We're going to the Oscar night gala here at Shadows: Bar and Grill. Black tie, but not a bow (can't be found)--you think a bolo might work? I'm going to try for a table that has a direct line of sight both to the front door, and to the street (opposite each other)--that way I'm in a good strategic position wherever a ruckus may start. Is this the "Mexican wave" to which my title refers? I sincerely hope not.
But seriously, I'm not in a good position to comment on the Oscars' races this year. The first thing I want to say is, IT'S NOT ALL MY FAULT! The intersection of Oscar-worthy and commercial didn't happen this year, not even for "Dreamgirls". (OK, maybe for "Monster House", but we'll see if it wins best animated.) "Last King of Scotland" hasn't arrived, "Notes on a Scandal" just this weekend, "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Pan's Labyrinth" just a week ago. So, I haven't seen any of the nominees for Best Actress or Best Actor. Some is definitely my fault; I expect to catch "Letters" in the big screen, and to find the videos for "Queen" and "Little Miss Sunshine" over the next couple of weeks).
I did make it a point to see all three of the quality movies by the Mexican directors: "Children of Men", "Babel", and "El Laberinto del Fauno". I would say that each is valuable, but I give a clear nod to "El Laberinto del Fauno" ("Pan's Labyrinth" is the somewhat inaccurate translation used to market the movie; I don't think the faun ever gives a name.) I found the story well thought through, the characters sharp and memorable, the visual elements exciting.
With regard to "Babel", I thought a third of it--the wild scenes with the couple's kid and their housekeeper on their journey across to Mexico and their return--was excellent, the main third--the scenes in Morocco with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and the local family whose youngsters accidentally shot her--unconvincing, and a third--the scenes in Japan with the crazed mute girl--superfluous.
As for "Children of Men", I think the execution of the story was superb (Clive Owen, as always, slays; the setting in England was well chosen), but the story premise was flimsy. I imagine the germination of the story to be a simple thought--"The Miracle of Childbirth". Now imagine a world in which the simple fact of a child's birth would actually be considered miraculous. Now contrive some story to make that world a reality--don't worry how plausible.
I see "El Laberinto" possibly winning three Oscars, which will put it near the top, just behind "Dreamgirls", (which is sure to win a couple for sound/music, and probably one for each of the supporting actor/actress categories). I think "The Departed" will win for Scorsese, and possibly for Best Picture (in an upset over "Babel") and best adapted screenplay. If I'm right, "Babel" will end up losing out frequently (splitting the vote in Best Supporting Actress, when Adriana Barranza should win), and "Queen" will basically be limited to wins for Helen Mirren, and possibly an upset win for Original Screenplay.
"Costume Design" would seem to be an early indicator to me: if it goes to "Dreamgirls" or "Queen", that film could have a surge going (to use a word with currency). Otherwise, "Curse of the Golden Flower" would mean a broad distribution of awards, as I've suggested here.
I see 2006 being, like 1999, basically a writer's year. A fairly weak one for major releases, but some interesting plot twisting going on.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
GWOT: Other Fronts than the Central One
...that being Washington, D.C.
I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.
Afghanistan
After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.
The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.
Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.
One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.
The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.
Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.
This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.
Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.
It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.
It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.
Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.
The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".
This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.
North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.
As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.
As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.
I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!
SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!
Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.
Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.
It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.
There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.
I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.
Afghanistan
After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.
The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.
Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.
One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.
The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.
Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.
This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.
Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.
It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.
It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.
Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.
The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".
This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.
North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.
As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.
As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.
I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!
SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!
Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.
Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.
It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.
There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.
Notes from the Iraq Debate
The Senate was smart to have punted on the non-binding res. For now--their day for this circus sideshow may still come.
Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.
Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.
It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.
A few comments on the individual speeches:
David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.
A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.
This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.
Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.
Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.
It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.
A few comments on the individual speeches:
David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.
A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.
This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Why Don't We Just Pass a Resolution to Stop the War?
The last posting didn't seem to stop this slow-motion train wreck on national Iraq War policy from continuing, so we'll try again:
While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.
The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.
The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.
Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.
The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.
The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.
1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.
2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.
While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.
The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.
The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.
Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.
The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.
The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.
1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.
2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Acting Globally, Thinking Locally
The debate about a Presidentially-ordered surge in troops in Iraq is a set-piece designed to distract us, and a lot of us have fallen right into the pit.
President Bush has all the forces, money, and Constitutional power necessary to achieve his redeployment objectives—call it “escalation”, or “augmentation” (Condoleeza) or “acceleration” (Chuck Hagel, I think he misspoke)--without anyone's agreement, even to override any conceivable action the Congress could do in the short-term to prevent him from making it happen.
Short of changing his mind, and it's well documented that neither hurricane nor civil war can achieve for us that objective, he can do what he intends, and all the protests in the world and legislation on the Hill won't stop it. Expending a lot of time or effort to blocking it is by definition wasted effort.
Over the course of six to 19 months, though, Congress can affect the conduct of the war through controlling special appropriations for Iraq. They should put Bush on a shorter leash, giving him extra funds for the next six months to get training, reconstruction, final offensive operations, and planning for redeployment completed. Future funding would depend on making the case to Congress, and on finding budget cuts--I'd start with unwanted weapons systems and Star Wars anti-missile fantasies--to pay for additional special appropriations for purposes agreed upon by Congress. A further escalation in six months—when this effort falls short—can be precluded.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, needs additional funding and NATO forces, though that is another story. In Iraq, we should be looking to buy a small amount of time to make the political deals required to decentralize the police, to prepare the way for the exit of our combat forces, and to give the regions autonomy and a fair distribution of the oil money.
Speaking of money for oil, I have to weigh in on the hottest local topic: the Mayor's new Hummer!
Of course no one can deny Mayor Bobby Duran the right to get the private vehicle of his choice. I've always felt that one may drive a gas-guzzler as long as one doesn't complain about the price of gas. The fact of the Hummer's military origin in its design is irrelevant: getting some civilian benefit from military expenditure would be great, if the vehicle were not so useless in civilian life. Instead of Duran's personal vehicle, we should instead focus on the fuel standards of the town's fleets of passenger vehicles and trucks, with hybrids and biodiesel being the standard for each that we should be aiming at.
Mayor Duran's political albatross is all his, though I could suggest he donate it to the town: we could plate in in bronze and put in the Plaza with other controversial past heroes. Perhaps it has an excellent stereo that would provide music for plaza visitors. That would certainly be proof of his big-ness, which seems to be the hidden issue.
The real issue--one that should be obvious though it doesn't seem to come up-- is that the mayor's actual role is mostly one of providing leadership. In the campaign for his recent, narrow re-election (see, for example, a previous commentary, "Bobby Duran, No Mas" at http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/02/first-fifteenth-monthly-review.html) we all saw that the town is run by others, and that mayoral policy-making in this town is basically limited to breaking tie votes in the council. The rest is what he/she provides by argument and by example. In this regard, it would be better to lend one's image to ground-breaking for bike trails than to the right to take up two spaces (even if he pays for both meters) in our limited downtown parking areas.
Duran's choice is therefore a political judgment we may be called upon to validate or reject. Someone mentioned to me that this issue is all about making a wedge issue out of the differing value systems of longtime residents and new residents. I'll admit that there is such a gap, but let's not let that keep us all from thinking intelligently about the issue at hand.
President Bush has all the forces, money, and Constitutional power necessary to achieve his redeployment objectives—call it “escalation”, or “augmentation” (Condoleeza) or “acceleration” (Chuck Hagel, I think he misspoke)--without anyone's agreement, even to override any conceivable action the Congress could do in the short-term to prevent him from making it happen.
Short of changing his mind, and it's well documented that neither hurricane nor civil war can achieve for us that objective, he can do what he intends, and all the protests in the world and legislation on the Hill won't stop it. Expending a lot of time or effort to blocking it is by definition wasted effort.
Over the course of six to 19 months, though, Congress can affect the conduct of the war through controlling special appropriations for Iraq. They should put Bush on a shorter leash, giving him extra funds for the next six months to get training, reconstruction, final offensive operations, and planning for redeployment completed. Future funding would depend on making the case to Congress, and on finding budget cuts--I'd start with unwanted weapons systems and Star Wars anti-missile fantasies--to pay for additional special appropriations for purposes agreed upon by Congress. A further escalation in six months—when this effort falls short—can be precluded.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, needs additional funding and NATO forces, though that is another story. In Iraq, we should be looking to buy a small amount of time to make the political deals required to decentralize the police, to prepare the way for the exit of our combat forces, and to give the regions autonomy and a fair distribution of the oil money.
Speaking of money for oil, I have to weigh in on the hottest local topic: the Mayor's new Hummer!
Of course no one can deny Mayor Bobby Duran the right to get the private vehicle of his choice. I've always felt that one may drive a gas-guzzler as long as one doesn't complain about the price of gas. The fact of the Hummer's military origin in its design is irrelevant: getting some civilian benefit from military expenditure would be great, if the vehicle were not so useless in civilian life. Instead of Duran's personal vehicle, we should instead focus on the fuel standards of the town's fleets of passenger vehicles and trucks, with hybrids and biodiesel being the standard for each that we should be aiming at.
Mayor Duran's political albatross is all his, though I could suggest he donate it to the town: we could plate in in bronze and put in the Plaza with other controversial past heroes. Perhaps it has an excellent stereo that would provide music for plaza visitors. That would certainly be proof of his big-ness, which seems to be the hidden issue.
The real issue--one that should be obvious though it doesn't seem to come up-- is that the mayor's actual role is mostly one of providing leadership. In the campaign for his recent, narrow re-election (see, for example, a previous commentary, "Bobby Duran, No Mas" at http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/02/first-fifteenth-monthly-review.html) we all saw that the town is run by others, and that mayoral policy-making in this town is basically limited to breaking tie votes in the council. The rest is what he/she provides by argument and by example. In this regard, it would be better to lend one's image to ground-breaking for bike trails than to the right to take up two spaces (even if he pays for both meters) in our limited downtown parking areas.
Duran's choice is therefore a political judgment we may be called upon to validate or reject. Someone mentioned to me that this issue is all about making a wedge issue out of the differing value systems of longtime residents and new residents. I'll admit that there is such a gap, but let's not let that keep us all from thinking intelligently about the issue at hand.
Articles on Giant Marine Catches--Significance?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/rarely-seen-sea-monster-captured-then-following-script-dies/
An excellent article. I will now try to locate the one about the recent catch of the mega-giant squid caught recently off New Zealand. This will be posting the future into the past, if my suspicion about the way they show dates of articles is correct. 2/23/07
An excellent article. I will now try to locate the one about the recent catch of the mega-giant squid caught recently off New Zealand. This will be posting the future into the past, if my suspicion about the way they show dates of articles is correct. 2/23/07
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Couple more Thoughts re: Iraq
First, I have to give some credit to Hillary and to Joe Biden for coming up with the logical rejoinder to Bush's lame "surge" proposal: put the troops in Afghanistan! We need to counter the increase in Taliban activities, and it seems we are stretched very thin there. Unlike Iraq, we have a government there worth preserving, direct effect on the war on terror, and a situation not yet irredeemable. And, if Dubya wants to do something for his legacy, capturing or killing Osama and Mullah Omar would seem his best bet on the anti-terror front.
Second, a concept for Congress: let Dubya have a little maneuver room, but at the same time a shorter leash. Authorize expenditures for the Iraq war for a shorter period of time, six months, at a slightly higher spend rate than was initially requested (pre-surge). Dubya could do his short-term ramp-up, but he wouldn't be able to sustain it for long (the real danger of escalation); he'd need to come back pretty soon to ask for more money, and that's when we put the drawdown requirement on the conduct of the war.
Second, a concept for Congress: let Dubya have a little maneuver room, but at the same time a shorter leash. Authorize expenditures for the Iraq war for a shorter period of time, six months, at a slightly higher spend rate than was initially requested (pre-surge). Dubya could do his short-term ramp-up, but he wouldn't be able to sustain it for long (the real danger of escalation); he'd need to come back pretty soon to ask for more money, and that's when we put the drawdown requirement on the conduct of the war.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Letter to President Bush on Escalation
Appended to my signature to "Give'm Hell Harry" Reid's petition:
I plead with you to adhere more closely to the Iraq Study Group recommendations for diplomatic initiatives, training, and redployment. Help seal a peaceful political framework around four areas--Shia Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan, Sunni Iraq provinces, and Baghdad--each with proportional representation in Parliament and a confederation of four. Break up the National Police.
We can get the troops out and close the bases before your term ends.
What I didn't say: Whatever could be accomplished by a surge of forces in the two areas--Sunni Iraq and Baghdad-- can be done through administrative adjustments, taking from the other two areas, without a noticeable change in overall troop levels. This political battle coming up over escalation is purely a symbolic argument. The key is to somehow change this President's mind; I think Harry's letter appreciated that, as well. Soon it will become how Bush can best leave the mess for others to clean up.
I plead with you to adhere more closely to the Iraq Study Group recommendations for diplomatic initiatives, training, and redployment. Help seal a peaceful political framework around four areas--Shia Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan, Sunni Iraq provinces, and Baghdad--each with proportional representation in Parliament and a confederation of four. Break up the National Police.
