Not too much to say, but my honest follow-up policy requires me to check back on my
pre-Olympics thoughts.
I was right about American track and field coming up short, but not embarrassingly so due to a couple of successful team efforts (400m/hurdles/1600 relay). Rather than risking getting talked over too much, Obama waited until it was over, then moved quickly.
In terms of top Sports Nation, Australia had another great Olympics and pretty much crushed Spain in breadth of medals won (let alone per capita).
The USA and Yao met up in an early game and the USA won by 30 or so. The Chinese expected it, and accepted it graciously.
Table tennis was very interesting as the ethnic Chinese of the diaspora filled out the draw but didn't really get in the way of the Chinese medal assault there.
The most impressive single medal for the USA was in men's (team) volleyball. More than with China (except women's gymnastics), our key matchups in team competitions were with Brazil!
Beijing came off better than it had any right to expect; their new facilities are true 21st-century marvels. The government's hand was too close, but, except for the opening and closing, stayed out of the big show. The Olympics did end up showing modern Chinese civilization for what it is, and to some extent the Chinese people for who they are, and that is something quite special in the world. A little too anthill-like, though, for me in this lifetime, as were the opening/closing ceremonies.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
He's #2!
As I suggested before, Biden is a good--but not great--choice. Better than many, but not the best possible. Easily one I and others can and should rally around. Sebelius would have been a much more radical and interesting choice, but Obama went for safe and sound.
Joe Biden is a very familiar figure to me; I've been watching his career for many years.
My first real encounter with him was in 1974, a year after becoming one of the youngest Senators in history. I was with the Hearst Foundation/U.S. Senate Youth Felllowship Program that spring (incredibly notable for the fact that our Hearst hosts had to leave in the middle of our week in Washington, due to the unusual circumstance of having their daughter, Patty, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army).
We "Senate Youth Fellows" had quite a program that week; we saw top representatives of most departments and a number of leading Senators. We were a very demanding group, outraged by the Watergate turmoil and Vietnam War fiasco, both then in their final stages. No Nixon (he was holed up in his bunker) or Kissinger, but I remember Robert Byrd (already old), Walter Mondale (flustered by some of our impudent questions), J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Percy, Justice Potter Stewart, Speaker Carl Albert, and then-VP Gerald Ford (still the only President I've seen speak live--he didn't say much). The one who made the best impression on us was Biden, and I became a believer, much the same way the young people today flock to Obama.
That was a long time ago, and Biden has been Senator from Delaware for all of it. He drifted away from my political viewpoint later--I think there was some Clintonesque triangulation in the Reagan years. He ran in '88 and fell out badly when his plagiarism from a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock (one of the most unsuccessful of major British politicians) was uncovered. At some point, he switched his primary Senate Committee assignment from Judiciary (where he was a bit of a Democratic law-and-order type, like Joe Lieberman) to Foreign Affairs, where he has had a resurgence.
I am absolutely certain that he's had enough of the Senate, so this will be a good change for him. That is, if we win.
McCampaign is continuing down the low road, and I see the manipulative side of McCain's efforts ever more clearly through their advertising. Can he sell his maverick role in the midst of massive sell out? Surely, picking Mitt Romney (if he does) will expose his complete surrender to expediency.
The announcement speeches in Springfield were, like the choice of Biden itself, good but not spectacular. The thing I noticed most was when Obama misspoke and initially announced, "The Next President...er The Next Vice President of the United States!"
Joe Biden is a very familiar figure to me; I've been watching his career for many years.
My first real encounter with him was in 1974, a year after becoming one of the youngest Senators in history. I was with the Hearst Foundation/U.S. Senate Youth Felllowship Program that spring (incredibly notable for the fact that our Hearst hosts had to leave in the middle of our week in Washington, due to the unusual circumstance of having their daughter, Patty, kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army).
We "Senate Youth Fellows" had quite a program that week; we saw top representatives of most departments and a number of leading Senators. We were a very demanding group, outraged by the Watergate turmoil and Vietnam War fiasco, both then in their final stages. No Nixon (he was holed up in his bunker) or Kissinger, but I remember Robert Byrd (already old), Walter Mondale (flustered by some of our impudent questions), J. Edgar Hoover, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Percy, Justice Potter Stewart, Speaker Carl Albert, and then-VP Gerald Ford (still the only President I've seen speak live--he didn't say much). The one who made the best impression on us was Biden, and I became a believer, much the same way the young people today flock to Obama.
That was a long time ago, and Biden has been Senator from Delaware for all of it. He drifted away from my political viewpoint later--I think there was some Clintonesque triangulation in the Reagan years. He ran in '88 and fell out badly when his plagiarism from a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock (one of the most unsuccessful of major British politicians) was uncovered. At some point, he switched his primary Senate Committee assignment from Judiciary (where he was a bit of a Democratic law-and-order type, like Joe Lieberman) to Foreign Affairs, where he has had a resurgence.
I am absolutely certain that he's had enough of the Senate, so this will be a good change for him. That is, if we win.
McCampaign is continuing down the low road, and I see the manipulative side of McCain's efforts ever more clearly through their advertising. Can he sell his maverick role in the midst of massive sell out? Surely, picking Mitt Romney (if he does) will expose his complete surrender to expediency.
The announcement speeches in Springfield were, like the choice of Biden itself, good but not spectacular. The thing I noticed most was when Obama misspoke and initially announced, "The Next President...er The Next Vice President of the United States!"
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Georgia On Our Minds?
I'd say the latest poll results put Georgia on the back-burner of possible Obama results; I still think a meeting with Jimmy Carter would be sound, and courageous.
But the state's English homonym, "Grozia", has given us an opportunity to show some sound foreign policy judgment and, at the same time, show some contrasts with McCain's mode of governance.
Between Georgia and Russia, I can't say that I can say either party is blameless, but Russia can certainly be accused of malicious intent. The old "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable" stance certainly seems to be in play.
John McCain looks ready to start Cold War II right now, and doesn't look to be above the Bushite "you're for us, or against us" ploy with no less than China, which might not result to our advantage. Obama, in contrast, seems to have accurately perceived the reptilian nature of Russian foreign policy and looks more deft. Containment with a light touch.
Biden would be useful in this policy area, if it continues in its unsteady way and if he ends up getting the nod. He will talk tough, but not crazy tough like McCain.
But the state's English homonym, "Grozia", has given us an opportunity to show some sound foreign policy judgment and, at the same time, show some contrasts with McCain's mode of governance.
Between Georgia and Russia, I can't say that I can say either party is blameless, but Russia can certainly be accused of malicious intent. The old "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable" stance certainly seems to be in play.
John McCain looks ready to start Cold War II right now, and doesn't look to be above the Bushite "you're for us, or against us" ploy with no less than China, which might not result to our advantage. Obama, in contrast, seems to have accurately perceived the reptilian nature of Russian foreign policy and looks more deft. Containment with a light touch.
Biden would be useful in this policy area, if it continues in its unsteady way and if he ends up getting the nod. He will talk tough, but not crazy tough like McCain.
VP Betting Wars
Here's an extract at 4:20 p.m. MDT of bid/ask prices of the various leading VP contenders on Rasmussen:
The "New Market" doesn't have a "Field" bet, but it has a whole bunch of other names. The Field bet was very weak at that moment--I had purchased it at 37, so I was considering selling it. But, you can see that it represents the combined chances of Kerry, Sebelius, Reed, and Kaine, plus more, which had offers totalling 37.3. So, my original valuation was holding, and I didn't sell.
Which doesn't mean it was right: the boomlet for Biden was becoming a boom before my eyes. I'd had a sneaker for him early on, buying at 4 (note: percent, more or less) and cutting my losses around 2 . A minor cost, and I hadn't seen anything too substantial. So, I had a small emotional investment. When it hit 43 (!), I had to buy--if it was going to pay out, I had to be part of it.
This is a nice, pure play for academic purposes--leaks have been few and far between--and the "new" pool was a good idea. It hasn't attracted a lot of betting interest, though, which helps explain the big gaps between bid and ask.
A sharks' paradise, no doubt; lots of overpriced wannabe-candidates-but-not, but it costs a lot to carry the margin risk for this kind of deadweight, and I'm not one of the bigger fishes. I had a negative bet against Edwards, which worked well (!) and am carrying one on Gephardt (!!)
I had negative ones on Huckabee and Romney, early, but decided I wasn't really so sure of McCampaign on this one. Still not, though my money remains on Crist, whose pending end to bachelorhood will only make him more eligible.
5:20 p.m. The wave has passed, and Biden's number is stabilizing in the high 30's, up about 20 from 48 hours before. We positioned ourselves long on Biden at the current number in both pools, looking for some upside and an eventual payout within a couple of days.
| New | Name | Old | |||
| 7.9 | 13.8 | Clark | 13 | 13.8 | |
| 13 | 19.6 | Bayh | 17.7 | 20 | |
| 33 | 41.9 | Biden | 34.1 | 38.7 | |
| 15 | 15.8 | Kaine | -- | -- | |
| 0.7 | 5.9 | Daschle | 0.7 | 2.1 | |
| 5.8 | 13 | Reed | -- | -- | |
| 0.7 | 5.9 | Richardson | 1.7 | 3.7 | |
| 13 | 13.4 | Sebelius | -- | -- | |
| 8.2 | 9 | Hillary | 8.4 | 9 | |
| 3.5 | 4 | Kerry | -- | -- | |
| 2 | 7.6 | Gore | 3.2 | 6 | |
| Field | 25.3 | 29 | |||
Which doesn't mean it was right: the boomlet for Biden was becoming a boom before my eyes. I'd had a sneaker for him early on, buying at 4 (note: percent, more or less) and cutting my losses around 2 . A minor cost, and I hadn't seen anything too substantial. So, I had a small emotional investment. When it hit 43 (!), I had to buy--if it was going to pay out, I had to be part of it.
This is a nice, pure play for academic purposes--leaks have been few and far between--and the "new" pool was a good idea. It hasn't attracted a lot of betting interest, though, which helps explain the big gaps between bid and ask.
A sharks' paradise, no doubt; lots of overpriced wannabe-candidates-but-not, but it costs a lot to carry the margin risk for this kind of deadweight, and I'm not one of the bigger fishes. I had a negative bet against Edwards, which worked well (!) and am carrying one on Gephardt (!!)
I had negative ones on Huckabee and Romney, early, but decided I wasn't really so sure of McCampaign on this one. Still not, though my money remains on Crist, whose pending end to bachelorhood will only make him more eligible.
5:20 p.m. The wave has passed, and Biden's number is stabilizing in the high 30's, up about 20 from 48 hours before. We positioned ourselves long on Biden at the current number in both pools, looking for some upside and an eventual payout within a couple of days.
Eve of VP Day
The Times reports that Obama may announce his VP choice tomorrow. It also said that Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine were the leading contenders, but also mention a long list of others under consideration.
That list had just about everyone except Wesley Clark (should he therefore be the contrarian pick?), John Edwards (for obvious reasons), Jim Webb (Shermanesque statement of non-interest), and western governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Brian Schweitzer of Montana (probably mutually not interested).
Of the three top picks, sheesh! I like Biden best, though I don't think he would be much of an asset to the campaign.
The real task of the VP is to tour the heartland--slowly, maybe on a train, old-fashioned style, with lower CO2 emissions--and reassure moderate whites that Obama isn't "scary". A soothing (white) voice of moderation and friendliness. Someone from that swath that starts in the middle Atlantic and goes into the lower Missouri valley.
Bayh and Kaine probably fit (and Kaine seems more likely to me), but I will still plump for Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. She's compatible, smart, will reassure Hillary voters, and has a notable Ohio connection.
Obama's campaign has rarely made a misstep, and I hope one's not coming here.
That list had just about everyone except Wesley Clark (should he therefore be the contrarian pick?), John Edwards (for obvious reasons), Jim Webb (Shermanesque statement of non-interest), and western governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Brian Schweitzer of Montana (probably mutually not interested).
Of the three top picks, sheesh! I like Biden best, though I don't think he would be much of an asset to the campaign.
The real task of the VP is to tour the heartland--slowly, maybe on a train, old-fashioned style, with lower CO2 emissions--and reassure moderate whites that Obama isn't "scary". A soothing (white) voice of moderation and friendliness. Someone from that swath that starts in the middle Atlantic and goes into the lower Missouri valley.
Bayh and Kaine probably fit (and Kaine seems more likely to me), but I will still plump for Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas. She's compatible, smart, will reassure Hillary voters, and has a notable Ohio connection.
Obama's campaign has rarely made a misstep, and I hope one's not coming here.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
This is your Mission, Mr. Phelps
I saw posted on a board somewhere the opinion that someone needs to make up a nickname for Michael Phelps. I don't agree; do we need a nickname for Michael Jackson? For Michael Jordan? If anything, "Mr. Phelps" of the original Mission Impossible gets across the improbability of his success, his professionalism, strict adherence to the mission, etc.
Swimming seems to be a sport where too many medals are awarded. Winning eight gold medals in any other Olympic sport would seem to be an impossibility (perhaps in men's gymnastics, with an all-round event, team competition, and six individual apparatus events, it would be theoretically possible). Phelps apparently is at a world-class level in all four competitive strokes and any short-to-medium distance, so, if the swim meet were longer, he could have won even more. He and his coach, Bob Bowman, have set new standards in designing his "swim program". It was designed in great detail to maximize his chances, and he carefully rationed every erg of effort to make his energy last through through the arduous meet and only give full effort when it was required.
The 100 butterfly--Phelps' seventh gold--was the most amazing, and the most controversial. It was the only event he did not set a new world record (solo, or in combo with his relay teammates), and with half a length to go he was clearly a beaten swimmer. Milorad Cavic (pronounced "cabbage") of Serbia clearly outswam him over the distance. To Phelps' credit, he didn't let that stop his execution. Phelps was there at the end because of his turn and his superior finishing technique.
