(I need the reading glasses for the close-up stuff, like fine print, or in bad lighting.)
The Dershowitz Slant
Prof. Alan Dershowitz' dismissal of the legitimacy of the trial itself on constitutional grounds was good prime-time fun confusing the "poorly educated" in the base, while also providing, as Jeffrey Toobin said, a "fig leaf" for those who need a constitutional-based justification, not just for voting to acquit, but to prevent any witnesses from being heard. In that sense, it was well-designed: the actual content of the two articles finally selected, though they were chosen for being incontestably provable, suffers from being less than optimal as a constitutional basis for conviction..
Dershowitz particularly went after Abuse of Power as being a weak standard for impeachment, though we all know it was exactly the kind of thing* that ultimate sanction for the President was meant to address. Dersh cited the example of Ronald Reagan, who could have been impeached for it (for Iran-Contra). On the contrary, it shows the difference; while Reagan's Administration allowed illegal actions, the proof of Ronnie's direct involvement never emerged, with the high-water mark of implication for the Ollie North escapade reaching no higher than the NSC and Defense Secretary Weinberger. In this case, Trump's authorship of the directives to withhold aid and a White House meeting were evident to those a full Degree of Separation away who examined the handwriting, and the closer Trumpsters were to the idiotic rants that accompany his improper directives, the more certain they were of it. Abuse of Power is what the Founding Fathers knew about Mad King George of Britain and they wanted to protect our republic from its variegated form.+
Hear ye, Johnny"Thunder" Bolton!
He is almost the ideal witness for the impeachment case, which is why it is so critical for the Republican Senate leadership, working hand-in-hand with the White House, to prevent him from ever taking an oath before the Senate. He is a lawyer who takes organized notes, and beyond that has excellent recollection for facts, especially for the "errors" of others. He will have detailed information on where and when our POS Conman-der-in-Chief made it clear what he wanted. And how awful it was, from every standpoint.
I was afraid that Bolton was going to take the middle road and insist that that despised aid conditionality was simply a policy difference, or a ruse of some kind, and within the purview of legitimate Presidential prerogative, at least temporarily. Not a reason for Bolton himself to leave the Administration. Instead, none of this seems to be the case, if we can judge from the published leaks from Bolton's unpublished manuscript.
Turns out he has some ethics, too. Such an improbable hero! It may not play out to his benefit, and the Trumpists will circle the wagons on him, at least until such time as their Fearless Twitter falls.
I like Sen. Doug Jones' suggestion to simplify and subpoena the manuscript, seeing as how it seems to have been circulated widely within the White House: why shouldn't the Senate get its look (in closed quarters, if necessary, as it has not had all sensitive material redacted)?
There is a simpler solution: revive the tabled resolution to subpoena Bolton and approve it by voice vote. No recorded vote needed; it would be an appropriate rebuke to the would-be Caesar that would not change the ultimate outcome, which is destiny itself. ** Mitch's whip count is binary: either the votes are there, or not; and if not, unanimous consent motions give him more power, in the form of control over proceedings, which is what he craves.
Additional:
If I have one suggestion for the House staff, it is to prepare cases for some second impeachment round: articles on Bribery, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (in his capacity as ex official chairman of the Trump Organization). Or maybe also Obstruction of Justice, with regard to--yes!--the Mueller case. If not to bring them forward--and just unveiling them in a timely way might compromise some of the Republicans' arguments, requiring of them the nuisance of inventing new ones--then to keep the House staff in working condition to prepare for the worst.
* "Da Kine"
+ Like the Devil (to cite the Church Lady). SNL started a theme they can use in the future, of visitations in Hades by those assisting the Drumpfster. Dersh got his turn last weekend, played incompetently by Jon Lovitz. It was intentional, I'm sure: Acting! Divine Comedy! In that series, I'd like to see Alec Baldwin as a Witch from Hell.
**Beware the Ides of March, Drumpf!
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 19, 2020
20/20 Vision: SXSW
The title does not lead to a a clear-eyed review of country music--its degradation, its vast untapped talent, its isolated shining stars of independence. Instead, it's a misleading reference to the classic photo framing the progressives' dilemma in 2020: Tom Steyer, coming over to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders after the debate.
Steyer, by Sanders/Warren.
S by S/W. Sorry!
I would insist on the inclusion of Steyer in the picture. He represents a potent force (TV ads) which will be available to the winner of the Sanders/Warren competition for leadership of the progressive movement for the campaign. His look of awkward recognition provides the clearest evidence possible of the tone of the interaction Warren and Sanders had. Now, CNN has provided us a covert audio tape which discloses the content: They accused each other of calling them* a liar.
