U.S. Soccer Men's Squad Detected on Radar

The Confederations Cup performance of the U.S. men's Soccer team is worthy of the comment it has generated. Though the Confederations Cup itself is of secondary importance, there were several consequences of significance.

First, though, I should review the results themselves for those who weren't following it: after looking like anything but world-beaters in their first two games of the round-robin in their group, losing 3-1 to Italy (after leading 1-0 at halftime) and 3-0 to Brazil, they won 3-0 against Egypt and got through to the semifinals on goal difference when Brazil beat Italy 3-0. Both Egypt and Italy finished 1-2, like the US, but somebody had to go through, and the US ended up one goal better than both.

They took maximum advantage of their lucky result, and I suspect the lack of respect they were accorded, when they defeated world #1 ranked Spain, 3-2. Then, in the final, they almost pulled off a huge win: they led Brazil 2-0 at halftime, but allowed three second-half goals and were nosed out.

The biggest beneficiary was probably coach Bradley, whose job looked in danger after the two losses, which followed some recent less-than-impressive performances in regional World Cup qualifiers. The US team will benefit in being accorded a higher rank for their Confederations Cup result in World Cup seeding, assuming they qualify (about 95% certain at this point). On the negative side, they probably won't be overlooked as easily by the highest-ranked teams that oppose them. I think having those five games against top teams (all eight teams in the competition earned their spots in previuos regional competition) will help sort out those who are really ready for the World Cup competition next year.

Finally, the US team showed some real character, which I would describe as aggressive, fit, increasingly unafraid, and determined to make its mark. We can only salute their success in making the most of their good fortune.

The King Must Die

Michael Jackson, King of Pop, joins Elvis Presley, King of Rock (or just "The King") in kingly afterlife. They are joined together in like fate: regal death through prescription drug abuse abetted by physicians.

MJ is an object lesson in the harmful effect of excessive fame at too young an age. In terms of talent, I'd rank him higher than Presley, actually, and describe him more like a latter-day Sammy Davis, Jr., a superior song-and-dance man. As a pop songwriter/stylist, though, I'd rate him below Stevie Wonder. Also worth noting is his prominent position--near the top--in the creative use of the new medium--now almost defunct in a creative sense--of the music video.

I rate highest his early solo album, "Off the Wall", and his hits of the early '80's ("Wanna Be Starting Something", "Billie Jean"). By the time of his "Thriller"--the highest-selling album of all time, I hear (maybe never to be topped), something I'd call The Dark Side was emerging. The most visible example of it was his repeated self-mutilation through plastic surgery and skin treatments. I didn't care much for the latter-day habitual crotch-grabbing (his own, in this case) and trying to convince everyone that he was "bad", but those were part of his public appeal, I guess.

I personally don't place too much credence in the allegations of criminal behavior approximating pedophilia, for which he was never convicted, except in the realm of public opinion. Unfortunately, neither the laws nor public moral standards made much allowance for 40-year-olds with the emotional development of 12-year-olds. My children, who didn't experience his extraordinary juvenile talent or his youthful hits, knew only of Wacko Jacko, maker of overhyped bombs and weird behavior.

To the end, he seemed a serious professional in his field known for his attention to detail, but clearly his ambition to perform 50 live concerts in London and tour for years was more than a step too far for him.

There are many victims of his demise, and I sympathize with all of them. They include those who would have profited from promotions off the deaths of the likes of Farrah Fawcett and David Carradine, whose own cases got totally wiped off the news by Jackson's.

Suggestion to Supreme Leader of Iranian Islamic Republic

This is Iran's Tienanmen Moment: soon Supreme Leader Khamenei will be faced with climactic decisions about how long to let the protests and demonstrations continue. Will he blink or send the troops in, firing? And, if he does, will they fire?

Try the link at top for background on the topic, which is mushrooming with the determined effort by supporters of officially-defeated former Prime Minister Moussavi's candidacy to take to the streets, come what may. Suffice to say that there was unseemly haste to declare President Ahmadinejad re-elected with an incredibly-large percentage of the vote, then more haste from Khamenei to endorse the result.

Moussavi, a savvy infighter with proven patriotic credentials (government leader through the war with Saddam's Iraq), said not so fast. He appealed to the Muslim clergy in the sacred city of Qom to review this cozy affair between Khamenei and his secular stooge Ahmadinejad. The first round ends with Khamenei appearing to blink and requesting an investigation of the results from the Guardian Council, a bunch of Shiite mullahs with an official role to oversee the government but with day jobs in the clergy, and presumably they are in the Supreme Leader's pocket.

Despite the apparent show of weakness, it's a move to control and defuse the situation. It sets up a classical sham outcome with the G.C. making a show of a review, proffering the rubber stamp, and, as Khamenei fervently hopes, things then going back to normal, with the delay allowing for diversion of the public attention (perhaps President Ahmadinejad--P.A. for short, oh, did I say "short"?-- could taunt the Jews or something).

In the current environment, though, this seems unlikely to work, so we could find the people back in the streets in a matter of weeks--angrily violent, this time. There might not even be a let-up in the demonstrations, unless the Green forces ask the followers to pause for a day or so, just to show their mastery of the people's actions.

So, for Khamenei, it may seem that it will be back to the original question: yield, or order the soldiers to shoot? And then, once he chooses to protect himself and the regime, the agonizing moments (days and weeks, in the case of Tienanment) when the military shows its willingness--or lack thereof--to follow orders or melt into the crowd.

It's happened before, and even in Iran: before overwhelming masses of people in the late '70's the Shah's forces chose to take off the uniforms and blend in as best they could. In several Eastern European nations in the '80's and '90's, the soldiers' clear unwillingness to shoot anymore unnerved the leaders, who generally never gave the order. Something similar to Iran's predicament happened at the end with the Marcos family in the Philippines, and the army gave way.

The mullahs will be aware that the track record for the military mowing down their own people is spotty, at best. They will want a more secure, smarter outcome. It's our thought that perhaps they are looking for a door.

It's a fairly simple concept, really, and either Khamenei or the Guardian Council could go for it: identify some wrongdoers as culprits for some real vote-rigging actions (my reading of the facts is that there were some millions of extra ballots, not properly marked except for the Ahmadinejad indication, tossed in with the real ones, so find the tossers!) The effect of the result of their inquiry is to throw into doubt whether P.A. exceeded the 50% needed to avoid a runoff (the official results tried to preclude this by announcing his vote was all of 62%, but no matter), so there will be a runoff.

This will delay the crunch, probably permanently. P.A. may lose a fair election under these more unfavorable circumstances (the irony is that I'm not sure he wouldn't have won eventually if the vote counting had been fair), but that's a relatively small defeat for Khamenei, and for the theocracy: the secular side is supposed to be unruly, and attention will be diverted from their real power. Justly so, even, if this were to be the outcome and it results from their interference.

The most bizarre angle I've seen so far is the story from Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904628,00.html) that Obama foreign policy advisers feared the Moussavi victory scenario more than this, which was anticipated. The logic went that it would be much more difficult to come down hard on Moussavi's Iran than P.A.'s when Iran proceeds with nuclear weapon development. They believe this would be the case either way, as the decisions lie with the mullahs.

The argument that Moussavi wouldn't have made much difference (which Obama has now given public airing through his interview with John Harwood, released today) is minimally plausible, though the statement of Time's Massimo Calabresi that Iran "loses as much as 500,000 barrels a year in production capacity" doesn't convince me there's a problem--try 500,000 barrels a day. The Administration's reasoning is purely pragmatic, but if I were Obama's advisers I'd prefer a potential symbolic victory for Moussavi as proof of concept for Obama's Islamic policy and speeches, which would then have been followed by intensive effort to take advantage of good fortune. At any rate, all this is moot--short of a cataclysm, or Khamenei's taking my advice (hardly anyone else does, so why he?), we will be stuck with the big-mouthed shrimp, President Ahmadinejad. This I am certain has been anticipated by our folks, and the tactic should be to keep him out of the diplomatic dialogue: first talk at a lower level, then if there is progress, skip to the top guys: Obama and Khamenei.

The Ron Paul Rebellion 2.0

The implosions of the national candidacies of Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford raise again the question: Who the heck the Republicans can possibly come up with for 2012 that would be even a glimmer of a threat to a second Obama Administration? At this point, the base scenario, assuming Obama remains healthy and untouched by serious scandal, and that the economy begins to show serious recovery by 2011, would be: Nobody.

Only a split in the Democratic party, which I consider likely in the longer run(especially if the Republicans continue to weaken) but very unlikely in the next 3-5 years, would give the GOP a chance for a freakish Electoral College victory with a 35-45% share of the popular vote. One could say a Third Party could provide the necessary fragmentation of the solid 50-60% share the Democrats should otherwise expect in '12, but that would amount to the same thing--a split among the Dems--because there is no real 3rd today, and something coming out of the Republicans would only make their calamity worse. A John Anderson-like moderate Republican could easily emerge but would not be a significant factor. No, what would be needed for a real contest would be either a major disaffectation among the Left (due to unfulfilled promises) or the Right (due to Obamadmin's refusal to address untrammelled deficits).