Cavic's appeal (I understand he had a coach with American training) should have focused on the argument that the result was a tie, which, visually, it would be impossible to deny. It would also not have deprived Phelps of his gold, which would have been politically unthinkable for judges to consider.
The argument hinges on the precision of measurement of the elapsed time. Phelps was clocked in 50.58 and Cavic in 50.59. These results are rounded to the nearest hundredth--if a result is rounded to the same hundredth, then it's a tie, and there were several such results in the swimming competition (with "swim-offs" for qualification, and multiple medals given for ties in the medal positions). In order to be sure that the result is correct, official measurements would need to have a maximum error of .0005 or less.
Swimming seems to be a sport where too many medals are awarded. Winning eight gold medals in any other Olympic sport would seem to be an impossibility (perhaps in men's gymnastics, with an all-round event, team competition, and six individual apparatus events, it would be theoretically possible). Phelps apparently is at a world-class level in all four competitive strokes and any short-to-medium distance, so, if the swim meet were longer, he could have won even more. He and his coach, Bob Bowman, have set new standards in designing his "swim program". It was designed in great detail to maximize his chances, and he carefully rationed every erg of effort to make his energy last through through the arduous meet and only give full effort when it was required.
The 100 butterfly--Phelps' seventh gold--was the most amazing, and the most controversial. It was the only event he did not set a new world record (solo, or in combo with his relay teammates), and with half a length to go he was clearly a beaten swimmer. Milorad Cavic (pronounced "cabbage") of Serbia clearly outswam him over the distance. To Phelps' credit, he didn't let that stop his execution. Phelps was there at the end because of his turn and his superior finishing technique.
Cavic's appeal (I understand he had a coach with American training) should have focused on the argument that the result was a tie, which, visually, it would be impossible to deny. It would also not have deprived Phelps of his gold, which would have been politically unthinkable for judges to consider.
The argument hinges on the precision of measurement of the elapsed time. Phelps was clocked in 50.58 and Cavic in 50.59. These results are rounded to the nearest hundredth--if a result is rounded to the same hundredth, then it's a tie, and there were several such results in the swimming competition (with "swim-offs" for qualification, and multiple medals given for ties in the medal positions). In order to be sure that the result is correct, official measurements would need to have a maximum error of .0005 or less.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
"Swing Vote" Analysis
I think that those who see the new Kevin Costner movie "Swing Vote" as a comedy--whether a successful (i.e., funny) one or an unsuccessful (i.e., limited box office) one-- are missing the forest for the trees.
To me, it's a cautionary tale--a warning to us--lightened up a bit by the family scenes of Costner's character, ordinary man Bud Johnson, with his character's daughter. And by some comic pratfalls by Costner, who's willing to take some pokes at his inflated self for the worthy cause of the movie. Which seems to be, "learn your civics lessons--or die". OK, maybe just suffer and flame out. But you better learn!
Certainly one that I agree with, but not one that will either get through to or impress the average moviegoer, I'm afraid. It may well be dismissed as "contrived" (unlike, say, a James Bond film or a Kung fu movie) or "not funny enough". I can accept those esthetic judgments and
ultimate distaste for the film, for a variety of reasons. The one that I don't accept is that it's "not real enough". Bud Johnson is very close to a composite sketch of the true swing voter--at least the predominant form of it--as someone who's basically not paid enough attention to make up his or her mind. Once again, it will be the swing voter who makes the difference in a few, critical states. Such as my New Mexico.
Re: The New Mexico-ness of it
I have to defend those aspects: one and all. First is the notion that it could come down to New Mexico, and then the state be a virtual tie. That was almost the case in 2000--I have no doubt that, if New Mexico had been the critical state (say, if Bush clearly won on election night in Florida but lost New Hampshire), then, the outcome in The Land of Enchantment would have been challenged by the Bush campaign, and we would've gone through the whole fiasco with Santa Fe as the backdrop instead of Tallahassee. It was that close here, and the count that irregular. The final, official margin in New Mexico in 2000 was actually smaller here than it was in Florida.
Ah, the critics say, but Florida and 2000 was such an amazing statistical coincidence--nothing like that could ever happen again. They would only say that if they have not studied American history, for similar catastrophic virtual-tie outcomes have occurred with our Electoral College and Presidential election mechanisms repeatedly through our history. 1876 is the biggest and clearest example, but there are also 1824, 1800, and (to be charitable to Republicans) 1960. The reality is, the thingamajiggie screws up periodically, and it hasn't been fixed in the slightest.
By some map-watcher's counts, it could come down to New Mexico this year, too. I tend toward the belief that we will get that 1-2% Democratic turnout boost that will make it a safe win for Obama, but it's hard to be sure of that. But on the whole, I'd characterize the whole New- Mexico's-5-Electoral-votes-determine-the-outcome hypothesis as totally plausible. Particularly in the abstract (this movie's script was written before the current campaign started and does not refer to it) .
A virtual tie is different from an exact tie, though, and that is what this movie postulates. Still theoretically possible, but the probability becomes much more remote.
A more plausible premise might have been one precinct whose votes had to be thrown out and re-cast, with the state's electoral votes and the whole shebang in play. Then you could look at various characters, show them making up their minds, and it gradually boiling down to one nitwit who can't make up his mind--the Costner character. Kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" updated to be multi-racial, with both genders.
Next, I have to praise the New Mexico actors in there--and there were clearly many of them, both as extras and in more featured roles. I should name names but I won't. The word is out: New Mexico is a great place to make a Hollywood movie!
As for the geography, the story is set in a town, Texico, in Curry County. There is a Curry County, and Texico is in it, on the border with Texas. Curry County is way Republican, and I don't think it's quite as multi-racial as it's portrayed in the movie (though voters' mix and residents' mix of races could be two quite different flavors). The sets certainly look like New Mexico. There is a scene at the "Pecos River" (two counties over from Curry), but it looks like the Rio Grande.
Costner could certainly pass for a typical New Mexican of Curry County. We got all types.
Heaviness
I admit that political satire is my favorite genre of movie. This one has elements of satire, but it is really about something much less worthy of mockery--nothing less than The Lincoln Question: whether a nation of the people, by the people, for the people can long endure. With elections like these, with voters like these, politicians like these, how can there be hope for us?
The key to the story is Costner's daughter, Molly, played by Madeline Carroll in a breakout performance. She sets up the serious theme in one of the first scenes, with her class essay filmed by the local TV station (whose beautiful reporter--played by Paula Patton--will become a central character of the story). Her essay is beautifully and powerfully phrased (though it is all cribbed from modern philosophers), but basically expresses the notion that we are doomed if we can not get it together, civics-wise. Certainly just what her teacher wanted to hear....
All of the reasons to doubt our fate are thus shown, mostly through the Costner character. Bud is lazy, a screw-up, a drunk, and neglectful. Like our country, he's had every opportunity.
The movie generally takes a non-partisan tone--both parties' faults are exposed. There is a Bob Shrum-type character, played by Nathan Lane, who is sick of losing elections and is ready to do anything to win. His candidate, played by Dennis Hopper, reluctantly goes along. Stanley Tucci plays a Machiavellian manager for the Republican incumbent (Kelsey Grammer), who is basically Bushite but draws the line at offering a second-term job to Costner's Bud for his vote.
In the end, after some family drama and lots of caricature of the media circus, Bud does the right thing and educates himself a bit before voting. Who he votes for is not the point; the point is, that if we spend the effort to know what we're voting for, it will come out OK.
P.S. August 17: The movie has already disappeared from the local cinema and the Box Office standings. Supposedly it didn't cost much to make, but it didn't make much, either. Looking at the rather-low 6.0 rating it got on IMDb, I see that there are a lot of 1.0 ratings (scale of 10)--about 20% of raters. I feel these are people who don't like the portrayal of "typical" Americans as uninvolved, ignorant, and civically clueless. People who don't like politics or anything that refers to it, unless it mouths their point of view. Tough!
To me, it's a cautionary tale--a warning to us--lightened up a bit by the family scenes of Costner's character, ordinary man Bud Johnson, with his character's daughter. And by some comic pratfalls by Costner, who's willing to take some pokes at his inflated self for the worthy cause of the movie. Which seems to be, "learn your civics lessons--or die". OK, maybe just suffer and flame out. But you better learn!
Certainly one that I agree with, but not one that will either get through to or impress the average moviegoer, I'm afraid. It may well be dismissed as "contrived" (unlike, say, a James Bond film or a Kung fu movie) or "not funny enough". I can accept those esthetic judgments and
ultimate distaste for the film, for a variety of reasons. The one that I don't accept is that it's "not real enough". Bud Johnson is very close to a composite sketch of the true swing voter--at least the predominant form of it--as someone who's basically not paid enough attention to make up his or her mind. Once again, it will be the swing voter who makes the difference in a few, critical states. Such as my New Mexico.
Re: The New Mexico-ness of it
I have to defend those aspects: one and all. First is the notion that it could come down to New Mexico, and then the state be a virtual tie. That was almost the case in 2000--I have no doubt that, if New Mexico had been the critical state (say, if Bush clearly won on election night in Florida but lost New Hampshire), then, the outcome in The Land of Enchantment would have been challenged by the Bush campaign, and we would've gone through the whole fiasco with Santa Fe as the backdrop instead of Tallahassee. It was that close here, and the count that irregular. The final, official margin in New Mexico in 2000 was actually smaller here than it was in Florida.
Ah, the critics say, but Florida and 2000 was such an amazing statistical coincidence--nothing like that could ever happen again. They would only say that if they have not studied American history, for similar catastrophic virtual-tie outcomes have occurred with our Electoral College and Presidential election mechanisms repeatedly through our history. 1876 is the biggest and clearest example, but there are also 1824, 1800, and (to be charitable to Republicans) 1960. The reality is, the thingamajiggie screws up periodically, and it hasn't been fixed in the slightest.
By some map-watcher's counts, it could come down to New Mexico this year, too. I tend toward the belief that we will get that 1-2% Democratic turnout boost that will make it a safe win for Obama, but it's hard to be sure of that. But on the whole, I'd characterize the whole New- Mexico's-5-Electoral-votes-determine-the-outcome hypothesis as totally plausible. Particularly in the abstract (this movie's script was written before the current campaign started and does not refer to it) .
A virtual tie is different from an exact tie, though, and that is what this movie postulates. Still theoretically possible, but the probability becomes much more remote.
A more plausible premise might have been one precinct whose votes had to be thrown out and re-cast, with the state's electoral votes and the whole shebang in play. Then you could look at various characters, show them making up their minds, and it gradually boiling down to one nitwit who can't make up his mind--the Costner character. Kind of like "Twelve Angry Men" updated to be multi-racial, with both genders.
Next, I have to praise the New Mexico actors in there--and there were clearly many of them, both as extras and in more featured roles. I should name names but I won't. The word is out: New Mexico is a great place to make a Hollywood movie!
As for the geography, the story is set in a town, Texico, in Curry County. There is a Curry County, and Texico is in it, on the border with Texas. Curry County is way Republican, and I don't think it's quite as multi-racial as it's portrayed in the movie (though voters' mix and residents' mix of races could be two quite different flavors). The sets certainly look like New Mexico. There is a scene at the "Pecos River" (two counties over from Curry), but it looks like the Rio Grande.
Costner could certainly pass for a typical New Mexican of Curry County. We got all types.
Heaviness
I admit that political satire is my favorite genre of movie. This one has elements of satire, but it is really about something much less worthy of mockery--nothing less than The Lincoln Question: whether a nation of the people, by the people, for the people can long endure. With elections like these, with voters like these, politicians like these, how can there be hope for us?
The key to the story is Costner's daughter, Molly, played by Madeline Carroll in a breakout performance. She sets up the serious theme in one of the first scenes, with her class essay filmed by the local TV station (whose beautiful reporter--played by Paula Patton--will become a central character of the story). Her essay is beautifully and powerfully phrased (though it is all cribbed from modern philosophers), but basically expresses the notion that we are doomed if we can not get it together, civics-wise. Certainly just what her teacher wanted to hear....
All of the reasons to doubt our fate are thus shown, mostly through the Costner character. Bud is lazy, a screw-up, a drunk, and neglectful. Like our country, he's had every opportunity.
The movie generally takes a non-partisan tone--both parties' faults are exposed. There is a Bob Shrum-type character, played by Nathan Lane, who is sick of losing elections and is ready to do anything to win. His candidate, played by Dennis Hopper, reluctantly goes along. Stanley Tucci plays a Machiavellian manager for the Republican incumbent (Kelsey Grammer), who is basically Bushite but draws the line at offering a second-term job to Costner's Bud for his vote.
In the end, after some family drama and lots of caricature of the media circus, Bud does the right thing and educates himself a bit before voting. Who he votes for is not the point; the point is, that if we spend the effort to know what we're voting for, it will come out OK.
P.S. August 17: The movie has already disappeared from the local cinema and the Box Office standings. Supposedly it didn't cost much to make, but it didn't make much, either. Looking at the rather-low 6.0 rating it got on IMDb, I see that there are a lot of 1.0 ratings (scale of 10)--about 20% of raters. I feel these are people who don't like the portrayal of "typical" Americans as uninvolved, ignorant, and civically clueless. People who don't like politics or anything that refers to it, unless it mouths their point of view. Tough!
Monday, August 04, 2008
Drilling Down Deeper
Obama's announcement--essentially, that he would not necessarily reject compromise legislation that included some expansion of sea acreage in which offshore drilling would be allowed--is not a flip-flop. What he's actually doing is some leading, and showing something about his future administration.