The subject of the debate question, the meeting our progressive leaders had just after the 2018 election, had been reported publicly at the time. Afterward, I anxiously awaited the gracious announcement by one that they* would not be running (with or without implicit, or explicit, endorsement of the other). Such announcement was not forthcoming, and since then both have made their current intentions known.
First, no one is or was lying. Sanders did not say "a woman cannot be elected President". And Warren did disagree with what he said. It is now quite obvious almost precisely what was said.
The topic, of course, was The Movement: Who is going to lead it in 2020? Warren made an appeal for it to be her. She passed on a draft movement and stood down in 2016 and let Bernie run. Now, it is her turn. We join in progress:
Neither she nor Bernie stood in critical condition as the voters begin to weigh in for real. Their combined vote in polling always tops Biden's, but rarely do they lead him individually. The need for them to settle the dispute, definitively, is great, but it's not going to happen soon. It will make it tougher if they end up taking both the top spots in either Iowa or New Hampshire (the latter seems particularly likely to me). The Super Tuesday combined delegate haul for the two competing may top Biden's, but he'd be the leader in the count, and the effort to stop him early will have failed. The betting consensus seems to be more that Sanders will survive, or thrive, in IA and NH and Warren will finish third or fourth, and not the opposite, though I'm not buying it or betting on it.
Getting to the meat of the matter, though, the question remains: who should be the progressive champion to face down Biden (or his successor in the moderate lane, if he implodes), and, what is to some degree the same question, who (between Sanders and Warren, or Steyer for that matter) is the progressive who can best face down Trump and win big in 2020?
I can answer it from my personal point of view, but I think a fair way to examine it is on the crucial distinction in their approach. Sanders is the thought leader of the Movement, while Warren's approach is to apply the principles of the Movement in the most practical way to the challenges we face. Sanders continually broadens and makes deeper the reach of what he aims to achieve (in the last debate, though it went unnoticed, he called to "rebuild the United Nations"--a huge, idealistic, unpopular, and even somewhat arrogant challenge for the next President), while Warren tends to glom onto her original set of planned reforms the most popular formulations others develop. I would suggest that US history has many examples of committed idealists who governed pragmatically (Lincoln, FDR, JFK/LBJ), while the closest I can think of as governing movement leaders were Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. Both are possible routes to the White House (though TR succeeded in after McKinley's assassination, then won re-election).
The objective data from head-to-head polling (vs. Trump) suggests Sanders polls slightly better than Warren (or Buttigieg), about equal to how Biden does, both nationally and in most in-state polls. We've been advised, though, that these polls do not predict outcomes well so far away from the election. The objective data favoring Warren is more subtle and comes when the second choice among candidates is considered. She seems to have recognized this, and is positioning herself as the best chance to unify the party for the general election. Her previous endorsement from Jay Inslee and the more recent ones from Julian Castro and Ayanna Presley support that line of argument. Sanders' script which started this mess went at this perceived Warren strength, suggesting her (first-choice) support was limited to educated elites and did not include other segments of the base. That was the first shot which set off this important side battle.
As for Steyer, his chances to replace both Sanders and Warren as leader of the Movement are long and will depend on their being unable to resolve their dilemma, and the chances of both being buried as a result, so a late move after IA and NH. More likely, he will be able to put his immense resources behind the winner of the face-off.
* Non-gendered single person subject and object pronouns.
** I heard Bernie say in the debate, "Stay back", though the transcript says, "I stayed back". I don't see as how he stayed back--she did.
Steyer, by Sanders/Warren.
S by S/W. Sorry!
I would insist on the inclusion of Steyer in the picture. He represents a potent force (TV ads) which will be available to the winner of the Sanders/Warren competition for leadership of the progressive movement for the campaign. His look of awkward recognition provides the clearest evidence possible of the tone of the interaction Warren and Sanders had. Now, CNN has provided us a covert audio tape which discloses the content: They accused each other of calling them* a liar.
The subject of the debate question, the meeting our progressive leaders had just after the 2018 election, had been reported publicly at the time. Afterward, I anxiously awaited the gracious announcement by one that they* would not be running (with or without implicit, or explicit, endorsement of the other). Such announcement was not forthcoming, and since then both have made their current intentions known.
First, no one is or was lying. Sanders did not say "a woman cannot be elected President". And Warren did disagree with what he said. It is now quite obvious almost precisely what was said.
The topic, of course, was The Movement: Who is going to lead it in 2020? Warren made an appeal for it to be her. She passed on a draft movement and stood down in 2016 and let Bernie run. Now, it is her turn. We join in progress:
Warren: Anyway, you're not getting any younger, Bernie...And that's where we stood--until last weekend. Elizabeth Warren needed to take action, as she was bleeding support on the left to Sanders and on the right to Buttigieg. Warren is conflating the progressives' need for a champion in these primaries with the need to demonstrate that a woman can indeed be President--in the only way it can be proven, by doing it. The strategy may work.
