I was pretty outraged by many of the winners of the Golden Globes for movies (less opinion about the TV, but I've fallen in love with 30 Rock, which lost this year).
A lot of it comes from the Globes' signature distinction from the Oscars, the division of movie awards between those for "Drama" and those for "Musical or Comedy". The problem would seem to be the dearth of worthwhile musicals or comedies. Thus, the award for best actor in a musical or comedy went to Robert Downey, Jr. for his performance in the musico-comedic classic role of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes? Are you kidding? Or trying to sing me a song?
I'll get to my other objections in the discussion of specific awards. Suffice on the dichotomy question to say I will not be breaking the range of films into the categories that the Globes do.
One other preface: There are a whole raft of films that I have not seen. Some it is "their" fault, as the film has simply not been distributed well, or not yet--at any rate I haven't had a chance to see them, even if I wanted: falling into that category are "Young Victoria", "The Last Station" (I was a fan of the book and want badly to see it), "Crazy Heart" (feel like I've seen it before; not keen on seeing this year's version), "The Lovely Bones" (just arriving--I'll look but I'm skeptical) and "A Single Man" (Coen brothers--haven't seen it yet but will, just a matter of time and opportunity). There are some that have visited our little town, but I haven't seen them, so I have only the excuse that I'm not getting freebies, here: "Invictus" (though I was interested), "Precious" (too much so for me), "Brothers", "500 Days of Summer", "Its Complicated", and "Nine" (just got here--might see it just for the beauties).
Still, I think when you add up the number of good films I have seen, plus the potential from those I haven't, this past year stacks up as a very good one.
Best Film: Both Globes' choices--"Avatar" and "The Hangover"--are dismal ones. "Avatar" might stand up in a decade or so for its technical achievements, but it has too many major flaws to be considered this year's best. "The Hangover" (my nephew got it on DVD for Christmas, so I didn't have to pay) was pretty stupid and not particularly funny, plus it wasted the talent(!) of Heather Graham (in comedy, she's been much better, in either Steve Martin's "Bowfinger" or Mike Myers' "Austin Powers").
"Julie & Julia" was in the M&C group, so it would've been a superior choice. As for drama, give me the nominated "Up in the Air" or "Hurt Locker", or better yet, "Where the Wild Things Are" or the funniest movie of the year, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (neither of which were nominated for anything, as far as I can see). My choice: Where The Wild Things Are.
Best Actor: I've already complained about Downey in M&C. Best drama actor award went to Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart". My choice: George Clooney in "Up in the Air": I've decided that he really was acting and not just being an egotistical jerk in the early, confident part of the movie.
Best Actress: OK, they did give these to the right people, I think: Sandra Bullock for "The Blind Side" and Meryl Streep for "Julie and Julia" (over Streep for "It's Complicated). I'd also like to see the nominated performances by Helen Mirren in "The Last Station" and Emily Blunt in "Young Victoria". Which will win: Bullock's role of her lifetime vs. Yet another brilliant Streep performance? I'd go with Bullock as the likely winner, but I'd choose Streep's. My choice: Meryl Streep in "Julie and Julia".
Best Director: Here, the choice of James Cameron for his signal achievement in creating "Avatar"seems more appropriate (at least they didn't nominate him for his story), and I could accept his winning. In fact, all the nominees but one (Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker", Clint Eastwood for "Invictus"--I'm guessing here, and Jason Reitman for "Up in the Air") are good ones, excepting that I would put Spike Jonze in "Wild Things" way over Quentin Tarantino for "Inglorious Bastards" (sp).
Like most Tarantino movies, the best thing about "I.B." was the music soundtrack (though I would've chosen the "Cat People (Putting Out Fire with Gasoline)" version with the flaming Stevie Ray Vaughan guitar solos over the quiet one he used, and I would've used it in the climactic scene rather than the build-up). My Choice: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker" (which never came to town, but I got it on PPV recently).
Supporting Actress: Here the Globes give up on their splittist logic and give only one award (MoNique for "Precious"). I see they had both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from "Up in the Air", both worthy but probably ensuring neither could win--I'd have put Farmiga's under lead actress. My Choice: Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air".
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds" got the Globe. It was a nice slimy performance and not a bad choice. I haven't seen the other four nominated performances, though I've heard good buzz for Woody Harrelson's in "the Messenger", and doubt Christopher Plummer's in "The Last Station" should be considered a supporting role. My choice: None yet.
Best Animated Film: This category is getting more lively each year. The Oscar should be between "Up" (odds-on favorite) and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" (not nominated by the Globes); I'd be happy with either. My choice: The Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Screenplay: Here the Oscars are the splittists, with one award for original and one for adapted (and sometimes the line is fuzzy for them, too). I give credit to "the Foreign Press Association" for nominating "District 9", which had a script that was way, way out there. In terms of originality, it's tops. Nominating Tarantino must have been a joke, in my view.