The Republicans have a real option to generate new interest for their party, though, if they were to nominate none other than Ron Paul in 2012. He wouldn't win, of course, but his candidacy could be a Goldwater-like principled stake in the ground that could pay enormous benefits for their remaining a relevant party in the future, a future when we can easily envision rampant inflation, uncontrolled deficits, higher taxes, the financial endangerment of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, etc. In such an environment--which might only be 8-10 years away--Paul's warnings about the Federal Reserve, relentless printing of money, endless war, and intrusive finagling with the private economy could be seen as prophetic and convincing.

The wisdom among Mainstream journalists is that "libertarian" politics have been dealt a death blow by the failures of absent regulation of the banking community evidenced in the financial crisis last year. I see it differently: the "laissez-faire" stance toward collateralized debt obligations and other fancy off-balance sheet practices was indeed right at the heart of the problem, but the move for greater regulation hasn't caught fire nor convinced anyone that we will thus prevent the next disasters. The "moral hazard" problem of guaranteed mortgages, and where to draw the lines with them for government-underwritten institutions in our future, is also right at the heart of the matter, and here the libertarian argument scores.

Besides, libertarian politics ranges much wider than just government hands-off big business, though it does seem to include that. The focus for them is much more on the small enterprises and their free operation--still very popular, and that will be getting broad support in the months to come--along with other topics likely to be popular like reducing government debt, ending our involvement in South Asian wars, and ending the costly and ineffective war on drugs (Obama seems to be dragging his heels a bit on this one, though there's still hope he won't let it get away from him).

Paul would do well to keep a relatively low profile, polish his policy stances for current events, make sure he's still accepted by county-and-state-level party hacks (the Washington ones don't matter to him at this point), and campaign vigorously and selectively for 2010 Congressional candidates who would be willing to support him if he helps them. And he can--with fund-raising, organizational support, Internet campaigns--all those areas that the regular party is failing to do and will need to do if it is to survive.

Increasing the Degree of Difficulty

Obama's high-altitude swan dive is complicated by the swirling waters of the economy, whose shifts are barely visible far below his lofty height (think Bay of Acapulco, and the waves dramatically raising and lowering the water depth in the landing area).

Worries of a delay in the recovery are likely to run strong this summer, which will make it harder for fence-sitters to be persuaded to come over--or even just to vote to end debate and finalize something they're in favor of.

All the analysts who've discovered "the second derivative" in recent days haven't really pushed their studies of the differential far enough. How long does that second derivative have to stay positive--meaning improvement in the deterioration measure--before the trend itself turns positive?

The key statistic is net job loss/gain, and Obama and other key progressive voices have rightly looked at job creation as the driver of results in that category. Think of it this way: if you're going in reverse at high speed, braking--no matter how vigorous--isn't going to get you going forward again. I am a long-term pessimist on job growth through public policy, or indeed through any other method (topic for another day), but in the short run the means must be found (and hopefully they were through the stimulus package, and will be through the other domestic legislation on energy, health care, and education).

So, when is net job loss going to turn positive? To me, it looks like it could be quite a while. Worse, I think we are going to find that net job change could go positive for several straight months without any improvement whatsoever in the unemployment rate. Many of those who have given up looking for work--and many recent graduates will join their ranks shortly--will gradually return to the market when they see it beginning to improve.

Crunch Time Approaches

The preliminaries are now over, and friction is due to increase between the metaphorical tire and asphalt on Obama's key legislative priorities: health care and energy.

In these summer months these two bills will set the long-term direction for the country, to the extent the (First) Obama Administration will have the ability to determine it. In each case, Obama will require a bill be passed, in order to complete his campaign pledges, so, the question will be if the bill that gets to him will be one he wants.

He can certainly count on the House, guided by Nancy Pelosi's will and driven by Super-Whip Rahm Emanuel. The trick will be getting the votes in the Senate--not 50, but 60. For these two domestic bills, Obama's party has 59 votes (i.e., Lieberman should be reliable), at least until Al Franken is seated. I think we can count on that being after the summer session--the Republicans' last-ditch delaying tactics can probably keep him out that long, but no more. So, Obama has to pick up one more Republican vote than he loses of Democrat votes in the Senate.

On health care, I think he has good chances to pick up Republican votes with both the Maine Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The key aspects to watch will be how realistic the cost savings--for consumers and for the government. Will the public offering--to compete with the private insurers'--emerge as a viable proposition available to all? Will the program pay for itself, after the start-up costs are over and sales commissions are somehow determined? This should be Ted Kennedy's bill, in that he should be the one to say to President Obama: this is a bill for change we can believe in (or not), and it should end up with his name on it.

I am actually less optimistic about the energy bill, both in terms of the votes and in terms of the quality of the bill that will eventually come out to be signed. Cap-and-trade is fundamentally a new business tax, of long or permanent duration, and thus will be very hard for Republicans to ever get behind. They will need solid inducements. I think Obama's bill sponsors (and he is still auditioning for the actual Senators to build around: I like our Sen. Bingaman's chances to win the part, actually) will need to horsetrade, and they will be empowered to do so.

I see four key concessions from a pure green energy, tax-the-polluters approach in the final bill: 1) Grandfathering in emissions from existing coal-burning polluters, so that they would only pay taxes when limits are cut or their fossil-fuel burning increases. This one is already baked in, as the Administration wisely isn't going to propose immediate tax increases, much as these polluters may deserve them.

2) Some kind of special concession for natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil or coal, is abundant in the continental U.S., and could figure into our transportation picture in the future (one of the elements of Boone Pickens' plan). Maybe it would be support for a new pipeline which could ensure plentiful supply at lowered cost throughout the country.

3) Money for at least one major coal gasification project. This is like Carter's synfuels and Reagan's Star Wars--clearly a hole which will permanently sequester money, but politically necessary.

4) Easing of regulatory obstacles and insurance for a small number of new nuclear plants. The Republican bill outlined this week--which has no chance whatsoever but does provide good talking points--has a huge target of something like 100 new nuke plants in 10 years. This is ridiculous and unnecessary--regardless of how many, Obama would go down in the history of nuclear energy as the first to authorize plants in over 30 years, and thus a relative hero to its proponents. Three to five plants would be enough to demonstrate proof of concept--that we now have the technology to build economically, safely, and the smaller scale will allow temporary solutions to the nuke waste problem to continue. Then, in 10 years or so, if all's well we can take a longer look at whether more are necessary and truly beneficial to our future society.

Judicious compromises on 2), 3), and 4) would allow Obama to find the Senators he needs--whether Republicans looking for "energy independence" or blue Dog Dems he needs to buy off--in order to get the 60 votes for cloture, and thus eventually to his desk for signature.

Oh, and Sonia Sotomayor will get approved sometime this summer, easily. That's a real success, too, but the key will be getting Republicans to get used to voting our way and not just allowing this to be a token show of feel-good bipartisan sentiment.

Kobe Gifted Ring

The Magic gave away Game 4 tonight, and the Lakers were glad to take it for a crucial road win, giving them a 3-1 lead.

If I'm not mistaken, the Magic had a five-point lead and the ball with less than 40 seconds in regulation and somehow came away without a win. Bad luck (a tip ball led to a breakaway basket for Gasol), bad free throw shooting (Dwight Howard missed two with less than 10 seconds to go when one would've practically clinched it), bad defense (Jameer Nelson, on Derek Fisher's score-tying 3), and bad offense (the off-balance 3-pointer Mickael Pietrus took on the final play with the score tied--now here would've been the time to get it in to Howard) all combined to allow the Lakers to take it to an overtime, which it won readily.

It's the second time in the series the Magic lost a game in overtime that they should've won in regulation time, and there won't be any more chances, I'm afraid. The win puts the Lakers in a hugely advantageous position, needing only one win from the last three, two of which would be at home.

I suppose we were expecting too much from the Magic in their first real run at the championship. It showed in the little things which win or lose playoffs. On the other hand, they showed they have the potential to come back to this stage for years to come, no matter where LeBron decides to play. For most of this game, they were up to the task, defensively--Mickael Pietrus leading the charge on Kobe Bryant--and offensively (the Lakers can't stop them; they can only stop themselves).

I would urge the team to rise up and smite the Lakers in Game 5, simply for the hell of it. It's a consolation game, with the coronation scheduled for the Game 6 return to L.A.

Speaking of consolation, I see some for Stan Van Gundy, who is sitting on a powerhouse team that just needed more experience this time, and, surprisingly, for Rafer Alston. Rafer, acquired during the midseason from Houston when Nelson suddenly went down, got to be starting point guard on an Eastern Conference championship team (the Magic, this year), but I'm afraid that's as close as he will ever get to being starting PG on a NBA champion. He should accept the fact that Nelson will be the PG for the future, and show that he can work as backup at 1, and at 2 against smaller teams. If he does, Orlando should keep him for the long term, and he will end up having a couple of championship rings.

Meanwhile, playing Nelson in the crucial final minutes of this pivotal game showed him that Stan has full confidence in him, which I believe will be rewarded down the road. At times, it was tough in these games (and ultimately unrewarding), but Nelson showed he can hit the 3 for a high percentage earlier this year, which was all he really needed to complete the package. He's worth it.