Sanders: Now, now. You're hardly a spring chicken yourself, Elizabeth.
(I'm guessing that, rather than "Liz")Besides, this Trump is no one for a lady to run against. Look at what he did to Hillary Clinton. I don't want to see you go through that. Let me take him on.
W (agitated): Wait, you told me last time "Stay back"** Are you telling me I can't win?
S: No! He would rip you open.
(The actual source of the misunderstanding. Bernie was not saying "No" to the question, but to the idea of her running against Trump. The horror!)
W: I'll tell you what: let's both run, and whoever can't win, endorses the other.
S: You're on.
Neither she nor Bernie stood in critical condition as the voters begin to weigh in for real. Their combined vote in polling always tops Biden's, but rarely do they lead him individually. The need for them to settle the dispute, definitively, is great, but it's not going to happen soon. It will make it tougher if they end up taking both the top spots in either Iowa or New Hampshire (the latter seems particularly likely to me). The Super Tuesday combined delegate haul for the two competing may top Biden's, but he'd be the leader in the count, and the effort to stop him early will have failed. The betting consensus seems to be more that Sanders will survive, or thrive, in IA and NH and Warren will finish third or fourth, and not the opposite, though I'm not buying it or betting on it.
Getting to the meat of the matter, though, the question remains: who should be the progressive champion to face down Biden (or his successor in the moderate lane, if he implodes), and, what is to some degree the same question, who (between Sanders and Warren, or Steyer for that matter) is the progressive who can best face down Trump and win big in 2020?
I can answer it from my personal point of view, but I think a fair way to examine it is on the crucial distinction in their approach. Sanders is the thought leader of the Movement, while Warren's approach is to apply the principles of the Movement in the most practical way to the challenges we face. Sanders continually broadens and makes deeper the reach of what he aims to achieve (in the last debate, though it went unnoticed, he called to "rebuild the United Nations"--a huge, idealistic, unpopular, and even somewhat arrogant challenge for the next President), while Warren tends to glom onto her original set of planned reforms the most popular formulations others develop. I would suggest that US history has many examples of committed idealists who governed pragmatically (Lincoln, FDR, JFK/LBJ), while the closest I can think of as governing movement leaders were Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. Both are possible routes to the White House (though TR succeeded in after McKinley's assassination, then won re-election).
The objective data from head-to-head polling (vs. Trump) suggests Sanders polls slightly better than Warren (or Buttigieg), about equal to how Biden does, both nationally and in most in-state polls. We've been advised, though, that these polls do not predict outcomes well so far away from the election. The objective data favoring Warren is more subtle and comes when the second choice among candidates is considered. She seems to have recognized this, and is positioning herself as the best chance to unify the party for the general election. Her previous endorsement from Jay Inslee and the more recent ones from Julian Castro and Ayanna Presley support that line of argument. Sanders' script which started this mess went at this perceived Warren strength, suggesting her (first-choice) support was limited to educated elites and did not include other segments of the base. That was the first shot which set off this important side battle.
As for Steyer, his chances to replace both Sanders and Warren as leader of the Movement are long and will depend on their being unable to resolve their dilemma, and the chances of both being buried as a result, so a late move after IA and NH. More likely, he will be able to put his immense resources behind the winner of the face-off.
* Non-gendered single person subject and object pronouns.
** I heard Bernie say in the debate, "Stay back", though the transcript says, "I stayed back". I don't see as how he stayed back--she did.
Tuesday, January 07, 2020
20/20 Vision: Democratic Scenarios
In the interests of my Clear Vision initiative (20/20), here are views of how the Democratic primaries could go. I would argue that the enunciation of these different sequences of results is clear and factual, though the weights on them are totally subjective. That being said, I'm trying to be as objective as possible here.
1) The Standard Scenario (40%)-
IA and NH look like the equivalent of four-way ties (with Klobuchar in the 'coveted #5 spot'), and SC an easy Biden win (with a battle for the 'coveted #2 spot'). None of those states have meaningful numbers of delegates, except as regards whether any candidates other than the leaders can score any of them.
So, the focus moves instead to CA to provide direction on the national sentiment, and for CA, the caucuses in Nevada (third round of voting) will provide a preview. Secondarily, on Super Tuesday, it will be on TX to see whether that state will truly be a difference-maker in the general election--turnout is the question there. The winner in CA is likely to emerge from Super Tuesday as the delegate leader and becomes a clear favorite to take the nomination. To me, that means Biden, unless Warren and Sanders can come to agreement on who will stop him before then.