He still expresses his view, that anyone who views offshore drilling as either a short-term or long-term savior to our petroleum issues is dead wrong. However, he's willing to bring them under the tent as long as they will commit to working toward "energy independence" legislation.
Obama's vote on the pending legislation is useful but not decisive, and I'm sure Harry Reid can count on it in most any situation. The key will be getting enough Republican votes behind moving forward to allow a bill to gain cloture in the Senate. Obama is giving a little push forward to a promising approach to get some kind of earlier start to what will become a tidal swell of legislation in 2009.
Just as importantly, he's saying that, if this issue does not get settled (and how could it?--it's still got to get by Bush and his veto!), he's giving an indication that he will not arbitrarily use his own veto to force his specific version of energy legislation through. A veto doesn't work that way with discretionary expenditures (except with special military appropriations, as in those for Iraq).
McCain can't make too much of Obama's switch, if such be it. He fell to the populist impulse on this issue just months ago, and he knows the realities as well as Obama.
He still expresses his view, that anyone who views offshore drilling as either a short-term or long-term savior to our petroleum issues is dead wrong. However, he's willing to bring them under the tent as long as they will commit to working toward "energy independence" legislation.
Obama's vote on the pending legislation is useful but not decisive, and I'm sure Harry Reid can count on it in most any situation. The key will be getting enough Republican votes behind moving forward to allow a bill to gain cloture in the Senate. Obama is giving a little push forward to a promising approach to get some kind of earlier start to what will become a tidal swell of legislation in 2009.
Just as importantly, he's saying that, if this issue does not get settled (and how could it?--it's still got to get by Bush and his veto!), he's giving an indication that he will not arbitrarily use his own veto to force his specific version of energy legislation through. A veto doesn't work that way with discretionary expenditures (except with special military appropriations, as in those for Iraq).
McCain can't make too much of Obama's switch, if such be it. He fell to the populist impulse on this issue just months ago, and he knows the realities as well as Obama.
Olympics: Battle for Supremacy
The Olympics is well-timed for a nationalistic evaluation of which may be today's top sporting nation. Not that I like such topics--I'm just sayin' that it seems so....
I'm not talking about USA vs. China medals count. There will be a perception of that outcome (or rather, multiple perspectives on it) rather than reality of it, which, if the numbers are close, with these two programs, won't be clear until the final "returns" come in, sometime around 2013. One key moment in the testa-a-testa, if it happens, will be if Yao Ming and China come up against the US' men's basketball team. The diplomatic thing to do in that case would be a polite 15-20 point win, but I feel that won't be the case, which could cause some huge emotions one way or the other.
No, I'm speaking of the continuing struggle for the best achievements as sportsmen, pound for pound, across the widest variety of broadly-competitive sports. Who's punching way above their weight?
Today it appears to me that there is a struggle for the top spot. Spain has risen to challenge Australia's leadership.
We should be familiar with the Aussies' long success in such sports as cricket, rugby, tennis, sailing, swimming, and Australian Rules Football. (Like US' footie, they got distracted by their own form of it from the world's game, though the Socceroos--like the US', see, they even call it the same--now have some respectable talent.) Some surprising new endeavors include bicycling--Cadel Evans finished a close second in the Tour de France and should win soon. Our "namie", Australian Casey Stoner, or as they say in Italia, "Lo Stoner", has clinched the world's Grand Prix title for the year. For the moto.
Nevertheless, and despite the emerging talent, Spain is kicking Aussie booty this year. First and foremost, they kicked Europe's in soccer--first time in most people's living memory--which has to hurt Aussie claims to superiority. The word is out about the Spanish men's basketball team (happens to be the reigning world champs)--look out! The man who edged Evans out in the TdF was Spaniard Carlos Sastre (assuming all urine samples check out). Rafael Nadal has now claimed #1 spot for Spain from that Aussie surrogate, Roger Federer of Switzerland or Monaco (nice try, Monegasques!) or whatever. How great that would be if they meet up in the finals of the Olympic men's singles! Even if, or particularly if, it doesn't count in their vaunted points struggle for the #1 ranking.
We'll be watching the emerging medal counts (total; and gold-only) for our two top-rated jousters in the national tilts, then dividing that by their relative populations. Also looking out for any other notable multi-sport performances by smaller countries.
I'm not talking about USA vs. China medals count. There will be a perception of that outcome (or rather, multiple perspectives on it) rather than reality of it, which, if the numbers are close, with these two programs, won't be clear until the final "returns" come in, sometime around 2013. One key moment in the testa-a-testa, if it happens, will be if Yao Ming and China come up against the US' men's basketball team. The diplomatic thing to do in that case would be a polite 15-20 point win, but I feel that won't be the case, which could cause some huge emotions one way or the other.
No, I'm speaking of the continuing struggle for the best achievements as sportsmen, pound for pound, across the widest variety of broadly-competitive sports. Who's punching way above their weight?
Today it appears to me that there is a struggle for the top spot. Spain has risen to challenge Australia's leadership.
We should be familiar with the Aussies' long success in such sports as cricket, rugby, tennis, sailing, swimming, and Australian Rules Football. (Like US' footie, they got distracted by their own form of it from the world's game, though the Socceroos--like the US', see, they even call it the same--now have some respectable talent.) Some surprising new endeavors include bicycling--Cadel Evans finished a close second in the Tour de France and should win soon. Our "namie", Australian Casey Stoner, or as they say in Italia, "Lo Stoner", has clinched the world's Grand Prix title for the year. For the moto.
Nevertheless, and despite the emerging talent, Spain is kicking Aussie booty this year. First and foremost, they kicked Europe's in soccer--first time in most people's living memory--which has to hurt Aussie claims to superiority. The word is out about the Spanish men's basketball team (happens to be the reigning world champs)--look out! The man who edged Evans out in the TdF was Spaniard Carlos Sastre (assuming all urine samples check out). Rafael Nadal has now claimed #1 spot for Spain from that Aussie surrogate, Roger Federer of Switzerland or Monaco (nice try, Monegasques!) or whatever. How great that would be if they meet up in the finals of the Olympic men's singles! Even if, or particularly if, it doesn't count in their vaunted points struggle for the #1 ranking.
We'll be watching the emerging medal counts (total; and gold-only) for our two top-rated jousters in the national tilts, then dividing that by their relative populations. Also looking out for any other notable multi-sport performances by smaller countries.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Big Ticket Diary
August 28: Best Speech of the Convention
So far, anyway, it belongs to John Kerry, at least as far as what I've seen. He ripped the Bushites a new one, and John McCain also, for sucking up to them. Who would know more?
His delivery was clean and the lines well-honed. Most of all, the indictment was extensive, accurate, and telling. Barack should crib some notes from that one for his speech, much as he will want to hit the high road.
August 27: Days of Future Passed
Before C-Span went live, possibly due to a delay in the start of the coma-inducing Republican Platform Committee meeting, they showed two fantastic recordings of Democratic speeches from network archives.
The first was John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960, from nothing less than the L.A. Memorial Coliseum--the famous "New Frontier" speech. In it, Kennedy takes a very partisan tone to attack Nixon, after first addressing the famous Catholic issue that had dogged him in this stage of that year's election, finally finishing by giving a glimpse of the vision. Parallels galore to Obama's challenge tomorrow night.
The second was even more dramatic; it was RFK's appearance before the 1964 Democratic Convention to give his support to the Johnson-Humphrey ticket. This was August 1964, so only 9 months after his brother's assassination; he was still Attorney General (but would not be a month later). The crowd was electrified at his appearance and would not subside, so he waited, patiently intoning, every so often, "Mr. Chairman....", not allowing himself to smile or to cry, though he seemed to wish to do both. His principal purposes, like Hillary's last night, were to thank his supporters in the party and to give unambiguous support to his opponent without praising him overly.
It's a marvel to see--the last time Democratic politics were so hopeful, so youthful. Then came '68 and the return of Nixon.
August 25: Conventions: Politics as Usual
There's a reason why gavel-to-gavel convention coverage is dead (except on C-Span): kind of like Philadelphia, there's no news there.
There's only one question I really expect to see answered: how will the Republicans deal with the embarrassment that is their nominal leader, President George W. Bush? They may silence him, he may even acquiesce in that, but they can't possibly ignore the shadow over their party which he and his administration of Bushite Misrule have provided. Speakers who have any content to their remarks will have to identify themselves: pro-Bushite or contra.
Even John McCain. At this point, I don't feel he has much anti-Bushite ground to stand upon--somehow, all the positions that he has flip-flopped upon have brought him right into the standard Bushite party line. Except on the environment, he has positioned himself as more right-wing even than Dubya (leaving aside the point that preserving the environment is the "conservative" thing to do). Still, I expect he will feel compelled to back up that "original maverick" line from his ads, and the line about how he understands the country is not better off than it was four years ago. Four?
August 3: Obama Angled-- That Stupid Ad was denounced promptly. Obama spoke truth to power. McCain agreed to pull it. Sounds good, but why does it feel so bad?
McCain's Evil Campaign, or McCampaign for short, got our man to take the race-bait.
Not a "racial card", or "smear", one way or the other. McCain's guys dangled that thing out there, and, unfortunately, Obama reacted. Not that what he charged McCampaign with was an improper charge in any way, mostly because it's all true. They are out to make him scary, and he's not like those guys on the dollar bills (even if some weren't actual Presidents).
He's got it wrong, though, about this ad and how it fits into the new plan. There will be a few hammer blows--outrageous charges, like Obama would want to stir up the racial stew--designed to turn off wavering Obama supporters, suppress turnout if possible. These are just to soften up the swing voters: mushy, indecisive moderate conservatives of all party affiliations, or of none. The ultimate appeal of the ad is not to racial hatred, but to jealousy--Obama is so young and beautiful and cool! The idea, which chief National Review stenographer Lowry captured beautifully in his column this week, is to use Obama's celebrity as a wedge--to make him Other, to make him seem less solid than he is.
The real point of the ad has been inaccurately described by the Republican spinmeisters' POV. It's not the stated point, "Is He Ready to Lead?" That's stupid--of course, he's ready to lead; the question is whether we are ready to follow. The real question in people's minds is, Is It Too Soon?
Too Soon for B.O.--Boom Over--the first--and probably best--post-boomer politician. There will be many more, and technically he's L.B.--Later Boomer. But he's already an historic figure through what he has achieved in the last 12 months, and if he appears Too Ready for Coinage to Jon Stewart, we should sit back and wait for the mature Barack Obama. No?
"Too Soon" vs. "Too Late"--this will be the dilemma of the swing voter--and thus is emerging as a key issue--in the Presidential race this year. Particularly if McCain chooses someone who makes the Body Electorate's stomach churn as his V.P. nominee (I'm thinking of Mitt Romney, here...)
August 1: McCain's Going Down - the ad with Britney Spears (sp?) and Paris Hilton, followed by Obama, and the ruckus that has followed, has signaled the way this campaign is bound to go.
I saw a fascinating discussion of this nonsense on today's "Hardball", with two radio talk show hosts named Heidi (blond white woman) and Leo (black man). Heidi claimed not to see any race-baiting in the ad's juxtaposition of Britney/Paris/Obama, whereas Leo challenged her to make any connection between the three other than the idea that it was designed to stimulate primal fears among whites. The conversation turned then to the possibly-irrelevant fact that Obama had (months ago) made comments referring to his grandmother as "a typical white woman". Heidi thought this the height of outrage, while Leo pointed out that he was talking as a half-white person about his own grandmother. Heidi simply could not get the point.
Respected Journalists Andrea Mitchell and Ron Brownstein were then brought in to talk about this nonsense. Each managed to bring out a more significant policy news item of the moment that this stuff was obscuring, but that's all: the topic of the day is Going Negative and Playing the Race Card.
Host whoever (not Chris Matthews) and Leo were trying to suggest this will backfire on McCain, as it will alienate moderate Republicans and (big-I) Independents. Surely they will see that Obama has little in common with Spears/Hilton, so there is nothing in their association in an ad, and McCain's "serious" appeal will be undermined by these shenanigans.
Unfortunately, I think them wrong. As Mitchell suggests, this was totally calculated strategy by McCain's handlers. Think "Karl Rove Surrogates". It doesn't matter if both sides (as well as the quality of political dialogue, the general welfare, American electoral processes) are discredited by this exchange, in fact it's to McCain's good. Moderates will freak out, whites generally will have an involuntary surge of reptilian emotion, and repeated appeals to such ugly business will cause turnout to be suppressed throughout the electorate. Turnout is bad, if you're a Republican, this is their judgement, so this is the way to go.
Obama's campaign answered quickly, sharply, McCain retorted and suggested we all move on. Which means he gets away clean, Obama looks hyper-sensitive, and the prod to sensitive nerve endings is barely noticed. Maybe next time they will be, but in the meantime, irritation is increased and the debate dumbed down. Which can only be to McCain's advantage.
So far, anyway, it belongs to John Kerry, at least as far as what I've seen. He ripped the Bushites a new one, and John McCain also, for sucking up to them. Who would know more?
His delivery was clean and the lines well-honed. Most of all, the indictment was extensive, accurate, and telling. Barack should crib some notes from that one for his speech, much as he will want to hit the high road.
August 27: Days of Future Passed
Before C-Span went live, possibly due to a delay in the start of the coma-inducing Republican Platform Committee meeting, they showed two fantastic recordings of Democratic speeches from network archives.
The first was John F. Kennedy's acceptance speech in 1960, from nothing less than the L.A. Memorial Coliseum--the famous "New Frontier" speech. In it, Kennedy takes a very partisan tone to attack Nixon, after first addressing the famous Catholic issue that had dogged him in this stage of that year's election, finally finishing by giving a glimpse of the vision. Parallels galore to Obama's challenge tomorrow night.
