But Is It Appropriate?

It Was Balloon!

 I read recently the theory that US foreign affairs are entirely determined by domestic politics.  In which case our direction in an increasingly-critical global environment will certainly be directionless.  

It is clear that in the last decade foreign policy doesn't even rise into consideration of voters.  We did violate the titular command in the trendy 2019 movie "Don't Look Up" recently and saw, once again, that we are not alone on this planet, but that was a passing fancy, lost in the absurdity of our own navels.  But I will address the arraignment later on. 

Instead I want to dwell a bit on the stirrings abroad, and what I perceive we are actually doing in the world.  

America is performing a new role on the world stage, still a featured role but no longer a star turn. It's not all about what we want or do; major events arise and resolve elsewhere, and we can engage or watch from backstage.  You know we will be watching. 

China wanted to be watching, too.  They wanted a little-better resolution on that telemetry they were getting sent back from their satellites.  Can you really blame them for sending that innocent balloon?  Yes, they were sending back data the whole time.  Yes, we were recording the data they were sending back for de-cryption efforts.   Spy vs. Spy, remember that one (Mad Magazine)? 

China's leadership have read their history books with the US policy of "containment" (of the Soviet Union), and they have announced they will not settle for it.  Not unreasonably, they insist on the opportunity to compete in Africa, in South America, and they will make a move on Mexico before long.  We should applaud their efforts in ending the warring between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We must allow their competition, unfair as their terms may seem. 

China longs for the broad but lax regulation of the early WTO, as that was a business environment they could exploit.  Things are different now, after the pandemic sliced through the CCP's omnipotence facade:  once at the beginning, and once in the chaotic release of the lockdowns.  The party is going to yield to jingoism if we block the trade aggressiveness that is coming. 

We must insist on change, though, if we are truly to be more friendly.  Xinjiang's penal colonies, for one.  Tibet, for two. Hong Kong, for three.  And we are not yet talking about the South China Sea, the East China Sea, or Taiwan.  Those are matters for discussion, even if now is not the time.  But we cannot buy any more products from the captive states, and we will provide funds to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens in some ways that are beyond the eyes of the PRC.  We make the commercial terms right for Taiwan to get all that it needs. We can guide that the long-term goal for Greater China is not annexation, or subjugation, or even assimilation and integration, but federation. 

None of this suggests anything other than wary re-armament occurring in the Far Pacific.  United, the challenge is readily met, but includes broad modernization and acts to increase readiness.  Defensive readiness, which today is most expressed as accurate and deadly response capabilities.  

And so we will. 

There is one constant in American foreign policy, and it is that the commercial interests we have will be defended, just as we will act on behalf of our citizens who are endangered abroad.  It is and always has been America First, in actuality if not in slogan-mongering.  So, what's the big deal? 

Biden's policies are a big (f-ing) one:  1) We will reassure our allies after the chaos of the Trump administration's policies; 2) We will keep the pressure on China, and on North Korea, without inviting conflict; and 3) We will defeat Putin, to spite Trump if nothing else.  We will bleed him dry. 

So, yeah, maybe that one is determined by domestic politics.  And the first one, too. 

Fraud

To be sure, misrepresentation is a big problem in our lives, something that affects the quality of our existence daily, through inconvenience if not worse. Adults are constantly bombarded with falsehood, with cheap tricks to make money off them, and promises that will never be believed, or fulfilled.  We are numbed to these, but younger people are not.  

How can we protect ourselves from entities which seek to take advantage of us?  I suggest we legislate a requirement that content generated purely from automatic engines identify itself as such, even if subtly so (think: those fast-speaking disclaimers on the radio or tv).  Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor with the penalty paid by its sponsor:  "Impersonating a human". When a human reviews, edits, and authenticates themself on their own behalf or their entity, then this disclaimer falls off, and it becomes that person's owned product.  It's a small requirement, though it may seem an impossible impediment. If we could get that, perhaps we could reinstate something like the Truth-in-Advertising standards that once existed.  And then apply them to political campaigns. 

 The arraignment of Donald Trump in New York was a necessary first step, and nothing could be more appropriate than that the first charge against the ex-President was for fraud.  He has perpetrated frauds throughout his career, and finally there was a DA ready to call him on it, criminally.  

I imagine the Old Drumpfster with his finger, or something, in the dyke,* trying to hold back the flood, all by himself.   He can't admit to anything on this old charge, now, though he might cop to the misdemeanor version once he has more serious, more dramatic charges to deal with.

Michele's Mistakes 

A fairly big story here in the state of New Mexico is a spate of vetoes of bills passed by the (Democratic-controlled) legislature by Democratic Governor Michele Lujan Grisham.  These have been executed almost completely without comment from the Governor. 

There are a variety of things she is cutting from their budgets and appropriations.  A lot of it is in the category of tax expenditure.  One that bites particularly sharply is a proposed credit (of $2500) for new electric vehicle purchase.  It looks like a sellout; MLG has been re-elected recently and is term-limited.  Very disappointing:  I was giving her credit for the legalization of marijuana (now called "cannabis"); perhaps that was also merely an economic ploy, one called "getting the Texans' money, so it's not just for Colorado". 