Right now, with Bernie's resurgence, that doesn't seem likely. I have seen those who have suggested Warren may not make it to Super Tuesday; I think that's impossible. Instead, the current trend has dampened expectations enough that she can take a favorable spin from second in either IA or NH, which I think is highly doable.
With that configuration of forces, Biden takes a substantial lead, though winning less than half the total delegates awarded. The duration of the candidacies of Klobuchar, and eventually Buttigieg, will be critical in determining the degree of dominance Biden has in moderate delegates. If they stay in, it could still make it tough for Joe to go the distance.
Outcomes -- Biden 80%; Sanders 10%; Warren 5%; Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Field 5%.
2/3) Biden Explosion/Implosion (10% each)-
In the first case, he rises to substantial victory in Iowa and gets a draw or better in NH. That done, it becomes a question of the VP nominee, little more. The events that could lead this might include prolonged national security threat, or even more outrageous behavior coming out with regard to Trump in upcoming weeks. But more likely the next crisis comes later. (see below)
In the second case, that of Biden Implosion coming out of whatever source (health/scandal/dementia), it becomes a free-for-all, with either Sanders/Warren or any of the remaining moderate wannabe's, even in the Field, getting a chance to seize the momentum at a phase that is suddenly critical. That could lead to indecision, but that's a different scenario.
Outcomes -- Biden 50% (the first part); Sanders/Warren/Buttigieg 15% each; Klobuchar/Field 5%.
4) Takeover by the Progressive Wing (20%)-
It's about turnout and who can generate it. The key indicator would be a 1-2 quinella of Sanders and Warren in IA and/or NH. It would then need to be demonstrated again in NV, and accompanied by fresh flows of donation money that could convince a primary electorate hungry for change that it is, actually, possible in 2020. If these two dominate in the delegate contest, at some point they will come to agreement as to who has won. In that scenario, I think Warren's chances may be just as good as Bernie's, as the name "George McGovern" will appear for the first time in decades and moderates panic at the thought of Bernie as the flagbearer. There could also be a Stop Bernie (or Stop Liz, as applicable) movement with an outside chance for a late comeback, which would be disastrous for the party's chances in the general election, in spite of the intention (think Humphrey in '68).
Outcomes - Warren/Sanders 40% each; Biden 10%; Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Field 10%.
5) A Surprise Outcome (15%)-
In times of great stress such as these, surprising things can happen in our electoral politics. Think Wendell Wilkie, 1940, or FDR's decision to run for an unprecedented third term that year (and the US had not even declared into WWII at that point, though it had started). So that 15% estimate is a lot higher than what would be the norm. A winning surge by Buttigieg or Klobuchar would qualify, or someone from the Field (Bloomberg; Booker; Yang!) makes a move from next-to-nowhere all the way to the nomination itself. Booker, thy name is The Black Swan! One indicator could be something particularly crazy and stress-inducing from Drumpf, but it could also be some kind of groundswell of love that sweeps the nation. (Think: unexpected Oprah endorsement)
Outcomes: Buttigieg 35%; Klobuchar 30%; Field 35%.
No Winner--Brokered Convention (5%)
This is always a low-probability outcome, and I think it is so this year as well. The probability is higher in 2020 for the Democratic party, because of its rules that will drive dispersion, or even close division, of delegates in specific states. Right now, public support in polls is similarly evenly divided. Still, you have to think this situation will not be stable at all. The media is already trying to force a Biden vs. Bernie showdown, and there have been no votes cast. Or, whatever becomes the trend becomes inevitable, in some minds.
If it does happen, though, the chances of Field rise dramatically. Sherrod Brown, since he won't actually have to run for it? Bloomberg throws his wallet behind a candidate for the VP slot? The other thing to note is that most or all delegates will be pledged to a specific candidate still in the race for the first ballot, but after that, they will migrate at will, and superdelegates (elected officials) will now get to vote.
More likely, though, it will be more like the last one that was contested going into the convention, when Reagan challenged Ford in 1976--the obstacle course will have narrowed to two or three, with one near the finish line and willing to compromise for the lift over that final wall. First ballot victory.
Outcomes - Biden 30%; Sanders 30%; Field 30%; Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar 10%.
Betting the Come
Overall Outcomes:
Biden 45.5%
Sanders 16.5%
Warren 13.17%
Buttigieg 9.75%
Field 8.58%
Klobuchar 6.5%
The high chances for Field do help explain why Bloomberg and Deval might bother to enter so late.
I should bid accordingly on predicit.org. Though the markets there are understating Warren's chances by this calculation, still I am overweighted on outcomes favorable to her as thing stand now. As for Bernie, I'm betting against it, which puts me somewhat at risk, and in a sliding position, at present.