The actual award went to Reitman and Sheldon Turner for "Up in the Air", which had both great dialogue and some quality narration. I'll buy that. My choice: Reitman and Turner, "Up in the Air" (original), and I'm going to guess adapted screenplay will go to "The Last Station" and not "Where the Wild Things Are", which was perhaps adapted a bit too much for some.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Few Brief Sports Notes
If I'm going to be watching NFL games, then it must be playoff time. This weekend's conference championship games feature a couple of matchups of new powers vs. a couple of old, or at least familiar, faces.
The AFC's championship has a featured storyline: two weeks before the end of the season, the Indy Colts had a perfect record, but they pulled old familiar Peyton Manning in the third quarter. The New York Jets took advantage of the situation, bagged backup QB Scott Painter, and won a game that was critical for them to make the playoffs. Now, having pulled off a couple of upsets, they face the Colts again.
Instead, I'm reminded of the most famous postseason game in history, the game that made the Super Bowl the circus spectacle it is today: the famous Colts-Jets Super Bowl III when Joe Namath and the Jets pulled off the great upset. Colts-Jets Super Bowl rematch can never happen again, since the Colts came over to the AFC, but the Jets have great momentum and look primed to pull off another great upset.
The Jets' top-ranked defense may be the only one with a chance to stop the new New Orleans Saints and their offensive juggernaut. The Minnesota Vikings, with their aged star Brett Favre, will have the chance this week.
NBA
The winners of the All-Star voting will be announced this week. The suspense is whether two stars who've lost luster will win spots through the voting that they would otherwise have no chance of making on the merit of their 2009-10 play: Tracy McGrady in the Western Conference and Allen Iverson in the Eastern. Both have been in second place, good for a starting spot, in the positional voting in their respective conferences, which has caused the experts to call for a recall and to get the public out of the process.
At the midway point of the season, there's a scramble for dominance among four teams in the East, and a clear leader (L.A.) with a couple of hungry challengers in the West. In the East, my pick for Conference champ, Cleveland, seems to be getting it together, while defending E.C. champion Orlando is struggling with injuries and poor team chemistry. The Atlanta Hawks have emerged as a real threat, with the potent young combination of Joe Johnson and big men Josh Smith and Al Horford, and the Celtics remain the veteran choice, who may be the odds-on favorite if they go into the playoffs with Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace both healthy and productive.
In the West, it's Can Anybody Stop the Lakers? again. Andrew Bynum has emerged as the top center, as if they needed to improve, while Ron Artest is another, unpredictable factor in their favor. The best hopes for the rest of us are the Denver Nuggets, if they can stay healthy, and the rejuvenated San Antonio Spurs, who have some new weapons to add to Duncan-Parker-Ginobili in shooting guard Roger Mason, beefy rookie DeJuan Blair, and Richard Jefferson, who is beginning to become acclimated to the Spurs' system.
EPL
(I refuse to call the English Premier League "Barclays". They didn't pay me for the privilege.)
At just past the midway point, this appears to be the most competitive Premier League season in the 15 years or so that I have followed it closely (before that, there wasn't really enough coverage in the US to follow it). At the top, there is a three-team race--Chelsea, Manchester United, and Arsenal--with all three within a match or so of each other (number of matches played is not exactly the same). Handicapping its eventual outcome is not easy: Chelsea has done best against the other top teams, while Arsenal has shown the most exciting capability (at least when healthy), and Manchester United, of course, has a tradition of making late-season runs. What is different this year is that all three have occasionally been vulnerable on the road against lesser teams. Big games are coming up at the end of January between Arsenal and Man U., followed a week later by one between Chelsea and Arsenal.
Also different this year is the absence of the fourth member of the Big Four, Liverpool, from the top of the table. Liverpool is in a bunch of some five teams a good distance behind the top three and does not appear to be capable of pulling away from them. It's the emergence of those other four--Everton, Aston Villa, Birmingham, and especially well-funded Manchester City--that is the most exciting development for the league as a whole.
I have to say that I am optimistic about Chelsea's chances in the League (and the Champions League, too, for that matter). They have done a good job of holding onto their talent and depth. A good thing, too, because some tampering misdeeds have hampered their ability to pick up anyone during the midyear transfer period. Their 1-2 punch of Drogba and Anelka has been outstanding (Drogba is off in African play for awhile, and star midfielder Michael Essien got hurt there, but we'll be all right for the moment); their defense has been solid if not inspired, and they seem to have recovered the confidence they showed during the Mourinho-coached period under Carlo Ancelotti.
NCAAM
(as ESPN abbreviates it)
I try to follow college basketball, though it's hard to see much continuity beyond the Coaches' personalities. The players go by so fast--at least the best ones, the ones with NBA aspirations.
