This, though, is U2, whose motives are beyond reproach, and as far as I am concerned, they can send me free music anytime they want.

I can think of three possible reasons for their unorthodox approach:
1)  To gain the maximum distribution to set up a massive worldwide tour.  Nowadays, the money for top rock bands is in touring, not in the record release.
2) To get back at the record company (Interscope Records) that will release the disc in a week or two, and possibly make a bunch of money on the side from Apple (which is gleaning positive publicity--and, I note, showing ads when you play the music).  Interscope will be the producer of this album; it also released their previous studio album, No Line on the Horizon, five years ago; previously they had been on Island Records.  I don't know much about record companies and could basically not care less whether they live or die, individually, but I do oppose stealing intellectual property (let me clarify:  the property is U2's, and they have the right to control it, regardless of contractual obligations to provide product), and I would like the flow of new creative product to continue somehow.  This mode may be counterproductive to the latter.
3) They are so rich they can do whatever they want and don't give a fig for the economic aspect.

I am not well-informed enough or close enough to the band to be able to guess which of the three, or which combination, applies.  I will repeat that I think this approach may be OK for those on top (Radiohead did something vaguely similar with their excellent album In Rainbows, which initially they put out there for people to buy at whatever price they wanted, including $0.01), but the big bands have to think about what impact that will have on those one step, or many steps, down the ladder.  I will say that U2 has always been good about bringing along excellent up-and-coming artists to play as openers for them on tour, something which works to the benefit of all.

Now, the music.  As I indicated, it's been five years since U2's last studio album, and I would guess it's been a bit of a struggle to get this one out (I would be little surprised to see a set of B-side releases in a few months, the ones that didn't quite make the final cut).   There is a lot of homage in the content--I would note in particular the dedication to Joe Strummer (on "This is Where You Can Reach Me Now", for my $0.02 the best song, by a good stretch), the one to Joey Ramone (more about that in a moment), and the Beach Boys (the "Ba-ba-ba-Barbara, Santa Barbara" intro to their song "California...." could hardly be mistaken as being other than an homage to the B-Boys' "Barbara Ann").  Bono has always said that his inspiration as a young musician was punk, so Strummer/Ramones are almost obligatory references.  Personally, I hardly find The Ramones to be miraculous, and I ridicule the idea that they "made some sense out of the world"--I find U2's commentary a lot more persuasive than "I Wanna Be Sedated".

Mostly, though, I would say their album is an homage to U2 itself and their extensive catalog of inventive intros, guitar riffs, chord sequences, and sonic variations.  The new element in the mix is the mix itself, with Danger Mouse leading the production, and supplying some new things like prominent keyboards and even--horrors!--female backing vocals. (I am being ironic in the last comment; I like it; though this may cause some problems on tour).

So, when I listen to this album, I am taken down Memory Lane--I hear bits of "Miss Sarajevo" (the "Iris" song), of "Unknown Caller" (the opening to "This is Where..."),the nod to Bono's boyhood home ("Cedarwood Road"), and a lot of bits which call back various songs of Achtung Baby.  This makes a lot of sense to me; that is their monumental, career-defining release, and they should re-create its conditions as much as possible.  That is where Danger Mouse comes in, taking the place of Eno, who drove their production of "Achtung!"

I think that there is plenty of arena-friendly material in the album which will fit well with their huge variety of older songs for concerts.  I can see "The Troubles" permanently taking the place of "Sunday Bloody Sunday", which I think they were tired of playing. "The Troubles", of course, was the indirect name for the war/insurgency/occupation in Northern Ireland that the British Army had with the IRA in the '70's and '80's, the subject which inspired that U2 song (U2 had a particularly emotionally-involved, though politically-detached view of it, growing up as Protestants in the Irish Republic).  This new song "The Troubles" seems to have a different subject, of a love breakup.   The Ramones/Miracle thing is certainly a good, catchy rocker to kick off the concerts (a la "Vertigo", "Elevation"), and I find "The Volcano" and "Raised by Wolves" to be intriguing songs, with interesting styling and mysterious content.  I am fine with this album's contributions to the big show, as long as they don't overdo it and they do include "This is Where You Can Reach Me Now", hopefully explaining what it's all about.  I would put this album at about #4 to #6 of their 13 studio releases, which still puts it in pretty good company.

I'm thinking the endgame scenario to be this album, the B-side release, and one more, in which they give their farewell to their fans and to the record, and a last opportunity to express themselves politically more overtly.  Maybe two more tours, altogether, before they call it a career as a band. Bono is a very intelligent, well-informed individual who has a lot to say but is reluctant to be viewed as "preaching" (The Edge, maybe, as well, but he seems extremely shy).  Well, I think we need some more of Bono's wisdom, expressed more directly in the medium that is his most important one, his songs (not just his NY Times editorials, which I find to be pretty good), and I am hoping that at the end, when all thought of commercial impact is over and it's all about their legacy, he will stop holding back.