We can get the troops out and close the bases before your term ends.
What I didn't say: Whatever could be accomplished by a surge of forces in the two areas--Sunni Iraq and Baghdad-- can be done through administrative adjustments, taking from the other two areas, without a noticeable change in overall troop levels. This political battle coming up over escalation is purely a symbolic argument. The key is to somehow change this President's mind; I think Harry's letter appreciated that, as well. Soon it will become how Bush can best leave the mess for others to clean up.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Jeb for VP....
..not.
We've seen the trial balloons being floated for Jeb Bush, who just ended his second term as Florida Governor. The balloons say, "Jeb doesn't want to run for President, the nation is weary of Bushite Presidency, but he'd be a great VP". It's unclear whether these balloons are arising from the McCain camp itself, or from Jeb staffers who want a new job.
Hold on a minute here. Jeb may be the smartest of the Bushes, the most policy oriented, with the best personality, and he might be a tad more moderate than Dubya, but it's incumbent on US to pop this bubble before it gets started. Exactly because the nation is weary of Bushite Presidency.
McCain is 70+ and hasn't even announced his candidacy yet. We don't see his health records, but he's had some hard times, physically. He could run for one term, then decide not to run again, and who would be in the shotgun seat, ready to move over to driver? Of course, in these times one should never exclude the possibility of assassination or something.
Nothing (too) personal, Jeb, but VP's too close in the line of succession. I'm not taking a hard line against your holding any public job, it could even be a Federal one, but it better be a good distance down the line. Defense, or HHS, or CIA, or national security advisor. All good jobs. But if we see a Bush--any Bush-- named on the ticket, we'll fight it like it was Dubya himself running for a third term.
We've seen the trial balloons being floated for Jeb Bush, who just ended his second term as Florida Governor. The balloons say, "Jeb doesn't want to run for President, the nation is weary of Bushite Presidency, but he'd be a great VP". It's unclear whether these balloons are arising from the McCain camp itself, or from Jeb staffers who want a new job.
Hold on a minute here. Jeb may be the smartest of the Bushes, the most policy oriented, with the best personality, and he might be a tad more moderate than Dubya, but it's incumbent on US to pop this bubble before it gets started. Exactly because the nation is weary of Bushite Presidency.
McCain is 70+ and hasn't even announced his candidacy yet. We don't see his health records, but he's had some hard times, physically. He could run for one term, then decide not to run again, and who would be in the shotgun seat, ready to move over to driver? Of course, in these times one should never exclude the possibility of assassination or something.
Nothing (too) personal, Jeb, but VP's too close in the line of succession. I'm not taking a hard line against your holding any public job, it could even be a Federal one, but it better be a good distance down the line. Defense, or HHS, or CIA, or national security advisor. All good jobs. But if we see a Bush--any Bush-- named on the ticket, we'll fight it like it was Dubya himself running for a third term.
Saddam's "Electric" Hanging
I am "shocked" at the "shock" about the "shocking" pirated video of Saddam's hanging. It's quote-shock-unquote-cubed.
First, the pirated video didn't really have much in it that was unexpected. There was a bit of nasty banter and chants of "Muqtada", letting Saddam know that it was really the al-Sadr camp that was doing him in. Perhaps he didn't quite realize to what extent that was so, and reacted more than he wanted to do; as for US, we might have realized, if we'd thought about it.
That's actually the hopeful part of this episode: We can hope that this bloodletting, this legalized lynching, will help to sate the Shiite partisans' lust a bit. As for the Sunnis, I'm sure they had no illusions. Our government's representatives, the US forces, delivered the Sunnis' former leader, unreconciled, into the hands of his greatest enemy, the militant Shiites (the Iraqi Kurds being a close second). As one would expect during wartime, the priority was to dispatch him immediately by the most handy means available, and that's just what the Iraqi government folks did. We should hardly be surprised if the Sunnis see the episode as proof of our perfidy, and of the declared hostility of the forces driving the current Iraqi government.
Besides our Pontius Pilate-like handoff, we affected the same pretense of moral superiority the Romans took towards the Jewish hierarchy in the Jesus Christ case. Not that Saddam qualifies as a martyr for anyone, and of course the simple fact of his death gives us all a guilty moment of pleasure. Our hometown executions may have the appearance of allowing the condemned some dignity as he submits to his murder, but ours give the victime no more choice nor any different motive than Saddam had: try not to give them any pleasure by showing fear.
How can any of us expect more from the Iraqi government than to do what they have done? If the point of the outrage is that we expect Iraq to be a "civilized nation-state," I'd say they did their part.
Finally, how can I be surprised at the moral myopia, arrogance, and lack of perception from our political and media leaders in their reaction to this normal Hobbesian behavior? Do I have a right to expect better?
First, the pirated video didn't really have much in it that was unexpected. There was a bit of nasty banter and chants of "Muqtada", letting Saddam know that it was really the al-Sadr camp that was doing him in. Perhaps he didn't quite realize to what extent that was so, and reacted more than he wanted to do; as for US, we might have realized, if we'd thought about it.
That's actually the hopeful part of this episode: We can hope that this bloodletting, this legalized lynching, will help to sate the Shiite partisans' lust a bit. As for the Sunnis, I'm sure they had no illusions. Our government's representatives, the US forces, delivered the Sunnis' former leader, unreconciled, into the hands of his greatest enemy, the militant Shiites (the Iraqi Kurds being a close second). As one would expect during wartime, the priority was to dispatch him immediately by the most handy means available, and that's just what the Iraqi government folks did. We should hardly be surprised if the Sunnis see the episode as proof of our perfidy, and of the declared hostility of the forces driving the current Iraqi government.
Besides our Pontius Pilate-like handoff, we affected the same pretense of moral superiority the Romans took towards the Jewish hierarchy in the Jesus Christ case. Not that Saddam qualifies as a martyr for anyone, and of course the simple fact of his death gives us all a guilty moment of pleasure. Our hometown executions may have the appearance of allowing the condemned some dignity as he submits to his murder, but ours give the victime no more choice nor any different motive than Saddam had: try not to give them any pleasure by showing fear.
How can any of us expect more from the Iraqi government than to do what they have done? If the point of the outrage is that we expect Iraq to be a "civilized nation-state," I'd say they did their part.
Finally, how can I be surprised at the moral myopia, arrogance, and lack of perception from our political and media leaders in their reaction to this normal Hobbesian behavior? Do I have a right to expect better?
Monday, January 01, 2007
Simple Confederation Formula for Iraq
I am a big fan of confederation as an approach to a permanent, potentially democratic, solution to some of the world's complex nationalism problems--I recommend it specifically with regard to Greater China (PRC, Tibet, Manchuria, Taiwan, Hong Kong) and Palestine (not geographically contiguous regions but culturally- and religiously-defined community "islands" co-existing within the state formed from the current borders of Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank).
Everyone is freaking out about the complexity of Iraq and the political settlement required before any kind of secure regime can take hold. A lot of the trouble seems to be about division of the oil, naturally, so the solution should apply both to the parliament and to the net revenues from oil and gas production.
My proposal would be to make Iraq into four federated regions, each with considerable autonomy to make laws along the lines of our federal states. This differs from Biden's proposal, essentially to break Iraq into three countries, by one unit--Baghdad. The formula is: 50% to Shia provinces of the South (readily identifiable), and each of the other three regions getting 16 2/3%: Iraqi Kurdistan, Baghdad, and the Sunni-dominated provinces other than Baghdad.
I believe these correspond pretty well to the population distibution (they should be adjusted slightly to correspond to it as well as possible) with the exception of a disproportionate weight to Baghdad. This is appropriate for that key metropolitan area, which would allow the central government facilities there to get funded properly without being suspected of stealing from the other regions.
As in the current constitution, a 2/3 majority would be needed to govern, and in today's world that would still probably be primarily a Shia-Kurd coalition. As Shiite politics develop and Shia nationalism recedes (inevitable once some stability develops), this region's influences could divide around other issues and form alliances with factions of the other regions (such as Baghdad's inevitably fractured political forces).
Once this formula was announced, the focus in security efforts would be to make plans to pacify Baghdad's neighborhoods and ensure suppression of Al Qaeda in the Sunni areas; then they could govern themselves and we could get ourselves gone. As it stands, we can surge or whatever but we have no clue what we are producing there, and neither do they.
Any questions?
Everyone is freaking out about the complexity of Iraq and the political settlement required before any kind of secure regime can take hold. A lot of the trouble seems to be about division of the oil, naturally, so the solution should apply both to the parliament and to the net revenues from oil and gas production.
My proposal would be to make Iraq into four federated regions, each with considerable autonomy to make laws along the lines of our federal states. This differs from Biden's proposal, essentially to break Iraq into three countries, by one unit--Baghdad. The formula is: 50% to Shia provinces of the South (readily identifiable), and each of the other three regions getting 16 2/3%: Iraqi Kurdistan, Baghdad, and the Sunni-dominated provinces other than Baghdad.
I believe these correspond pretty well to the population distibution (they should be adjusted slightly to correspond to it as well as possible) with the exception of a disproportionate weight to Baghdad. This is appropriate for that key metropolitan area, which would allow the central government facilities there to get funded properly without being suspected of stealing from the other regions.
As in the current constitution, a 2/3 majority would be needed to govern, and in today's world that would still probably be primarily a Shia-Kurd coalition. As Shiite politics develop and Shia nationalism recedes (inevitable once some stability develops), this region's influences could divide around other issues and form alliances with factions of the other regions (such as Baghdad's inevitably fractured political forces).
Once this formula was announced, the focus in security efforts would be to make plans to pacify Baghdad's neighborhoods and ensure suppression of Al Qaeda in the Sunni areas; then they could govern themselves and we could get ourselves gone. As it stands, we can surge or whatever but we have no clue what we are producing there, and neither do they.
Any questions?
2006 Word of the Year: Weltschmerz
Here's the link to Wikipedia's excellent summary of the word's use: http://www.answers.com/topic/weltschmerz
A couple of key points about it, and how it qualifies, among all the words of the English language, to be the "Word of the Year":
First, it is a compound word coined from the combination of the German words for "World" and "pain", and it arises from the Romantic movement and is central to the Romantic philosophy (and Wikipedia also mentions it with regard to the modern "goth subculture").
It is credited to Jean Paul Richter (see http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-paul for an assessment of his work, also quite relevant, but here's a great quote from him: "The child is not to be educated for the present, but for the remote future, and often in opposition to the immediate future.") The Wikipedia entry on Weltschmerz includes this amazing phrase: it "denotes the kind of feeling experienced by someone who understands that the physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind".
I think this captures my 2006 political mindset, and that of many others as well.If we gave this year's version of the American electorate a single identity and a single purpose, it attempted to throw the bums out for their failure to create a physical reality in Iraq which matched up with their imagined one.
The emotional feeling, described as "sentimental pessimism", may be a perennial danger, but there are certain times when the pain becomes more acute, and most of this year was one of those times.
And, coincidentally, it was the word misspelled by Finola Hackett, the runner-up in this year's National Spelling Bee.
A couple of key points about it, and how it qualifies, among all the words of the English language, to be the "Word of the Year":
First, it is a compound word coined from the combination of the German words for "World" and "pain", and it arises from the Romantic movement and is central to the Romantic philosophy (and Wikipedia also mentions it with regard to the modern "goth subculture").
It is credited to Jean Paul Richter (see http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-paul for an assessment of his work, also quite relevant, but here's a great quote from him: "The child is not to be educated for the present, but for the remote future, and often in opposition to the immediate future.") The Wikipedia entry on Weltschmerz includes this amazing phrase: it "denotes the kind of feeling experienced by someone who understands that the physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind".
I think this captures my 2006 political mindset, and that of many others as well.If we gave this year's version of the American electorate a single identity and a single purpose, it attempted to throw the bums out for their failure to create a physical reality in Iraq which matched up with their imagined one.
The emotional feeling, described as "sentimental pessimism", may be a perennial danger, but there are certain times when the pain becomes more acute, and most of this year was one of those times.
And, coincidentally, it was the word misspelled by Finola Hackett, the runner-up in this year's National Spelling Bee.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
10-Point Program
Back on Barack (B.O. Barack):
He doesn't want to announce a 10-point program--maybe he's afraid it's too limiting to his scope. I think that he needs to have some focus, besides bringing everyone together and all that nice-sounding stuff. Personally, I can't imagine someone running for President who doesn't have a program.
Anyway, here's mine (no, I'm not running--I'm using it to evaluate those who do), once again:
TEN-POINT PROGRAM
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly; similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.
6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.
8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.
Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.
I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.
9. Electoral reform
.How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones)
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.
Some of these need some elaboration, and some discussion of why others are not included. Finally, my Iraq proposal (not part, an adjunct to #3). Coming soon.
He doesn't want to announce a 10-point program--maybe he's afraid it's too limiting to his scope. I think that he needs to have some focus, besides bringing everyone together and all that nice-sounding stuff. Personally, I can't imagine someone running for President who doesn't have a program.
Anyway, here's mine (no, I'm not running--I'm using it to evaluate those who do), once again:
TEN-POINT PROGRAM
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly; similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.