Brazilian Plane Update

I'm prompted to post by the most recent news--that the debris collected from the Atlantic Ocean is not from the airliner which went down.  

I was surprised initially when I heard that they did not know--at all--where and when the plane had gone down.  I'm familiar with the constant tracking of our domestic flights, and the handoff from one controller group to another, and I thought the same happened on intercontinental flights.  Apparently this capability does not exist today.   They still don't know where the aircraft went down, so it seems unlikely they will find the "black box" flight recorder anytime soon, and so we may never know what actually happened. 

I think this is a major issue for security, and practically an invitation to terrorists to create an act occurring in the untracked parts of our oceans (if, in fact, this event was itself an accident, as one would assume--perhaps wrongly!)  Furthermore, interviews with pilots and others have revealed that this area has frequent, massive, dangerous storms--so this is not necessarily a freak occurrence.  

There would seem to be two solutions:  either improve ground-based tracking (stations on islands in the oceans) or develop satellite-based tracking.  I'm not a fan of the idea that every little thing needs to be tracked all the time, but these are civilian aircraft with hundreds of people on them who deserve every consideration for their safety. 

New Sweek Scores on Iran

They've already moved on to a new issue with a crazed Oprah on the cover, but Newsweek's June 1 issue (the one with a scowling Ahmadinejad on it) scored major points with me.  I recommend it to anyone; it increased my knowledge of Iran's regime about tenfold.  It's timely, but not too much so; their Presidential elections are coming up in a week or so, and reading it will prepare one to understand whatever comes out of that. 

It was the second issue since the magazine's redesign.  I'm no professional insider in publishing, but it screams "New York Times Magazine makeover of two years ago!" all over.  Possibly it's more readable in terms of sequence and format; it looks different but not necessarily any better.  I really don't care as long as they let Fareed Zakaria write about whatever he wants. 

Taliban Swat'd

The news story of the convoy of schoolkids abducted in Pakistan does not seem to me to have been fully analyzed in the public accounts.  

My reading of it is that the kidnappers were radical units making a retreat in force from the Swat Valley--where they have recently taken a drubbing (they've been "swatted"--possibly by a Special Weapons and Tactics squad?)  I think they took the kids, opportunistically,  in order to create a diversion to allow them to escape back to South Waziristan.  Most of the kids were released, in order to create more confusion to allow the principals--still holding a smaller number of the hostages--to retreat further.

I'm thinking this was a close call for them, with possibly some high-value targets of ours involved.

OK, maybe the Pakistani forces had their Tora Bora moment, or maybe not.  Either way,  I still salute them for their sucesses in routing their internal enemy.  It was critically important to deny the Taliban a significant safe haven like the Swat Valley was being set up to be for them.   

The Taste of Greatness

I saw an ad tonight in which Miller Lite--quite possibly the worst beer I have had in more than 30 countries of drinking experience--has claimed "Taste Greatness" as a trademarked tag line for its product.  One could say that this fact has demeaned greatness itself, but it is more like a testimony for the difficulty of getting a handle on what the word, and the concept behind it, really means. 

There was a coincidence for me, as I was pondering a post on the topic of Greatness at this time.  The Tao Te Ching, at least in some translations, includes a line to the effect: 

How to describe the Tao?  In a word, "great".

Of course, this is not the same "great" as Tony the Tiger's Sugar Frosted Flakes (sorry if you readers are too young for that reference).  It is not a synonym for "famous", or "celebrated".  I would describe that meaning as something like "larger than just 'large'" (like Great Britain?), whereas its usage today basically means "better than just 'good'".   Common examples are the description of a "great" teacher, or a "great" parent (or a "great" kid!)  

I suppose Miller Lite has "earned" its right to claim Greatness through its preceding high-profile campaign on the controversy of "Tastes Great vs. Less Filling", though I would suggest "Tastes Filling--Less Great" was always closer to the truth. 

I saw that ad on Game 1 of the NBA Championships.  It was used on that telecast to refer to the likes of Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard, in their aspiration to place themselves and their team in the Pantheon of Greatness with past NBA champs.  Of course, I'd have to admit both of them are already Great--by any definition limited to the realm of basketball--as are most NBA players, when compared to the millions (tens of millions?hundreds of millions?) of wannabes in the sport.

Here's the salient point, to me:  I think I've always hungered for Greatness, though it conflicts directly with my preference for obscurity. I've seen more than enough people ruined by their fame and the wreck it makes of their lives, and I want no part of it.   Getting back to the Tao, the trick is to have the Greatness, both within oneself and also somehow manifest in the real world, without the crushing weight of being recognized personally as being Great (like Alexander of Macedonia--"great" example!)  

Maybe in today's society a good example is someone like Thomas Pynchon.  Yes, I'd say he is a role model for me. 

Finally, an ad I did think was "great":  A series of close-up pictures of people with youth and vigor.  A message that "we are more than our past, than what has happened to us"--a perfect inspiration for those who have been victimized, or those who have suffered financial ruin in the current economic crisis.  The surprising source of this ad is revealed at its end:  The Church of Scientology!  I wouldn't have thought they had it in them, to go so publicly and upfront, with such a message. 

  

Obama in Cairo

I have not read the speech yet (though I will make its text a link on this posting in the near future).  I have no doubt that it was eloquent, cleverly appealing to its audience (narrowly, Cairo University students; and broadly, all Muslims of good will), and will go as far as good intentions and beautiful words possibly can. 

Mostly, I'll just be glad when he returns home safely.  I wonder what the official stance of the Muslim Brotherhood will be. 

Tienanmen, Mon Amour

Today was the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tienanmen Square in Beijing.  The Chinese authorities rigorously clamped down on any possible demonstrations or news exploitation of the event within China.   There were extensive efforts to suppress Internet discussion of the anniversary (see link on title above).  It is quite clearly an embarrassment to the current technocrats running things, one which they are insufficiently agile to be able to come to grips with.   

In the Old School ChiCom days, it would've been much easier to turn against those who came before: the slogan might've been "Denounce Deng Hsiao-peng and his Insufficiently Committed Clique of Capitalist/Communist Roaders, who didn't trust the masses enough to let them mobilize for liberty!"  Instead, they are too insecure to denounce those who grandfathered the regime and, in that sense, give them legitimacy. 

I argued heatedly against the US' policy of business-as-usual and most-favored-nation toward China after Tienanmen in '89.  I don't regret that at all, and I assign a special place in my own personal hell for those responsible (next-door neighbors to Nixon and Dick Cheney's reserved spot), but I have to admit that China has progressed since then. Not that I think it impossible for the party to call down the armed forces upon its own people once again, if the threat to their rule be deemed sufficiently serious, nor that they have learned to deal honestly with their citizens.  

The exception that proves something--not a rule, but the more nuanced reality which prevails with regard to Chinese civilization today--is seen from the mass candlelight gathering in Hong Kong, some 200,000 strong by report.  China has kept its promises to allow Hong Kong what we consider "freedom"--of press, religion, assembly, etc.  While Hong Kong's government is hardly parliamentarian, and it's clearly under Beijing's thumb, there has never been a crackdown there (such as Tienanmen was).  Economic liberty prevails for most Chinese, in the sense of being able to move about the country and to work where one chooses, and this may be the most important one for most Chinese.   

There is a strong recognition of reality among the Chinese leaders, and it is one that we owe respect toward.  They are not lunatics or self-destructive; yes, their reality is self-serving, but so is our own perception of reality. 

Brief Advisory: Root for the Underdogs!

The first four games of the NBA Conference Championships have given us all two strong underdogs to get behind. Denver, though tied at 2-2, is the underdog in the Western Championships because the Lakers have the home advantage, and, of course, they're the Lakers. Though the Nuggets have disappointed on occasion, they have shown they have the potential to beat LA, and thus are worthy of our fervent support.

As for Cleveland, now down 3-1 to Orlando, I don't think they're beaten yet. I expect the next game, in Cleveland, to be a blowout or close to it for the home team. It will come down to a tense Game 6 then, because Game 7 back in Cleveland would likely be another one.

The other event that has me on edge is tomorrow's Champions Cup Final in Europe between Manchester United and Barcelona. The appeal of this game is massive--both teams have supercharged offenses filled with marquee players. Man U. has a better defense, by far, but if the game becomes a scoring competition it won't matter. That is why one has to expect that Sir Alec will try to put the clamps down: he will gladly take the opprobrium with the trophy. If the Red Devils get behind, though, he won't be able to do that, so look for an early score by Barcelona. If they haven't scored in 30 minutes, though, better turn the channel, because it could get very frustrating.

North Korean Bomb

The only explanation I can see for the underground nuclear explosion detonated by North Korea over the weekend is fear of loss of attention.

Andy Borowitz' report today on the Obama Administration's reaction is very funny, and also brief:

U.S. to Respond to North Korea with ‘Strongest Possible Adjectives'

Obama: We are Prepared to Consult Thesaurus

One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with "the strongest possible adjectives."

In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the "full force and might of the United States' arsenal of adjectives" and called the missile test "reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable."