My loyalties, though, were largely fixed in the '60's: faves are Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and more recently, New Mexico; and peeves are UCLA, North Carolina, and Duke.
It is thus with great pleasure that I have watched UK's Wildcats, which are now the only undefeated major college team left (after Texas lost last night). The infamous John Calipari has come to Lexington and drawn several prized prospects, for one year or for more we shall see. Greatest among them is John Wall, who I feel safe in saying is the best college point guard since Chris Paul (notwithstanding Calipari's penultimate, Derrick Rose, whose admission to Memphis has since been tainted--let's hope Wall's will never be).
I'm just getting acquainted with the teams, and there's a long way to go, so it's hard to say anything about UK's prospects, but it's clear that Wall is a steady hand of the sort that is absolutely critical to winning in the NCAA tournament. He scores--and well--when he needs to; otherwise, he sets up the numerous, talented athletes Calipari's brought in (last year's UK squad didn't make the NCAA field). I try to be agnostic about coaches and their ego shows; my loyalty to the jersey goes above and beyond such things.
The AFC's championship has a featured storyline: two weeks before the end of the season, the Indy Colts had a perfect record, but they pulled old familiar Peyton Manning in the third quarter. The New York Jets took advantage of the situation, bagged backup QB Scott Painter, and won a game that was critical for them to make the playoffs. Now, having pulled off a couple of upsets, they face the Colts again.
Instead, I'm reminded of the most famous postseason game in history, the game that made the Super Bowl the circus spectacle it is today: the famous Colts-Jets Super Bowl III when Joe Namath and the Jets pulled off the great upset. Colts-Jets Super Bowl rematch can never happen again, since the Colts came over to the AFC, but the Jets have great momentum and look primed to pull off another great upset.
The Jets' top-ranked defense may be the only one with a chance to stop the new New Orleans Saints and their offensive juggernaut. The Minnesota Vikings, with their aged star Brett Favre, will have the chance this week.
NBA
The winners of the All-Star voting will be announced this week. The suspense is whether two stars who've lost luster will win spots through the voting that they would otherwise have no chance of making on the merit of their 2009-10 play: Tracy McGrady in the Western Conference and Allen Iverson in the Eastern. Both have been in second place, good for a starting spot, in the positional voting in their respective conferences, which has caused the experts to call for a recall and to get the public out of the process.
At the midway point of the season, there's a scramble for dominance among four teams in the East, and a clear leader (L.A.) with a couple of hungry challengers in the West. In the East, my pick for Conference champ, Cleveland, seems to be getting it together, while defending E.C. champion Orlando is struggling with injuries and poor team chemistry. The Atlanta Hawks have emerged as a real threat, with the potent young combination of Joe Johnson and big men Josh Smith and Al Horford, and the Celtics remain the veteran choice, who may be the odds-on favorite if they go into the playoffs with Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace both healthy and productive.
In the West, it's Can Anybody Stop the Lakers? again. Andrew Bynum has emerged as the top center, as if they needed to improve, while Ron Artest is another, unpredictable factor in their favor. The best hopes for the rest of us are the Denver Nuggets, if they can stay healthy, and the rejuvenated San Antonio Spurs, who have some new weapons to add to Duncan-Parker-Ginobili in shooting guard Roger Mason, beefy rookie DeJuan Blair, and Richard Jefferson, who is beginning to become acclimated to the Spurs' system.
EPL
(I refuse to call the English Premier League "Barclays". They didn't pay me for the privilege.)
At just past the midway point, this appears to be the most competitive Premier League season in the 15 years or so that I have followed it closely (before that, there wasn't really enough coverage in the US to follow it). At the top, there is a three-team race--Chelsea, Manchester United, and Arsenal--with all three within a match or so of each other (number of matches played is not exactly the same). Handicapping its eventual outcome is not easy: Chelsea has done best against the other top teams, while Arsenal has shown the most exciting capability (at least when healthy), and Manchester United, of course, has a tradition of making late-season runs. What is different this year is that all three have occasionally been vulnerable on the road against lesser teams. Big games are coming up at the end of January between Arsenal and Man U., followed a week later by one between Chelsea and Arsenal.
Also different this year is the absence of the fourth member of the Big Four, Liverpool, from the top of the table. Liverpool is in a bunch of some five teams a good distance behind the top three and does not appear to be capable of pulling away from them. It's the emergence of those other four--Everton, Aston Villa, Birmingham, and especially well-funded Manchester City--that is the most exciting development for the league as a whole.
I have to say that I am optimistic about Chelsea's chances in the League (and the Champions League, too, for that matter). They have done a good job of holding onto their talent and depth. A good thing, too, because some tampering misdeeds have hampered their ability to pick up anyone during the midyear transfer period. Their 1-2 punch of Drogba and Anelka has been outstanding (Drogba is off in African play for awhile, and star midfielder Michael Essien got hurt there, but we'll be all right for the moment); their defense has been solid if not inspired, and they seem to have recovered the confidence they showed during the Mourinho-coached period under Carlo Ancelotti.