Did I mention that the state government is rolling in money?  Never mind, I'm sure it's a temporary condition. 

*Maybe his putter? 

"Play-in Tournament" Edition

As I write this, the NBA playoffs are beginning with their first game.  This is a "Play-In" matchup between two teams in the middle of the Eastern Conference standings.  The Atlanta Hawks and Miami Heat have both made surprise runs through the Eastern playoffs in recent memory, but now they are the number 7 and 8 seeds, going for a spot in the playoffs proper.   They have much the same players since their past heroics; I'd say it is more like the top of the East--Milwaukee, Boston, and Philadelphia--have risen and left them behind. 

At halftime of this game, Atlanta had produced an unexpected big lead (15 points, down from 23) . Unexpected since Miami is home, had a better regular-season record, and in particular had feasted on the Hawks in recent play.  Instead, Atlanta showed an offense broadened beyond their star, Trae Young, while Miami's clutch performer, Jimmy Butler, was having a stinker, along with his teammates.  Maybe this game isn't enough of a pressure matchup, as it's not an elimination game, and Butler could still rise in the consolation game (against the #9 vs. #10 winner) and carry them forward into the 8th spot. 

This Play-in Tournament, as they call it, is not really a thing but an adjunct to the thing.  There's no winner, just two teams getting to go to the next round.  It's a concept that was started in the NCAA basketball tournament when they wanted to add a few more teams to their bracket beyond 64.  For the NBA, it was an improvisation in the pandemic year of 2020, giving teams that were in contention for the playoffs (once play resumed after the initial shutdown) a fair chance to qualify.  

Turns out, it was a good marketing concept, one that even helps with the league's perpetual problem with teams giving up during the regular season.  It certainly doesn't eliminate it--the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban, their owner, are under investigation for doing it too blatantly and clumsily in the last week, preferring a shot at a good lottery draft pick to an unlikely shot at a berth in the real playoffs.  And the last-day scrubfest in the Eastern Conference, when all the slots were set, was not a good look. But, in general, more teams contending means more good competition toward the end.  

This was exemplified in the Western Conference, where there is more parity and there was a frenzied battle for the last several playoff and play-in slots. Most of the close, important contests will be in the matchups in the West, at least until the expected Eastern semifinal between the Boston Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers.  That's true tonight, when the pregame focus clearly centered on the Lakers-Timberwolves game (like Atl-Mia, #7-#8), and a golden opportunity for the Lakers to redeem their regular-season shortcomings with an opening to go far (against #2, Memphis, missing their big men).  For me, that will also be true tomorrow night, as we get a rare opportunity to see the most improved player in the league this year, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, of the Oklahoma City Thunder, #10 in the Western standings and playing at the Zion Williamson-less New Orleans Pelicans.  

Basically, all the possible matchups in the West are interesting ones.  The two that are likely to be most prolonged are the #6 vs. #3 and #7 vs. #2, both of which are likely to have the worse-seeded team as the betting favorites.  #6 Golden State is the defending champions and seems poised to make another run, while #3 Sacramento is an emerging top team, but totally untested in the playoffs. #7 Lakers defeating #2 Grizzlies is only a bit more of a stretch, if we grant the Lakers the win tonight ahead of time.  The superstar-filled showdown between the Los Angeles Clippers and the Phoenix Suns is the one that is most pivotal, though.    

It is in the second round that we should expect to see the Denver Nuggets first challenged.  Assuming the Nugs survive a 7-game series against the Play-in survivor, they would face the Suns-Clippers winners in the Western semifinals, which should be a TV highlight of the whole playoffs. As for the other semifinal and the Western final, it's much too hazy even foreseeing which teams will be playing in order to predict. I will go out on a limb, though, and say that the winner of the Eastern Conference semifinal between Boston and Philadelphia will win the championship this year.  Even though Milwaukee will be favored in the Eastern final. 

I rush to complete this post before the Atlanta-Miami game finishes:  Miami came back to make it a contest.  That's what's so good about the modern NBA games:  they are so dynamic.  But, it's looking good for the unexpected result, perhaps a harbinger for what is to come (parity certainly showed itself in the NCAA's this year). 

Baseball:  We are about 10 games into the season.  The big bags are great for the SB.  The game is surprisingly healthy, not to mention the classic World Baseball Classic before the season.   We add to the usual suspects (Astros, Braves, Yankees, Dodgers) the rising Padres, the aspiring Brewers and Angels (and maybe the Diamondbacks, instead of the Giants this time).  

Hitting is rising again, even running to some extent, but pitching gets teams through the playoffs.  I see a Braves-Astros Series. 

Soccer a/k/a Futbol:  Chelsea is having one of its worst seasons in recent memory, about at the pre-Roman Abramovich '90's level of mid-table mediocrity.  They have one more chance for their overstuffed roster to achieve glory, as they open a Champions League quarterfinal series away at Real Madrid tomorrow.  A draw would give Chelsea a chance to surprise by winning at home, and there is no more Away-goals tiebreaker, so I would expect the punchless Blues to play for a scoreless tie, then freak out after Real Madrid, a perennial Champions League killer, opens the scoring.   