The second was even more dramatic; it was RFK's appearance before the 1964 Democratic Convention to give his support to the Johnson-Humphrey ticket. This was August 1964, so only 9 months after his brother's assassination; he was still Attorney General (but would not be a month later). The crowd was electrified at his appearance and would not subside, so he waited, patiently intoning, every so often, "Mr. Chairman....", not allowing himself to smile or to cry, though he seemed to wish to do both. His principal purposes, like Hillary's last night, were to thank his supporters in the party and to give unambiguous support to his opponent without praising him overly.
It's a marvel to see--the last time Democratic politics were so hopeful, so youthful. Then came '68 and the return of Nixon.
August 25: Conventions: Politics as Usual
There's a reason why gavel-to-gavel convention coverage is dead (except on C-Span): kind of like Philadelphia, there's no news there.
There's only one question I really expect to see answered: how will the Republicans deal with the embarrassment that is their nominal leader, President George W. Bush? They may silence him, he may even acquiesce in that, but they can't possibly ignore the shadow over their party which he and his administration of Bushite Misrule have provided. Speakers who have any content to their remarks will have to identify themselves: pro-Bushite or contra.
Even John McCain. At this point, I don't feel he has much anti-Bushite ground to stand upon--somehow, all the positions that he has flip-flopped upon have brought him right into the standard Bushite party line. Except on the environment, he has positioned himself as more right-wing even than Dubya (leaving aside the point that preserving the environment is the "conservative" thing to do). Still, I expect he will feel compelled to back up that "original maverick" line from his ads, and the line about how he understands the country is not better off than it was four years ago. Four?
August 3: Obama Angled-- That Stupid Ad was denounced promptly. Obama spoke truth to power. McCain agreed to pull it. Sounds good, but why does it feel so bad?
McCain's Evil Campaign, or McCampaign for short, got our man to take the race-bait.
Not a "racial card", or "smear", one way or the other. McCain's guys dangled that thing out there, and, unfortunately, Obama reacted. Not that what he charged McCampaign with was an improper charge in any way, mostly because it's all true. They are out to make him scary, and he's not like those guys on the dollar bills (even if some weren't actual Presidents).
He's got it wrong, though, about this ad and how it fits into the new plan. There will be a few hammer blows--outrageous charges, like Obama would want to stir up the racial stew--designed to turn off wavering Obama supporters, suppress turnout if possible. These are just to soften up the swing voters: mushy, indecisive moderate conservatives of all party affiliations, or of none. The ultimate appeal of the ad is not to racial hatred, but to jealousy--Obama is so young and beautiful and cool! The idea, which chief National Review stenographer Lowry captured beautifully in his column this week, is to use Obama's celebrity as a wedge--to make him Other, to make him seem less solid than he is.
The real point of the ad has been inaccurately described by the Republican spinmeisters' POV. It's not the stated point, "Is He Ready to Lead?" That's stupid--of course, he's ready to lead; the question is whether we are ready to follow. The real question in people's minds is, Is It Too Soon?
Too Soon for B.O.--Boom Over--the first--and probably best--post-boomer politician. There will be many more, and technically he's L.B.--Later Boomer. But he's already an historic figure through what he has achieved in the last 12 months, and if he appears Too Ready for Coinage to Jon Stewart, we should sit back and wait for the mature Barack Obama. No?
"Too Soon" vs. "Too Late"--this will be the dilemma of the swing voter--and thus is emerging as a key issue--in the Presidential race this year. Particularly if McCain chooses someone who makes the Body Electorate's stomach churn as his V.P. nominee (I'm thinking of Mitt Romney, here...)
August 1: McCain's Going Down - the ad with Britney Spears (sp?) and Paris Hilton, followed by Obama, and the ruckus that has followed, has signaled the way this campaign is bound to go.
I saw a fascinating discussion of this nonsense on today's "Hardball", with two radio talk show hosts named Heidi (blond white woman) and Leo (black man). Heidi claimed not to see any race-baiting in the ad's juxtaposition of Britney/Paris/Obama, whereas Leo challenged her to make any connection between the three other than the idea that it was designed to stimulate primal fears among whites. The conversation turned then to the possibly-irrelevant fact that Obama had (months ago) made comments referring to his grandmother as "a typical white woman". Heidi thought this the height of outrage, while Leo pointed out that he was talking as a half-white person about his own grandmother. Heidi simply could not get the point.
Respected Journalists Andrea Mitchell and Ron Brownstein were then brought in to talk about this nonsense. Each managed to bring out a more significant policy news item of the moment that this stuff was obscuring, but that's all: the topic of the day is Going Negative and Playing the Race Card.
Host whoever (not Chris Matthews) and Leo were trying to suggest this will backfire on McCain, as it will alienate moderate Republicans and (big-I) Independents. Surely they will see that Obama has little in common with Spears/Hilton, so there is nothing in their association in an ad, and McCain's "serious" appeal will be undermined by these shenanigans.
Unfortunately, I think them wrong. As Mitchell suggests, this was totally calculated strategy by McCain's handlers. Think "Karl Rove Surrogates". It doesn't matter if both sides (as well as the quality of political dialogue, the general welfare, American electoral processes) are discredited by this exchange, in fact it's to McCain's good. Moderates will freak out, whites generally will have an involuntary surge of reptilian emotion, and repeated appeals to such ugly business will cause turnout to be suppressed throughout the electorate. Turnout is bad, if you're a Republican, this is their judgement, so this is the way to go.
Obama's campaign answered quickly, sharply, McCain retorted and suggested we all move on. Which means he gets away clean, Obama looks hyper-sensitive, and the prod to sensitive nerve endings is barely noticed. Maybe next time they will be, but in the meantime, irritation is increased and the debate dumbed down. Which can only be to McCain's advantage.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Thank You, Prime Minister al-Maliki!
In this week's episode of the classic boomer drama, "Leave it to Beaver", our hero's feeble attempts at long-distance ventriloquism fail. His agent, our brilliant ambassador Crocker, does not seem to have rehearsed the Iraqi premier's lines with him. Instead, he leaves al-Maliki to say what he wants regarding the visit of Prince Obama.
Miraculously, he tells the truth: Obama's plan is at least a plan, and it suits him well. 16-20 months is about enough time for the US combat forces to draw down, and starting that in January, 2009 seems propitious given recent developments.
There is no guarantee of success for Maliki and his government--in fact, he could be out when and if fair, fully-contested provincial elections occur (now scheduled, like the begin of the Obama Drawdown, for early 2009). These results, largely dependent on the extent of Sunni willingness to cooperate, are crucial: A result which is marred by violence or heavy boycotts could extend insurgency. In the hands of McCain it would mean four more years of occupation (or until when he kicks, whichever is sooner), and if Maliki doesn't like it, too bad for him.
I think we can count on Moqtada al-Sadr to keep the Shiites out of the streets and getting his people to vote under Obama's program, which will be most agreeable to him. Whether we can count on him after we are gone is wholly another question. So, that's another huge area of risk for Maliki: that the whole thing will "go pear-shaped" (Anglicism) after the Obama Drawdown.
Still, he is brave and expresses the Iraqi popular will to defend its long-neglected sovereignty--at least for this stage of his career. It will certainly be to his electoral advantage to build some space between himself and Bushite policy. His statement was well-crafted for this purpose, and, as such, deserves praise for both the content and the manner of putting it out there.
As for the Bushites, it's game over. They've actually got things on a good glide path for their approach onto the carrier this time: "Jan. 20, 2009: Mission (Impossible) Accomplished, Pt. 2".
The truth of the eventual form of any security agreement that the US is likely to make with Iraq (whether the administration is Bushite, Obamaian, or McCainian) becomes clear: the Iraqis will not consent to continue the UN mandate (under which American occupation became legitimized after the fact) further than (approx.) December, 2010. Any permanent US bases on Iraq are subject to future agreement, upon which there will be none. The future Iraqi government may be pro-American or anti-American, or both (for example, depending on our posture towards its sovereignty, which may be a partisan issue), or it could be tripartite and chaotic, but it will have this as its rock of continuing national policy for quite awhile.
Miraculously, he tells the truth: Obama's plan is at least a plan, and it suits him well. 16-20 months is about enough time for the US combat forces to draw down, and starting that in January, 2009 seems propitious given recent developments.
There is no guarantee of success for Maliki and his government--in fact, he could be out when and if fair, fully-contested provincial elections occur (now scheduled, like the begin of the Obama Drawdown, for early 2009). These results, largely dependent on the extent of Sunni willingness to cooperate, are crucial: A result which is marred by violence or heavy boycotts could extend insurgency. In the hands of McCain it would mean four more years of occupation (or until when he kicks, whichever is sooner), and if Maliki doesn't like it, too bad for him.
I think we can count on Moqtada al-Sadr to keep the Shiites out of the streets and getting his people to vote under Obama's program, which will be most agreeable to him. Whether we can count on him after we are gone is wholly another question. So, that's another huge area of risk for Maliki: that the whole thing will "go pear-shaped" (Anglicism) after the Obama Drawdown.
Still, he is brave and expresses the Iraqi popular will to defend its long-neglected sovereignty--at least for this stage of his career. It will certainly be to his electoral advantage to build some space between himself and Bushite policy. His statement was well-crafted for this purpose, and, as such, deserves praise for both the content and the manner of putting it out there.
As for the Bushites, it's game over. They've actually got things on a good glide path for their approach onto the carrier this time: "Jan. 20, 2009: Mission (Impossible) Accomplished, Pt. 2".
The truth of the eventual form of any security agreement that the US is likely to make with Iraq (whether the administration is Bushite, Obamaian, or McCainian) becomes clear: the Iraqis will not consent to continue the UN mandate (under which American occupation became legitimized after the fact) further than (approx.) December, 2010. Any permanent US bases on Iraq are subject to future agreement, upon which there will be none. The future Iraqi government may be pro-American or anti-American, or both (for example, depending on our posture towards its sovereignty, which may be a partisan issue), or it could be tripartite and chaotic, but it will have this as its rock of continuing national policy for quite awhile.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Movement on Renewable Energy
The current campaign gives hope that the will exists to move forward on energy toward renewable sources. Even the right-wing "energy independence" movement can be a positive force if handled properly. Obama and McCain have agreed on cap-and-trade and other measures to shift gears. Some kind of non-partisan consensus and concerted action in 2009 is imaginable, no matter which candidate wins.
Al Gore's call to bring 100% of electricity to renewable sources in 10 years (see, for example, http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/) is a huge stretch, but points toward a nexus, a visible point on the horizon. So does Boone Pickens, who's for Big Wind to replace Big Erl. There's a focus to Gore's challenge that is practicable, even if the goal isn't. "How?" is now the question of the hour.
If the movement works out, wind and solar will soon be able to command huge investment and political will, which no self-respecting high plains district will long be able to ignore. (Taos County Commissioners, please note: the only question is alignment so as to cause minimum disruption to bird migratory patterns.)
Now, a Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html?th&emc=th) argues for large-scale solar power generation through new-generation panels deployed from space stations. The power would then "be safely beamed back to earth by microwave radio." Author O.Glenn Smith, a former NASA scientist, claims this is all possible with existing technology. I think the issues will be durability and reliability--space is a harsh mistress, as Heinlein said, and the solar wind may corrode the new, delicate cells. Further, the slightest malfunction with the microwave beam would probably cook thousands of hapless victims. But, if you're a connoisseur of solar, this is drinking straight from the source.
Another component of this emergent consensus was expressed recently by Andy Grove, former head of Intel (reference). He convincingly argues that we must focus on the electrical system as the most resilient way (also most efficient) to utilize energy. If we bring more of the energy consumption into our electrical power system we would be able to absorb fuel supplies of many types and waste less--produce less greenhouse gases--in doing so.
What means all this? Coal, which has not walked the walk in terms of developing clean methods of use, should be pushed roughly out of the picture (gasification being probably the only sane channel for future development). Vehicles powered principally by rechargeable electrical systems would be logical to roll out in this future scenario (I'd say light rail, along with plug-in hybrids and even the return of the pure electric car.) Nuclear will be marginal but still part of the program in this consensus approach. Biomass generally should supplant ethanol and other processes using food plants. Fossil fuels would wither and die....
OK, got carried away. And, for all its merits under the current US energy economic environment, I don't see how this emergent policy saves the globe from the wave of Chinese dirty consumption which is building. We still need to do the research into clean coal, too. And plan for the refugees from Bangladesh and other populous areas nearly certain to suffer massive future flooding, in case we all fall short.
Al Gore's call to bring 100% of electricity to renewable sources in 10 years (see, for example, http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/) is a huge stretch, but points toward a nexus, a visible point on the horizon. So does Boone Pickens, who's for Big Wind to replace Big Erl. There's a focus to Gore's challenge that is practicable, even if the goal isn't. "How?" is now the question of the hour.
If the movement works out, wind and solar will soon be able to command huge investment and political will, which no self-respecting high plains district will long be able to ignore. (Taos County Commissioners, please note: the only question is alignment so as to cause minimum disruption to bird migratory patterns.)
Now, a Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23smith.html?th&emc=th) argues for large-scale solar power generation through new-generation panels deployed from space stations. The power would then "be safely beamed back to earth by microwave radio." Author O.Glenn Smith, a former NASA scientist, claims this is all possible with existing technology. I think the issues will be durability and reliability--space is a harsh mistress, as Heinlein said, and the solar wind may corrode the new, delicate cells. Further, the slightest malfunction with the microwave beam would probably cook thousands of hapless victims. But, if you're a connoisseur of solar, this is drinking straight from the source.
Another component of this emergent consensus was expressed recently by Andy Grove, former head of Intel (reference). He convincingly argues that we must focus on the electrical system as the most resilient way (also most efficient) to utilize energy. If we bring more of the energy consumption into our electrical power system we would be able to absorb fuel supplies of many types and waste less--produce less greenhouse gases--in doing so.