NCAAM
(as ESPN abbreviates it)
I try to follow college basketball, though it's hard to see much continuity beyond the Coaches' personalities. The players go by so fast--at least the best ones, the ones with NBA aspirations.
My loyalties, though, were largely fixed in the '60's: faves are Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and more recently, New Mexico; and peeves are UCLA, North Carolina, and Duke.
It is thus with great pleasure that I have watched UK's Wildcats, which are now the only undefeated major college team left (after Texas lost last night). The infamous John Calipari has come to Lexington and drawn several prized prospects, for one year or for more we shall see. Greatest among them is John Wall, who I feel safe in saying is the best college point guard since Chris Paul (notwithstanding Calipari's penultimate, Derrick Rose, whose admission to Memphis has since been tainted--let's hope Wall's will never be).
I'm just getting acquainted with the teams, and there's a long way to go, so it's hard to say anything about UK's prospects, but it's clear that Wall is a steady hand of the sort that is absolutely critical to winning in the NCAA tournament. He scores--and well--when he needs to; otherwise, he sets up the numerous, talented athletes Calipari's brought in (last year's UK squad didn't make the NCAA field). I try to be agnostic about coaches and their ego shows; my loyalty to the jersey goes above and beyond such things.
At Long Last, Snow!
We got some really nice, fluffy snow today--first time in almost a month. More than welcome--not just a lack of sufficient snow cover, even in the mountains, but the ground was getting dry.
Now that the fog is lifting, we see the world with new beauty, and it will be a powder day tomorrow!
Now that the fog is lifting, we see the world with new beauty, and it will be a powder day tomorrow!
The Bay State By-Election
Today is the day Massachusetts voters go to the polls in a special election to fill the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy (Paul Kirk has occupied it on an interim basis until this election). Democrat Martha Coakley is in a tight race with a smooth-talking, telegenic Tea-bagger, Scott Brown.
National Democratic figures have been appealing for help in near-panicky tones in the past two weeks, since polls showed Coakley's margin of lead narrowing, then disappearing entirely.
Scott has run a campaign with national overtones, declaring that he is running to be the 41st Senator to stop President Obama's program, and specifically to stop the healthcare bill, which is still awaiting the completion of the final set of compromises to produce a single, identical bill to be passed in both Houses of Congress. It is not an idle threat; the delicate formula which got exactly the necessary 60 votes in the Senate could be easily upset, and Brown's vote replacing Kirk's could either throw the thing into new chaos or stop it dead in its tracks.
I have been unmoved to act, though. First, I am being tight with my contributions this season--at least until my cash flow improves. Second, I am unfamiliar with Coakley; while I'm sure she'd be immeasurably better than a Republican, and a Tea-bagger at that, I don't feel comfortable calling Massachusians (or whatever they are; that's what some of the John Kerry-type emails were asking me to do) and telling them how they should vote, and why.
I have to start from the point of view that there should be no way Coakley could lose in Massachusetts; if there is, there's something wrong with her, her campaign, or something not apparent about Massachusetts voters. As Timothy Egan pointed out in an excellent "Opinionator" column on the NY Times blog, Massachusetts is already familiar with "Obamacare"--it's called "Romneycare" there. The approach Congress is legislating for health care insurance reform is very much the same one Massachusetts approved a few years ago with Mitt Romney as governor: mandated private coverage with subsidies. The results, by the way, seem to be: success in increasing coverage, no improvement in the cost curve, private insurers more pleased than the public. So, while I'm sure Massachusetts voters may have qualms about the national program, there isn't much of a self-interest involved (except if there were an increase in Medicare taxes, which isn't happening yet), and I doubt it's just altruistic concern for the rest of us that is floating Brown's boat.
Instead, it's just a matter of turnout for the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, and the party machinery doing what it is supposed to be able to do.
Finally, I am not one who believes that one Senate vote is going to wreck Obama's legislative program. I would still bet that Coakley will win--narrowly--but if she doesn't, there are several ways remaining to skin the healthcare cat (listed in order of my preference):
o) Find a new, better compromise, maybe the "potwt" (public option trigger with teeth), and get the vote of Olympia Snowe;
o) Find legislative maneuvers to get the bill through the Senate with less than 60 votes;
o) If the vote is close, hold up the decision through recounts until Kirk & Co. can vote on the current compromise, or something similar (the Republicans held up Al Franken's becoming a senator for six months in 2009, so it would serve them right);
o) The House can simply approve the Senate's version of the bill--then there is no further vote necessary in the Senate (I don't like this option much, and I don't think it's likely); or, worst case,
o) If the vote is not close, hold up the swearing-in of Massachusetts' new junior senator until the deed is snuck through. The blowback from this would be heavy, but the Republicans have done as bad, or worse, and gotten away with it. Six months from now, no one may care, and five years from now, the ruse may be praised. It's not as though there isn't a Senate majority in favor of the bill.