Standing at the President's side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il "totally wack and illin'."

Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test "supercilious and jejune," leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to "scour the thesaurus" to come up with additional adjectives and was "prepared to use adverbs" if necessary.

"Let's be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table," Mr. Obama said. "If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly."

What's so good about it, of course, is the tone. People are beginning to have a feel how to jostle this administration.

North Korea itself, of course, is not so funny. Their leadership's attempt to prove they are scary and dangerous, instead of weak and pathetic, is just about working. They would be certifiably paranoid lunatics, except for the fact that everyone does hate them and wish them ill.

Their current need for aggressive posturing is to fulfill a bluff to punish the rest of the world for denouncing and ridiculing their recent missile launching. We should let them know that their next launch vehicle will be destroyed on the pad; the lesson we need to get across to them is that attention is not always in their interest. 

Defending the Indefensible

Dick Cheney has appointed himself as the advocate for continued torture. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. As he has often done before, he's willing to be the bad guy. One might think he enjoys it.

I believe Cheney may be right when he says that Obama will not categorically exclude the possibility of using "enhanced interrogation procedures". Where they differ is that Obama does not seek to gain advance approval for them, and that Obama does not view what the Bushites did as being justified, or successful.

Cheney claims success under Bushite Misrule for an overall policy of attack on terrorists to prevent future 9/11's. It is true that there have been no comparable attacks within the US but there have been in other countries, so the policy could be viewed as successful in a limited, selfish way. And that's OK with Dick, and with many other Americans.

A part of that Bushite Strategy (B.S. for short) was "attacking regimes giving support to international terrorists" or "with the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction" (approximate quotes from Cheney's speech), one or more of which refer, indirectly, to That Country Which Shall Not Be Named. So, the decision to invade and the methods of occupation of Iraq can only be considered as part of some grand, successful GWOT. Cheney's key objective is is to protect the Bushite Doctrine of Preventive War, which Cheney holds in the same esteem as Article 2, which pretty much authorizes the Executive to do whatever to preserve the nation and the constitution. Again, the point being that what must be done will happen, but that doesn't mean those responsible are not culpable.

Prosecution for the Unprosecutable (sp?)?

Cheney and the Bushite Torture Apologists are like some of the worst Guantanamo detainees in one regard--though their behavior is criminal, no court can touch them, nor would want to.

Whether the Bushites can be prosecuted is less interesting to me, or to Obama, than whether detainees can be prosecuted successfully. There's a covert cops-and-robbers game going on with Eric Holder's Justice Department, as they try to execute a triage delayed for several years. They must decide individually either to let them go (somewhere, but not in the US), or to prosecute them (somewhere) if there's a legal case that's sufficiently unsullied, or kill them (or the equivalent--put them out to sea on a boat) if they're in that special class: guilty to a certainty but with no case that could stand up to the accusations of abuse. All three options are difficult to execute, so it is perhaps fortunate that the Senate is forcing them to go more slowly by cutting off funds for closing Guantanamo.

As for Cheney & Co., the most important way to defeat them is to change the policies and explicitly reject the precedents set by the Bushites. Some legislation should be introduced to back up these rejections with force of law: Wars of choice need to be explicitly endorsed--any endorsement during an electoral period (up to six months before an election) needs to be re-affirmed 90 days after election day to remain effective, when fears and tempers have cooled; Pre-emptive war needs an imminent threat to justify it; conspiracy to expose a US undercover agent through the press is a crime.

Angels vs. Demons vs. Romulans vs. Federation

I caught two hot action flicks this week: the Ron Howard/Tom Hanks one, "Angels vs. Demons" (or "DaVinci Code 2") and "Star Trek" ( #11?--I lost count somewhere in the later Picard films).
I haven't caught the new "Terminator" one--the only real appeal for me to see that would be the shots they took near the Gorge Bridge outside of town.

I am not one of those who got sucked into "DaVinci Code", either the book or the film. I'll admit I went largely because it was my son's choice for his birthday party group to see, and they needed a chaperon (whether they knew it or not). I found it fast-paced and compelling as action drama, interesting in many parts, and about half an hour too long.

The best thing about the movie was its setting in Rome (the second and third best were probably the scenes at nuclear lab CERN, and the Italian physicist lead, Vittoria). If you know Roma at all, you'll understand why. I am assuming they got no cooperation from the Vatican itself, which means they did a great job with sets and editing, with so much of the movie's action there. Lots of good flavor and genuine shots in the true Roman (non-Vatican) locales. I have to check if the secret tunnel from Castel Sant'Angelo to the Pope's offices is real, or plausible.

The ending certainly was not. Seeing that the movie is so new, I should probably avoid spoilers for now. It was book-thriller confusing, without the visual clarity and simplification which often results from translation to film.

Trek Fatigue

On the other hand, I am a longtime Trekkie--not to the point of going to conventions or anything, but one who's seen all the original show episodes (I'm pretty sure of this; last time I saw a new one in reruns was probably the early 80's), and one who more-or-less followed the various other incarnations (jealous of "New Generation", bored with "Deep Space 9", liked "Voyager" until it petered out, never found a reason to see "Enterprise", hated the cartoon show--though I loved that it was made, and followed the general crowd preferences for numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8 of the movies--especially 4, the "one with the whale"). No, not the books.

I was favorably disposed toward this one. I liked the general notion of exploring Kirk's early days at Starfleet Academy, and the early plot exposition worked well for me. The Young Spock was a dead ringer for a guy 10 years younger than the Spock of the first series; while the actors playing the younger Kirk, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, and Chekhov all had the mannerisms if not exactly the right look. Kirk's actor had a great wild look in the eyes that we might have expected from Young Kirk.

For me, the young Uhura--though comparably attractive to the original series' Uhura--didn't look like her younger version at all, and the (slight spoiler) romance with Spock neither made sense, added to the story, nor fit with what we saw later (ahem, earlier, in our time frame).

There are big issues with "11" (name provisional). The first is the "Gee, It's a Small Universe" notion that these guys all met up so young, and stayed together so long (much longer than their original "five year mission"), the improbable staffing history which led to them all being together, on the Enterprise, with everyone in their appointed positions by the end of the movie. How about this one: Why would a Romulan mining vessel have such advanced weaponry and Doomsday Machine size and shields?

Profound issues were raised by changes caused by time travel in this "episode". If "Star Trek 11" is true, there might not be a "Next Generation" at all! This is seriously concerning and raises major problems with any potential sequel to this one. On the one hand, I expect this one was a big enough success there would be Hollywood money for it; on the other, there's hardly any way to take up where this one left off--probably the only route is an "alternate universe" approach where the outcomes of "11" are somehow cancelled out by the plot of "12". Which means that "11" is a big fat dead end, creatively speaking.

A good ride, though, and I liked the superimposition of enormous space launching platforms on the Iowa landscape, as well as the dramatic events occurring near San Francisco (shouldn't there be something Federational in Moscow, or Scotland, or somewhere on Earth besides the USA, though?)

Nova SCOTUS

Yes, President Obama's nomination for a new Supreme Court justice should be a woman. I'm backing up Ruth Marcus' Washington Post column from two days ago, "Wanted: Justices from Venus". The Venutian planet, like "mediocre jurists", does deserve representation.

My argument is based on tactical considerations. We are talking about quotas, and women's quota of Supreme Court seats should not be limited to a single one. A single slot does seem to be allocated to African-Americans (currently usurped by Clarence Thomas), and the seat that John Paul Stevens is occupying seems destined to become "the Hispanic one". If Obama picks a woman this time, there will be two women for some brief amount of time, which will crack the marble ceiling on that limitation. I think that is what Marcus is looking for.

Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, Obama will truly have a free hand to select his top choice, hopefully free of considerations to fill any prerequisite, except the one of being the Supreme Court justice Obama most wants in there.

Of the three top women bruited about in the Justice horserace, Sonia Sotomayor would seem to be both the favorite (most boxes checked off) and the least likely Justice, Diana Wood the insider filly on the rail that the smart money secretly has its bets on, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm would be the outsider who could make a run down the stretch.

Granholm would be the one selected to reduce the number of legal beagles on the top bench. I agree with the intention of getting someone other than a top judge, and I pray that it can work. Those who have been through this process find that the non-judge always gets squeezed out, but the fact that she is a Governor--of a besieged "third-world" state--would suggest that the political equation might be different for her, this time.

Breaking Down the 4-1-4 Defense

Whoever is chosen, it should be the one who best fits Justice Anthony Kennedy's eHarmony profile. I think the purpose of the new Justice should be to try to break open the static arrangement of the justices which has been maintained for a good 15-20 years--four right-wingers, four "liberals", and one schmuck in the middle.

The concept would be for the new judge to be sufficiently centrist, or conflicted (like Kennedy), or stunningly attractive to Kennedy, to turn his head, mind, and pen, and make him a reliable vote for Change (meaning Obama-administration-style change with a capital C). Empathy, indeed.

I believe this is a goal worth accomplishing and definitely possible. If it happened consistently, even for a short while, the Four Remaining Right-Wing-Twerps (Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and faux centrist Roberts) would have the choice of being united in the minority or tactically breaking ranks like Sen. Specter. I would consider it more likely they would each go for the former, making their reactionary legal arguments appear ever more shrill and increasing Kennedy's distance from them. It's a tactic, and a strategy!