1) The Standard Scenario (40%)-
IA and NH look like the equivalent of four-way ties (with Klobuchar in the 'coveted #5 spot'), and SC an easy Biden win (with a battle for the 'coveted #2 spot'). None of those states have meaningful numbers of delegates, except as regards whether any candidates other than the leaders can score any of them.
So, the focus moves instead to CA to provide direction on the national sentiment, and for CA, the caucuses in Nevada (third round of voting) will provide a preview. Secondarily, on Super Tuesday, it will be on TX to see whether that state will truly be a difference-maker in the general election--turnout is the question there. The winner in CA is likely to emerge from Super Tuesday as the delegate leader and becomes a clear favorite to take the nomination. To me, that means Biden, unless Warren and Sanders can come to agreement on who will stop him before then.
Right now, with Bernie's resurgence, that doesn't seem likely. I have seen those who have suggested Warren may not make it to Super Tuesday; I think that's impossible. Instead, the current trend has dampened expectations enough that she can take a favorable spin from second in either IA or NH, which I think is highly doable.
With that configuration of forces, Biden takes a substantial lead, though winning less than half the total delegates awarded. The duration of the candidacies of Klobuchar, and eventually Buttigieg, will be critical in determining the degree of dominance Biden has in moderate delegates. If they stay in, it could still make it tough for Joe to go the distance.
Outcomes -- Biden 80%; Sanders 10%; Warren 5%; Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Field 5%.
2/3) Biden Explosion/Implosion (10% each)-
In the first case, he rises to substantial victory in Iowa and gets a draw or better in NH. That done, it becomes a question of the VP nominee, little more. The events that could lead this might include prolonged national security threat, or even more outrageous behavior coming out with regard to Trump in upcoming weeks. But more likely the next crisis comes later. (see below)
In the second case, that of Biden Implosion coming out of whatever source (health/scandal/dementia), it becomes a free-for-all, with either Sanders/Warren or any of the remaining moderate wannabe's, even in the Field, getting a chance to seize the momentum at a phase that is suddenly critical. That could lead to indecision, but that's a different scenario.
Outcomes -- Biden 50% (the first part); Sanders/Warren/Buttigieg 15% each; Klobuchar/Field 5%.
4) Takeover by the Progressive Wing (20%)-
It's about turnout and who can generate it. The key indicator would be a 1-2 quinella of Sanders and Warren in IA and/or NH. It would then need to be demonstrated again in NV, and accompanied by fresh flows of donation money that could convince a primary electorate hungry for change that it is, actually, possible in 2020. If these two dominate in the delegate contest, at some point they will come to agreement as to who has won. In that scenario, I think Warren's chances may be just as good as Bernie's, as the name "George McGovern" will appear for the first time in decades and moderates panic at the thought of Bernie as the flagbearer. There could also be a Stop Bernie (or Stop Liz, as applicable) movement with an outside chance for a late comeback, which would be disastrous for the party's chances in the general election, in spite of the intention (think Humphrey in '68).
Outcomes - Warren/Sanders 40% each; Biden 10%; Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Field 10%.
5) A Surprise Outcome (15%)-
In times of great stress such as these, surprising things can happen in our electoral politics. Think Wendell Wilkie, 1940, or FDR's decision to run for an unprecedented third term that year (and the US had not even declared into WWII at that point, though it had started). So that 15% estimate is a lot higher than what would be the norm. A winning surge by Buttigieg or Klobuchar would qualify, or someone from the Field (Bloomberg; Booker; Yang!) makes a move from next-to-nowhere all the way to the nomination itself. Booker, thy name is The Black Swan! One indicator could be something particularly crazy and stress-inducing from Drumpf, but it could also be some kind of groundswell of love that sweeps the nation. (Think: unexpected Oprah endorsement)
Outcomes: Buttigieg 35%; Klobuchar 30%; Field 35%.
No Winner--Brokered Convention (5%)
This is always a low-probability outcome, and I think it is so this year as well. The probability is higher in 2020 for the Democratic party, because of its rules that will drive dispersion, or even close division, of delegates in specific states. Right now, public support in polls is similarly evenly divided. Still, you have to think this situation will not be stable at all. The media is already trying to force a Biden vs. Bernie showdown, and there have been no votes cast. Or, whatever becomes the trend becomes inevitable, in some minds.
If it does happen, though, the chances of Field rise dramatically. Sherrod Brown, since he won't actually have to run for it? Bloomberg throws his wallet behind a candidate for the VP slot? The other thing to note is that most or all delegates will be pledged to a specific candidate still in the race for the first ballot, but after that, they will migrate at will, and superdelegates (elected officials) will now get to vote.
More likely, though, it will be more like the last one that was contested going into the convention, when Reagan challenged Ford in 1976--the obstacle course will have narrowed to two or three, with one near the finish line and willing to compromise for the lift over that final wall. First ballot victory.