6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.
8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.
Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.
I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.
9. Electoral reform
.How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones)
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.
Some of these need some elaboration, and some discussion of why others are not included. Finally, my Iraq proposal (not part, an adjunct to #3). Coming soon.
Monday, December 18, 2006
B.O.: Boom Over?
On the talking heads shows today, "sources" who have been speaking informally with Barack Obama have informed us that he says, in effect, "The boomers decided back in the '60's to hate each other, but we're past that now. We're coming together."
I think that's OK, and very perceptive in its way, as long as we get one thing straight: the only politicians who have a right to criticize the boomers are the boomers themselves. And, sure enough, though he cleverly tries to put himself beyond The Baby Boom, Obama's 1961 birthdate puts him right there in the tail end. Either in terms of birthrates for mothers or of babies born, the boom, properly considered as a demographic phenomenon, covers the 20 years of births from 1946 through 1965.
Up to now, in political terms, the big shots have all been from the front end of the wave (or even slightly ahead of it)--that group that's just now hitting 60. That was the Shock Corps; we are the ones who trailed in their wake (often getting caught in the turbulence when we strayed). As for "Obara" (as Eleanor Clift said today; B.O.'s alter ego is, in fact, "KaBama' O'Barra", half-Irish, half-Southern black), as long as he can get us Shockers and Wavers to buy in, the Tail-Gunners can fire away at us. It's our own generational form of self-hate.
I think that's OK, and very perceptive in its way, as long as we get one thing straight: the only politicians who have a right to criticize the boomers are the boomers themselves. And, sure enough, though he cleverly tries to put himself beyond The Baby Boom, Obama's 1961 birthdate puts him right there in the tail end. Either in terms of birthrates for mothers or of babies born, the boom, properly considered as a demographic phenomenon, covers the 20 years of births from 1946 through 1965.
Up to now, in political terms, the big shots have all been from the front end of the wave (or even slightly ahead of it)--that group that's just now hitting 60. That was the Shock Corps; we are the ones who trailed in their wake (often getting caught in the turbulence when we strayed). As for "Obara" (as Eleanor Clift said today; B.O.'s alter ego is, in fact, "KaBama' O'Barra", half-Irish, half-Southern black), as long as he can get us Shockers and Wavers to buy in, the Tail-Gunners can fire away at us. It's our own generational form of self-hate.
The Last anti-Bushite Rant
Tim Seidl, Kathy Bisbee and Doug Pomeroy all sent the same list, and we are grateful:
(On an infant's shirt): Already smarter than Bush.
1/20/09: End of an Error
That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway.
Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time.
Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
Which God Do You Kill For?
Cheney/Satan '08
Jail to the Chief
Who Would Jesus Torture?
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
So Many Christians, So Few Lions
Bad president! No Banana.
We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
Buck Fush
Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.
Impeach Cheney First
Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century.
I suppose we're grateful in that we don't have to parse any differences....
At any rate, the Ace of Hearts has fallen. Along with him, those laid low include the Ace Spades--Rove; Ace Clubs--Rumsfeld; the Kings of Spades--DeLay, Hearts--Jeb, and Diamonds--Frist; Queens Foley (diamonds) and Mehlman (spades--OK, Mehlman left honorably); Jacks Feist (clubs) and Santorum (spades). Our War deck has left only the face cards for Cheney (A of D), Queens Barbara Bush and Condi Rice (Hearts and clubs), and Jacks Alberto Gonzalez, hearts, and Mitch McConnell, diamonds.
The King of Clubs spot (the hidden person in the military-industrial complex 2nd-most responsible for the Iraq fiasco after Dick Cheney), I'd have to say belongs to George Tenet (down and out), though others would see in the face the images of Perle, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. Anyway, the whole suit has turned and is working for the anti-Bushite banner now. That's why this has to be the last rant. We're moving on.
(On an infant's shirt): Already smarter than Bush.
1/20/09: End of an Error
That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway.
Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time.
Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
Which God Do You Kill For?
Cheney/Satan '08
Jail to the Chief
Who Would Jesus Torture?
No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
So Many Christians, So Few Lions
Bad president! No Banana.
We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
Buck Fush
Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood
Is It Vietnam Yet?
Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
Frodo Failed. Bush Has the Ring.
Impeach Cheney First
Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too
When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century.
I suppose we're grateful in that we don't have to parse any differences....
At any rate, the Ace of Hearts has fallen. Along with him, those laid low include the Ace Spades--Rove; Ace Clubs--Rumsfeld; the Kings of Spades--DeLay, Hearts--Jeb, and Diamonds--Frist; Queens Foley (diamonds) and Mehlman (spades--OK, Mehlman left honorably); Jacks Feist (clubs) and Santorum (spades). Our War deck has left only the face cards for Cheney (A of D), Queens Barbara Bush and Condi Rice (Hearts and clubs), and Jacks Alberto Gonzalez, hearts, and Mitch McConnell, diamonds.
The King of Clubs spot (the hidden person in the military-industrial complex 2nd-most responsible for the Iraq fiasco after Dick Cheney), I'd have to say belongs to George Tenet (down and out), though others would see in the face the images of Perle, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. Anyway, the whole suit has turned and is working for the anti-Bushite banner now. That's why this has to be the last rant. We're moving on.
Friday, December 08, 2006
They Rise Once Again to Their Nation's Rescue
Sounds almost too heroic to be true, doesn't it? But that is the kind of praise deserving to the Iraq Study Group, and particularly its leaders, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton.
Let us recall first the yeoman service they have given us, and recently, too: Baker in the committee for electoral reform with Jimmy Carter (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/09/carter-baker-electoral-reforms.html), and Hamilton with Kean, Sr. in the 9/11 Commission. I have nothing but praise for both prior efforts, and it is to our collective shame that we have not done more with them. Both were also successful efforts to conspicuously display bipartisanship in conception and execution.
Neither of them got too far with the Bushites, but that's all over now. The nation has wearily turned the page. Dubya will pay dearly for attempted lip service this time. Which is not to say he wouldn't try it.
Baker and Hamilton have delivered on their purpose to provide a sensible bipartisan agreement with all particulars agreed to unanimously. The statement represents a bold departure from current strategy, and one that is, again, sensible in all its principal recommendations. Not guaranteeing success, it still pursues the combination of the highest probability of success along with some appreciable gain from "success".
Baker has usually been a trustworthy adversary to us, respected as we opposed his causes. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton has been a personal favorite of mine for over 30 years. My uncle was one of Hamilton's principal political allies in the old days in south-central Indiana in the 60's, and I have followed his career with interest since then. He has consistently shown judgement and maturity in his legislative work, which focused on America's role in world affairs. For his long-term role in Congress, particularly as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House during the key period, I would give him a hefty slice of the credit which tends to go exclusively to Reagan and Bush I for our ultimate victory in the Cold War. He was not a rubber stamp, though; Hamiltonian foreign policy would have shown more aversion to military adventure than our elected Presidents have.
The Iraq Study Group formulation bears a striking resemblance to the Consensus Democratic position that I outlined 15 months ago--except, of course, that I proposed it as a partisan stance: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html. Boiling Baker-Hamilton down, I'd summarize that they would complete whatever military missions remain (focusing on training and other mentorship--I don't see much about reconstruction) in 2007 and focus on withdrawing combat forces in 2008, while trying to open dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. Kind of obvious stuff, but still a lightning bolt because of what it represents: all parties telling the Emperor his buff bod's in the buff.
What has happened here is that the Democrats have reaped the electoral benefit of their less-than-fully-enunciated Iraq position, and now it becomes bipartisan. In the milieu of foreign policy development, that's already a success. Just as I don't begrudge the Republicans' latching onto it at this point, I don't resent the Democrats' failure to articulate what we were thinking; we are all anti-Bushites now (even many of the neocons).
Even the Bush Family Friend. Now, if we could only get the dog (and the Duck; ahem, that's "Dick") aboard. Then we could actually accomplish something in the next two years.
Let us recall first the yeoman service they have given us, and recently, too: Baker in the committee for electoral reform with Jimmy Carter (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/09/carter-baker-electoral-reforms.html), and Hamilton with Kean, Sr. in the 9/11 Commission. I have nothing but praise for both prior efforts, and it is to our collective shame that we have not done more with them. Both were also successful efforts to conspicuously display bipartisanship in conception and execution.
Neither of them got too far with the Bushites, but that's all over now. The nation has wearily turned the page. Dubya will pay dearly for attempted lip service this time. Which is not to say he wouldn't try it.
Baker and Hamilton have delivered on their purpose to provide a sensible bipartisan agreement with all particulars agreed to unanimously. The statement represents a bold departure from current strategy, and one that is, again, sensible in all its principal recommendations. Not guaranteeing success, it still pursues the combination of the highest probability of success along with some appreciable gain from "success".
Baker has usually been a trustworthy adversary to us, respected as we opposed his causes. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton has been a personal favorite of mine for over 30 years. My uncle was one of Hamilton's principal political allies in the old days in south-central Indiana in the 60's, and I have followed his career with interest since then. He has consistently shown judgement and maturity in his legislative work, which focused on America's role in world affairs. For his long-term role in Congress, particularly as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House during the key period, I would give him a hefty slice of the credit which tends to go exclusively to Reagan and Bush I for our ultimate victory in the Cold War. He was not a rubber stamp, though; Hamiltonian foreign policy would have shown more aversion to military adventure than our elected Presidents have.
The Iraq Study Group formulation bears a striking resemblance to the Consensus Democratic position that I outlined 15 months ago--except, of course, that I proposed it as a partisan stance: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html. Boiling Baker-Hamilton down, I'd summarize that they would complete whatever military missions remain (focusing on training and other mentorship--I don't see much about reconstruction) in 2007 and focus on withdrawing combat forces in 2008, while trying to open dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. Kind of obvious stuff, but still a lightning bolt because of what it represents: all parties telling the Emperor his buff bod's in the buff.
What has happened here is that the Democrats have reaped the electoral benefit of their less-than-fully-enunciated Iraq position, and now it becomes bipartisan. In the milieu of foreign policy development, that's already a success. Just as I don't begrudge the Republicans' latching onto it at this point, I don't resent the Democrats' failure to articulate what we were thinking; we are all anti-Bushites now (even many of the neocons).
Even the Bush Family Friend. Now, if we could only get the dog (and the Duck; ahem, that's "Dick") aboard. Then we could actually accomplish something in the next two years.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Green Energy: What's it Worth To Ya?
I've delighted in some of Patricia Chambers' reporting in the past: her preview before this year's election was quite good, for example. In the case of her Dec. 7 Taos News article, "Just how 'green' is Taos County?" though, I think she would have done better to include some economic and political analysis along with the straight reporting of the Kit Carson co-op meeting and the speech of its CEO. So, I'll provide some:
First, from the point of view of the consumer, who's getting browbeaten here, the key factor, mentioned almost in passing, is that consumers have to pay extra for electricity from Green sources. The amount, $.0125 per kwh, is beside the point. Essentially, the word around the street is that this is a "stupid tax" and people don't want any part of it.
"Stupid tax"--you may have heard the term used more for the public lotteries, and, less frequently, in relation to casino gambling. The difference between those activities--which attract hundreds of millions in the U.S.--and this one is that those forms of entertainment at least give you a moment of pulse-quickening thrill as they take your money. Green energy offers no extra juice.
If only they gave you something for signing up, some more would buy. Maybe a bumper sticker that says, "I Pay More for My Electricity For Your Benefit" would do the trick more than just the current mere Feeling That You Did the Right Thing. That, the normal electricity cost, and $.0125 per kwh will keep your lights burning (and they will seem to have a greener tint).
The bumper-sticker handout is a short-run, small-thinking approach, though. The real ticket is to make the price of Green Energy the same as the other source. Who wouldn't choose it, then? And once you had the mass interest in the product, it would work financially.
Which brings us to the second economic perspective, that of the enterprise. The key concept to consider here is "sunk cost". Basically, Kit Carson's heirs have invested most of the dough already in building the system to track the separate revenue from Green energy and the separate sourcing stream of energy. Which means that the enterprise has reason to lower its prices for the product now that it didn't have when the project was on the drawing board. They tried to get people to pay more for it; that didn't work. The next step is to see how many they can get to sign up by making public appeals, before they reduce the price, or if that doesn't work, abandon the project.
In all fairness, though, the sequence is the correct one for the enterprise, and it's right that they should be making the public appeals at this current stage. They have no doubt resolved to hold the line for a while longer before they take the plunge and bring the price to par, or perhaps they're merely waiting for the right moment.
Indeed, why give up that line before they have tried the third route, that of getting public policy support for the endeavor? Essentially, Kit Carson's next move should be to appeal to the government (through any lobby connections they have, but also through letter-writing campaigns from their many customers) for a subidy which will allow them to price at parity with the commercially-sourced "organic, but not green" fossil fuel-burning electricity. I'd suggest the federal route, going to Udall and Domenici, with the state channel as strategy 3B.