What means all this? Coal, which has not walked the walk in terms of developing clean methods of use, should be pushed roughly out of the picture (gasification being probably the only sane channel for future development). Vehicles powered principally by rechargeable electrical systems would be logical to roll out in this future scenario (I'd say light rail, along with plug-in hybrids and even the return of the pure electric car.) Nuclear will be marginal but still part of the program in this consensus approach. Biomass generally should supplant ethanol and other processes using food plants. Fossil fuels would wither and die....
OK, got carried away. And, for all its merits under the current US energy economic environment, I don't see how this emergent policy saves the globe from the wave of Chinese dirty consumption which is building. We still need to do the research into clean coal, too. And plan for the refugees from Bangladesh and other populous areas nearly certain to suffer massive future flooding, in case we all fall short.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Tax the Bushites!
This is the meaning of Obama's key economic policy, in blunt, harsh terms you would never hear from him. This is the wedge issue that Obama seeks to create, and, if he does so, it will be the means for him to win a convincing victory (one that's Electoral College chicanery-proof).
It's the Microeconomy, Stupid
I do not think Iraq, or foreign policy/national security generally, will be central to the campaign or its outcome. Each candidate has already garnered the supporters for whom this issue will be central, and that number will be less by November. Obama's current international tour should serve to demonstrate that there is no hesitation abroad about letting us elect him President (as if that really mattered), so we can check off that box.
It also provides a distraction and delay from what could be a more telling debate on military policy--a subject on which Obama will need to beef up his team by September, when he will begin to get intelligence briefings which should make it easier to avoid gaffes in the big debates. I'm talking about weapons programs, numerical strength of the different branches of the armed forces, enlistment--very important decisions that the next President will make and Congress will ratify.
Immigration, gun control, abortion, death penalty--these are all the political baggage which Obama can deal with, must deal with, in order to successfully execute his strategy, which boils down to cutting something like a 12-point election day deficit among white voters to a deficit of 6-8%. Whites must be placated in their backwards views on these sensitive topics--Obama must seek to moderate the intensity of debate and reduce these issues' importance--in order not to lose a point here or there. The ritual incantations of unqualified, unthinking support for entitlements and Israel are required to protect the Democratic base from McCain raiding tactics.
No, it will be the specific domestic issue of the economy which will determine the outcome (like 1992, as some BTH have noted). The President has relatively little leverage on the macroeconomic course of destiny, which is basically market dynamics misshapen slightly by the tinkering of professionals (the President is fully included in the discussion but doesn't have a vote). He does, or can, have a significant effect on the microeconomic level though, by helping to shape the winners and losers resulting from political developments with major domestic economic impact.
But Who Are These "Bushites"?
Take Dubya's Administration. His decisions have had a major, positive impact on a few, identifiable groups. Military contractors, especially on-site service providers, oil executives, commodity producers in general, all those for whom continuing unsafe or unsustainable practices is critical to their business models, real estate kingpins, certain types of market speculators--these are the leading protagonists and winners of the Bushite Recovery of 2002-07. (Iran and China, too, but that's another story.)
Many components of the victorious Republican national coalitions of 2000 and 2004 feel poorly done by the Bushite Administration. "Conservatives"--meaning those who are concerned about the growth of the public vs. private sector--got nothing but slippage. Religious evangelists not much more, besides lip service and the Roberts/Alito positions, and that's not enough considering their decisive involvement in key states. A large number of them are getting more interested in preserving man's dominion (i.e., global warming, etc.) since the Republicans don't seem to be able to deliver Armageddon. These groups are not Bushite, they were allied with the true Bushites, and they're walking away. McCain's opportunity lies in his ability to appeal to many of them.
No, outside of their specified agents in Federal government, the true Bushite constituents are the ones we identified above. Obama can win the election if he can make the average American understand that this phony recovery which ended a year ago had certain identifiable beneficiaries, and that we can, at least, target for taxation future recognition of their ill-gotten incomes. Simply by letting certain tax cuts expire. It's the reverse of the classic tax ploy, the "oil depletion allowance" .
Yes, some will identify this as class warfare. There is that element, but that charge is an oversimplification that will not impress the voting public. It will actually be a squeezing of one segment of the upper class, a bit of revenge that voters will endorse. Though it will never be presented to them so baldly as I do.
It's the Microeconomy, Stupid
I do not think Iraq, or foreign policy/national security generally, will be central to the campaign or its outcome. Each candidate has already garnered the supporters for whom this issue will be central, and that number will be less by November. Obama's current international tour should serve to demonstrate that there is no hesitation abroad about letting us elect him President (as if that really mattered), so we can check off that box.
It also provides a distraction and delay from what could be a more telling debate on military policy--a subject on which Obama will need to beef up his team by September, when he will begin to get intelligence briefings which should make it easier to avoid gaffes in the big debates. I'm talking about weapons programs, numerical strength of the different branches of the armed forces, enlistment--very important decisions that the next President will make and Congress will ratify.
Immigration, gun control, abortion, death penalty--these are all the political baggage which Obama can deal with, must deal with, in order to successfully execute his strategy, which boils down to cutting something like a 12-point election day deficit among white voters to a deficit of 6-8%. Whites must be placated in their backwards views on these sensitive topics--Obama must seek to moderate the intensity of debate and reduce these issues' importance--in order not to lose a point here or there. The ritual incantations of unqualified, unthinking support for entitlements and Israel are required to protect the Democratic base from McCain raiding tactics.
No, it will be the specific domestic issue of the economy which will determine the outcome (like 1992, as some BTH have noted). The President has relatively little leverage on the macroeconomic course of destiny, which is basically market dynamics misshapen slightly by the tinkering of professionals (the President is fully included in the discussion but doesn't have a vote). He does, or can, have a significant effect on the microeconomic level though, by helping to shape the winners and losers resulting from political developments with major domestic economic impact.
But Who Are These "Bushites"?
Take Dubya's Administration. His decisions have had a major, positive impact on a few, identifiable groups. Military contractors, especially on-site service providers, oil executives, commodity producers in general, all those for whom continuing unsafe or unsustainable practices is critical to their business models, real estate kingpins, certain types of market speculators--these are the leading protagonists and winners of the Bushite Recovery of 2002-07. (Iran and China, too, but that's another story.)
Many components of the victorious Republican national coalitions of 2000 and 2004 feel poorly done by the Bushite Administration. "Conservatives"--meaning those who are concerned about the growth of the public vs. private sector--got nothing but slippage. Religious evangelists not much more, besides lip service and the Roberts/Alito positions, and that's not enough considering their decisive involvement in key states. A large number of them are getting more interested in preserving man's dominion (i.e., global warming, etc.) since the Republicans don't seem to be able to deliver Armageddon. These groups are not Bushite, they were allied with the true Bushites, and they're walking away. McCain's opportunity lies in his ability to appeal to many of them.
No, outside of their specified agents in Federal government, the true Bushite constituents are the ones we identified above. Obama can win the election if he can make the average American understand that this phony recovery which ended a year ago had certain identifiable beneficiaries, and that we can, at least, target for taxation future recognition of their ill-gotten incomes. Simply by letting certain tax cuts expire. It's the reverse of the classic tax ploy, the "oil depletion allowance" .
Yes, some will identify this as class warfare. There is that element, but that charge is an oversimplification that will not impress the voting public. It will actually be a squeezing of one segment of the upper class, a bit of revenge that voters will endorse. Though it will never be presented to them so baldly as I do.
2008 Campaign Update
The Electoral Map has gotten a lot of attention, deservedly: it's not impossible for Obama to win by 3-4 points and still lose the Electoral College (it could've happened to Dubya in '04 if he didn't have control of the state house in Ohio).
I'm sticking with my previous assessment: my best guess is for a 293-245 win. Robert Novak lines the states up the same, except for Ohio--he feels McCain is stronger than Bush was there, so his is 273-265. I give him credit for making calls and not just dumping everything that's Too Close To Call (there's really about 15 states in that category) into the toss-up category. Rasmussen's analysis, when leaners are included, moved from 293 for Obama to 273, because they have moved Ohio from Leans Democrat to Toss-up. The other toss-up states they show are Virginia and Nevada--have to agree with that.
The difference betweeen a cliff-hanger and a safe win are the outcomes in Ohio and Michigan, where McCain seems to think he can win. The difference between a safe win and an Electoral College landslide are Virginia, Nevada, and Missouri. I'll be more than satisfied with a safe win, but it makes sense to do everything to keep the latter three in play down to the wire.
The Ohio/Michigan thesis may be borne out in the selection of VP's. Michigan was a strong state for Mitt Romney in the primary and, in the state, he's family: second-generation, once-removed. Better than the bland Clintonite, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, would be Kathleen Sebelius, who is second-generation, once-removed from Ohio (she's the daughter of the most successful Democratic statewide politician of the latter 1900's, John Gilligan). She brings successful executive experience, compatibility, and tactical advantage--as well as being a woman, which is not a bad idea at all (least of all in a VP nominee). She remains my top choice.
I'm sticking with my previous assessment: my best guess is for a 293-245 win. Robert Novak lines the states up the same, except for Ohio--he feels McCain is stronger than Bush was there, so his is 273-265. I give him credit for making calls and not just dumping everything that's Too Close To Call (there's really about 15 states in that category) into the toss-up category. Rasmussen's analysis, when leaners are included, moved from 293 for Obama to 273, because they have moved Ohio from Leans Democrat to Toss-up. The other toss-up states they show are Virginia and Nevada--have to agree with that.
The difference betweeen a cliff-hanger and a safe win are the outcomes in Ohio and Michigan, where McCain seems to think he can win. The difference between a safe win and an Electoral College landslide are Virginia, Nevada, and Missouri. I'll be more than satisfied with a safe win, but it makes sense to do everything to keep the latter three in play down to the wire.
The Ohio/Michigan thesis may be borne out in the selection of VP's. Michigan was a strong state for Mitt Romney in the primary and, in the state, he's family: second-generation, once-removed. Better than the bland Clintonite, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, would be Kathleen Sebelius, who is second-generation, once-removed from Ohio (she's the daughter of the most successful Democratic statewide politician of the latter 1900's, John Gilligan). She brings successful executive experience, compatibility, and tactical advantage--as well as being a woman, which is not a bad idea at all (least of all in a VP nominee). She remains my top choice.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Euro 2008 Recap
Congratulations to Spain, which showed it had a worthy defense and potent offense. The key game of the tournament was outlasting Italy in penalty kicks in the quarterfinal. Russia's speed was killed by the rain, which set up a classic test in the final. No shenanigans this time, and Germany was thoroughly beaten by the end.
I jump Spain to the top of the list of European teams, which makes them #3 in their chance to win South Africa in 2010 (after Argentina and Brazil). England, which didn't make the Euros (and thus made the whole thing a lot more fun), might well be #2 of the Europeans. However, that doesn't necessarily put them at #4 in my rankings: Russia and Turkey, both questionable in their "European-ness" despite their memberships in the European federation, might be good longer-shot picks for 2010, which would then finesse the classic World Cup dichotomy--Europe wins when it's there, Brazil or Argentina when it's not (one exception in history).
I jump Spain to the top of the list of European teams, which makes them #3 in their chance to win South Africa in 2010 (after Argentina and Brazil). England, which didn't make the Euros (and thus made the whole thing a lot more fun), might well be #2 of the Europeans. However, that doesn't necessarily put them at #4 in my rankings: Russia and Turkey, both questionable in their "European-ness" despite their memberships in the European federation, might be good longer-shot picks for 2010, which would then finesse the classic World Cup dichotomy--Europe wins when it's there, Brazil or Argentina when it's not (one exception in history).
Lunatic Fringe Weighs In; Some Counter-Balance
See Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University on "Using Bombs to Stop Wars", http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html.
He logically builds an airtight case for the inevitability of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites in the period Nov. 5- Jan. 19 (a frighteningly real possibility, I admit), dismissing along the way any chance of negotiation, the possibility that mutual deterrence could prevent Iran using its hypothetical weapons, and even any chance that Israel's attack could work.
It seems to be addressed to the leaders in Iran, supported by Bushites (and the desperate Olmert government) as an adjunct to their "you get one chance to agree to our demands before we declare war, while we still can" policy--an ultimatum, in so many words, and to have been planted in the New York Times as a personal favor to some US intelligence apparatchik. I choose that interpretation over its being a desperate plea for help from the Israeli Intelligence to Washington: stop us before we hurt ourselves! Clearly the Olmert government, with scandals closing in and Labor pulling out, is willing to go to extremes: they're even threatening to make an agreement with the PLO (or whatever they call themselves today)!
In this vein, I like Obama's support for Jerusalem, undivided, as capital of Israel. I think he should have the same policy for the Palestinian Federation, Abbas' organization (the same former-PLO one), and, if they learn to behave themselves, Hamas. Then, in 2013, for the world, in the form of the (expanded, revised) Security Council of the U.N. With all the transplanted bureaucrats (and new McDonald's for the workers coming to support them), Jerusalem will become the priciest real estate that side of London. That would then be a well-deserved peace dividend!
On the Positive side: Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on the Obama Foreign Policy speech. Sargent's analysis focused on it as a point-by-point rebuttal to McCain's attacks. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_i_strongly_stand_by_my_p.php. (I have to praise TPM in this way since they did some dysfunctional change to their login process, which seems to have permanently screwed up my ID. Now, don't tell me it was intentional!)
And, at least, Obama gave a sentence to the indea of reform of the United Nations. It's a start.
He logically builds an airtight case for the inevitability of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites in the period Nov. 5- Jan. 19 (a frighteningly real possibility, I admit), dismissing along the way any chance of negotiation, the possibility that mutual deterrence could prevent Iran using its hypothetical weapons, and even any chance that Israel's attack could work.