Outcomes - Biden 30%; Sanders 30%; Field 30%; Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar 10%.
Betting the Come
Overall Outcomes:
Biden 45.5%
Sanders 16.5%
Warren 13.17%
Buttigieg 9.75%
Field 8.58%
Klobuchar 6.5%
The high chances for Field do help explain why Bloomberg and Deval might bother to enter so late.
I should bid accordingly on predicit.org. Though the markets there are understating Warren's chances by this calculation, still I am overweighted on outcomes favorable to her as thing stand now. As for Bernie, I'm betting against it, which puts me somewhat at risk, and in a sliding position, at present.
Thursday, January 02, 2020
2019: A Year in Review (and Meta-Review)
You won't see a "best of the decade" from me this year, for the simple reason that I insist that the decade has one year left in it.+ This CNN article recites some very good arguments that our obsession with round numbers drives an illogical view of when a decade (century/millennium) begins and ends, though it finishes with a disappointing "bothsiderist" compromise conclusion. The short version of that argument: There was no 0 A.D., between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D., because when those terms were invented in the sixth century, use of the number 0 had not yet reached the West.
A Washington Post article (by James Hohmann) announced that the "decade that started with Arab Spring ends with widespread protests". I agree with him, if the point be that these upheavals put the lie to Nicholas Kristof's NY Times argument that "2019 was the Best Year Ever" (as Kristof would have it, due to reductions in global poverty, mortality, etc.). The defeat of rising expectations is usually the cause of revolutions, and the counter-revolution to the Arab Spring (which began in, you guessed it, 2011) is moving steadily toward a regional-level proxy war sponsored by competing tyrannies (ours, and Israel's, not exceptions to that generalization), and that can't be good.
Anyway, I've read a lot of recent "Best of the Decade" articles and a few other reviews of 2019. The decade-level article I liked best was an Esquire piece on the best restaurants. This truly is a Golden Age of Global Food--I don't know if it can last much longer--and the selection, though limited to US restaurants opening in the last 10 years, makes the mouth water and my wallet itchy to open. As for 2019 reviews, I take my "Happy New Year!" hat off to the version by Dave Barry, the frequently corny and bothsiderist humorist, who had me laughing heartily several times reading it, and who concludes he had nothing good to say about the year.
I'm not quite so empty when it comes to praise, and here are a few choice tidbits.
My Sentence of the Year
Overheard on MSNBC recently:
"Their 'there is no there there' is what they're selling..."
(referring, of course, to the House Republicans' so-called defense in the impeachment process). Includes five words (three different ones) with the same sound in a five-second sound bite.
Phrase of the year
"fairy-tale fantasies of eternal economic growth" - Greta Thunburg, Sept. 23 speech at the UN Summit on Climate Change.
I think the Time Magazine Person of the Year will be winning the Nobel Peace prize next year. She raises a challenge which very few people (and approximately zero politicians) have dared even to identify. And, if they did, even fewer have been able to propose any solution.
Event of Long-term significance
I would opt for the importance of the mass demonstrations in Hong Kong. Though the casualty count pales in comparison to others (Iraq, Iran, Chile, Venezuela), or even to several of the many mass shooting incidents this year, there is now a huge question mark about the course of the "one nation, two systems" solution the Chinese and British set up for the handover of the colony in 1997. We are now almost halfway through the 50-year transition period envisioned, and the 'Hong Kong people' suddenly noted that there had been absolutely no progress toward true democracy, and that, most importantly, they were not satisfied, as demonstrated in the (otherwise almost meaningless) elections they held recently for the public's share of the electoral body which chooses Hong Kong's Chief Executive.
The Chinese Communist regime is very willing to let Hong Kong be a mercantilist, free-trade haven, surrounded by their own government-sponsored enterprises. That works for them. What they are not willing to have is any Chinese entity with meaningful political opposition, because if they allow it there, it will be difficult to prevent in the "mainland". I am glad, though, that the siege of the Polytechnic Institute did not end up in a Tienanmen- or Les Miserables-type massacre.
Album of the Year
That's a little tough for me, as my listening behavior is not all-encompassing (especially, anymore). I would propose Lana del Rey's NFR: that's short for "Norman Fucking Rockwell", an ironic view of relationship bliss. Her lyrics are brittle, profane poetry, and her musical composition, though often simple in the extreme, fits the music very well.
Word of the Year
The non-gendered singular "they" was deemed so by Merriam-Webseter. Not bad, but not so new; it's a usage I have preferred for decades over the also-not-specifically-human "one". My friends and I came up with "shey", a combination of he/she/they, some forty years ago, but it didn't catch on much.