I would say that each political channel holds promise. I don't pretend to know the legal complications for the interactions between feds, the state, and our own rural electric co-operative. I think there's plenty of precedent for subsidies, though, and politically, it's a winner: to any elected official, it has the appearance of Votes on a Platter. That might not matter to Domenici, if he's secretly harboring ambitions of retirement, but otherwise he should love this one. Udall and Bingaman should be slam-dunks, though their support would not be sufficient without that of Ol' Pete. Richardson would also like it, but he might encounter a problem with the jealousy of state legislators from other parts of the state.
As one who rates the reduction of our climate-changing effects from generating greenhouse gases and burning fossil fuels to be at the absolute head of the list of our long-term priorities, I would welcome such a government investment decision. But sign up to pay extra for nothing? No, not even I would do that.
First, from the point of view of the consumer, who's getting browbeaten here, the key factor, mentioned almost in passing, is that consumers have to pay extra for electricity from Green sources. The amount, $.0125 per kwh, is beside the point. Essentially, the word around the street is that this is a "stupid tax" and people don't want any part of it.
"Stupid tax"--you may have heard the term used more for the public lotteries, and, less frequently, in relation to casino gambling. The difference between those activities--which attract hundreds of millions in the U.S.--and this one is that those forms of entertainment at least give you a moment of pulse-quickening thrill as they take your money. Green energy offers no extra juice.
If only they gave you something for signing up, some more would buy. Maybe a bumper sticker that says, "I Pay More for My Electricity For Your Benefit" would do the trick more than just the current mere Feeling That You Did the Right Thing. That, the normal electricity cost, and $.0125 per kwh will keep your lights burning (and they will seem to have a greener tint).
The bumper-sticker handout is a short-run, small-thinking approach, though. The real ticket is to make the price of Green Energy the same as the other source. Who wouldn't choose it, then? And once you had the mass interest in the product, it would work financially.
Which brings us to the second economic perspective, that of the enterprise. The key concept to consider here is "sunk cost". Basically, Kit Carson's heirs have invested most of the dough already in building the system to track the separate revenue from Green energy and the separate sourcing stream of energy. Which means that the enterprise has reason to lower its prices for the product now that it didn't have when the project was on the drawing board. They tried to get people to pay more for it; that didn't work. The next step is to see how many they can get to sign up by making public appeals, before they reduce the price, or if that doesn't work, abandon the project.
In all fairness, though, the sequence is the correct one for the enterprise, and it's right that they should be making the public appeals at this current stage. They have no doubt resolved to hold the line for a while longer before they take the plunge and bring the price to par, or perhaps they're merely waiting for the right moment.
Indeed, why give up that line before they have tried the third route, that of getting public policy support for the endeavor? Essentially, Kit Carson's next move should be to appeal to the government (through any lobby connections they have, but also through letter-writing campaigns from their many customers) for a subidy which will allow them to price at parity with the commercially-sourced "organic, but not green" fossil fuel-burning electricity. I'd suggest the federal route, going to Udall and Domenici, with the state channel as strategy 3B.
I would say that each political channel holds promise. I don't pretend to know the legal complications for the interactions between feds, the state, and our own rural electric co-operative. I think there's plenty of precedent for subsidies, though, and politically, it's a winner: to any elected official, it has the appearance of Votes on a Platter. That might not matter to Domenici, if he's secretly harboring ambitions of retirement, but otherwise he should love this one. Udall and Bingaman should be slam-dunks, though their support would not be sufficient without that of Ol' Pete. Richardson would also like it, but he might encounter a problem with the jealousy of state legislators from other parts of the state.
As one who rates the reduction of our climate-changing effects from generating greenhouse gases and burning fossil fuels to be at the absolute head of the list of our long-term priorities, I would welcome such a government investment decision. But sign up to pay extra for nothing? No, not even I would do that.
PO-210 by Any Other Name
My thoughts on the Litvinenko poisoning:
I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. This book was in the form of a medieval mystery story with a 12th-century Sherlock Holmes-equivalent solving the mysterious poisoning of several in a monastery. The key aspect to solving the case and identifying the culprit was the absence of motive, and the solution turned out to be a booby-trapped document.
Here there's plenty of motive, but identifying a potential culprit who had a physical connection with the victim seems to be the key. This latest poisoning of a second person, one who met with Litvinenko, suggests that there may have been such a trap: a document which may not have been so important in its contents, but was designed to draw interest and then kill those who viewed it. A ultranationalist Russian might have developed such a poisoned piece thinking that those who viewed it--"it" being some scurrilous piece of anti-Russian gossip, probably made up--deserved to die.
All we need is the smoking (in the alpha-ray sense) document.
I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. This book was in the form of a medieval mystery story with a 12th-century Sherlock Holmes-equivalent solving the mysterious poisoning of several in a monastery. The key aspect to solving the case and identifying the culprit was the absence of motive, and the solution turned out to be a booby-trapped document.
Here there's plenty of motive, but identifying a potential culprit who had a physical connection with the victim seems to be the key. This latest poisoning of a second person, one who met with Litvinenko, suggests that there may have been such a trap: a document which may not have been so important in its contents, but was designed to draw interest and then kill those who viewed it. A ultranationalist Russian might have developed such a poisoned piece thinking that those who viewed it--"it" being some scurrilous piece of anti-Russian gossip, probably made up--deserved to die.
All we need is the smoking (in the alpha-ray sense) document.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Latest Trend: Opting Out
The original prompt for my thinking about a post on this subject was the "controversy" about New York Giants running back Tiki Barber's announcement that he would retire after this year to go into broadcasting. How could anyone question the reasonableness of such a decision? Retirement from professional sports is usually an economic decision, and this one is pretty close to a no-brainer, the way they wear down NFL players and pay broadcasters these days.
Remember when Barry Sanders quit in mid-career form? Time may have seemed to turn its back on him, but we don't see it from his point of view.
I am loth to question anyone's motivation for withdrawing from the public spotlight (particularly if one's public role is imitating an anvil). Even Ricky Williams, who seemed to want to quit to devote himself to smoking pot (before practical reality got in the way). Who am I to judge that?
I will say that it is unwise to withdraw right when one's integrity is being challenged, as happened with Rafael Palmeiro this year. It tends to confirm the negative rumors--actually, it doesn't, it just seems to confirm them. Better to tough it out and let them bring you home on a stretcher if it comes to that (see Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert).
Better yet though to read the handwriting on the wall, and either 1) let them buy you out or 2) get out at any costs before they make you look like a "statistic on a government chart" (thanks for that one, The Police!)
2008 Update
While we're on the subject, I can only marvel at the fact that so far we have a lot more potential candidates who have bowed out than thrown their hat in. (Folded: Warner, Feingold, Frist; Tossed: Vilsack). Of course, this is only a question of timing for those who are still holding their hats, standing upright with an eager look. I do think that there may be some more dropouts from Democratic Senate folk (like Feingold) who once again have a reason to come to work, due to the surprising outcome of the 2006 elections: Biden, Dodd, Kerry, even possibly Obama or HRC.
Once again: "Running things. It's not all it's cracked up to be." (Miller's Crossing) Who wants to be President, anyway? And why?
Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
Republicans.
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )
Democrats.
1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)
I'm still thinking Obama may decide it's too early in his career for him to make his best run at it (which it is). If he goes, that CCC spot is wide open, though I don't think Edwards can capture it. It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.
I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).
Remember when Barry Sanders quit in mid-career form? Time may have seemed to turn its back on him, but we don't see it from his point of view.
I am loth to question anyone's motivation for withdrawing from the public spotlight (particularly if one's public role is imitating an anvil). Even Ricky Williams, who seemed to want to quit to devote himself to smoking pot (before practical reality got in the way). Who am I to judge that?
I will say that it is unwise to withdraw right when one's integrity is being challenged, as happened with Rafael Palmeiro this year. It tends to confirm the negative rumors--actually, it doesn't, it just seems to confirm them. Better to tough it out and let them bring you home on a stretcher if it comes to that (see Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert).
Better yet though to read the handwriting on the wall, and either 1) let them buy you out or 2) get out at any costs before they make you look like a "statistic on a government chart" (thanks for that one, The Police!)
2008 Update
While we're on the subject, I can only marvel at the fact that so far we have a lot more potential candidates who have bowed out than thrown their hat in. (Folded: Warner, Feingold, Frist; Tossed: Vilsack). Of course, this is only a question of timing for those who are still holding their hats, standing upright with an eager look. I do think that there may be some more dropouts from Democratic Senate folk (like Feingold) who once again have a reason to come to work, due to the surprising outcome of the 2006 elections: Biden, Dodd, Kerry, even possibly Obama or HRC.
Once again: "Running things. It's not all it's cracked up to be." (Miller's Crossing) Who wants to be President, anyway? And why?
Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
Republicans.
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )
Democrats.
1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)
I'm still thinking Obama may decide it's too early in his career for him to make his best run at it (which it is). If he goes, that CCC spot is wide open, though I don't think Edwards can capture it. It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.
I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).
2006 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot
If I were doing it, here's how I would've done it:
(apologies to the Yahoo BBallgroup on which I originally posted this)
Yes, but for whom are you voting, Aaron?
I advocate making the serious choices, but also engaging one's emotional whims.
Here are my picks:
Gwynn
Ripken
Blyleven
L Smith
Gossage
J Morris
Mattingly
Concepcion
E Davis
Strat-O-Matic
The last does require some explanation. I'm looking at the game box for the Strat-O-Matic set my mother got my 10-year-old in a yard sale awhile ago. It says on it, "The Game that Belongs in the Hall of Fame."
I'm convinced. Until Strat is in, it gets my vote over Pete Rose.
Will Jose Canseco make the 5% to stay on the ballot? Surveysays...no. (appropriate sound effect)
Additional comments--
I think that "God gave you ten picks, you should use them."
I avoid picking borderline candidates unless I'm advocating a change in direction in Hall membership, and I give votes to lower-probability candidates who "deserve" my vote. This I test out in avery simple way: if I voted for him before, did it feel right? If not, I don't continue.
The same principle--it's just human nature, no?--applies to McGwire, and to the other future "Steroids Alleged" cases. One thinks--and should think--"I feel free to withhold my vote this year." But then, one must think back and ask oneself, 'Does this feel right?'
I'm going to try omitting mac and see how it feels, though I will say he's all the ballplayer Harmon Killebrew was (4th ballot) except a shorter career. I predict it will end up feeling bad if one tries this approach with Sammy Sosa, and this feeling of regret,multiplied by a sufficient number of folks, will lead to his selection on a low number of ballot tries. But that doesn't mean heshould be elected on the first ballot--"heaven forbid"!
Anyway, I think this line of thinking leads me to my assessment ofthe problem with the Hall standard of 75%: it assumes people areactually using their votes, when for the most part, they don't.
And my final one (for the Hall suggestion box?): they really shouldset up a Committee to make sure that the thing that happened withBuck O'Neil doesn't happen again. I've got it: the VeteransCommittee!
(apologies to the Yahoo BBallgroup on which I originally posted this)
Yes, but for whom are you voting, Aaron?
I advocate making the serious choices, but also engaging one's emotional whims.
Here are my picks:
Gwynn
Ripken
Blyleven
L Smith
Gossage
J Morris
Mattingly
Concepcion
E Davis
Strat-O-Matic
The last does require some explanation. I'm looking at the game box for the Strat-O-Matic set my mother got my 10-year-old in a yard sale awhile ago. It says on it, "The Game that Belongs in the Hall of Fame."
I'm convinced. Until Strat is in, it gets my vote over Pete Rose.
Will Jose Canseco make the 5% to stay on the ballot? Surveysays...no. (appropriate sound effect)
Additional comments--
I think that "God gave you ten picks, you should use them."
I avoid picking borderline candidates unless I'm advocating a change in direction in Hall membership, and I give votes to lower-probability candidates who "deserve" my vote. This I test out in avery simple way: if I voted for him before, did it feel right? If not, I don't continue.
The same principle--it's just human nature, no?--applies to McGwire, and to the other future "Steroids Alleged" cases. One thinks--and should think--"I feel free to withhold my vote this year." But then, one must think back and ask oneself, 'Does this feel right?'
I'm going to try omitting mac and see how it feels, though I will say he's all the ballplayer Harmon Killebrew was (4th ballot) except a shorter career. I predict it will end up feeling bad if one tries this approach with Sammy Sosa, and this feeling of regret,multiplied by a sufficient number of folks, will lead to his selection on a low number of ballot tries. But that doesn't mean heshould be elected on the first ballot--"heaven forbid"!
Anyway, I think this line of thinking leads me to my assessment ofthe problem with the Hall standard of 75%: it assumes people areactually using their votes, when for the most part, they don't.
And my final one (for the Hall suggestion box?): they really shouldset up a Committee to make sure that the thing that happened withBuck O'Neil doesn't happen again. I've got it: the VeteransCommittee!
Monday, November 27, 2006
Hollywood Movie Plot?
I can't just publish the link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401286.html); I've got to put the whole article out here.
Marijuana Multiplies Suspect's Problems
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, November 25, 2006;
Page B01
Talk about having a lousy day in court.
As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table.
The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history.
To make matters worse, his mother, a defense lawyer, was by his side at the time -- representing him.
"I don't even know what the word for it is," Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton said, according to a recording of the hearing. "Inconceivable is not strong enough. For him to walk into a courtroom in the middle of a jury trial for a robbery case with marijuana in his pocket is just unbelievable."
Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Wennar asked Boynton for a high bond, noting that Hoerauf had tested positive for use of narcotics in recent weeks, a violation of the terms of his pretrial release supervision program.
"To come into a courthouse in the middle of trial and have a bag of marijuana on his person just seems to me to be a total disregard for the criminal justice system," Wennar said in court.
According to the recording, Gwyn Hoerauf, his mother, said jail was not the answer to her son's problems.
"I'm going to say it in a very crass way, and I hope he forgives me," she said. "He is brain-damaged, your honor. I don't mean he's just a defendant who does dumb stuff. This is a boy with an IQ in triple digits. His brain is glued together with Silly Putty. He can't think his way out of a paper bag, but he can do physics."
Hoerauf first appeared before Boynton years ago on juvenile charges. He pleaded guilty this summer to second-degree assault after an incident in Silver Spring. He was charged with robbery in June after he and some friends were suspected of stealing bikes from a group of younger teenagers near the MARC train station in Germantown.
The jury, which was not in the courtroom for the marijuana bust, convicted Hoerauf on four counts of robbery and acquitted him on two counts of robbery and one charge of conspiracy.
Courthouse arrests for such things as disorderly conduct and showing up drunk are not unheard of, Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight said.
"But at the defense table?" the sheriff asked. "We've never had that happen."
Moral of the story: Don't do that.
Marijuana Multiplies Suspect's Problems
By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, November 25, 2006;
Page B01
Talk about having a lousy day in court.
As Devin K. Hoerauf's robbery trial in Rockville was wrapping up Tuesday afternoon, the 19-year-old accidentally dropped a bag of marijuana on the floor when he stood up at the defense table.
The judge's assistant noticed a plastic bag containing "a green, leafy substance" and pointed it out to a Montgomery County deputy sheriff, who picked it up and added two misdemeanor charges -- possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia -- to Hoerauf's criminal history.
To make matters worse, his mother, a defense lawyer, was by his side at the time -- representing him.
"I don't even know what the word for it is," Circuit Court Judge David A. Boynton said, according to a recording of the hearing. "Inconceivable is not strong enough. For him to walk into a courtroom in the middle of a jury trial for a robbery case with marijuana in his pocket is just unbelievable."
Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Wennar asked Boynton for a high bond, noting that Hoerauf had tested positive for use of narcotics in recent weeks, a violation of the terms of his pretrial release supervision program.
"To come into a courthouse in the middle of trial and have a bag of marijuana on his person just seems to me to be a total disregard for the criminal justice system," Wennar said in court.
According to the recording, Gwyn Hoerauf, his mother, said jail was not the answer to her son's problems.
"I'm going to say it in a very crass way, and I hope he forgives me," she said. "He is brain-damaged, your honor. I don't mean he's just a defendant who does dumb stuff. This is a boy with an IQ in triple digits. His brain is glued together with Silly Putty. He can't think his way out of a paper bag, but he can do physics."
Hoerauf first appeared before Boynton years ago on juvenile charges. He pleaded guilty this summer to second-degree assault after an incident in Silver Spring. He was charged with robbery in June after he and some friends were suspected of stealing bikes from a group of younger teenagers near the MARC train station in Germantown.
The jury, which was not in the courtroom for the marijuana bust, convicted Hoerauf on four counts of robbery and acquitted him on two counts of robbery and one charge of conspiracy.
Courthouse arrests for such things as disorderly conduct and showing up drunk are not unheard of, Montgomery Sheriff Raymond Kight said.
"But at the defense table?" the sheriff asked. "We've never had that happen."
Moral of the story: Don't do that.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
All Hail the Democratic Party Organizations!
Mandatory Opening Rhetorical Hallelujah:
As Jim Talent said in his concession, and George Allen Jr. in his non-concession, "Thank God!"
"It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Fine!"--R.E.M., 1987
For the first time in a long time, we really won one. The 30-seat gain in the House is not record territory (best since 1974), but in today's big-spending, incumbent-friendly system a very impressive result. The six-seat gain in the Senate was at the outer edge of the probability distribution and, to me, was even more impressive. The Democrats won 24 of 33 races held in the Senate! That's 73%, in House terms a veto-proof 318 seats (vs. the reality of 230-something).
This sets Senate Democrats up well for the next election; the House outlook may not be as promising. The several scandal seats among the House pickups will be vulnerable next time around. Of course, the House will be working from about 15 seats above the minimum majority, while the bare majority in the Senate is vulnerable at any moment to sickness, scandal, or some sort of Liebermania.
The gains in the governors' offices and statehouses were all that we hoped for and more. In the House races and in gubernatorial elections, the Democrats showed that they could break out of the blue-state urban ghettoization that recent elections suggested. Here is Howard Dean's vindication, and I see no need to modify the tetrahedral party power structure that has emerged (Senate Dems, House Dems, and Dem Governors, with Dean supporting all and none in the pyramid) until someone breaks from the pack and wins the '08 nomination.
Two phenomena impressed most: one being the half-dozen or so surprise winners (the hallmark of a tidal wave victory) the DCCC came up with, and the other was the breadth of states represented in the House seats picked up by the Democrats. Yes, there was consolidation of control in blue states New York and Connecticut, and similar routing of Republican moderates in districts within swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. But there were also two seats in Arizona, three in Indiana (!), and ones in North Carolina, Texas (DeLay's old), Kentucky, and Kansas.
Then there was the incredible record of Democrats holding their own in the Senate, House, and Governors' seats. That is the answer to the argument that the results were merely "the Republicans and George Bush imploding".
Yet there was that implosion, that North Korean-magnitude muffled blast as the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule ends with a hidden blast, a futile attempt at suicide bombing that barely escaped the White House bunker. (Rumsfeld draped himself over the IED and absorbed much of the shock wave; the shrapnel passed right through, though.)
The 3-D nature of this second-term Administration (Dumb Duck Dubya) is now a reality apparent to all. There will be no more admitted Bushites permitted in the Republican party as it operates beyond the Beltway, and the late-campaign Red-state show tour of the President is the equivalent of the advertisers' nightmare: what if they ran it up the flag, and no one saluted?
In our local focus race, NM-01, Republican Heather Wilson's position surged late in the night and she's ended up 1000 votes or so ahead, with a few precincts somehow still not reported. Wilson needs to apologize for her campaign before we will accept Patricia Madrid's concession (not offered as yet). The justification both had--Wilson for her slagging, Madrid for freezing up in the key debate-- was that so much apppeared to be at stake.
The reason why NM-01 gets off the hook from massive scrutiny (true of several other races, still) was the superb execution of Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer in the House and Senate Campaign offices. They came at Rove's forces from too many fronts--fairly little need for tactical defense, and give them credit for sensing that but still not losing any of their own seats--and eventually the pressure broke down their forces in several geographic areas. The win of both Houses (I had that at 12% four weeks out) qualifies as a strategic victory, in boxing terms a knockout. Rove's reputation for flawless strategy takes a hit, and Libby Dole (9-for-33) takes it on the chin for the team. At least Tom Reynolds could make sure he had enough $$$ for NY-26, which he salvaged for himself.
Prediction Reliability Assessment
We were pretty transparently sandbagging on the House number. The key for me was to make sure that I could only do better than expected, for once. On Election Day, once all the effort had been expended and the self-deceptive quality of making myself expect the worst had used up all its benefit, I was considering bumping up the seat gain into safe territory (16 or more), as I could not deny there were plenty of targets of opportunity (though I had no idea that half or more would come through, and that most would indeed end up being serious challenges). But I wanted to stay on the low side of expectations regarding the House.
These were my five favorite House pickups of the night:
1) NH-01--no one saw that one coming (second choice for longshot winner would be MN-01).
2) NC-11--Heath Shuler was too a good football player!
3) KN-02--Jim Ryun reminds us of his famous foldup in the 1968 Olympics.
4) AZ-05--Everyone hates J.D. Hayworth now that he's lost.
5) IN-08--First pickup of the night, a 61-39% thumping that still took 2 hours to call (simply because they, like me, must have expected that the margin would narrow sharply. I think they wanted to be sure they didn't get taken in by the exit polls this time.)
In the Senate, we foresaw the basic idea of the contest and the themes of the evening, but we got the characters and their roles a little mixed up: the disappointment was Tennessee, not Missouri; the potentially challenged race became Virginia, not Tennessee; the clutch win with the late urban returns was Missouri, not Tennessee. Those were the three races we got wrong, from the start; we had the rest right, all along.
The Most Definitive Sign of Comprehensive Bushite Defeat
It's Rumsfeld, of course. The decision may have been made long ago, and he may have been on life-support in his office for months, just waiting for the right moment to pull his plug. Still, it's a good move, for which its time had come.
As Jim Talent said in his concession, and George Allen Jr. in his non-concession, "Thank God!"
"It's the End of the World as We Know It, and I Feel Fine!"--R.E.M., 1987
For the first time in a long time, we really won one. The 30-seat gain in the House is not record territory (best since 1974), but in today's big-spending, incumbent-friendly system a very impressive result. The six-seat gain in the Senate was at the outer edge of the probability distribution and, to me, was even more impressive. The Democrats won 24 of 33 races held in the Senate! That's 73%, in House terms a veto-proof 318 seats (vs. the reality of 230-something).
This sets Senate Democrats up well for the next election; the House outlook may not be as promising. The several scandal seats among the House pickups will be vulnerable next time around. Of course, the House will be working from about 15 seats above the minimum majority, while the bare majority in the Senate is vulnerable at any moment to sickness, scandal, or some sort of Liebermania.
The gains in the governors' offices and statehouses were all that we hoped for and more. In the House races and in gubernatorial elections, the Democrats showed that they could break out of the blue-state urban ghettoization that recent elections suggested. Here is Howard Dean's vindication, and I see no need to modify the tetrahedral party power structure that has emerged (Senate Dems, House Dems, and Dem Governors, with Dean supporting all and none in the pyramid) until someone breaks from the pack and wins the '08 nomination.
Two phenomena impressed most: one being the half-dozen or so surprise winners (the hallmark of a tidal wave victory) the DCCC came up with, and the other was the breadth of states represented in the House seats picked up by the Democrats. Yes, there was consolidation of control in blue states New York and Connecticut, and similar routing of Republican moderates in districts within swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. But there were also two seats in Arizona, three in Indiana (!), and ones in North Carolina, Texas (DeLay's old), Kentucky, and Kansas.
Then there was the incredible record of Democrats holding their own in the Senate, House, and Governors' seats. That is the answer to the argument that the results were merely "the Republicans and George Bush imploding".
Yet there was that implosion, that North Korean-magnitude muffled blast as the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule ends with a hidden blast, a futile attempt at suicide bombing that barely escaped the White House bunker. (Rumsfeld draped himself over the IED and absorbed much of the shock wave; the shrapnel passed right through, though.)
The 3-D nature of this second-term Administration (Dumb Duck Dubya) is now a reality apparent to all. There will be no more admitted Bushites permitted in the Republican party as it operates beyond the Beltway, and the late-campaign Red-state show tour of the President is the equivalent of the advertisers' nightmare: what if they ran it up the flag, and no one saluted?
In our local focus race, NM-01, Republican Heather Wilson's position surged late in the night and she's ended up 1000 votes or so ahead, with a few precincts somehow still not reported. Wilson needs to apologize for her campaign before we will accept Patricia Madrid's concession (not offered as yet). The justification both had--Wilson for her slagging, Madrid for freezing up in the key debate-- was that so much apppeared to be at stake.
The reason why NM-01 gets off the hook from massive scrutiny (true of several other races, still) was the superb execution of Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer in the House and Senate Campaign offices. They came at Rove's forces from too many fronts--fairly little need for tactical defense, and give them credit for sensing that but still not losing any of their own seats--and eventually the pressure broke down their forces in several geographic areas. The win of both Houses (I had that at 12% four weeks out) qualifies as a strategic victory, in boxing terms a knockout. Rove's reputation for flawless strategy takes a hit, and Libby Dole (9-for-33) takes it on the chin for the team. At least Tom Reynolds could make sure he had enough $$$ for NY-26, which he salvaged for himself.
Prediction Reliability Assessment
We were pretty transparently sandbagging on the House number. The key for me was to make sure that I could only do better than expected, for once. On Election Day, once all the effort had been expended and the self-deceptive quality of making myself expect the worst had used up all its benefit, I was considering bumping up the seat gain into safe territory (16 or more), as I could not deny there were plenty of targets of opportunity (though I had no idea that half or more would come through, and that most would indeed end up being serious challenges). But I wanted to stay on the low side of expectations regarding the House.
These were my five favorite House pickups of the night:
1) NH-01--no one saw that one coming (second choice for longshot winner would be MN-01).
2) NC-11--Heath Shuler was too a good football player!
3) KN-02--Jim Ryun reminds us of his famous foldup in the 1968 Olympics.
4) AZ-05--Everyone hates J.D. Hayworth now that he's lost.
5) IN-08--First pickup of the night, a 61-39% thumping that still took 2 hours to call (simply because they, like me, must have expected that the margin would narrow sharply. I think they wanted to be sure they didn't get taken in by the exit polls this time.)