I do think the argument is better coming from a man, though.

Costa Rican Impressions: Pt. 2

First, I need to provide some answers to the problems I posed in my first posting on the subject:

The short-term approach to Costa Rica's problems is road improvement--that's going on several places, including a key stretch near the most prominent San Jose suburb, Escazu. The general state of road improvement in the hinterland has to be frustrating: we were there at the very end of the dry season, and they had just finished grading in most areas. They weren't going to have much of a chance to pave anything before the season downpours came and washed away all the roadwork.

I heard that an electric train is being planned between San Jose and the nearby small city of Alvarado, site of UCR's main campus. This could be the beginning of a real 21st-century solution for the country. Train lines could work well through some of the big mountain ridges that are huge obstacles for developing a modern highway system. They should just skip that one, and move on.

Sports Notes

Now's a good time to pause and reflect, after the pleasures of recent days, and before the next round of tense action commences.

Football

No comments on the meat market of the NFL draft; I'm talking futbol, or soccer.

Mostly, it's got to be about Chelsea, but first a note about Mexico: The combination of escalating war against and among gangs on the US border, swine flu in the heartland, and the woes of the national team have to constitute what Comintern would describe as "objectively revolutionary conditions". I'm exaggerating, but this looks pretty serious. Though there is a long way to go, right now Mexico would not qualify for the World Cup from the CONCACAF group (all the Western Hemisphere except S. America)--they'd have a make-or-break playoff game with a South American also-ran. Mexico trails Honduras, Costa Rica and the US in a six-nation round-robin.

Following their pattern set so far of road losses and home wins all the way to the end might get Mexico in, but woe to them, and especially the new coach Javier Aguirre, if they just get a draw or two at home (such will be the objective of the US team when they come to town). Woe already sent Sven Goran Eriksson packing, for a 3-1 drubbing in Honduras.

And now for something completely different:
Topline report for the Blues is that I have ended my search for a new leader for Chelsea; Guus Hiddink is my man. The key success was in the first leg of the quarterfinal matchup with Liverpool, when Chelsea won 3-1 at Anfield. The incredible 4-4 draw with them at home in the rematch only confirmed Chelsea's definitive win over its nemesis in the club's greatest challenge and opportunity (Premier League not-with-standings).

Hiddink's great strategic move has been the offensive combination of early-season comeback fave Nicolas Anelka with Didier Drogba, now fully recovered from his injuries. Together with Frank Lampard's cannonades from just beyond the box, Chelsea now has the guns to score on anyone. And, as they demonstrated in the incredible 0-0 tie in this round's first match at Barcelona, they retain the ability to shut down any team. What we're looking for in this week's match--which we have to expect will be a more open game--is a good balance between the clampdown and the beautiful game: a 2-1 win will probably include some nervous moments, but would suffice to bring on a rip-roaring finale in Roma, probably against the colossus of Manchester U.

Our other expectation is now for the F.A. Cup. Everton did the dirty work for us in the semifinal, outlasting Manchester United in penalty kicks (US starting goalie Tim Howard the hero for Everton). So we just have to beat the Toffees (yes!) at Wembley to get at least that trophy.

Sir Alex Ferguson's plan--to squeak through past Everton with a cheap goal, say, on a penalty, despite playing his second team--was denied. What he didn't consider was neutral-field refereeing--he'd have gotten his call at home. The F.A., in its wisdom, decided to go with Wembley for the semifinals rather than the usual F.A. format. Still, probably not a bad move by Fergie, who (because of winning also the World Club Championship last fall) could still accomplish an unprecedented quadruple trophy result if they can get by Arsenal and then Barca/Chelsea in the Champions League.

Seeing Manchester lose, even if it wasn't "in the run of play", is the only thing better than seeing Chelsea defeat a mighty foe. And, I'm not particular about the style--the desultory Everton match was so much better than the recent, thrilling game I watched between MU and THS (the fabulously-named Tottenham Hotspurs, or just, "Spurs!"--always delivered with gusto!) Tottenham had a miraculous 2-0 lead at halftime; then the miracle vanished and Manchester scored four goals in half an hour, coasting home 4-2. That's the norm, watching ManU as an opponent--they build up your hopes, then mercilessly dash them.

Anelka and Drogba, for all their merits, are not "Rooney and Ronaldo". So, how do we beat them in Rome? For us, it's got to be a combination of sterling team effort and outstanding defense. Besides the Anelka-Drogba combo, Hiddink's Blues have shown improved contributions from Malouda and Ballack, and the central defense partnership of John Terry and Alex looks to be the best yet (of many others). Ultimately, I think it comes down to Lampard, though--he is our man of destiny and the time for his reward for staying in West London is coming soon.

NBA

We're writing this as the second round begins--there was about five minutes or so between the end of the first and the beginning of the second. No matter--I like Denver over Dallas (in six), and I'll stand by that even if they somehow lose this first game at home.

The big question I had going in was "Who Can Stop L.A.?" Houston will pose a challenge, in the form of two marquee matchups, Yao Ming vs. Andrew Bynum and Ron Artest vs. Kobe Bryant. Though I like our guys in both positions (Artest is one of the few with the strength and defensive chops to slow down Kobe), I won't claim they will be decisive. Basically, Yao is worth two points every time you get the ball into him on the post, regardless of who is guarding him. The challenge will be to control the boards, and I'm afraid the Lakers may still have the edge. If Bynum is not up to the challenge, this will show a weakness that could yet be exploited later in the playoffs.

Like in the next round. The Nuggets are the team that nobody saw coming that could pull it off. They combine great offensive punch with some serious beef (Nene, Kenyon Martin), as well as my personal favorite, Chauncey Billups, one of a handful of players with the ability and confidence to take and make the big shots in the close ones, like Kobe. The others of that class are Dewayne Wade (his team isn't strong enough and he's not in good enough condition to carry them), the Celtics' Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, LeBron, and, apparently, Ben Gordon.

The Celtics-Bulls series was entertainment of the highest order, but it has made it clear that the Cavaliers--with the emergence of Mo Williams as a top-class second banana--stand alone at the top of the East. We can still hope to stop the Lakers in the Finals if Denver can't do it sooner.

Mind The Bird

Yesterday's Kentucky Derby, coming very soon to a cinema near you.

I have to mention how our New Mexican trainer (Bernie Woolley) brought his 50-1 longshot horse personally to Louisville, driving the vehicle pulling the horse's trailer despite a leg shattered in a motorcycle accident. Also, the deepwoods redneck jockey (Calvin Borel), who seems to know only one way to win: the shortest route (and why not?) along the rail.

And how about the poor announcer calling the race? I won't say he didn't even name the winner before he crossed the finish line, but he was definitely caught up watching a tight three-horse battle--which turned out to be for second place.

The trainer, who'll be played by fellow New Mexican Val Kilmer once his gubernatorial bid dies out, had gotten sick of himself-as-storyline. Whereas before the race he was all humble and "Just happy to be here," now he told them off: "Now you guys can talk about something else besides how we got here. "

And there was Michael Jordan, wearing a zoot suit and glorying in his new vice, the ponies. I'm afraid he demonstrated that he was, if anything, more clueless about betting on horses than he was on golf. Fortunately, he has an infinite amount of money, and probably the ability to generate more income should he need it. Which is what makes the whole Derby thing so exciting: what conspicuous consumption!

The subhead is my preferred nickname for "Mine That Bird"--it's also better advice. Eliot Spitzer, please note.

Don't You Want Somebody to Shove?

Blame Game Update

I think those greedy bank executives who are putting us through this torture deserve prosecution for violating the Geneva Conventions and taking their bonuses. Or is it the Basel II Framework? Perhaps I am confusing two different issues, and I did promise to try to avoid sarcasm.

I see nothing wrong with most of them getting bonuses if their divisions are doing well. The heads of the companies, of course, can easily pass on one year's extra compensation, and that is to be expected when simultaneously taking massive bailout money and producing enormous losses. A second disastrous year, though, should mean firing. That would mean the huge write-offs they took the first year--when they really had the chance to name their size--were insufficient, and would mean that they did a terrible job of risk management indeed.

Otherwise, it's a shame the non-bank manipulators are coming back so energetically, this time promoting "Obama-driven" mortgage reform scams. At least there's no Countrywide ads. So far.

Please see my two previous postings ("Bailout FAQ" and "Bailout FAQ Revisited") for blame assignments. Some of the assignments are being completed, though none have been turned in, more have not even begun hearings. I'm waiting to see how the new Federal super-regulatory agency will handle the credit rating agencies. In the popular view, AIG is the arch-villain that constructed the financial meteor that hit us.


Taxing Offshore Profits

President Obama announced this week he will push for revisions in the US tax code which will take away flexibility from corporations with regard to reporting profits overseas. This is the method he has chosen to fulfill one of his campaign promises, namely to take away the right of corporations ("Benedict Arnold corporations", John Kerry called them in 2004) to deduct expenses related to outsourcing jobs overseas.