Still, I don't question that the by-election has significance--going down the road with other legislative battles, to be sure. There is no hope to change the filibuster rules in this Congress--that would require two-thirds vote in the Senate--though I do think the Democrats should make plans to implement a new modified cloture rule for the next Congress (approval of rules at the beginning of the new Congress in 2011 should require only a simple majority, if I understand it correctly). There are going to be other issues coming up where party-line voting will prevail and the support of the few moderate Republicans will be critical. In England, by-elections like this can be huge drivers of political momentum, even bringing down governments; that won't happen here, but it will definitely be a wake-up alert to possible catastrophic danger if the Democrats can't even win in Massachusetts.
I'll post a comment once the results are known.
National Democratic figures have been appealing for help in near-panicky tones in the past two weeks, since polls showed Coakley's margin of lead narrowing, then disappearing entirely.
Scott has run a campaign with national overtones, declaring that he is running to be the 41st Senator to stop President Obama's program, and specifically to stop the healthcare bill, which is still awaiting the completion of the final set of compromises to produce a single, identical bill to be passed in both Houses of Congress. It is not an idle threat; the delicate formula which got exactly the necessary 60 votes in the Senate could be easily upset, and Brown's vote replacing Kirk's could either throw the thing into new chaos or stop it dead in its tracks.
I have been unmoved to act, though. First, I am being tight with my contributions this season--at least until my cash flow improves. Second, I am unfamiliar with Coakley; while I'm sure she'd be immeasurably better than a Republican, and a Tea-bagger at that, I don't feel comfortable calling Massachusians (or whatever they are; that's what some of the John Kerry-type emails were asking me to do) and telling them how they should vote, and why.
I have to start from the point of view that there should be no way Coakley could lose in Massachusetts; if there is, there's something wrong with her, her campaign, or something not apparent about Massachusetts voters. As Timothy Egan pointed out in an excellent "Opinionator" column on the NY Times blog, Massachusetts is already familiar with "Obamacare"--it's called "Romneycare" there. The approach Congress is legislating for health care insurance reform is very much the same one Massachusetts approved a few years ago with Mitt Romney as governor: mandated private coverage with subsidies. The results, by the way, seem to be: success in increasing coverage, no improvement in the cost curve, private insurers more pleased than the public. So, while I'm sure Massachusetts voters may have qualms about the national program, there isn't much of a self-interest involved (except if there were an increase in Medicare taxes, which isn't happening yet), and I doubt it's just altruistic concern for the rest of us that is floating Brown's boat.
Instead, it's just a matter of turnout for the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, and the party machinery doing what it is supposed to be able to do.
Finally, I am not one who believes that one Senate vote is going to wreck Obama's legislative program. I would still bet that Coakley will win--narrowly--but if she doesn't, there are several ways remaining to skin the healthcare cat (listed in order of my preference):
o) Find a new, better compromise, maybe the "potwt" (public option trigger with teeth), and get the vote of Olympia Snowe;
o) Find legislative maneuvers to get the bill through the Senate with less than 60 votes;
o) If the vote is close, hold up the decision through recounts until Kirk & Co. can vote on the current compromise, or something similar (the Republicans held up Al Franken's becoming a senator for six months in 2009, so it would serve them right);
o) The House can simply approve the Senate's version of the bill--then there is no further vote necessary in the Senate (I don't like this option much, and I don't think it's likely); or, worst case,
o) If the vote is not close, hold up the swearing-in of Massachusetts' new junior senator until the deed is snuck through. The blowback from this would be heavy, but the Republicans have done as bad, or worse, and gotten away with it. Six months from now, no one may care, and five years from now, the ruse may be praised. It's not as though there isn't a Senate majority in favor of the bill.
Still, I don't question that the by-election has significance--going down the road with other legislative battles, to be sure. There is no hope to change the filibuster rules in this Congress--that would require two-thirds vote in the Senate--though I do think the Democrats should make plans to implement a new modified cloture rule for the next Congress (approval of rules at the beginning of the new Congress in 2011 should require only a simple majority, if I understand it correctly). There are going to be other issues coming up where party-line voting will prevail and the support of the few moderate Republicans will be critical. In England, by-elections like this can be huge drivers of political momentum, even bringing down governments; that won't happen here, but it will definitely be a wake-up alert to possible catastrophic danger if the Democrats can't even win in Massachusetts.
I'll post a comment once the results are known.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Reading Iranian Tea-Leaves
A news item last week from Tehran gives some insight on the complicated Iranian domestic political scene.