In the Senate, we foresaw the basic idea of the contest and the themes of the evening, but we got the characters and their roles a little mixed up: the disappointment was Tennessee, not Missouri; the potentially challenged race became Virginia, not Tennessee; the clutch win with the late urban returns was Missouri, not Tennessee. Those were the three races we got wrong, from the start; we had the rest right, all along.
The Most Definitive Sign of Comprehensive Bushite Defeat
It's Rumsfeld, of course. The decision may have been made long ago, and he may have been on life-support in his office for months, just waiting for the right moment to pull his plug. Still, it's a good move, for which its time had come.
Monday, November 06, 2006
More Electioneering: 2006 and 2008
2008 News
The big piece has been the emergence of Barack Obama as "CCC"--the Clinton Centrist Challenger. In the wake of Mark Warner's withdrawal, a vacuum was formed, and it took about a nanosecond for Barack O' to step forward, and in one fell swoop, assume center stage for that role. His advocacy for Democrats this year has been a major contributor to his emergence as a national party leader.
This guy would be a first in about as many ways as HRC would, so this is not a retreat to safe territory. Most interestingly, he's almost a post-boomer Generation X'er, suggesting that the second half of the boom (my half) might never be represented in the White House (the first half already has Clinton and Dubya, and they presume to trot out more of these burned out, narcississtic victims of the Culture Wars. Our generation just stays out of it. More of that another time.)
Barack is the real deal, more "post-liberal" than centrist, but it's way too early for him. The right time for him is after a two-term Democratic presidency starting in 2009.
One enters the stage, the other leaves. John Kerry has put himself in the George Allen category as a hyped contender who didn't even make it out of the paddock. He wasn't a good choice in 2004 (when we wanted a real "wartime candidate"), and he would've been a joke in 2008. If we wanted a candidate who lost a sure prospect due to insufficient fire in the belly, we would go for Al Gore. Sorry, John.
Seething in NM-01
I did some phone canvassing in the Rio Rancho suburb part of this neighboring district getting the saturation treatment for attack ads, being generated locally, from the national organizations (both), and from some independent groups. Patricia Madrid, the Democratic challenger and current state Attorney General, had forged to the lead in this naturally Democratic-leaning, large Hispanic minority district, over the four-term "moderate" Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman vet in the House (so far).
The voters I talked to were very angry, with both candidates, for the low blows and infantile tactics. To be honest, the message of the campaigns have been very simple, though; Wilson is a Bushite who supported the Iraq war, and Madrid can't be trusted.
The last Wilson salvo (by her campaign organization) is really making me hopping mad, though. From one of their debates, they took out of context a brain lock Madrid suffered while trying to respond to a Wilson-authored question about Federal tax increases. Instead of going for the easy "no increased taxes for working families" pledge, Madrid stumbled, froze, then started hesitantly. They don't even show her answer, that's not the point. The point is something on the order of, "Can you have a representative who doesn't speak fluently at all times?"
To me, this is about one step away from mocking your opponent's stutter. Apparently, though, it's working as an ad, and it truly does present Madrid unflatteringly.
I think it is time for the Madrid campaign to launch the whisper campaign about Wilson's being a closeted butch Foley co-dependent with a thing for girls in page-boy haircuts. It's simply the next step in the escalation process; I can't say if it's true, but it's certainly plausible.
Supplement to the NY Times Election Preview
First thing I want to say is, it's not that bad. If it were the product of a one-person blog, I'd say it was great. The graphics interface on the website works well and produces reams of factoids about money spent, last elections, demographics, etc.
What it doesn't do is tell you anything useful about the results to expect in the House races. One of the biggest omissions in the newspaper articles is any information whatsoever about seven of the 16 races they've called "tossups", but somehow not "key races".
For the record , these are MN-06, NH-2, WI-08, CT-05, CT-02, PA-06, and VA-02. These races apparently didn't have anything interesting that could be reduced to a one-sentence summary going for them. My view of those seven: Minnesota sixth looks like a five-point win for the Republican incumbent, as does WI-08 and VA-02. Those three should be "Leaning Republican", in my view. PA-06 looks like a narrow win for the Democratic challenger, and I'd say the same about CT-05 (Murphy over Nancy Johnson). CT-02 and NH-02 are the true tossups in that group, with the latter a race that has switched from Republican leading to a dead heat.
CQ has been shifting its views much more quickly than the Times in these late days, and has a few more tossups to throw into the pile: OH-01 and OH-02 (Times: both leaning Repub.); AZ-01 (a shocker, as most others consider that a safe Republican seat, but a late scandal has hit); AZ-05 (another LR with a shrinking margin), IN-02 and IN-09 (Democratic challenges in the process of being rebuffed), NY-20, NY-24, and PA-08. Bob Novak's excellent calls--he doesn't hedge, his tossup states are called one way or the other--include one Republican pickup, in GA-12. He's looking for a 20-seat net House pickup for the Dems.
Those looking at Bush's late tour as a something more than just a rote route are onto something here, and it's this: Bush's late visit to Red States indicates a clarification in the projected outcome set that is happening as we finish. It's back to polarization--most of the tossup races are not in Red states, and he can't help there. Most of the House gains for the Democrats will end up being at the expense of moderate Republicans in blue states. That's where the gerrymandered levee walls will be overtopped by the wave of anti-Bushite sentiment, and his late tour is just going to make this more clear.
RED STATE/BLUE STATE Updates
The key states are Pennsylvania, New York (upstate), Connecticut, and Ohio, where Republicans are being hounded from their holes; Florida, as always a battleground, but with the Democrats winning this year's key battles; and the mountain states of Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. I'm looking for the Dems to gain 11 House seats and two Senate ones from the first four, governorships and legislatures as well, and to establish their challenges in the latter four, picking up a couple of seats and possibly more. Florida will deliver a couple pickups in the House, re-election of its Lieberman-WASP Democratic senator, and possibly a major governorship.
I'm sticking with my 218-217 prediction (14-15 seat pickup for Dems), one way or the other. I see slippage in some of the seats that have been predicted for the Dems for a long time, particularly the three in Indiana (check out CQ's article about bellwethers--http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/11/election_night_bellwether_watc.html--
but expect bad news until Ohio's Republican debacle reports). There really aren't very many safe Democratic pickups, and even some of the "scandal seats"--like Foley's own FL-16--now are not sure things.
On the Senate: I'm still not confident about Virginia--a lot of closet racists will come home to Allen. I always expect Missouri to disappoint. I'm still looking for Tennessee to surprise with heavy black turnout, and I think there will be a surprisingly close race from either Nevada or Arizona. Maryland and New Jersey remain worries, though, and I'm sticking with my 50-50 prediction (Lieberman on the losing side, ours).
The big piece has been the emergence of Barack Obama as "CCC"--the Clinton Centrist Challenger. In the wake of Mark Warner's withdrawal, a vacuum was formed, and it took about a nanosecond for Barack O' to step forward, and in one fell swoop, assume center stage for that role. His advocacy for Democrats this year has been a major contributor to his emergence as a national party leader.
This guy would be a first in about as many ways as HRC would, so this is not a retreat to safe territory. Most interestingly, he's almost a post-boomer Generation X'er, suggesting that the second half of the boom (my half) might never be represented in the White House (the first half already has Clinton and Dubya, and they presume to trot out more of these burned out, narcississtic victims of the Culture Wars. Our generation just stays out of it. More of that another time.)
Barack is the real deal, more "post-liberal" than centrist, but it's way too early for him. The right time for him is after a two-term Democratic presidency starting in 2009.
One enters the stage, the other leaves. John Kerry has put himself in the George Allen category as a hyped contender who didn't even make it out of the paddock. He wasn't a good choice in 2004 (when we wanted a real "wartime candidate"), and he would've been a joke in 2008. If we wanted a candidate who lost a sure prospect due to insufficient fire in the belly, we would go for Al Gore. Sorry, John.
Seething in NM-01
I did some phone canvassing in the Rio Rancho suburb part of this neighboring district getting the saturation treatment for attack ads, being generated locally, from the national organizations (both), and from some independent groups. Patricia Madrid, the Democratic challenger and current state Attorney General, had forged to the lead in this naturally Democratic-leaning, large Hispanic minority district, over the four-term "moderate" Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman vet in the House (so far).
The voters I talked to were very angry, with both candidates, for the low blows and infantile tactics. To be honest, the message of the campaigns have been very simple, though; Wilson is a Bushite who supported the Iraq war, and Madrid can't be trusted.
The last Wilson salvo (by her campaign organization) is really making me hopping mad, though. From one of their debates, they took out of context a brain lock Madrid suffered while trying to respond to a Wilson-authored question about Federal tax increases. Instead of going for the easy "no increased taxes for working families" pledge, Madrid stumbled, froze, then started hesitantly. They don't even show her answer, that's not the point. The point is something on the order of, "Can you have a representative who doesn't speak fluently at all times?"
To me, this is about one step away from mocking your opponent's stutter. Apparently, though, it's working as an ad, and it truly does present Madrid unflatteringly.
I think it is time for the Madrid campaign to launch the whisper campaign about Wilson's being a closeted butch Foley co-dependent with a thing for girls in page-boy haircuts. It's simply the next step in the escalation process; I can't say if it's true, but it's certainly plausible.
Supplement to the NY Times Election Preview
First thing I want to say is, it's not that bad. If it were the product of a one-person blog, I'd say it was great. The graphics interface on the website works well and produces reams of factoids about money spent, last elections, demographics, etc.
What it doesn't do is tell you anything useful about the results to expect in the House races. One of the biggest omissions in the newspaper articles is any information whatsoever about seven of the 16 races they've called "tossups", but somehow not "key races".
For the record , these are MN-06, NH-2, WI-08, CT-05, CT-02, PA-06, and VA-02. These races apparently didn't have anything interesting that could be reduced to a one-sentence summary going for them. My view of those seven: Minnesota sixth looks like a five-point win for the Republican incumbent, as does WI-08 and VA-02. Those three should be "Leaning Republican", in my view. PA-06 looks like a narrow win for the Democratic challenger, and I'd say the same about CT-05 (Murphy over Nancy Johnson). CT-02 and NH-02 are the true tossups in that group, with the latter a race that has switched from Republican leading to a dead heat.
CQ has been shifting its views much more quickly than the Times in these late days, and has a few more tossups to throw into the pile: OH-01 and OH-02 (Times: both leaning Repub.); AZ-01 (a shocker, as most others consider that a safe Republican seat, but a late scandal has hit); AZ-05 (another LR with a shrinking margin), IN-02 and IN-09 (Democratic challenges in the process of being rebuffed), NY-20, NY-24, and PA-08. Bob Novak's excellent calls--he doesn't hedge, his tossup states are called one way or the other--include one Republican pickup, in GA-12. He's looking for a 20-seat net House pickup for the Dems.
Those looking at Bush's late tour as a something more than just a rote route are onto something here, and it's this: Bush's late visit to Red States indicates a clarification in the projected outcome set that is happening as we finish. It's back to polarization--most of the tossup races are not in Red states, and he can't help there. Most of the House gains for the Democrats will end up being at the expense of moderate Republicans in blue states. That's where the gerrymandered levee walls will be overtopped by the wave of anti-Bushite sentiment, and his late tour is just going to make this more clear.
RED STATE/BLUE STATE Updates
The key states are Pennsylvania, New York (upstate), Connecticut, and Ohio, where Republicans are being hounded from their holes; Florida, as always a battleground, but with the Democrats winning this year's key battles; and the mountain states of Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. I'm looking for the Dems to gain 11 House seats and two Senate ones from the first four, governorships and legislatures as well, and to establish their challenges in the latter four, picking up a couple of seats and possibly more. Florida will deliver a couple pickups in the House, re-election of its Lieberman-WASP Democratic senator, and possibly a major governorship.
I'm sticking with my 218-217 prediction (14-15 seat pickup for Dems), one way or the other. I see slippage in some of the seats that have been predicted for the Dems for a long time, particularly the three in Indiana (check out CQ's article about bellwethers--http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/11/election_night_bellwether_watc.html--
but expect bad news until Ohio's Republican debacle reports). There really aren't very many safe Democratic pickups, and even some of the "scandal seats"--like Foley's own FL-16--now are not sure things.
On the Senate: I'm still not confident about Virginia--a lot of closet racists will come home to Allen. I always expect Missouri to disappoint. I'm still looking for Tennessee to surprise with heavy black turnout, and I think there will be a surprisingly close race from either Nevada or Arizona. Maryland and New Jersey remain worries, though, and I'm sticking with my 50-50 prediction (Lieberman on the losing side, ours).
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Mid-Monthly 1:9--2008, The Preview for Party Nominations
We're now moving on to the main event, the 2008 elections.
We'll comment further on the midterms if circumstances change dramatically, or, in any case, after the elections. I'm working on a micro-level analysis of some of the House races to identify about 5 more as key races. In the meantime, the Republicans have accurately zeroed in on the Senate races in MO and TN as being the decisive close ones worthy of major centralized dollars. (VA is a firewall, and they may yet have to shore up NV, or they may come out big in NJ or MD if one of them still looks winnable in the last week).