The gnashing of teeth of the US Chamber of Commerce about this suggests that august organization is much more concerned for their multinational clients than they are about the US or about domestic commerce. Or about the US government budget deficits projected for the future. There was also supposed to be some tightening with regard to foreign companies operating in the US, which would make sense if only to prevent those on the fence from switching their incorporation out of the country.

I think that the discussions I heard totally missed a key point: what the US government is trying to do to Corporate entities is no less or no more than they already do with "US individuals". As most any expat could tell you, the US is alone in taxing the worldwide income of US citizens and "US persons"--namely anybody who wants to return to these spacious skies, etc. Other countries go through elaborate means to allow their taxpayers to identify the portion of their income which is home income as opposed to foreign income, which is not taxed. We, instead, have this notion that all income of Americans is US-taxable (though we do credit for taxes paid overseas).

In other words, the Obama proposal is an overreach, just as it is for individuals. It will encourage "legal cheating" and a lot of feigned ignorance. Still, a willingness to tackle the tax code will be a critical aspect of successful policy to end Bushite economics.

Banks Pass Smell Test

It will surprise no one that the Treasury's stress tests on the 19 largest TARP banks will result in zero Federal takeovers of those banks; if AIG wasn't insolvent enough, how could any of these banks--all of whom have been more-or-less officially designated "too big to fail"?

I was watching the news and the movements on some of these bank stocks closely this week. I see a pretty clear pattern that banks had been notified of the contents of today's announcements (who needed more capital, and how much). Then, possibly as a signal of Geithner/Obama's benign intentions toward the banks, or possibly just as a pragmatic move, they seemed to have told the banks they could go ahead and try to make the best use of the information in the public arena. Bank of America, which needs a lot more capital, leaked that news out on a good market day and having thus broken wind in advance, didn't suffer as the stink was broadly received today.

Similarly, American Express, having been told they wouldn't need to reinforce their capital, pushed out a different piece of news (on another good day; there have been quite a few recently)--that their credit was being downgraded by rating agencies due to "liquidity concerns". Amex's problem doesn't appear to be the toxic assets they acquired, as much as worries about weak consumption spending combined with increased credit losses from their cardholders. The rating downgrade should have pushed the stock down, as it will certainly reduce their margins, but the stock rallied as investors concluded--correctly, I believe--that the bad news was then fully out.

These were successful stock boosterism moves; those who waited and now need to face bad news in the face of the overall pleasing aroma coming off the stress tests (Citicorp?) will be punished.

The title of this update on financial news (actually posted on 5/6/09) comes, modified, from Soul Asylum via the Jefferson Airplane.

Second Six Weeks' Report Card

We will continue to grade Obama on three dimensions: Political, Economic, and Diplomatic.

Re-Election Is the Validation We Crave

Right now, the measure of political success is completely identified with economic recovery and the expectation of it. Hopes have risen in recent days, driven by stock market improvement, which has interrupted the slide in Obama's popularity.

The projected political outcome--which I graded a 'B' from the first six weeks' report--is of Congressional losses in 2010 driven by the sense that recovery is not yet in place, but by a sufficient recovery by 2012 for a commanding re-election victory.

That remains the standard measure of acceptable political success. If we get at least that kind of moderately-good result we can expect a definitive success in the other key areas--the economic and diplomatic ones--rather than some kind of reversion to neo-Bushite Misrule (Bushite, but without the incompetence). So, while today politics are subordinate to economics, in terms of long-term result, political success rates first in importance.

Put in those terms, the tides that rise and fall with the outcome of policy and legislation on the issues themselves are an order of magnitude less important. Obama is off to a good start on health care reform, and energy policy is clearly going to move forward. The debate on education has begun--being the most long-lasting and the key policy area one most worthy of deliberate consideration, I don't think the urgency of action in the first year is as important as establishing the right long-term direction.

One area which is probably a bridge too far--though just at the boundary--is immigration, and Obama's pledge to press for legislative reform in this area this year. It's clearly redemption of a pledge earned with the huge contribution of Hispanic votes to his election, but I think it risks damaging the Democratic brand and letting the opposition demagogue its way back into the national dialogue. Otherwise, the trend is clearly to move the Republicans to the periphery of the debate, and I for one welcome this trend (and the recognition of it, as well, which has prompted some interesting debate whether we need the Republicans' "contributions").

Second Six Weeks' Grade: A- Cumulative Average: B+

Riding the Curve of the Great Crater

Not even the most impatient could expect that the economy would already be improving. The CNBC Talking Crania are about right when they identify the general perception as having recently passed "an inflection point". That would be the second derivative, when the rate of increase in the rate of decrease crosses zero. In other words, things are not getting worse at an accelerating rate anymore--the deterioration was accelerating for a good six months, from September, 2008 to March of this year.

I think passing that perceived mathematical milestone was a definitive one; the economy will continue to decline for another year, in my estimation, but at a rate generally slower than in the past several months.

Has the market found a bottom? Not necessarily, but it has shown that a bottom exists. I do expect a downturn in stock prices, and probably quite soon, but not as widespread as before and not as deep. New bad news will be doubly punished, as the smart guys have socked away enough reserves for contingencies and bumps in the accounting road.

What has Obama done? He got the stimulus passed; whatever its job-creating qualities (many or not so many; sooner or later; sustainable or temporary), he's got some muscles to flex. He's also gotten people to stop hyperventilating about the unquantifiability of the toxic asset problem with round two of Tim Geithner's public sales job for The Nasty.

Second Six Weeks' Grade: B+ Cumulative: B

President of the World

"Well, he hasn't gotten us into a new war yet, so his grade is at least passing." That was my evaluation of Bushite Misrule in mid-2001, and I kept it until he got us into the second new war--I gave him a pass on the first one in Afghanistan.

Obama is not being graded on the pass/fail scale, though--expectations are much higher. His multilateral outreach program has been a huge success. Hardly a grimace in any of the targeted countries (maybe Pakistan), but the G20 and Latin America have fallen hard for Obama, and his speech in Turkey was boffo (click on the title of this blog), even if he probably didn't write much of it. It's probably the only country he's visited that he wouldn't be able to defeat the local sitting President in a straight runoff, but I still think it went down well, and beyond Turkey as well.

Movement on relations with Cuba has been very positive; on Iran, results are a bit more problematic as we get past the first, euphoric stage. I still think that a meeting with Khamenei may occur after the Iranian Presidential election, if its result is not too negative (i.e., something better than Ahmadinejad coming out of it).

Second Six Weeks' Grade: A Cumulative Grade: A-

Three Days' Times

A bit of praise for the Times getting past the noise (CNN seems intoxicated):

Kristof went after the root of our problems on April 15, Taxday: "How to Raise Our I.Q." His careful reading of the evidence led to some practical, useful recommendations.

On the public policy level, he concludes that we should invest more in early childhood education (but not in Head Start, much earlier). In terms of childhood parenting, it means practices like praising effort and teaching delayed gratification. The best bit he had came on the subject of middle-schoolers:

another proven intervention is to tell junior-high-school students that I.Q. is expandable, and that their intelligence is something they can help shape. Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades.

He didn't draw the conclusion that if we raised our "collective I.Q." a billion points or so we might actually be able to revise the Tax Code, though.

Following on the topic of the massive challenges to our educational system, today's critical assessment of social standards, "Dude, You've Got Problems" took a shot across the bow of the "Op-Extra" boat (a weekly column called "Domestic Disturbances) and rocked it, as I see things. Judith Warner picked exactly the right topic, the promiscuous labelling of non-homoerotic behavior as "gay". It's the second-worst behavior of our youngbloods, next only to beltlines that are designed to fall down to the lower thigh (and this latter one seems finally to be abating).

She sets up the key findings, not limiting herself to the use of complete sentences, and acutely describes the girls sin, too; they have only a

very fine line between progress and utter regression. Spending unprecedented amounts of time and money on their hair, their skin and their bodies, at earlier and earlier ages. Essentially accepting the highly sexualized identity imposed on them, long before middle school, by advertisers and pop culture.

Just kidding, I love the tone, and I find the piece excellent fodder for some kind of modern Civics class ("ethical choices?")

The piece I note as being yesterday's was Nobel laureate Paul Krugman allowing himself to deceive the reader with his falsely hopeful title, "Green Shoots and Glimmers". He proceeded to stamp on the shoots and block the light over the glimmers. Krugman is merely continuing on the theme he went with big, proclaiming "Obama Is Wrong" on the Newsweek cover April 6.

Krugman's bases his "loyal opposition" (to be accomplished by all means necessary) on his staking out a position in favor of more use of make-work infrastructure jobs in the stimulus package. I largely accept his argument that more jobs could be created in this way, and that this would give more forward movement to the economy than alternative approaches (such as Obama's, which focused on structural adjustment and tax cuts for the middle class). Further, even the most pragmatic Obamaian should accept that "jobs, jobs, jobs" is the critical measure of "it's the stupid economy".