A Tehran University professor of physics, named Masoud Ali Mohammed, was killed near his home by a large remote-detonated explosion. The Iranian news reports claimed that the deed was done by Israelis, Americans, and internal enemies of the government. The presumption in that allegation was that Mohammed was engaged in vital research toward the development of Iran's nuclear capability, and that thus Israel/US interests were served by taking him out.
Implicit in that report is that Iran is actually doing anything with nuclear power that would threaten Israeli/American security (although an imaginative liar could probably stretch the truth so far as to say that it would be some sort of threat what they did with peaceful nuclear energy).
The plot thickens with the added detail (from acquaintances of the deceased) that he had encouraged his students to participate in Green demonstrations against the Iranian regime. Also, that his specialty is quantum theory.
These two facts give the lie to the Iranian allegation--there is very little of theory involved with the production of nuclear weapons these days; it's about the technical details of centrifuges, collecting the enhanced uranium, and creating the proper physics to detonate it.
So, the strategy by the Iranian perpetrators is to eliminate a prestigious opponent that could somewhat plausibly be identified as a possible target for foreign spies.
I would suggest that even if Mohammed were involved in research more vital to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it might have made sense to kill him off as a political enemy of the regime. Their long-term strategy, it would seem most likely, is to move all the way to the verge of deliverable nuclear warheads--not actually to use them (a move which would be suicidal). The run-up to that stage gives great opportunities to try to extort concessions from the West, so it should be prolonged.
Iran has reneged on all forms of the proposal to exchange their enhanced uranium for better-quality, non-weapons-grade material (after what appeared to be a pretty active internal debate). It is time to apply stiffer sanctions on Iran, particularly ones aimed at the individuals heading the administration and military, so that they don't see this blackmail opportunity phase to be so enjoyable.
A Tehran University professor of physics, named Masoud Ali Mohammed, was killed near his home by a large remote-detonated explosion. The Iranian news reports claimed that the deed was done by Israelis, Americans, and internal enemies of the government. The presumption in that allegation was that Mohammed was engaged in vital research toward the development of Iran's nuclear capability, and that thus Israel/US interests were served by taking him out.
Implicit in that report is that Iran is actually doing anything with nuclear power that would threaten Israeli/American security (although an imaginative liar could probably stretch the truth so far as to say that it would be some sort of threat what they did with peaceful nuclear energy).
The plot thickens with the added detail (from acquaintances of the deceased) that he had encouraged his students to participate in Green demonstrations against the Iranian regime. Also, that his specialty is quantum theory.
These two facts give the lie to the Iranian allegation--there is very little of theory involved with the production of nuclear weapons these days; it's about the technical details of centrifuges, collecting the enhanced uranium, and creating the proper physics to detonate it.
So, the strategy by the Iranian perpetrators is to eliminate a prestigious opponent that could somewhat plausibly be identified as a possible target for foreign spies.
I would suggest that even if Mohammed were involved in research more vital to Iran's nuclear weapons program, it might have made sense to kill him off as a political enemy of the regime. Their long-term strategy, it would seem most likely, is to move all the way to the verge of deliverable nuclear warheads--not actually to use them (a move which would be suicidal). The run-up to that stage gives great opportunities to try to extort concessions from the West, so it should be prolonged.
Iran has reneged on all forms of the proposal to exchange their enhanced uranium for better-quality, non-weapons-grade material (after what appeared to be a pretty active internal debate). It is time to apply stiffer sanctions on Iran, particularly ones aimed at the individuals heading the administration and military, so that they don't see this blackmail opportunity phase to be so enjoyable.
Haiti's Agony
The 7.0-magnitude earthquake centered near Haiti's capital of Port-au-Prince Tuesday was just what the country did not need. Haiti was making some progress in recovering from massive damage suffered from 2008 hurricanes. Damage in the capital is widespread, and the country has little infrastructure to deal with those injured and trapped. Follow-up reports tell of bodies of the dead lining the roads, millions of people unable or unwilling--due to aftershocks--to return to their homes, and the national governmant is essentially unable to assist.
I have received a deluge of urgent email requests for donations. As with the tsunami in S.E. Asia and earthquakes in Pakistan and Turkey in recent years, I have no doubt Americans will heed the call. My recommendations are groups that were already in place in Haiti: Doctors Without Borders (or MSF--Medecins Sans Frontiers), and the U.N. Foundation. The U.N. had significant presence in Haiti and have suffered tragic losses, as have other aid groups.
In the short run, there will be heroic efforts to save some of the trapped and injured, but we must soon look to the long-term problems Haiti will face, which basically run the gamut. Former President Bill Clinton has been committed to Haiti for years as Special Envoy from the U.N., and he will look to rally investment there. I feel that we are looking at a serious case of nation building, whether we like it or not (and despite our long, troubled history of ineffective meddling in Haitian politics). The alternative--to let the country slide into chaos, anarchy, disease, without relief for its poverty--is inconceivable. President Obama has put the Navy to Haiti's assistance, and his email messages to his network ask for donations to the Red Cross (a third group to recommend).