My Word of the Year is more provocative: "wypipo". Say it aloud. First time I saw it in print I was wowed--it seems exotic, but is thoroughly US domestic. In case I need to explain, it is used, by people of color, to refer to the generic 'Murican people of non-color, usually attached to some behavior, trait or belief which would be incredible, if not pertaining to those wypipo. (It's a collective noun, like "cattle".)
Favorite Round-Number Anniversaries
50: Release of "In the Court of the Crimson KIng" - King Crimson. We are just now realizing the truth of "21st-Century Schizoid Man". And they are still playing it, better than ever.
OK, and I do believe there was 'A Man on the Moon' (see the inside cover art).
100: Chicago Black Sox throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. My team's first baseball world championship (since their initial world-dominating barnstorming in the late 1860's). It's tainted, but I'll take it.
200: Sir Stamford Raffles founds the port of Singapore for Britain. In fairness to his enterprise, there was little to nothing there before him.
500: Tough call between Cortes' conquest of Mexico and Carlos V being crowned Emperor. Both were of massive importance for this era.
256 (or 2 to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd power squared): Mason and Dixon begin surveying the line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. (For a full-length exegesis, and more, read Thomas Pynchon's masterpiece, Mason and Dixon.)
Person of the Year
It's Nancy Pelosi, of course. She came to the first rank of the Resistance at the beginning of the year, defeating Trump in the shutdown standoff, and she finished the year outfoxing even the master strategist of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He will not get exactly what he wants--a quick shutdown in the Senate impeachment trial, though the ultimate outcome of it will certainly not be the removal of the President. At this point, the whole process must be about smearing our Dick-Head of State and Conman-der-in-Chief, and preparing for the general election battle: are we willing to tackle corruption? Or will we sell out, just like our Fearless Twitter?
The Year Ahead
I am honestly thrilled for the coming year. As you may realize, not so much about the impeachment thing, though I am enjoying the US-style Mexican standoff Pelosi and McConnell are conducting. The best way to resolve it would be to start drafting new articles of impeachment: Trump is a never-ending fountain of illegitimate action. No, the Democratic primaries and caucuses will start soon (finally)--of course, I will have a lot to say soon about how those may turn out.
Then there will be the Olympics--the US will no doubt break the record for Gold medals they set the last time Russians were banned (see 1980, Los Angeles), which will be a Good Feeling.
Ultimately, though, whether this decade--which, in US political terms, began with the "shellacking" Democrats got from the Tea Party-inspired reaction in the 2010 Federal and state elections--will end well depends if it will finish with the drubbing of Drumpf and some sort of control of the Senate.
+ See my review of the last decade, dated December 31, 2010.
A Washington Post article (by James Hohmann) announced that the "decade that started with Arab Spring ends with widespread protests". I agree with him, if the point be that these upheavals put the lie to Nicholas Kristof's NY Times argument that "2019 was the Best Year Ever" (as Kristof would have it, due to reductions in global poverty, mortality, etc.). The defeat of rising expectations is usually the cause of revolutions, and the counter-revolution to the Arab Spring (which began in, you guessed it, 2011) is moving steadily toward a regional-level proxy war sponsored by competing tyrannies (ours, and Israel's, not exceptions to that generalization), and that can't be good.
Anyway, I've read a lot of recent "Best of the Decade" articles and a few other reviews of 2019. The decade-level article I liked best was an Esquire piece on the best restaurants. This truly is a Golden Age of Global Food--I don't know if it can last much longer--and the selection, though limited to US restaurants opening in the last 10 years, makes the mouth water and my wallet itchy to open. As for 2019 reviews, I take my "Happy New Year!" hat off to the version by Dave Barry, the frequently corny and bothsiderist humorist, who had me laughing heartily several times reading it, and who concludes he had nothing good to say about the year.
I'm not quite so empty when it comes to praise, and here are a few choice tidbits.
My Sentence of the Year
Overheard on MSNBC recently:
"Their 'there is no there there' is what they're selling..."
(referring, of course, to the House Republicans' so-called defense in the impeachment process). Includes five words (three different ones) with the same sound in a five-second sound bite.
Phrase of the year
"fairy-tale fantasies of eternal economic growth" - Greta Thunburg, Sept. 23 speech at the UN Summit on Climate Change.
I think the Time Magazine Person of the Year will be winning the Nobel Peace prize next year. She raises a challenge which very few people (and approximately zero politicians) have dared even to identify. And, if they did, even fewer have been able to propose any solution.