Ultimately, though, I side with Obama (Every time I viewed the Newsweek cover I heard a song in my mind: "If Obama is wrong, I don't wanna be right!") . I think it far better to create jobs with a sustainable basis rather than ones programmed to be short in duration (or else pure waste). The Bushite Recovery of 2003-08 should be enough to show us that not all job-creation, such as the non-bank mortgage refinancing industry for example, is equal.

The compromise position Krugman will accept will be the backup plan Obama will show him (in private). If things don't work right with the targeted, structural appoach, he will go heavier for the make-work, either taking some of the money appropriated in principle through the legislation or asking for additional spending authority. So, I disagree with those who say there is no Plan B.

Costa Rican Impressions: Pt. 1

The place is living up to its billing in two particular regards: endless variety of colorful birds, pretty much everywhere (even inhabited zones), and more green than can be seen. This looks like the place to rack up numbers of birds sighted, breaking a sweat but barely having to turn one's head.

Also, the traffic in San Jose (do you know the way?) is just as bad as promised.

When it's hot here, it's hot like nowhere I've been (OK, maybe like India when it's hot there). It isn't always, though, which gives hope.

My advice is to plan for a recovery day in a decent hotel with A/C and TV after about every 2-4 days in the rustic eco-cabins. One has to do laundry about that often, anyway.

As far as traveling around in the country, the better way hasn't yet emerged. Perhaps one of those services where you pay a monthly fee, then pick up a car or SUV when you need one. That way you aren't stuck waiting for buses to pick you up, driving whenyou don't want to, or taking dangerous dinky planes or unseaworthy boats.

A Few Sports Notes

NCAA:

Not getting to watch much from down here in Costa Rica (see the post which will follow this, or precede this if you're reading down the page). I am very interested in this year's tourney, primarily because of Louisville, which seems to have peaked at the right time. If we can just get UNC out of there, it should be a wide-open Final 8.

The fact that everything is following form so far is no issue; it just means there's a bit bigger gap between the top 10-15 teams and the rest this year. Previous years, with all the hurrah over bracket busting, it was because there were lots of teams about equal in positions 9-32 (roughly).

NBA

I'm hoping for something other than a Celtics-Lakers rematch (we've had enough of those for one lifetime). I think that means I'll be rooting for the Spurs and/or Cavs, though I'm not too enthusiastic about those teams, either. Clearly, though, I'll be rooting for the not-Lakers in the Western Conference finals, and in the finals should the n-L's win.

WBC

That's World Baseball Classic, for those not following (who apparently number in the billions). Japan-Korea final seems totally appropriate, as they are the countries who have best mobilized their talent (and which have enough to mobilize); Venezuela clearly was next best at that task. I guess I'm rooting for the upstart Koreans to upend the defending champs.

Soccer

Chelsea blew what appears to have been its last chance to get into the Premier League race down the stretch. Now, the matchup with nemesis Liverpool in the Champions League makes me gloomy and thinking that the FA Cup is their best chance to win something this year. I hope I'm proven wrong, but it will probably mean scoring at Anfield, something they have no track record of doing.

Bring back The Chosen One! Or, if not him, Claudio Ranieri!

Obama 1st 6-weeks' period Grade: B

Prologue

The grade I'd give a US President isn't fixed over time.

A good example is actually the first Bush Administration: six months in I gave him a D, which I thought to be a well-established and potentially stable mark. The policies were dumb and wrong-headed, but at least he hadn't gotten us into a war yet.

His grade probably would've peaked at a C- about nine months later, after he recovered from the jolt on September 11 with the relatively successful war by proxy in Afghanistan and before his folks' ambitions for aggression in Iraq were nakedly revealed. It's an F, of course, from then on, until such point as we kick him out of the classroom when it becomes apparent the Iraq whole thing was planned to be a stage-managed photo op to make him look good in his re-election campaign.

Botched, like everything else, Bushite Misrule showed that two negatives--bad policies, badly executed--don't make a positive. Just chaos.

Still, Obama represents such a pivot toward the light that the range of grades I'd consider would only go from A+ to C. I think a solid B is tough but fair, as I'll explain over the three critical dimensions: economic, diplomatic, and political.

Obama 1st 6-weeks' period Grade: B

Part I

It's stupid, the economy.

I continue to be amazed that nobody is connecting the dots on the purchases of toxic assets and figuring out where the bottom is--we're headed straight for it at ninety miles an hour.

I believe that our National Buggy has passed the inflection point: the angle of descent into the Great Crater has passed its maximum. Soon we will be on the long, gentle slope that leads into the depressed plain, and drag will cause our velocity to slow down--the real-life economic manifestation of this physical analogy will be a reduction in volatility of markets, and this will signal an end to the hysterical tone, which is the all-important first step towards regaining our balance. Right now we're just riding in the cart, taking the bumps which are coming at us too fast to dodge.

The sad flatline zone of the plain at the bottom of the Crater has to be traversed, and it ideally should be crossed directly opposite to the orientation we came down upon. If we try shortcuts off to the side, we will run up partway and slide or roll back down--this is what happened in the '30's. I will grade performance by how well Obama finds the right answers from the outset and sticks to them, not how well he improvises when he goes astray.

Obama described the path he wants to take across, which means the path out of here, as being based upon initiatives in energy, health care, and education which will transform the core of the country's economy. Are they the right ones? I'd say yes. Course corrections will be required, no doubt, but we've got the right azimuth, in general terms.

Beyond that, I don't know what anyone can expect. One thing we don't know is how far across the moonscape-like plain it will be. I say that, then rashly predict: I think the timing will be such that a nascent recovery will not be evident by the 2010 midterm elections, even with the course being maintained properly.

This will translate into a tough, but not impossible, fight to hold onto the safe margins the Democrats enjoy in both Houses of Congress. I would say the midpoint of expectations would be the loss of 20-30 seats by the Democrats in the House, which will keep them in the majority, but less securely. I think the Senate will stay more or less the same in 2010, regardless, and thus Obama will retain a Congress sufficiently compliant to complete his first-term program.

The rest, as they say, will become history.

Obama 1st 6-weeks' period Grade: B

Part II

Foreign policy is central to my grading of the performance of a Presidency of the US. It includes military policy (just ask Clausewitz), which is equally vital and equally controllable from the White House. In this regard F.P. is unlike economic policy (the outcome of which is normally not controllable, just as we are seeing) or, say, sports boosterism (a traditional Presidential activity, of little importance--I saw Daddy O caught the Bulls when they came to visit in DC the other day).

Obama, Hillary, and the key envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke have yet to make a big mark diplomatically of any kind. But it's only been 40 days!

I see vision behind the mundane diplomatic developments viewed so far.

The biggest news was Susan Rice's statement at the U.N. that the U.S. was not going to put up with failed states taking out their sickness on their citizens any more, but that we are going to take this up in the U.N. itself. This suggests a major Charter revision, and I hail that intention.

I believe that the Obama Administration has correctly identified Russia as the key dance partner in these early months' diplomacy. The Kremlin has so much leverage toward our success with Iran, with China, North Korea, Pakistan.

As an example, the US needs a redundantly-secure supply line toward its theater in South Asia (the existing primary one being through Kuwait), in other words a second safe staging area near the region, and I don't think Turkey is going to provide it in the short run. It won't run through Russia's sacred soil itself, but it will cross their sphere of influence at some point or it won't exist. Meaning, they will have to tolerate any new basing we develop as we leave Iraq. That needs to get worked out.

I even see some relevance to the urgently rising problem in Eastern Europe. The Eastern European nations have made the mistake of looking entirely to the near neighbors to the West, which have scorned them in their hour of crisis. I wouldn't mistake Russia for a benign financial influence, but an American initiative which fortifies the financial system for both Russia and the Eastern European nations, including basket cases like the Ukraine, will promote the general global welfare and lower tensions.

In the US' Second Front of diplomacy, the Middle East, Mitchell and Co. have no choice but to wait for the Israeli dust to settle--both from the Gaza incursion and the parliamentary elections. So they correctly build up relationships with all parties.

One hopes that includes the Israeli Arabs, the key group required for a successful peaceful resolution in Palestine; I believe their voice may, one day soon, become the means for the extra-Israeli Palestinians to develop consensus policies. If and when Netanyahu gets the P.M. job and then fails to make progress, there may be an opportunity for a Center-Left government of Kadima/Labor/Arabs-plus a few to create a major diplomatic opening. Of course we have to let the Israelis reach this in their own time.

WOT is Dis?

I think so far the Obama formulation of War On Terror is to make it regional rather than global. Well, it least it's not GWOT no more! That's progress, but only of a certain kind.

I think the withdrawal targets in Iraq are fine, if Iraq validates the SOFA worked out in the latter days of Bushite Misrule. If things are cool over there with our planned rate of departure, we should be on the low side of estimates all the way and not sweat it too much. If they don't tolerate our withdrawal plan, there's going to be a sense of impending doom over the whole process which will no doubt be self-fulfilling. As for timing and numbers, I don't mind the extra three months, but I think Obama does owe an explanation of how the 5000 or so he campaigned upon became 35,000 or so.