I see the 2008 nomination race in each party as being centered around three coalition centers (each also known as "The Candidate"):
Nomination Strategic Overview and a bunch of numbers
Democrats: it's HRC, and her antithesis, the Clinton Centrist Challenger; and XXX.
The key moment of the campaign will come when these three become two: the one who gets the support of the guy/gal withdrawing will have the edge to the convention and nomination.
The leading candidates for 'XXX' at this point are Feingold, and Gore if he runs. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, Netroots. There will only be one 'XXX' candidate at a time, and that is Feingold for the present.
Warner's dropping out has left the 3-C position up for grabs, but, to put it in horse racing terms, I think Mark clearly saw how difficult that slot by the rail would be coming out of the turn (credit to him!)
Some 'XXX' will stick it out, regardless, but you have to stick with the favorite unless Her Royal Clinton takes a false step. Which is what a lot of the beefing about her so far has been, that she's walking too gingerly. In mile-and-a-quarter racing, she'll make her move to the lead late in the backstretch. Or, at least, that's the idea. Position papers are being prepared.
One has to consider that there's something like a 10% chance she'll be scratched, never make it to the post (so to speak). It's hard to imagine why, but it could happen (maybe something having to do with Bill?)
The dream matchup for the history books is Clinton v. Gore. We'll rhapsodize later on that one, maybe.
Feingold vs. any centrist could be quite interesting from a rhetorical viewpoint, as Russ cuts him/her up. No doubt in an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the nomination.
As a matter of course, all Democratic contenders should be considered theoretically in a matchup one-on-one (or one on two, for that matter, if there's a Republican split) against John McCain (and a Bushite, say, for a three-way race) to ensure their candidacies are viable electorally against the most probable opponent.
As a follow-up, I'll post odds of some kind for each, which I can easily revise. But I'll do so separately, yes!
For now, I should rank order them in probability for the nomination and then, through a comment, for the candidates for 3-C I can think of (Biden, Bayh, Edwards, Richardson, and, improbably, Kerry, as well as a draft for someone like Obama or Schweitzer, or possibly Someone outta the Blue (SOTB).
Clinton 52%, Edwards 16%, Feingold 12%, Biden 8%, Gore 5%, Kerry 3%, the Field (Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, Wes Clark, Schweitzer/Obama-type Draftee) 3%, Is there anything else? 1%, Kucinich 3 votes. Now, it is a fact that rounded probabilities don't always add to 1.00, but the actual expected probabilities should, and that has guided my selections in the micronumbers, HRC being the proverbial "plug number". Yes, and what a plug number she is--you can say you heard me say that.
The basic theme of the Democratic nomination process will be winning in the early-season Four Corners (of a diamond?): IA, NH, and the recently promoted SC and NV. It seems improbable that anyone but HRC could win all four, but any candidate who doesn't win in SC but does win all the other three should be able to coast home. The SC winner would be the likeliest choice for the 3-C role, while the first XXX leader will be identified before SC. (There could be more than one, someone coming in late and absorbing most of the delegates from an early XXX leader who may falter).
If Hillary doesn't win it early (at least 3 of 4), it should settle into the three-way race, as I started out asserting.
As an assignment, I should look at one of those betting sites and compose the a quote on the odds at a convenient point in time soon.
Republicans:
This one really gets my analytical juices flowing.
The three blocs cluster around:
1) Giuliani (or more correctly, "GPR"*);
2) McCain (as the archetypal anti-Bushite, ABB, or his substitute);
3) a Bushite (or, as the case may be, some other Right-Wing non- or anti-Bushite o/t McCain).
As I said earlier, this is the race which will be most affected by the 2006 Elections outcomes in the two houses of Congress. John McCain's decision whether or not to run should flow naturally from the outcome; if he runs, he will be the early favorite.
Therefore, here, we need to postulate the odds for this election, as follows:
-- Democrats win one house of Congress: 40%. Win both houses: 12%. Probability that single house is "Representatives", 20%; that it's the U.S. Senate, 8%. Probability that the Democrats gain control of one house or other before January, 2009: 55%. Probability that the Republicans have more than a five-vote margin in one house, and control of the other, after the election (the chances of a "Bushite victory"), 5%.
Note: This means 32% chance Dems win H of R this year; 20% chance they win Senate, so that's my guess as of October 15, 2006--
To look at the probabilities dispassionately, we have to focus on that 40% in which the Democrats end up in control of one house or the other as the elections come out of the election. That is the definition of Democratic Victory in the elections. It is highly possible that result will not be clear until December of this year, due to the possibility of runoffs and contested outcomes. If something happens after Congress is sworn in, that's a separate discussion.
The 55% most-likely outcome of the election (excluding the 40%, and the 5% of a Bushite victory), will be what I call "Total Bushite Chaos!" of one kind or another.
To be fair, a lot of the outcomes within the 40% Democratic-victory probability would also end up in TBC! (or TBK! as our "Get Smart" fans would insist). In the scenario's drama, there would be various kinds of Julius Caesar-type plots and counter-plots and some inevitable Ides of March for one of the Aces (that's Rove, Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, in bridge suit rankings order, and similarly in probability). But I digress.
In anything but a Bushite Victory scenario, though (95% probability), McCain will emerge from the elections as the initial party frontrunner. Certainly in the Democratic Victory scenario, and most probably in the Total Bushite Chaos! scenario.
Being the initial party frontrunner is far from having the nomination in the bag, though. McCain's chances clearly have an exponential decay component, the key modeling issues being the rate of decay and from what point you measure: I'd say the logical focus is the New Hampshire primary, whenever it ends up being, and whenever it is, a healthy McCain should top any rival in sheer pull. If he can follow up New Hampshire with a victory in South Carolina, in practical terms it's over. If he doesn't win either, or if he pulls out, even temporarily, and gets less votes than someone in each, it's over for him.
Odds on McCain winning both the NH and SC primaries: 35%. Neither: about 25%. One but not the other: 40%.
(Of the 95% o/t Bushite Victory; his chances after a split remain about 40%, after winning both they go to 90%, and if he wins neither, he drops to 10%.)
The Neither race is really only 10% of McCain running in, and losing, both races; it's more (14%) around McCain not running for one reason or another, but the result downstream will be the same. Such a race should become focused on Giuliani (or GPR*--the guy who's does best in NH) vs. a right-winger (and a possible Bushite). In this case, GPR's chances should be somewhat better than 50-50, as he will go to SC as a winner, and at the same time punch his ticket past SC.
The One but Not the Other race means McCain loses in NH or in SC. In either case, there would be a scramble. McCain would be seriously weakened and have probably no more than 40% chance of holding on to get the nomination.
This scenario is the one in which most of the contenders' probability lies. I see it breaking down as a three-way contest, in much the same way I see the highest probability in the Democratic race as being a three-cornered affair. The race would thus be between a Bushite (or two), GPR, and a weakened McCain.
Frist remains the most probable Bushite candidate (of face cards in the original 52-card pack), and the second-most likely nominee (to the Jack of Diamonds, as I say) is Queen of Clubs Condi Rice. The third-most, Jack of Hearts Jeb, would have an unusually high probability of actually gaining the nomination if the scenario were one calling for a Bushite in a leading role. That, of course, is mostly dependent on the unlikely Bushite Victory, or at least something other than the Democratic Victory. If there's a Democratic Victory, of course, everyone becomes an anti-Bushite, so there's no probability there. Frist, as the Bushite who bailed earliest (Colin Powell and the whole first-term State Dept. don't count as true Bushites), would also have the best chance as a reformed anti-Bushite to make a comeback, and that is a large portion of his probability range.
Conditional Probabilities:
Democratic Victory: GPR 25%, McCain 40%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger 35%
Total Bushite Chaos!: McCain 50%, GPR 20%, Bushite 15%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger15%.
Bushite Victory: Bushite 25%, non-Bushite Right-Winger 25%, GPR 35%, McCain 15%.
This works out to the following unconditional probabilities:
p(McCain)= (.15*.05)+(.5*.55)+(.4*.4)=.0075+.275+.16=.4425
GPR=(.35*.05)+(.2*.55)+(.25*.4)=.0175+.11+.10=.2275
Bushite=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+0=.0125+.0825=.0950
non- (or anti-) Bushite Right-Winger=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+(.35*.4)=.0125+.0825+.14=.2350
I'll definitely go for these, as of now, but just remind the valiant reader trying to figure probabilities for individuals that several Republicans (I have in mind Bill Frist) could appear in more than one category, i.e. both Bushite and anti-Bushite.
The thing that inspires me to battle is the 33% chance the Republicans will nominate either a Bushite or a non-Bushite Right-Winger. The thing that scares me is the 44.25% chance that John McCain will be the nominee.
The bottom line for this episode is that, going into the 2006 Election I see a 52% chance HRC will be the Democratic nominee, and a 44% chance McCain will be the Republican nominee.
Meanwhile, My Own Personal Ten-Point Program
This piece arises above all because of John McCain’s potential candidacy for the Presidency. We can’t just oppose him because he’s a Republican, if he’s a decent and reasonable person, which McCain appears to be. Our evaluation of candidates has to come from an evaluation of their programs and ideas, as compared to something. Here are my ten for national candidates to consider, and I will try to refer to these as reference points for dismissing, disrespecting, and otherwise trashing theirs.
TEN-POINT PROGRAM
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.
We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?
These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly (see last weekend viz. North Korea, the Secretary-General, etc.); similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.
6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.
We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.
For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.
It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.
8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.
Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.
I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.
9. Electoral reform.
How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!
10. End the War on Drugs.
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.
At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.
* GPR is short for Giuliani/Pataki/Romney, and is defined as the guy who the media think "did best" in New Hampshire, which could include the possibility that McCain technically wins there but in a way that disappoints analysts. Probability of GPR's identity is as follows: Giuliani 75%, Pataki 15%, Romney 5%, somebody who randomly becomes darling of the anti-Bushite, anti-Right Winger faction 5% (Joe Lieberman?).
We'll comment further on the midterms if circumstances change dramatically, or, in any case, after the elections. I'm working on a micro-level analysis of some of the House races to identify about 5 more as key races. In the meantime, the Republicans have accurately zeroed in on the Senate races in MO and TN as being the decisive close ones worthy of major centralized dollars. (VA is a firewall, and they may yet have to shore up NV, or they may come out big in NJ or MD if one of them still looks winnable in the last week).
I see the 2008 nomination race in each party as being centered around three coalition centers (each also known as "The Candidate"):
Nomination Strategic Overview and a bunch of numbers
Democrats: it's HRC, and her antithesis, the Clinton Centrist Challenger; and XXX.
The key moment of the campaign will come when these three become two: the one who gets the support of the guy/gal withdrawing will have the edge to the convention and nomination.
The leading candidates for 'XXX' at this point are Feingold, and Gore if he runs. I think that's pretty self-explanatory, Netroots. There will only be one 'XXX' candidate at a time, and that is Feingold for the present.
Warner's dropping out has left the 3-C position up for grabs, but, to put it in horse racing terms, I think Mark clearly saw how difficult that slot by the rail would be coming out of the turn (credit to him!)
Some 'XXX' will stick it out, regardless, but you have to stick with the favorite unless Her Royal Clinton takes a false step. Which is what a lot of the beefing about her so far has been, that she's walking too gingerly. In mile-and-a-quarter racing, she'll make her move to the lead late in the backstretch. Or, at least, that's the idea. Position papers are being prepared.
One has to consider that there's something like a 10% chance she'll be scratched, never make it to the post (so to speak). It's hard to imagine why, but it could happen (maybe something having to do with Bill?)
The dream matchup for the history books is Clinton v. Gore. We'll rhapsodize later on that one, maybe.
Feingold vs. any centrist could be quite interesting from a rhetorical viewpoint, as Russ cuts him/her up. No doubt in an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the nomination.
As a matter of course, all Democratic contenders should be considered theoretically in a matchup one-on-one (or one on two, for that matter, if there's a Republican split) against John McCain (and a Bushite, say, for a three-way race) to ensure their candidacies are viable electorally against the most probable opponent.
As a follow-up, I'll post odds of some kind for each, which I can easily revise. But I'll do so separately, yes!
For now, I should rank order them in probability for the nomination and then, through a comment, for the candidates for 3-C I can think of (Biden, Bayh, Edwards, Richardson, and, improbably, Kerry, as well as a draft for someone like Obama or Schweitzer, or possibly Someone outta the Blue (SOTB).
Clinton 52%, Edwards 16%, Feingold 12%, Biden 8%, Gore 5%, Kerry 3%, the Field (Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, Wes Clark, Schweitzer/Obama-type Draftee) 3%, Is there anything else? 1%, Kucinich 3 votes. Now, it is a fact that rounded probabilities don't always add to 1.00, but the actual expected probabilities should, and that has guided my selections in the micronumbers, HRC being the proverbial "plug number". Yes, and what a plug number she is--you can say you heard me say that.
The basic theme of the Democratic nomination process will be winning in the early-season Four Corners (of a diamond?): IA, NH, and the recently promoted SC and NV. It seems improbable that anyone but HRC could win all four, but any candidate who doesn't win in SC but does win all the other three should be able to coast home. The SC winner would be the likeliest choice for the 3-C role, while the first XXX leader will be identified before SC. (There could be more than one, someone coming in late and absorbing most of the delegates from an early XXX leader who may falter).