It seems to be addressed to the leaders in Iran, supported by Bushites (and the desperate Olmert government) as an adjunct to their "you get one chance to agree to our demands before we declare war, while we still can" policy--an ultimatum, in so many words, and to have been planted in the New York Times as a personal favor to some US intelligence apparatchik. I choose that interpretation over its being a desperate plea for help from the Israeli Intelligence to Washington: stop us before we hurt ourselves! Clearly the Olmert government, with scandals closing in and Labor pulling out, is willing to go to extremes: they're even threatening to make an agreement with the PLO (or whatever they call themselves today)!
In this vein, I like Obama's support for Jerusalem, undivided, as capital of Israel. I think he should have the same policy for the Palestinian Federation, Abbas' organization (the same former-PLO one), and, if they learn to behave themselves, Hamas. Then, in 2013, for the world, in the form of the (expanded, revised) Security Council of the U.N. With all the transplanted bureaucrats (and new McDonald's for the workers coming to support them), Jerusalem will become the priciest real estate that side of London. That would then be a well-deserved peace dividend!
On the Positive side: Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent on the Obama Foreign Policy speech. Sargent's analysis focused on it as a point-by-point rebuttal to McCain's attacks. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_i_strongly_stand_by_my_p.php. (I have to praise TPM in this way since they did some dysfunctional change to their login process, which seems to have permanently screwed up my ID. Now, don't tell me it was intentional!)
And, at least, Obama gave a sentence to the indea of reform of the United Nations. It's a start.
Eat. Pray. Love. Rinse. Repeat.
Elizabeth Gilbert's memoir "Eat Pray Love" was my first read on the trip through Italy. It's deservedly a "woman's book", but this guy just had to know.
To sum it up, Gilbert...
Eats her way through Italy, thinking about her bitter divorce (ex-husband is unmentionable) and her passionate, unstable relationship with a New Yorker (his name surely changed). Picks up Italian--the language, that is, not a single Italian male (she would have us believe). Drops her anti-depressant medication.
Prays like a son of a gun in the ashram in India. Learns to unleash her chakras. Teases her Robert from Texas until he moseys on. Loses that weight she put on in Italy.
OK, those of us following along know that Indonesia will mean "love". It was not as simplistic as it might have been, i.e., she does not fall in love with the teacher/healer whose influence caused her to come to Indonesia in the first place. But Ms. Gilbert has turned on that overhead light on her taxi, and before long someone hails her when she's in the right mood.
Just a passenger, she thinks. By the end of the book, though, her older Brazilian lover (she had to get used to the idea that her 30-something could go for a 50-something, no matter what skills he had in patient seduction) was thoroughly tangled in her hair.
Her section on Italy, the one of the three locales about which I'd consider myself expert, was accurate and perceptive, though hardly original. She wisely confines herself to a few areas of focus in her diaries--eating, the language, and getting those previous guys "right out of her hair". All of those topics struck chords that resonated with me--for example, I once fled to Italy to escape my unhappy love life.
Her wit is the book's saving grace--it was up-front and wisecracking in Italy, non-existent in oh-too-serious India, and mildly self-deprecating in Indonesia (her steady state). It was no challenge at all to read the whole thing in 3-4 days at the beach.
Oh--Rinse. And Repeat. Those are the sequels.
To sum it up, Gilbert...
Eats her way through Italy, thinking about her bitter divorce (ex-husband is unmentionable) and her passionate, unstable relationship with a New Yorker (his name surely changed). Picks up Italian--the language, that is, not a single Italian male (she would have us believe). Drops her anti-depressant medication.
Prays like a son of a gun in the ashram in India. Learns to unleash her chakras. Teases her Robert from Texas until he moseys on. Loses that weight she put on in Italy.
OK, those of us following along know that Indonesia will mean "love". It was not as simplistic as it might have been, i.e., she does not fall in love with the teacher/healer whose influence caused her to come to Indonesia in the first place. But Ms. Gilbert has turned on that overhead light on her taxi, and before long someone hails her when she's in the right mood.
Just a passenger, she thinks. By the end of the book, though, her older Brazilian lover (she had to get used to the idea that her 30-something could go for a 50-something, no matter what skills he had in patient seduction) was thoroughly tangled in her hair.
Her section on Italy, the one of the three locales about which I'd consider myself expert, was accurate and perceptive, though hardly original. She wisely confines herself to a few areas of focus in her diaries--eating, the language, and getting those previous guys "right out of her hair". All of those topics struck chords that resonated with me--for example, I once fled to Italy to escape my unhappy love life.
Her wit is the book's saving grace--it was up-front and wisecracking in Italy, non-existent in oh-too-serious India, and mildly self-deprecating in Indonesia (her steady state). It was no challenge at all to read the whole thing in 3-4 days at the beach.
Oh--Rinse. And Repeat. Those are the sequels.
Italy Re-Viewed Pt. I--
I didn't realize it at the time (late '70's-early '80's), but my youthful infatuation with Italy was indiscriminate. I was interested in every facet of the country, every region of its geography, all of its culture. Of course, that doesn't mean I was able to cover it all; one would need more than a lifetime, and I had a late start. Still, my range of interest went far. This recent voyage of discovery with my wife and children refreshed those memories, to which I brought a new perspective.
It's easier to start with some of the eternal values.
The People
There's no doubt or re-thinking here: The country is fully an expression of the complex, creative genius of its people. It's such a man-made environment--a beautiful artifice, though conditioned by some powerful forces of nature. A good example is the Gulf of Naples area, with the bounty of its gorgeous and expansive coast, the backdrop of Vesuvius, and the huge city of Napoli, not safely situated if a major eruption should occur. It's hard to find much of what Americans would call "natural", but it's hard to criticize their land management (given the population size), either.
Ah, the population. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Along with some pretty stiff "non-tariff barriers" against importation of people (a/k/a immigration), low birth rates are producing some concern about the top-heavy demographic shape taking form for the future and its implications on social services, the labor pool, etc.
Despite the waning population trend, it's hard to argue that the country lacks population density. There is a Northern Italian elitist party, though, that holds fast to the view that, due to differing growth rates, the country is doomed to the chaos of Southern Italy and Southern Italians--their aim is to pull together those who want to preserve their local (insular, xenophobic, elitist, Bourgeois) culture and keep the Other out. I guess you can tell I'm not exactly on their side.
True to their dire prophecies, and contrary to their best efforts, the country's famous fractionalization by clan/town/region seems to me to be decreasing (which means these Lega Nord guys are right on the issue, but losing the war). Principal agents causing this developing national consistency are schools, military service, and TV--there's basically one Italian-language TV market, and it's the whole country. There are some locally-produced broadcasts and news shows--about the equivalent of New York One (i.e., low budget, don't matter). I see the country as becoming more homogeneous, more oriented around the nuclear family, more mobile within the country.
In short, more like America. Which should please Italians: more than any other country (except Canada, of course), Italians look to America and American culture for their cues. Except that, while the Italians always moan about conditions, I feel that the widespread dissatisfaction is more earnest than ever this time around.
Which means, approximately, nothing, in political terms. Italians have been addressing inequality and inequity passionately through political means in a most ineffective manner for longer than any of us have been alive. And books have been printed about this problem since the press was invented.
If you're Italian, though, "si arrangia". This is the same as the English "muddling through", but with more style.
Tourism
It's tough, but rewarding. The Euro/dollar exchange rate has been a disaster for American tourists and those who hold dollars but could've held Euros (or pounds, or Swiss francs, for that matter). It hasn't been so great for Italians, either, to hear them tell it.
Certainly, the usual flood of Americans has relented a bit. This is not considered generally "a Good Thing", and we are more than welcome. Credit cards are more accepted, which is a good thing because it is impossible to have enough cash without maintaining a permanent physical presence next door to an ATM machine (and a US debit card bold enough to let you at it).
There is still massive art, ruins, and indescribable beauty of a thousand kinds everywhere you go. OK, not quite everywhere, but in quite a lot of places, not just one or two or even a hundred. Food is good. So is wine. We had more than our share of "Primitivo" in Puglia this year--never a bad one, never paid more than 6-7 Euros or the equivalent in inflated restaurant prices.
Agriturismo is still the trend of the moment there; it has deepened and broadened. Why not? Our fave this time was about 5 miles south of Noci, provincia di Bari--Masseria Murgia Albanese. It's a real farm--dairy, among other products. I give it an unabashed recommendation to visitors who bring the proper attitude. For our children, it was beautiful--our 9-year-old fell in love with Cicillo, the donkey, and watching the displays of the peacock.
More on popular culture, politics, and the things Italians are curious about today in our follow-up in the August "issue".
It's easier to start with some of the eternal values.
The People
There's no doubt or re-thinking here: The country is fully an expression of the complex, creative genius of its people. It's such a man-made environment--a beautiful artifice, though conditioned by some powerful forces of nature. A good example is the Gulf of Naples area, with the bounty of its gorgeous and expansive coast, the backdrop of Vesuvius, and the huge city of Napoli, not safely situated if a major eruption should occur. It's hard to find much of what Americans would call "natural", but it's hard to criticize their land management (given the population size), either.
Ah, the population. Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Along with some pretty stiff "non-tariff barriers" against importation of people (a/k/a immigration), low birth rates are producing some concern about the top-heavy demographic shape taking form for the future and its implications on social services, the labor pool, etc.
Despite the waning population trend, it's hard to argue that the country lacks population density. There is a Northern Italian elitist party, though, that holds fast to the view that, due to differing growth rates, the country is doomed to the chaos of Southern Italy and Southern Italians--their aim is to pull together those who want to preserve their local (insular, xenophobic, elitist, Bourgeois) culture and keep the Other out. I guess you can tell I'm not exactly on their side.
True to their dire prophecies, and contrary to their best efforts, the country's famous fractionalization by clan/town/region seems to me to be decreasing (which means these Lega Nord guys are right on the issue, but losing the war). Principal agents causing this developing national consistency are schools, military service, and TV--there's basically one Italian-language TV market, and it's the whole country. There are some locally-produced broadcasts and news shows--about the equivalent of New York One (i.e., low budget, don't matter). I see the country as becoming more homogeneous, more oriented around the nuclear family, more mobile within the country.
In short, more like America. Which should please Italians: more than any other country (except Canada, of course), Italians look to America and American culture for their cues. Except that, while the Italians always moan about conditions, I feel that the widespread dissatisfaction is more earnest than ever this time around.
Which means, approximately, nothing, in political terms. Italians have been addressing inequality and inequity passionately through political means in a most ineffective manner for longer than any of us have been alive. And books have been printed about this problem since the press was invented.
If you're Italian, though, "si arrangia". This is the same as the English "muddling through", but with more style.
Tourism
It's tough, but rewarding. The Euro/dollar exchange rate has been a disaster for American tourists and those who hold dollars but could've held Euros (or pounds, or Swiss francs, for that matter). It hasn't been so great for Italians, either, to hear them tell it.
Certainly, the usual flood of Americans has relented a bit. This is not considered generally "a Good Thing", and we are more than welcome. Credit cards are more accepted, which is a good thing because it is impossible to have enough cash without maintaining a permanent physical presence next door to an ATM machine (and a US debit card bold enough to let you at it).
There is still massive art, ruins, and indescribable beauty of a thousand kinds everywhere you go. OK, not quite everywhere, but in quite a lot of places, not just one or two or even a hundred. Food is good. So is wine. We had more than our share of "Primitivo" in Puglia this year--never a bad one, never paid more than 6-7 Euros or the equivalent in inflated restaurant prices.
Agriturismo is still the trend of the moment there; it has deepened and broadened. Why not? Our fave this time was about 5 miles south of Noci, provincia di Bari--Masseria Murgia Albanese. It's a real farm--dairy, among other products. I give it an unabashed recommendation to visitors who bring the proper attitude. For our children, it was beautiful--our 9-year-old fell in love with Cicillo, the donkey, and watching the displays of the peacock.
More on popular culture, politics, and the things Italians are curious about today in our follow-up in the August "issue".
Thursday, July 17, 2008
July Edition: Blogger's Note
The blogmeister has seen fit to clarify the Mid-Monthly concept as it relates to this blog: we will now have a monthly edition, with no new postings (or revisions of current-month ones) after, say the 1st of the following.
Unlike a printed publication, which closes 45 days or so before the start of the month, we will allow ourselves the whole month to revise previous postings in the month, so postings should be considered provisional until the end. Strategically, this would suggest we start the more difficult postings earlier in the month and go with quick hitters, closely edited, at the end. Also, that one should pay no attention whatsoever to the date and time within the month the blog may ascribe to a posting (alas, it is so___!)
We got a late start for this month's edition, which we begin more than halfway through, due to a vacation which renewed my infatuation with Italy. We post this next, to get it started.
Unlike a printed publication, which closes 45 days or so before the start of the month, we will allow ourselves the whole month to revise previous postings in the month, so postings should be considered provisional until the end. Strategically, this would suggest we start the more difficult postings earlier in the month and go with quick hitters, closely edited, at the end. Also, that one should pay no attention whatsoever to the date and time within the month the blog may ascribe to a posting (alas, it is so___!)
We got a late start for this month's edition, which we begin more than halfway through, due to a vacation which renewed my infatuation with Italy. We post this next, to get it started.
Letter to Myself
Stoner: in your previous post, "Obama Disappoints",
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.
Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.
Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.
Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.
Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.
Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.
As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.
In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)
"It" (I fixed the paren's today), as in "it isn't perfect", is the Federal Presidential Election campaign fund, a much-abused reform of the '70's which seems to have outlived its usefulness.
Revising the financing of Federal elections, starting with the Presidential, remains a key concern, regardless of the lack of public insistence.