As for Afghanistan/Pakistan, though, the critics are right: we need to see the other side of the buildup curve, and it needs to be a promise to the American people. Maybe the buildup--over 24 months, to 50,000 in both countries (half in active combat roles, half in training roles)--followed by a dotted line of indeterminate width (6-24 months) depending on how long it takes to get OBL&Co. onto the run again, then a promised reduction curve of appropriate steepness (roughly crossing the 2009 starting level at Election Day 2012), with a long, low tail of 5000 or so--not 35,000--and their primary role being to protect an international corps of aid engineers.

Obama 1st 6-weeks' period Grade: B

Part III

The Republicans are losing the political war, even if they're winning a couple of battles. A good example is this "omnibus spending bill larded with earmarks", which it is. It is also going to pass, and Obama is going to sign it. All of which infuriates John McCain, who was thinking specifically of this bill when he made all his threats about "You will know their names!" in the campaign.

McCain fulminated ineffectively in favor of his amendment to cut local earmarks:

"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," he said.

Actually, I can probably justify most of that without even reading the specifics to which he referred: "pig odor research" would be a study dealing with the huge problem of handling the massive volume of excretions pig farming produces, and I guess they're thinking of a chemical treatment to neutralize it or make it useful; "astronomy in Hawaii" is a good way to save money vs. launching a new Hubble Space Telescope, worthy as that kind of initiative will be in a few years (when we've got a new manned launching platform worked out); accidentally-imported termites are creating nearly infinitely-large colonies causing a sci-fi-type national defense issue (with an ideal breeding ground in the abandoned districts of N'awlins); and, I'll let my entomologist sister argue this better some other time, but intelligent use of "natural" cross-breeding informed by superb knowledge of grape vine DNA sounds like a great way to build up resistance to mold and other pests, not to mention major potential gains in productivity, and thus, jobs in upstate New York.

So, yeah, I'd vote for those.

Your Mission, Barack, is to Atomize Them, Not Us

The Republicans seemed embarked on a no-win strategy with their opposition to stimulus spending: if Obama succeeds, they become history's dust; if he doesn't, we're all dead anyway.

They passed up an opportunity to come inside the tent, which is really the only way to have any influence over what happens in there. The three Senators who crossed over are the only Republicans who did their careers any good.

I would like to see a quicker descent for the budget deficits in the outer projected years (2013-2015) of the Obama Administration's new proposal. If this stuff is working, we should be back to budget deficits in the $200-400 billion range, or better. I don't doubt that it's a good idea to under-promise and over-deliver, but the quality represented in the proposed budget's out years isn't high enough to gain acceptability from anyone. It will get changed in the negotiations, and Obama will live with the revised targets.

An Early Thaw

This post establishes the unreality of the blogging system; it's one I didn't post last month.

The correct title should be "A Late Snowfall"; that's what happened last week. Three days in a row in the 70's, though, has allowed me to move my ice melt and snowshovels to the back of the shed.

Carbon Tax

I've been thinking about the Big C.T. lately, as opposed to the cap-and-trade, or C&T, that Obama and others have proposed.

One statement that really struck me came from Al Gore, I believe. It was that Big CT could generate enough tax revenue to allow us to eliminate the payroll tax (Soc. Security and Medicare), and that change would generate millions of new jobs.

The last part--the new jobs that could come out of the economy's rally if payroll taxes for workers and employers were eliminated or cut sharply--sounds right to me, and an extremely relevant prescription for the current Great Crater, towards the bottom of which we are currently rolling at top speed.

I also think that Big CT could be a lot simpler to implement than C&T, which promises to be a grim vertical turf war for cap room through loopholes and other Mickey Mouse (think of NBA trades and the contortions taken on in order for teams to bid on LeBron in '10).

I've got two problems with Big CT, before I endorse it fully:

1) All this theoretical stuff sounds fine, but I've got to think we're talking about estimated carbon usage as the basis for both the Big CT and C&T systems. The weak link in this chain seems to be measurement of actual carbon usage. Consider, as a close analogy, the difference between "Estimated EPA mpg" and "what one gets". If the little gizmos that measure the carbon usage aren't in place, aren't sufficiently accurate or are somehow tricked, we let the cheaters take the advantage, with a possible cascade toward defeating the environmental objective. (possible investment tip--find the gizmo makers and buy them?)

2) If we eliminated the payroll tax and then--heaven forbid!--we succeed in reducing our carbon usage, then how are we going to pay for Social Security and Medicare? Better not eliminate the mechanism, ever. It would still be significant to cut the rates (!) by 20-25%, phasing in Big CT sooner rather than later, but keeping Big CT rates relatively low in the initial stages to control inflation. I actually like this approach better than the tax rate cuts proposed in the stimulus plan, though I know those are pretty close to a core Obama position.

Good Sports

If you watched the Australian Open men's finals, you saw a great match: Nadal vs. Federer, first time ever matched up Down Under. A battle all the way, until Nadal broke Roger's serve midway through the final set.

If you saw the post-match ceremony, Roger cracked up and cried. Quite a lot, actually. One could excuse it as being the emotion of the moment, but I think there was something really for him to mourn. I think that match finally convinced him that he was really #2. Not that #1 ranking is gone for good, necessarily, but that it is not a fluke and Rafael is really ahead of him for now. Nadal was gracious and kind to Federer, who has always been a champion of the first order.

As for the Super Bowl, it wasn't quite as Stupor Bowl as usual. XLIII was one of only about VIII that were really contested (something like XV-XX PC).

The finish was dramatic, after the record-setting comeback of the Cardinals highlighted by Fitzgerald's brilliant catch and run for the lead. What surprised me most was that the incredible play in which LB Harrison of the Steelers ran back an interception 100 yards just at halftime, falling into the endzone as time ran out, did not settle--could not be argued to have settled--the game's outcome. Normally, a big break like that, worth at least 10 points in a tight game, would push the Super Bowl Teeter-Totter of Destiny over to one side for good.

Salutes to both QB in particular. Roethlisberger and Kurt Warner should both be destined for football's HOF, even though Roethl. may have a short career, and Warner's is checkered. Football is a little more forgiving than baseball of those who didn't rack up huge career stats and recognizing of brilliance over a period of, say, a dozen years.

Whatsa Matter with this Crisis, Already?

The proposed stimulus bill and the financial industry interventions are remarkable commitments toward recovery, but the feeling out here remains that there is still more new pain to be felt.

At the heart of that uneasy feeling* is the continuing uncertainty about the devaluations of mortgage- and mortgage-related assets--there has been a substantial writedown, but is it enough? We still hear people saying, "no one has any idea how big this may be".

We also hear people saying, "the problem of transparency is that it would reveal just how large the hole is, and we can't fill it". This statement is almost certainly wrong, though knowing the exact location of all the skeletons would modify the cemetery's size for many a deserving institution. The fact that "no one knows", though, means that people can say that sort of thing without being contradicted, which prolongs the lives of such Unconventional Unwisdom.

It's time to plumb that hole and find out how deep is the bottomless pit, and I'm considering offering to do so for the U.S. Treasury. Time to put myself back in the cave, to see if I can find the light so I can show it to them all.

The Learning Process Has Begun, Though

I explain the bad feeling to the simple requirement of time to adjust to a new reality in America. If anyone were ever asked, we would say that the natural trend of property values, virtually anywhere in this country where there's a market to speak of, is upward. And it would've been true. You didn't even have to think about it.

I think the possibility has dawned that this may not be true anymore. At least, somewhere between many and most people would say that they have their doubts. Not that real estate prices should be descending on an ongoing basis, either; more like, it's possible that the total value of real estate is about what it should be. Some places will go up, some down.

Recall the real estate meltdown in Japan, probably the closest model to what is happening in the USA (and spreading outward). The steady increase on to infinity doesn't really seem like a sustainable model.



*Credits to Matt Johnson and The The for use of that song title.

Great Letter to Editor

Toward a More Secure Retirement

(Published: January 31, 2009)

Re “From Here to Retirement” (editorial, Jan. 26):

The financial crisis and the decision by some companies to cut matching contributions to their 401(k) plans highlight the need to think anew about how Americans achieve lifetime financial security and the mechanisms in place to help them do so. The 401(k) plans upon which most workers now rely were never conceived as a holistic retirement system.

What is needed is a retirement system that combines the best of portable, individually owned accounts with guarantees to help make sure that individuals do not outlive their savings. The system would automatically enroll workers, tie savings increases to raises, include provisions for health care needs, offer objective investment advice to help them plan, and assure a lifelong income base by automatically converting some of their savings to a low-cost annuity at retirement.

Such protections, while not shielding individuals from investment risk, would significantly bolster Americans’ economic security.

Roger W. Ferguson Jr.
New York, Jan. 26, 2009

The writer is president and chief executive of TIAA-CREF, which manages retirement savings on behalf of 3.6 million individuals and 15,000 institutions, and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He is a member of President Obama’s Transition Economic Advisory Board.--NYT

I am particularly interested by the comment about annuities, which would probably need some Federal support to be viable. On the one hand, I wish I had converted some of my assets into annuities when I went into semi-retirement (I investigated them but was discouraged by very high fees). On the other, one has to wonder how well annuity structures might've survived the recent financial holocaust. Still, the author expresses an important point, one that will become central to future economic planning discussions.