If Hillary doesn't win it early (at least 3 of 4), it should settle into the three-way race, as I started out asserting.
As an assignment, I should look at one of those betting sites and compose the a quote on the odds at a convenient point in time soon.
Republicans:
This one really gets my analytical juices flowing.
The three blocs cluster around:
1) Giuliani (or more correctly, "GPR"*);
2) McCain (as the archetypal anti-Bushite, ABB, or his substitute);
3) a Bushite (or, as the case may be, some other Right-Wing non- or anti-Bushite o/t McCain).
As I said earlier, this is the race which will be most affected by the 2006 Elections outcomes in the two houses of Congress. John McCain's decision whether or not to run should flow naturally from the outcome; if he runs, he will be the early favorite.
Therefore, here, we need to postulate the odds for this election, as follows:
-- Democrats win one house of Congress: 40%. Win both houses: 12%. Probability that single house is "Representatives", 20%; that it's the U.S. Senate, 8%. Probability that the Democrats gain control of one house or other before January, 2009: 55%. Probability that the Republicans have more than a five-vote margin in one house, and control of the other, after the election (the chances of a "Bushite victory"), 5%.
Note: This means 32% chance Dems win H of R this year; 20% chance they win Senate, so that's my guess as of October 15, 2006--
To look at the probabilities dispassionately, we have to focus on that 40% in which the Democrats end up in control of one house or the other as the elections come out of the election. That is the definition of Democratic Victory in the elections. It is highly possible that result will not be clear until December of this year, due to the possibility of runoffs and contested outcomes. If something happens after Congress is sworn in, that's a separate discussion.
The 55% most-likely outcome of the election (excluding the 40%, and the 5% of a Bushite victory), will be what I call "Total Bushite Chaos!" of one kind or another.
To be fair, a lot of the outcomes within the 40% Democratic-victory probability would also end up in TBC! (or TBK! as our "Get Smart" fans would insist). In the scenario's drama, there would be various kinds of Julius Caesar-type plots and counter-plots and some inevitable Ides of March for one of the Aces (that's Rove, Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, in bridge suit rankings order, and similarly in probability). But I digress.
In anything but a Bushite Victory scenario, though (95% probability), McCain will emerge from the elections as the initial party frontrunner. Certainly in the Democratic Victory scenario, and most probably in the Total Bushite Chaos! scenario.
Being the initial party frontrunner is far from having the nomination in the bag, though. McCain's chances clearly have an exponential decay component, the key modeling issues being the rate of decay and from what point you measure: I'd say the logical focus is the New Hampshire primary, whenever it ends up being, and whenever it is, a healthy McCain should top any rival in sheer pull. If he can follow up New Hampshire with a victory in South Carolina, in practical terms it's over. If he doesn't win either, or if he pulls out, even temporarily, and gets less votes than someone in each, it's over for him.
Odds on McCain winning both the NH and SC primaries: 35%. Neither: about 25%. One but not the other: 40%.
(Of the 95% o/t Bushite Victory; his chances after a split remain about 40%, after winning both they go to 90%, and if he wins neither, he drops to 10%.)
The Neither race is really only 10% of McCain running in, and losing, both races; it's more (14%) around McCain not running for one reason or another, but the result downstream will be the same. Such a race should become focused on Giuliani (or GPR*--the guy who's does best in NH) vs. a right-winger (and a possible Bushite). In this case, GPR's chances should be somewhat better than 50-50, as he will go to SC as a winner, and at the same time punch his ticket past SC.
The One but Not the Other race means McCain loses in NH or in SC. In either case, there would be a scramble. McCain would be seriously weakened and have probably no more than 40% chance of holding on to get the nomination.
This scenario is the one in which most of the contenders' probability lies. I see it breaking down as a three-way contest, in much the same way I see the highest probability in the Democratic race as being a three-cornered affair. The race would thus be between a Bushite (or two), GPR, and a weakened McCain.
Frist remains the most probable Bushite candidate (of face cards in the original 52-card pack), and the second-most likely nominee (to the Jack of Diamonds, as I say) is Queen of Clubs Condi Rice. The third-most, Jack of Hearts Jeb, would have an unusually high probability of actually gaining the nomination if the scenario were one calling for a Bushite in a leading role. That, of course, is mostly dependent on the unlikely Bushite Victory, or at least something other than the Democratic Victory. If there's a Democratic Victory, of course, everyone becomes an anti-Bushite, so there's no probability there. Frist, as the Bushite who bailed earliest (Colin Powell and the whole first-term State Dept. don't count as true Bushites), would also have the best chance as a reformed anti-Bushite to make a comeback, and that is a large portion of his probability range.
Conditional Probabilities:
Democratic Victory: GPR 25%, McCain 40%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger 35%
Total Bushite Chaos!: McCain 50%, GPR 20%, Bushite 15%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger15%.
Bushite Victory: Bushite 25%, non-Bushite Right-Winger 25%, GPR 35%, McCain 15%.
This works out to the following unconditional probabilities:
p(McCain)= (.15*.05)+(.5*.55)+(.4*.4)=.0075+.275+.16=.4425
GPR=(.35*.05)+(.2*.55)+(.25*.4)=.0175+.11+.10=.2275
Bushite=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+0=.0125+.0825=.0950
non- (or anti-) Bushite Right-Winger=(.25*.05)+(.15*.55)+(.35*.4)=.0125+.0825+.14=.2350
I'll definitely go for these, as of now, but just remind the valiant reader trying to figure probabilities for individuals that several Republicans (I have in mind Bill Frist) could appear in more than one category, i.e. both Bushite and anti-Bushite.
The thing that inspires me to battle is the 33% chance the Republicans will nominate either a Bushite or a non-Bushite Right-Winger. The thing that scares me is the 44.25% chance that John McCain will be the nominee.
The bottom line for this episode is that, going into the 2006 Election I see a 52% chance HRC will be the Democratic nominee, and a 44% chance McCain will be the Republican nominee.
Meanwhile, My Own Personal Ten-Point Program
This piece arises above all because of John McCain’s potential candidacy for the Presidency. We can’t just oppose him because he’s a Republican, if he’s a decent and reasonable person, which McCain appears to be. Our evaluation of candidates has to come from an evaluation of their programs and ideas, as compared to something. Here are my ten for national candidates to consider, and I will try to refer to these as reference points for dismissing, disrespecting, and otherwise trashing theirs.
TEN-POINT PROGRAM
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
We did it with chloro-fluorocarbons. That was a warmup for the next challenge, carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse” gases. Our goal is to be able to show a reduction, even a short-term one. Massive reforestation would help, but there is not one fix; we have to do all of the twenty or so things that make sense. Now.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
This one encompasses our water, our agriculture, national parks, zoos, and wildlife refuges, as well as both plant and animal biodiversity. We have the power to destroy; now we have to show that we have the power to preserve successfully, and that means making some difficult decisions.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
The top objective is to transform the GWOT into an effort to marginalize Jihadist Fanaticism. Marginalizing the jihadists means getting allies back, showing some comprehension of Islam and how it can work for our objective, living up to our high responsibilities and simultaneously showing some humility. Above all it means recognizing the unity of humanity.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
In many ways we live in the “World of Tomorrow” of the 1950’s (except for everyday space flight, I guess). The suburbs, interstates, car aesthetics, primal longings dreamed about in those days are how we live today.
We need to think about things like how our children and grandchildren will retire, how they will educate THEIR children, build homes, make a living (or at least have the means to feed, clothe, and entertain themselves). How does immigration relate to this vision; how does the quantity of unwanted children born in the U.S.?
These visions will inform our long-term domestic investment policies. As one who was born in the fattest part of the pig in the python, I know a few things. For example, I know our generation’s numbers and famed selfishness will take care of us—it’s the ones after us, and those after that, who need to be looked after. I also know that around 2025, when boomers stop being dominant politically, our retirement income tax rate is going to rise.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
Everybody complains about it, but hardly anyone has anything constructive to suggest. Yet the organization proves its value constantly (see last weekend viz. North Korea, the Secretary-General, etc.); similarly, it proves its deficiencies constantly. We need to collect thoughts, have a Charter revision convention, and move past the post-WWII phase of this organization. Two recommendations to chew upon: have a representative assembly, and move the Security Council to Jerusalem.
6. Get control of armaments.
The Nonproliferation Treaty has done a great deal for us all, but it is on its last legs. Changing the metaphor, there are more holes in the dyke than we have fingers. The key to controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is making it a burden to have them, not a bonus. In that sense, the Security Council resolution regarding North Korea is the best news yet in terms of restraining Iran.
We have to look beyond nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, though. Any arms designed basically for killing other human beings need to be controlled and phased out, even if it takes us centuries to do so. Phased out from governments' stockpiles, as well as from private individuals'; it’s the only humane way to look at it.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
Unlike many of these issues, for which the “no-brainer” nature of my viewpoints is controversial only because they have been “no-brained” into crises, this one arises from our cleverness and does not have such easy answers.
For now, I’d propose two guidelines which might help us come to consensus on some of the easier cases: 1) No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefit. 2) Government intrusion (or, for that matter, government secrecy) needs to make its case before the judicial branch in some way.
It’s hard to imagine that the prevailing point of view in this Administration has been that the Executive branch needs to regain power, that their freedom of action has been too limited. It is also hard to imagine that the next Administration, of either party, will look to give up power that it has gained due to Bushite aggressiveness.
8. Provide health care to our people.
It is obvious that the health care system we have today is a failure. Adopted by default after the collapse of HRC’s legislative initiative in the Clinton administration’s first years, our insurance and treatment costs are out of control. One change since then is that the costs in blood and treasure are now transferred to health-care's paying customers much more efficiently than they used to be.
Health care is now the main economic reason we can not employ all at the levels they need to be employed, or at the levels they want to be employed. For that reason, it is the premier quality of life issue and goes beyond merely staying alive and active.
I would start by making Medicare-level health service available to everyone residing in America, on a fee basis (either monthly, or the more expensive a la carte option). Off the menu, you need to go private. Some people would get their fee refunded or waived—the elderly, children, the poor. Employers could still offer any kind of health care as a benefit, but people would have some viable alternatives, and it wouldn’t need to be compulsory as a cost of doing business, either. Medicare would then offer a variety of services that would change according to what we as a society could afford, but it wouldn’t cost as much, either.
9. Electoral reform.
How can we lead the world into democracy when we can’t get it right ourselves? We need to move toward universal suffrage for adult citizens, with more representative institutions and accurate counting of enhanced electoral decision-making. We want better quality decisions resulting from better information and less waste. And, please, let’s get rid of the stupid Electoral College!
10. End the War on Drugs.
This one is really a corollary of point 7, principle 1): “No government intrusion in private activities when it has no identifiable benefits.” There are benefits in controlling the manufacture and distribution of many harmful substances in society; the problem is that the current methods of trying to maintain Prohibition on many of these are not producing benefits. They’re not controlling anything, they’re just putting lots of people in jail.
At the highest level, it’s just an endless game of cops and robbers. At the micro level, just a lot of poor people getting ground up. There are plenty of remedies that have been proposed, but there is zero momentum behind anything, including “stay the course”. Everyone’s too scared.
I know these are idealistic and broad. I want to try to fit specific initiatives I may hear about into the big picture, and I’m looking for some vision to back up their ideas. I will elaborate on these as the opportunity presents itself. If I can’t fit someone’s thoughts somewhere in here, though, they are not the right ideas, and therefore, the candidate is not the one, for me. You don’t like these, try your own hand.
* GPR is short for Giuliani/Pataki/Romney, and is defined as the guy who the media think "did best" in New Hampshire, which could include the possibility that McCain technically wins there but in a way that disappoints analysts. Probability of GPR's identity is as follows: Giuliani 75%, Pataki 15%, Romney 5%, somebody who randomly becomes darling of the anti-Bushite, anti-Right Winger faction 5% (Joe Lieberman?).
Update on 2006 Elections (II)
Reading my last post, I find the need to re-iterate my predictions, this time much more succinctly. Then we can move on to the news of the climactic 2008 election that is brewing.
Senate, 50-50 (Dems w/ Lieberman).
House, 218-217 Republicans. But, even if I'm one seat too pessimistic, watch out when the first vacancy occurs: there can be a challenge for leadership and all it entails.
Governor, 28-22 Democrats. For all the good it will do them in the next two years. Ah, but in 2008!....
My final prediction for the 110th Congress (the one from Jan. 2007--Dec. 2008, anyway):
TOTAL BUSHITE CHAOS!!!
Yours truly.
Senate, 50-50 (Dems w/ Lieberman).
House, 218-217 Republicans. But, even if I'm one seat too pessimistic, watch out when the first vacancy occurs: there can be a challenge for leadership and all it entails.
Governor, 28-22 Democrats. For all the good it will do them in the next two years. Ah, but in 2008!....
My final prediction for the 110th Congress (the one from Jan. 2007--Dec. 2008, anyway):
TOTAL BUSHITE CHAOS!!!
Yours truly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