Obama's choice of position on this one means that the Republicans can abuse him for declining funding, and at the same time take exclusive advantage of the public pool. Democrats will only pay for, not receive any assistance from, the "Fed funds" in the 2008 general election. Tactically, it's unfavorable.
Strategically, we start from a recognition that Obama will get more for his general election campaign by giving up the funding. But, will money from donors that would otherwise go to building up support for other elections be channeled into Obama's domain? I'm sure he likes that, and he showed in 2006 (Hopefund) that he can be trusted to help out in a strategically and tactically sound fashion. The resulting shift in control to him, though, is bound to mean in the end that the marginal funds will go into yet more Obama ads aired in swing states, as opposed to direct assistance in the effort to help him win the landslide he will need to govern. As such, strategically, it shows weakness.
Idealistically, it's bruising. It's a little selfish, in a practical, "if I'm not for myself, who will be?" kind of way. OK, he's not running for Messiah. I think he has decided that it's time for some of his followers to take some medicine. I can understand that, and now is the time to give it to us.
Ultimately the value of the decision comes down mostly to the resulting size of the total pot for Democratic candidates (including Obama). If his direct ability to appeal to contributors (seemingly untarnished, but we'll see about that) gives such an extra boost that it dominates the choice of more, local, focused, direct appeals by candidates in strategic Congressional contests, then the decision can still be a winner.
As for me and my money, I still don't like it. He's recognized the obvious--that he will continue to rake in enormous money this year. Does that make me want to give more specifically to him? I'd say not: I've been telling the centralized Congressional Committees that I want to give it here, at Ground Zero, in New Mexico (still true, though I've relented a little--subject of one or more future posts). I think that applies just as much to Obama's campaign, in a broad sense.
In a narrow sense, though, this is pure heresy. Our job as local organizers is to get the money, here, where we need it, for our defense. Raising money locally, for local organizers (or high-quality, economically-priced, imported Obama campaign ones), is huge. So, I have to keep those thoughts to myself if I want to work around here again. (a separate issue)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Obama Disappoints
It came as no surprise that Obama has rejected Fed funds for the general election campaign; to do otherwise would be to give up a huge advantage over John McCain. I wish he had not done so; to reject public campaign financing is close to a core issue that he has totally given up to his opponent. Since he was going to do so, though, he should have come clean, admitted it was a pragmatic move, and at least that way kept some of the high ground. Instead, his argument for rejecting it sounds weaselly--we know it is not perfect, what in the American system is?--and hypocritical.
I toy with the idea of giving Obama no more campaign contributions, after the one I have already committed to for him (54.40--a phrase from American History, as in "54-forty or fight", the rallying cry against Britain over the Oregon Territory from the 1840's--the Democrats eventually gave up that extremist, jingoist position). Obama campaign came up with some rationale for that one (not the historical one I just cited) , somehow, and I like that it distinguishes from the ordinary commitment amount. We'll see whether my financial ire passes, and whether he will need money, anyway.
I toy with the idea of giving Obama no more campaign contributions, after the one I have already committed to for him (54.40--a phrase from American History, as in "54-forty or fight", the rallying cry against Britain over the Oregon Territory from the 1840's--the Democrats eventually gave up that extremist, jingoist position). Obama campaign came up with some rationale for that one (not the historical one I just cited) , somehow, and I like that it distinguishes from the ordinary commitment amount. We'll see whether my financial ire passes, and whether he will need money, anyway.
Monday, June 16, 2008
More Real-Life Drama
Hollywood fodder is coming fast these days:
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
Tiger Reigns in Pines
Marriage, fatherhood, knee surgery, retirement.
Such is one of the canonical career arcs, particularly that of the Good Father/Former Athlete. It's too rare these days, which makes me think the flood of second-generational pro stars of recent years may be transitory.
Tiger Woods does it best, but he does it fast. It may pass on, too, with one-year Samantha clearly seeking the limelight. We are nearing the endgame in Tiger's chase of Jack Nicklaus' all-time major win record (Woods now at 14 to Nicklaus' 18), but it is not a sure thing, despite Woods' pace being several years more advanced than Jack's.
This win today took a lot from Tiger, and we can only wait and see whether part of that price will be a shortened career (truly, we'll never know if it did, unless his career reaches Nicklausian length--only 15 years to the Seniors Tour!) I'm betting that he will make his 20 (the symmetrical goal being 5 of each, but the reality being a bit longer in Masters' wins, say 7-5-4-4) and call it a day, definitively, Borg-ianly (as in Bjorn), for the most part in about 3-4 years.
Today's was clearly the toughest of the 14 wins, both in terms of the competition he got from holes 55 on (today, to hole 91), and because of his sore knee. He clearly interrupted his normal recovery process, or sped it up unreasonably, for the too-tempting prospect of the U.S. Open on his "home championship course" at Torrey Pines. He hadn't played before this tourney, and he won't play for another couple of months now. His gamble worked, or at least it seems at present to have worked. The win, over his good friend, a young 45-year-oldster, Rocco Mediate (great casting opportunity--Ben Stiller?) had the kind of dramatic plot reversals that make for good movie (or at least good TV movie).
Tiger thus gains an edge--dramatic, numerical, and family-values-wise--over his only rival for Outstanding Male Athlete of the Era, Roger Federer. For his part, Federer will pass Sampras at a trot in the comparable challenge (middle 2009), and will not stop until he wins the French Open. That occurrence appeared very distant this year when he was trounced again by Nadal, worst score ever. My impression was that Federer wanted to go to net but was denied. My prediction for Roger's final total: 21 wins--8 Wimbledon, 7 U.S., 5 Aussie, 1 French (Sampras is at 16).
Fall of the Afghan Prison
The Taliban brought modern weapons to bear under everyone's nose and blasted down the mud walls, freeing hundreds of their "colleagues". This great photo-op for Al Qaeda could still be one-upped into a great Hollywood drama if we play(ed) our cards right.
Think instead of this concept: we wanted them to do it! It brings a corps of their best soldiers out into the open. Then, if we can contain them, we blast the rescuers and escapees without remorse. Saves a whole lot of trouble.
I expect the story to be told in this fashion, regardless of what actually happened/is happening/will happen.
The Great Afghan Counter-Escape: starring Chuck Norris, as the chief American ground officer, forced to work with hesitant NATO operatives.
HuffPost Post
This was in response to a posting by Stephen Schlesinger, "Why the Democracy League Won't Work," and a comment supporting his general thesis, that a league of democracies isn't feasible as a stand-alone organization, apart from the United Nations.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Schlesinger is right, and your post is closest to the way I feel. We of the US tend to dismiss the point of view of nations like Russia and China because they do not cooperate with our intention to bend the world organization to our view.
Still, the UN has serious flaws. Most of them relate to the fact that we designed it to meet our needs in the immediate post-WWII international environment. That era has long gone, but the only significant changes that have occurred are the replacement of the Nationalist Chinese with the Communists, and the expansion of the General Assembly to where it includes every sovereign nation (the latter a very significant accomplishment).
It is time for fundamental reform of the UN Charter. The Security Council should be expanded to about 10 permanent members and 7-9 regional representatives; all representatives would have a veto, but only on resolutions directly addressed to their country or region. The General Assembly would be one house of a bicameral body which legislates and budgets the organization (the other house having direct election, using proportional representation from regional election zones that do not kowtow excessively to national borders).
If we get that done, while we may not have created a UN which can secure and enforce the peace, we will have created a suitable framework for future generations to use. Progress is slow, but the really difficult but important stuff doesn't get done unless we make an effort.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five
I'd like to announce my new unofficial partnership with Rasmussen Reports and Rasmussen Markets.com. Two-forty-five is the magic number for McCain's electoral defeat this year--if we can hold him to that figure in the projections of state/Electoral College outcomes going into Election Day, then we will win. If it looks any closer than that, we will have an official nail-biter.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
We'll be using their data on our political posts going into the election, generally without attribution. Just assume it's been viewed if I post politically.
The Wisdom of Two-forty-five is readily apparent from the current Electoral College projection, informed by my role model, FiveThirtyEight.com, now running in Rasmussen's public content:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
In a tactical outcome, or even for purposes of building a narrow but decisive outcome, they (538+Rasmussen) have all the states assigned correctly (likely ultimate winner) through their leaners (though I'd quibble with the level of certainty on some states). These assignments bring them to 260-240 Obama and the following Toss-Up States: Ohio (OH), Nevada (NV), New Hampshire (NH) , and Colorado (CO), with a total of 38 electoral votes. Obama wins with Colorado--which I consider the most likely--and one or more of the other three. My expectation remains for him to hold all 260 (including pick-ups from '04 New Mexico and Iowa), taking also CO, NH, and OH for 293. McCain gets 245, which is my objective: defend our claim to 293.
The top-line 245 strategy must be to hold Michigan and Wisconsin, and secure the four pickups. The measure of success for the organizational challenge will be the degree of success in Iowa and New Mexico, and for the domestic policy challenge that of MI, WI, and OH. New Hampshire, the solid Northeast generally, and Virginia (a chance to put a new state into serious doubt on Election Day), will be the ones to make it decisive and should reflect whether Obama resolves any doubts about his readiness to man the national trigger.
That last one will be cited in the exit polls from the Swath of Disappointment I expect on Election Day, as the south-central Bible Belt-type states uniformly fail to convert hypothetical poll support for Obama into electoral results. It is an issue that will be a key cleavage but will show up relatively weakly in the key Obama states discussed above.
Russert
I'm not going to take the obvious lesson of Tim Russert's sudden, shocking death by heart attack. Overwork seems to be the occupational hazard, the dangerous part, of the journalistic career he chose, and he took it on joyously.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
I want to thank him for his diligent efforts and the public-service benefit they often produced; he regularly tore up the most powerful figures of the world, but he resisted the temptation to take on that coercive power for his own purposes. Sometimes, as with Wesley Clark in 2004, my faves had the odd new orifice revealed; sometimes, it was Dick Cheney torn a new one. We have to accept the bad with the good, and recognize that the mongoose must be itself whether the cobra is defanged or not.
The biographical note in his obituaries which struck me as particularly important was not his previous political experience--that had been readily apparent in his respectful, friendly command of tone and language, and his obvious, permanent condition as political junkie--but his original professional training as a lawyer. Certainly the penchant for research was present in his methods, and he often seemed particularly interested in proving his point to some non-existent jury.
I'm trying to remember the now-ironic episode recently when one of the candidates--McCain?--referred to Russert's late Dad, "Big Russ", in the past tense, and Russert pointed out that his patriarch still lived. Big Russ should be the one to express for us how we all feel--nourished, but saddened and sympathetic. I hope Russert's ideal will live on, and we will all be able to enjoy the take he would have made of this upcoming general election contest--it is no exaggeration to say that he lived to cover the primaries this year.
A personal note: My respect is for one of a superb professional in a distinct area of endeavor from my own. I am no journalist, seeking to maintain objectivity; I am not even in the role of editorial writer, who is forced to bring out the factual news element of his/her opinions by a decent respect for the truth. My objective in my political scribbles is to work out persuasive arguments through trying to express my observations coherently and directly. And to have fun.
Euro 2008: Initial Impressions
I don't like the way the Olympics are organized. National Olympic committees raise the funds and send the athletes, and it's all around jingoistic national pride. Furthermore, it is totally inconsistent with the original (Greek) Olympiad, which was about individual honor and glory (not that we need more of that in today's society). If I had my way, all the team sports would be eliminated from the Olympics, the medal count by country would be an interesting incidental statistic (like the popular vote in the primaries), and the Opening Ceremony would no longer have people marching around the track organized by country (more like the Closing Ceremony, which is a lot of fun).
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Perhaps inconsistently, though, I like the nation-based competitions in soccer. The World Cup is the biggest event in world sport, and justifiably so (the NBA is the only American sports event with comparable--but lesser--following, except that it's impact is diminished because it occurs every year). Soccer is indisputably a team sport, and unlike the club competitions, the athletes on the national teams seem motivated by something besides money. OK, maybe not all the teams' players are well-prepared and motivated, but that just highlights the efforts of those who are. The European championships seem healthy, a way for the Yerpeans to maintain some interest in their attenuated tribal affiliations; national citizenship is like a voluntary association in today's continent.
My only criticism generally of the way these things are organized is the persistence of "national" teams for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland--this is the English "reward" for inventing the sport; they don't have to play alongside their fellow countrymen from lesser provinces--and their just desserts, this year, was England's clamorous failure to make the Euro 2008 finals.
Most everyone else that should be there ("there" being the wonderfully insignificant host soccer powers, Switzerland and Austria), is there. There are many teams ready for competition at the top level, and so far the enjoyment level in the play has been excellent. (The refereeing, not so much.)
The sensation of the first round has been Netherlands. The Dutch are my wife's favorite: they come together from their various league participations all over Europe, and they always demonstrate excessive quantity of talent for such a small nation. Generally they are rooked in some round by the dreaded penalty shootout lottery.
This year, the Dutch are in the so-called Group of Death. There's always one, in which too many good teams are placed together in the first round by the luck of the draw, so that some top teams get eliminated through little fault of their own. They're in with Italy and France (the finalists from 2006's World Cup), and Romania (along with Croatia, perennially underrated--like the Dutch in terms of talent, and they don't have a strong domestic league).
In the first two games, the Dutch beat Italy 3-0 and now, yesterday, France 4-1. Their play has been sparkling. Those results will make anyone sit up and take notice, and, eventually, someone will figure out how to neutralize their one-touch, sudden attack from the run of play, but we must try to enjoy their sparkle while it lasts. The Dutch will have the chance to eliminate both Italy and France in one fell swoop, simply by not trying too hard against Romania in their final first-round game: it will be a good test of character.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Footprints Filled With Water
Everybody's buzz word this day is "footprint"--our mark on the world. We--most of us--are looking for ways to reduce our "carbon footprint", though I don't see much evidence that we are reducing the size of our physical footprint. One thing we did, and I think it will catch on very soon, with the huge rise in the cost of building materials, is to build on what's there, instead of building anew.