The only positive spin I can put on this disaster--despite the best efforts, it will be too late for so many unfortunates trapped in crushed buildings--is that Rush Limbaugh may have finally put himself beyond the pale, even for Republicans and many of his ditto-heads. Intemperate comments by Limbaugh include blaming Obama for playing politics with Haiti (no evidence at all of that) for racial reasons, and discouraging contributions to aid Haiti. Is Rush --who just had bypass surgery, for which he paid "the American way", with cash--having a relapse with the pain pills?
I have received a deluge of urgent email requests for donations. As with the tsunami in S.E. Asia and earthquakes in Pakistan and Turkey in recent years, I have no doubt Americans will heed the call. My recommendations are groups that were already in place in Haiti: Doctors Without Borders (or MSF--Medecins Sans Frontiers), and the U.N. Foundation. The U.N. had significant presence in Haiti and have suffered tragic losses, as have other aid groups.
In the short run, there will be heroic efforts to save some of the trapped and injured, but we must soon look to the long-term problems Haiti will face, which basically run the gamut. Former President Bill Clinton has been committed to Haiti for years as Special Envoy from the U.N., and he will look to rally investment there. I feel that we are looking at a serious case of nation building, whether we like it or not (and despite our long, troubled history of ineffective meddling in Haitian politics). The alternative--to let the country slide into chaos, anarchy, disease, without relief for its poverty--is inconceivable. President Obama has put the Navy to Haiti's assistance, and his email messages to his network ask for donations to the Red Cross (a third group to recommend).
The only positive spin I can put on this disaster--despite the best efforts, it will be too late for so many unfortunates trapped in crushed buildings--is that Rush Limbaugh may have finally put himself beyond the pale, even for Republicans and many of his ditto-heads. Intemperate comments by Limbaugh include blaming Obama for playing politics with Haiti (no evidence at all of that) for racial reasons, and discouraging contributions to aid Haiti. Is Rush --who just had bypass surgery, for which he paid "the American way", with cash--having a relapse with the pain pills?
2010 Resolutions
For my first post of the year, I want to start off positive--which is one of my three resolutions for the year:
1) Be more positive in the blog.
2) Get a job--I'm coming out of semi-retirement--but not just any job; do something on the job front each day.
3) Get in better shape--my goal is to be in the best shape since 30 years ago (when I was young enough that it didn't matter what I did).
1) Be more positive in the blog.
2) Get a job--I'm coming out of semi-retirement--but not just any job; do something on the job front each day.
3) Get in better shape--my goal is to be in the best shape since 30 years ago (when I was young enough that it didn't matter what I did).
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Day After
The Senate Democrats successfully squeaked through their key vote on the healthcare bill at about 1:15 a.m. Eastern time Monday, the 21st. Needing 60 votes to set a fixed end to debate, they got exactly 60 votes: 58 Democrats and two independents--all 40 Republicans voted against cloture.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar: 8 out of 10 (light spoilage)
This review will be posted also on IMDb under the name 'j1stoner"; my ratings of movies and a few other reviews can be found at this address: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4662915.
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
Iranian Provocations
The news that an Iranian military force (the infamous Revolutionary Guards, under a thin camouflage) seized an oil well in Iraq has provided the latest incredibly foolish provocation by a government that is out of bounds and headed for disaster.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The BCS Disaster: This Year's Version
College football will have a reasonably good championship game this year, between unbeatens (and major conference champions) Alabama and Texas. I will be backing Alabama, for the first time in any game since the 1965 Cotton Bowl, when young Joe Namath led the Crimson Tide against Texas. Alabama earned its spot with an impressive win in the SEC championship game against Florida, knocking down Gator Tim Tebow's bid for a second Heisman.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Obama's Grade
President Obama went on Oprah recently, and in a scene heavily replayed, graded his administration, so far, as "a solid B+".
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Health Care Update
The latest outrage is the report this evening that the Senate Democratic leaders are abandoning the hard-won agreement made by the Group of 10 (five Blue Dogs, five liberals) in order to get the bill's debate ended.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Analysis of a News Week
By now, we have a good idea what to expect from Jon Meacham's Newsweek. The young and dynamic editor, surely a rising star who we can expect will have a long, productive career--in journalism, and as an author--has led a reformatting of the weekly book that seems to work, and Newsweek's issues mix serious news pieces, both domestic and international, with trend-watching of popular culture, religion (way too much, for my taste), science, and the arts.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 1
Before I give my list, some reasoning, and honorable mentions,I have a bone to pick: It's about the competition to withhold the best movies of the year until the end of the year, when they are all released in a rush that makes it impossible to follow, let alone view them all.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 2
Enough preamble.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Strategy
Obama's announcement of his escalation of US forces and the strategy he wants us to pursue contained few surprises and followed very much the necessary outline: reference 9/11, enlist our allies, warn the Afghan government, emphasize the importance of Pakistan. The speech was very well crafted and delivered and explained our objectives very clearly. I have written on the subject before, more than once, and I support him, and his strategy. For me, it's that simple.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Legislative Options
Credit to Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic caucus leaders for holding it together enough to get the health care bill to the floor. They needed every single Democratic vote to get to 60, and they did. That only gets them into the woods, though, not out of the woods. There are likely to be several balky Democratic votes for cloture, to end the debate, unless they get amendments they want--some of which could cripple the bill's effectiveness. Help from the only Republican who seems even to be considering cooperation, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, seems unlikely as well, unless she gets her way.