At least I will get to see Frank Lampard on the Chelsea sidelines once again. 

With Chelsea's fade in the Premier League to 10th or so, I am compelled to root for Arsenal to hold on against the titanic Manchester City squad.  They still have  six-point lead, so they can even afford to lose in the showdown game.  And to tie against Chelsea in their upcoming game.  But that's it!!

P.S. Jimmy got to the free-throw line a bunch, as he always will do, but Atlanta held on for the win. 

Modest Proposal

The essay below was submitted to the Taos News for the reader submission feature "My Turn".  Though it was accepted (automatically), it was neither published nor acknowledged by any staff member.  I reduced my essay to fit their 750-word limit.  There is more I would say, but I'll limit myself to the following: 

The bad news is that the state legislative session--very brief in New Mexico, with the legislators unpaid!--is over.  The good news is that I was really aiming at getting the discussion started this year, while the pointer is at the 2024 election.  

This violates slightly my vow to avoid discussing national electoral politics in 2023, but only slightly:  I am not advocating this kind of legislation for most states, as either their Congressional districts are overly gerrymandered, or they have so many Electoral Votes that giving up all-or-nothing would be self-defeating for now.  As for New Mexico, I could prove that this reform would hurt neither party and would be an improvement in our democracy, if only a local and somewhat symbolic one.

New Mexico Should Go the Maine-Nebraska Route

My suggestion for the current New Mexico legislature session is a nonpartisan one:  Our legislature can change the way our state’s Electoral Votes (EV) are counted in Presidential elections, so that each Congressional district’s vote goes to the candidate who receives the most people’s votes there.  This is what Maine and Nebraska do today, and those two states have derived benefits for doing so.   New Mexico could do the same.

The Constitutionally-mandated means of electing our President is a clumsy kluge that works erratically, sometimes not at all.  Among many proposed remedies to make our Presidential outcomes fairer, the leading one right now bypasses the College’s role and awards the Presidency to the national popular vote winner.  This fits the idea of democratic election, and New Mexico has approved it, but it has the defect that it is stalled along party lines short of its goal, seemingly permanently.

The worst distortion of popular will in our Electoral College system comes from states giving all their EV  to the statewide winner regardless of the margin, the so-called winner-take-all rule.  Except that it isn’t a rule.  There’s zero mention in the Constitution. To change that practice is down to Congress, or barring that, the state legislatures (and governors to sign it).

Maine and Nebraska have done so, each for their own reasons.  These two relatively small states in population each have one Congressional district that’s sufficiently competitive to draw national attention in the Presidential race, where every Electoral Vote is precious.  In 2020, the Democratic ticket visited that district of Nebraska, and President Trump went to northern Maine to campaign.  The result in the election was a narrow win in those districts going against the statewide result.

This is where New Mexico comes in.  Many states have their Congressional boundaries as a result of “gerrymandering”, where districts are redrawn, distorting House representation away from the statewide balance;  these days, that’s done by reducing competitive House seats.  

New Mexico, in its 2020 redistricting exercise, went a different direction.  Although New Mexico’s legislature did some engineering of our districts, they created more competitive ones, rather than non-competitive ones.  This is somewhat true of our own 3^rd Congressional District, but especially so with the 2^nd District, which proved in 2022 to be one of the closest in the nation.  I guarantee that if our Second Congressional District were able to exercise its Presidential vote independently of the statewide votes, it would rise in importance, becoming a special area of focus for both parties, bringing attention and ultimately real benefit to those residing in that region of the state.

Time for me to be real:  As a registered Democrat, why would I advocate for something that might cost my party an Electoral Vote in 2024? 

Three reasons:  1) Benefit to the Second is bound to help the state of New Mexico, overall.  2) It would set an example for the whole nation, rising above partisanship to do something positive about our Electoral College problems.  3) It is, objectively, a more accurate way to map popular votes to Electoral Votes than the current winner-take-all approach.

This is not just some trick on Republicans’ behalf, either:  the Democrats would gain two district-level EV to a greater level of certainty than they have now.  That’s the thing about this reform:  at least in the case of New Mexico, its effect is fair and non-partisan.

So, should New Mexico’s reform give impetus for Congress to legislate a nationwide reform (no amendment required)?  Well, there are at least a couple of problems.

First is the notion 96% of states share, that winner-take-all gives them more influence.  This is like the joke about the town in Minnesota where everyone is above average.  Both the largest states, taken for granted by the dominant party in them, and the smallest states, with their over-representation but still minor contributions, are deluded in this way.  A few states truly have disproportionate influence on the outcome through winner-take-all:  They are the middle-sized swing states, currently Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.  A reform that reduces the tension and unbearable deluge of phone calls and TV ads in those might be surprisingly popular there.

Besides gerrymandering, there could be a concern that, because it would make third-party EV likely again, the reform could potentially lead to recourse to the dreaded decision by the House.  Any Congressional legislation for district-based Electoral Votes must include improvements there.

In the meantime, New Mexico should make its change and reap the benefits, starting in 2024