Event of Long-term significance
I would opt for the importance of the mass demonstrations in Hong Kong. Though the casualty count pales in comparison to others (Iraq, Iran, Chile, Venezuela), or even to several of the many mass shooting incidents this year, there is now a huge question mark about the course of the "one nation, two systems" solution the Chinese and British set up for the handover of the colony in 1997. We are now almost halfway through the 50-year transition period envisioned, and the 'Hong Kong people' suddenly noted that there had been absolutely no progress toward true democracy, and that, most importantly, they were not satisfied, as demonstrated in the (otherwise almost meaningless) elections they held recently for the public's share of the electoral body which chooses Hong Kong's Chief Executive.
I have followed the events in Hong Kong fairly closely since The Handover (from Britain to China) in 1997. Mostly, there were no events. Things went on as they went before. There were changes, but they are the ones we might expect: Innovations, a fabulous new airport, new stores, new stacked apartments, new escalators, new highways, bridges, and tunnels. There were economic cycles, good and bad, and there were major weather events (typhoons, landslides). These were occurrences that the former colony, always improvised and hacked from coastal island hillsides, could easily--ahem--weather.
This year, something changed. I have some idea what it is, because I resided in the region during the months before Handover and the years immediately after, and it was present there at the time. What returned was Fear of the People's Republic of China.
The Chinese Communist regime is very willing to let Hong Kong be a mercantilist, free-trade haven, surrounded by their own government-sponsored enterprises. That works for them. What they are not willing to have is any Chinese entity with meaningful political opposition, because if they allow it there, it will be difficult to prevent in the "mainland". I am glad, though, that the siege of the Polytechnic Institute did not end up in a Tienanmen- or Les Miserables-type massacre.
Album of the Year
That's a little tough for me, as my listening behavior is not all-encompassing (especially, anymore). I would propose Lana del Rey's NFR: that's short for "Norman Fucking Rockwell", an ironic view of relationship bliss. Her lyrics are brittle, profane poetry, and her musical composition, though often simple in the extreme, fits the music very well.
Word of the Year
The non-gendered singular "they" was deemed so by Merriam-Webseter. Not bad, but not so new; it's a usage I have preferred for decades over the also-not-specifically-human "one". My friends and I came up with "shey", a combination of he/she/they, some forty years ago, but it didn't catch on much.
My Word of the Year is more provocative: "wypipo". Say it aloud. First time I saw it in print I was wowed--it seems exotic, but is thoroughly US domestic. In case I need to explain, it is used, by people of color, to refer to the generic 'Murican people of non-color, usually attached to some behavior, trait or belief which would be incredible, if not pertaining to those wypipo. (It's a collective noun, like "cattle".)
Favorite Round-Number Anniversaries
50: Release of "In the Court of the Crimson KIng" - King Crimson. We are just now realizing the truth of "21st-Century Schizoid Man". And they are still playing it, better than ever.
OK, and I do believe there was 'A Man on the Moon' (see the inside cover art).
100: Chicago Black Sox throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. My team's first baseball world championship (since their initial world-dominating barnstorming in the late 1860's). It's tainted, but I'll take it.
200: Sir Stamford Raffles founds the port of Singapore for Britain. In fairness to his enterprise, there was little to nothing there before him.
500: Tough call between Cortes' conquest of Mexico and Carlos V being crowned Emperor. Both were of massive importance for this era.
256 (or 2 to the 2nd to the 2nd to the 2nd power squared): Mason and Dixon begin surveying the line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. (For a full-length exegesis, and more, read Thomas Pynchon's masterpiece, Mason and Dixon.)
Person of the Year
It's Nancy Pelosi, of course. She came to the first rank of the Resistance at the beginning of the year, defeating Trump in the shutdown standoff, and she finished the year outfoxing even the master strategist of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He will not get exactly what he wants--a quick shutdown in the Senate impeachment trial, though the ultimate outcome of it will certainly not be the removal of the President. At this point, the whole process must be about smearing our Dick-Head of State and Conman-der-in-Chief, and preparing for the general election battle: are we willing to tackle corruption? Or will we sell out, just like our Fearless Twitter?
The Year Ahead
I am honestly thrilled for the coming year. As you may realize, not so much about the impeachment thing, though I am enjoying the US-style Mexican standoff Pelosi and McConnell are conducting. The best way to resolve it would be to start drafting new articles of impeachment: Trump is a never-ending fountain of illegitimate action. No, the Democratic primaries and caucuses will start soon (finally)--of course, I will have a lot to say soon about how those may turn out.
Then there will be the Olympics--the US will no doubt break the record for Gold medals they set the last time Russians were banned (see 1980, Los Angeles), which will be a Good Feeling.
Ultimately, though, whether this decade--which, in US political terms, began with the "shellacking" Democrats got from the Tea Party-inspired reaction in the 2010 Federal and state elections--will end well depends if it will finish with the drubbing of Drumpf and some sort of control of the Senate.
+ See my review of the last decade, dated December 31, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