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
In the long run, though, it's the quantity of the footprints that is causing the problem.
On the related topic of global warming, there's an excellent article in this month's "OnEarth" (or "Onearth")--the publication of NRDC, the Natural Resource Defense Center--on Bangladesh. Bangladesh is clearly Ground Zero (or maybe Ground -10 feet) for the mass effect of the rising sea level that is expected to result from global warming. (Reference: http://www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm)
My take on the article is that the Bangladeshis are resourceful and active and will not get surprised and inundated by rising sea levels. People will be displaced and crowd into the cities, particularly Dhaka, one of the most hellish cities on earth, but that is really nothing new. The likely principal victim in that area will be the Bengal tiger, as their safest habitat in the world, the Sundaram swamp near the border with India, is likely to end up entirely underwater. India is planning ahead and building a tall border fence. We know this story, and it will only work at crunch time if it's manned by soldiers with automatic rifles.
On a related subject, I read in the San Francisco Chronicle the other day about the real-life girl who held the record for tree-sitting, the inspiration for T.C. Boyle in Friend of the Earth.
The good news appears to be that the founders of The Gap are taking their rapidly-shrinking pile of money from the stores and investing in virgin forest there in Northern California, ensuring the survival of the lumber mill (at a lower level of activity).
Massive Celtics' Win
Tonight in game 4 of the playoff finals, the Boston Celtics came back from a 20+ point deficit in the first half and won. As bad as they were in the first half is how good they were in the second. Congratulations to the Celtics on the key road win.
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
The Lakers had a 10-0 home record before that game; the Celtics had a similar record before losing their first home game, to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals. They came right back and beat the Pistons to even things up and won in seven games, maintaining their home advantage after recovering it. The situation is far worse for the Lakers; they may well recover and win big in their next game, but that is (just) a home game and will still leave them down 3-2, with the final two games in Boston.
All things being equal, the Lakers would have a 1-in-8 chance of coming through with three straight wins, but things are not equal due to the Celtics' homecourt advantage. The chances are more like 5%:
- 20% chance the Celtics wrap it on the road in Game 5;
- 60% chance they lose, but win at home in Game 6 and finish it;
- 15% chance they lose twice but suck it up to win Game 7; and
- 5% they lose three straight times.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Intervention Less Ordinary
Former Secretary of State Madeleleine Albright had an excellent editorial in today's New York Times called "The End of Intervention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11albright.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). In it, she makes the case that the Bushite invasion of Iraq has undermined the internationalists' case for intervening in the affairs of nation-states, no matter how awful they act (particularly when it relates to outrages within their borders).
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Not that she thinks the international community should not act; just that the practice appears in disrepute, and the organizational framework to do something is not present.
I have a fairly radical suggestion about what US should do in the short run, and one (that is not really so radical, but is off the agenda) for the long run, too.
Just Bump 'em Off
First, in the cases of Burma (or Myanmar, call it what you will) and Zimbabwe, I advocate covert assassination as our means to change the government. As a choice of means, this will not be popular, and I am not advocating this as the official policy of the US government. I just say, get it done, using a trained team of disaffected nationals of those countries, with all the deniability possible to develop.
Assassination as a tactic used secretly by governments is never acknowledged, but who can deny that it is out there? The history is not complete (and may never be), but there is pretty strong evidence that unsuccessful CIA efforts to knock off Castro resulted in Castro's successful employment of Lee Harvey Oswald to get JFK.
OK, perhaps a bad example of why we should do it. The one rule, back in the age of kings, was: no regicide! Bad policy, they thought. Those were states on an equal moral footing, though; much as I detest Bushite Misrule, it's not down on the Mugabe/SLORC level. A few well-placed hits, and those regimes would crumple. Both countries also have well-formed democratic opposition groups that would be able to fill the vacuum quickly. I should also point out that these groups have been suffering serious loss of life and freedom from their tyrannical rulers. There is a strong utilitarian argument that taking out just a few of these bastards will save thousands of innocents, one reinforced by recent developments in Myanmar after their cyclone and in Zimbabwe after their elections.
National Sovereignty Is Not Sacrosanct
This is the truth that Albright believes, too, but she will not say it. The "responsibility to protect" philosophy is all well and good, but it's meaningless if not backed up by a willingness to do something. And I mean something that cuts through the B.S. of moral outrage and paper sanctions.
This is certainly not an all-purpose, all-dictator approach--it must be used selectively. In North Korea, for example, the tyranny is nearly as bad, but the control is deep and wide, and there is no viable opposition that would benefit. Knocking off Saddam Hussein would merely have put another Saddamite in the driver's seat (couldn't resist it). In Sudan, there's a complex mix of tribes, racial minorities, and, as in Saddam's Iraq, a dominant minority group that will hold on to power by any means, so one or a few bad guys getting taken out would not produce a desired outcome.
The Long-Term Approach
Clearly our international institutions need to be strengthened, and there should be some empowerment to take action in the most egregious cases. Our federal government will inevitably oppose anything that would undermine its position as the unchallenged supreme power on the planet, but in this case, it is acting on its behalf and not on ours.
It should start with revision of the U.N. Charter, and that should start with bringing the Security Council into the post-post-war era. I'm talking about World War II!--Nothing has changed in the S.C. since the immediate post-war period, except that the Nationalist Chinese were replaced by the Communists. We need about 5 new permanent members, 4-6 semi-permanent ones, and removal of the veto, except for actions directly against the nation itself. As I've suggested before, we should move the Security Council out of New York, to an undivided Jerusalem under international jurisdiction.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sports Update
Nothing is settled in the resumption of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry at the highest level. Not only is 2-0, two wins at home, not in any way conclusive, I don't think even the full series' result will settle things. This is going to go on for years, like in the '80's (and early '60's).
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
I was wrong in my prediction that Celtics-Lakers would have to await the return and full flowering of Andrew Bynum (in another season). Bynum's development should happen, though, and may swing things more decisively toward the Lakers in future years. In the meantime, Pau Gasol's acquisition from the Grizzlies (for nothing, in the short term) made up for Bynum's loss and has made the difference in the Lakers' getting there.
The Celtics should have the greatest sense of urgency, so I picked them. Now, with a 2-0 lead, they're probably favored, but as I say, nothing has happened yet.
Big Brown Bowel Movement
The no-longer-steroidally-enhanced-enough winner of the Derby and Preakness pinched a major brown loaf at Belmont Park Saturday.
The scandal is probably about the false pretenses under which the 3-year-old's stud management was sold (on Preakness Day), rather than the artificial enhancements, the trainer Dutrow's flop sweat, or the jockey's easing up the 1-4 favorite with over a quarter mile to go.
Those who are looking for an investigation of this result and the shoddy practices it suggests will be disappointed. When you're talking about horses, instead of humans, the main reason to oppose steroids (or genetic manipulation, or even cloning) goes away, in the minds of most. Though the trainer's braggadocio is considered bad form under Old School rules, forward-looking statements are not illegal--not even betting for your horse, or even against it, as far as I know.
A bad drug regime may have caused Big Brown's unsuccessful movement, but that's no one's loss, except Brown's, his folks', and those who bet on him.
I've seen too many presumptive Belmont Stakes winners fold to have believed in that one, though I had no clue which longshot to pick. I probably would have gone with the stretch run horse that finished tied for 3rd.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Congrats to The Man
I've been a little negligent in congratulating Obama on clinching the nomination. I've gone through the standard gamut of reactions--anger at Hillary for not conceding gracefully on time, relief when she finally did, pleasure at the start of the bump in the polls I expect over the next few weeks. Nothing very original about that, but mostly I was just too busy. I was also pleased to be wrong in my prediction on the timing of achievement of the Magic Number (Remember the song "This Magic Moment"?) , as the Obama camp had lined up the enedorsements so he clinched the nod a day earlier than I thought.
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
It should be quite a general election campaign, and I'm fully expecting a good result. 293-245 looks reasonable still as a prediction for the Electoral College, and there's a good chance it could be better. The 50-state plan Obama's campaign is planning is a good strategy to stretch out McCain's limited resources and ultimately break down the Republicans' defenses.
My plan is to contribute here in New Mexico and to work here. The Democrats should pick up a House seat and a Senate seat here, and the Presidential contest here--as always--will be close. Turnout will be the key in Northern New Mexico, but the critical principle should be to challenge everywhere, and not neglect Democrats in the Southern, Republican part of the state. My predictions are for the 250-260 range for Democrats in the House, and for the high end of the 56-60 range for the Senate (counting independent Sanders, but not, alas, the turncoat Lieberman) .
Sunday, June 01, 2008
PR: Si Mi, FL/MI
On Fareed Zakaria's new show GPS, the E.U.'s Ambassador to the U.S. (who knew there was one?), an Irishman named John Bruton, said in a discussion about foreign views of the Presidential campaign that, speaking for the foreign community, "we have learned about new territorial units in the U.S. and their relation to the political process, of which we had never heard before."
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Puerto Rico--about to report as I type--is certainly one of those, and this is its coming-out party. The boriquenos get more delegates than KY, more than Tuesday's MT/SD combined, and a national candidate participating in the Puerto Rican primary is entering a major minefield. Hillary is expected to have the edge due to a good regard for Bill and the strong connection with Hillary's New York.
Their moment will pass quickly, though: the outcome of the FL/MI issue in the Rules and Bylaws Committee gives HRC-dom little support. Florida is settled, and Michigan's dispute is petty. Wedneday, June 4 will be the day Obama clinches the nomination.
It's good news for Obama, but it will cause me some loss on the CNN Political Futures Market: I made a slight bet in favor of the ambiguous proposition that the contest "[be] resolved before the final primary on June 3". Close parsing suggests that refers to the moment the polls close in SD, but I'm not yet sure. The proposition seems doomed, though, unless a lot of SD and newly-enfranchised FL/MI Delegates (pronounced "feel-me's") wake up Monday morning and decide to put an end to it.
P.S. P.R. Comes in 2-1 for Clinton (CNN exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PRDEM). The most interesting aspect appears to be the statewide question and its relation to Former Governor Acevedo, who endorses continuing special Commonwealth status over statehood and Obama. Those who liked him strongly, or felt P.R. status should remain as Commonwealth, preferred Obama. Otherwise, support was pretty uniform for Clinton.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
3 Short Bits
A test to see whether I can overcome my prolixity:
Eve of the RBC
Of the various scenarios mooted, I see the outcome being FL/MI getting all pledged delegates seated with half-votes; SD's get their full votes (though a just decision would include a penalty on the voting of any of the SD's who made this mess possible, e.g. Carl Levin).
DemConWatch pegged this scenario a week ago (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html).
Based on their analysis then, the Magic Number is changed to 2130.5, and Obama would be 93 short, in terms of committed delegates, with 338 out there yet to be won. This outcome would not change the over/under on the day Obama would clinch; it would remain June 4. Given this fact, Obama should go along with this outcome, even though it temporarily would reduce his delegate lead from the current 200 by about 50. He would get most of them back as the Edwards/uncommitted/undeclared delegates shake out.
Electoral College Map 0.2
Rasmussen--Virginia is the third state currently in the toss-up range (40-60), along with Nevada and New Hampshire. I think the movement is due to the groundswell for Jim Webb as V.P. and some thought that would swing the state toward Obama. Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio are the ones more solidly expected to switch from the 2004 results. I've experienced too many Virginia elections to believe this one, though.
S.D., P.R. in Play?
Today there was some strong support for Hillary in South Dakota, and the expected value of her winning (that's what the state bet means) jumped from the .05-.07 range to the .10-.15 range. I don't see any reason for it, and bet against it yesterday at .115.
The Puerto Rico number for Obama remains low at about .035, which seems reasonable. He doesn't want to go after a win so much as a 40% kind of showing, which will get him sooner to the Magic Number, whatever it is or becomes. It's probably worth a visit down, and I hope he's got his thoughts together. In New York Urban Spanglish.
Eve of the RBC
Of the various scenarios mooted, I see the outcome being FL/MI getting all pledged delegates seated with half-votes; SD's get their full votes (though a just decision would include a penalty on the voting of any of the SD's who made this mess possible, e.g. Carl Levin).
DemConWatch pegged this scenario a week ago (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html).
Based on their analysis then, the Magic Number is changed to 2130.5, and Obama would be 93 short, in terms of committed delegates, with 338 out there yet to be won. This outcome would not change the over/under on the day Obama would clinch; it would remain June 4. Given this fact, Obama should go along with this outcome, even though it temporarily would reduce his delegate lead from the current 200 by about 50. He would get most of them back as the Edwards/uncommitted/undeclared delegates shake out.
Electoral College Map 0.2
Rasmussen--Virginia is the third state currently in the toss-up range (40-60), along with Nevada and New Hampshire. I think the movement is due to the groundswell for Jim Webb as V.P. and some thought that would swing the state toward Obama. Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio are the ones more solidly expected to switch from the 2004 results. I've experienced too many Virginia elections to believe this one, though.
S.D., P.R. in Play?
Today there was some strong support for Hillary in South Dakota, and the expected value of her winning (that's what the state bet means) jumped from the .05-.07 range to the .10-.15 range. I don't see any reason for it, and bet against it yesterday at .115.
The Puerto Rico number for Obama remains low at about .035, which seems reasonable. He doesn't want to go after a win so much as a 40% kind of showing, which will get him sooner to the Magic Number, whatever it is or becomes. It's probably worth a visit down, and I hope he's got his thoughts together. In New York Urban Spanglish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