Three thoughts on breaking the possible roadblock:
1) The nuclear option--to change the filibuster rules to say, 51 votes for cloture--requires only a simple majority. It's a good threat to make some Republicans agree to cloture or compromise, because otherwise they lose their leverage.
2) Deal: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is the balker with the most to lose or gain, because she's the one with a tough re-election coming up in 2010--give her a spot on the conference committee. She only gets to vote on resolving differences between the bills, but there will be plenety, and it will give her a chance to take a high profile and get some bone Arkansans want. The others may profit from her precedent.
3) I'm sure the hypotheticals of the reconciliation approach--in which the bill would be presented (in a single bill, or as multiple bills) as a fulfillment of budget requirements, which is exempted from the 60-vote cloture rule--have been discussed with the parliamentarian and Reid knows exactly what would get through. I'm no expert, but if the bill has enough budget-beneficial effects spread through it, a lot of it would.
It's not time to give up the p.o. w/opt-out (po-woo) provision yet, but in the end, I'd be satisfied with an up-or-down vote, then taking it out. Then we'd know who the insurance tools are, and they'd be drummed out of most Democratic funds.
Three thoughts on breaking the possible roadblock:
1) The nuclear option--to change the filibuster rules to say, 51 votes for cloture--requires only a simple majority. It's a good threat to make some Republicans agree to cloture or compromise, because otherwise they lose their leverage.
2) Deal: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is the balker with the most to lose or gain, because she's the one with a tough re-election coming up in 2010--give her a spot on the conference committee. She only gets to vote on resolving differences between the bills, but there will be plenety, and it will give her a chance to take a high profile and get some bone Arkansans want. The others may profit from her precedent.
3) I'm sure the hypotheticals of the reconciliation approach--in which the bill would be presented (in a single bill, or as multiple bills) as a fulfillment of budget requirements, which is exempted from the 60-vote cloture rule--have been discussed with the parliamentarian and Reid knows exactly what would get through. I'm no expert, but if the bill has enough budget-beneficial effects spread through it, a lot of it would.
It's not time to give up the p.o. w/opt-out (po-woo) provision yet, but in the end, I'd be satisfied with an up-or-down vote, then taking it out. Then we'd know who the insurance tools are, and they'd be drummed out of most Democratic funds.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tax Policy Recommendations
I'm totally unconvinced by those shills for Big Business who argue for lower corporate taxes or continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, particularly their notion that this is how one helps the recovery and the reduction in unemployment.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
I would argue the opposite: we should raise the taxes on both of these groups, while providing opportunities to offset tax increases with credits if they perform useful services to our society. Examples of those would be investments in renewable energy, in reducing emissions, in education and re-training, and for hiring new American workers. The Federal government should assist small business lending by taking on some of the risk for banks making new loans to smaller companies and non-profit organizations (the latter, in particular, have been decimated by the credit freeze). I would suspend the tax deductibility of personnel restructuring costs: there are some productivity improvements we can do without.
We need not worry about an increase in capital gains taxes: those who have them are going to be few and far between. Tax increases for the wealthy and for corporations with bad social habits are the perfect answer for those who are worried about our deficits growing out of control.
One Year On
There has been a spate of articles about Obama's first year as President. Let's leave aside the fact that his inauguration was January 20, so one-year assessments are premature; as Jonathan Alter pointed out in his piece on the subject in Newsweek, Election Night in 2008 began the Obama Era, and his team was on the move (and the Bushites on the move out) from that day.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Mostly, the articles are by people who somehow expected more, sooner (I haven't seen much by those of the right who were hoping for less, later). In particular, groups looking for environmental legislation, gay rights, and an end to military adventures in Asia have felt Obama has failed to deliver on their expectations, as have many who expected the economy to magically recover by now under his leadership.
My own expectation from the beginning was that many were going to be disappointed, as general expectations were raised to an unreasonable level, and the Washington swamp gas has yet to clear. I tried at least to moderate mine (see for example, my "Official Pre-Inauguration Post" and its expectations.)
I am not discouraged at all; I trust his judgment implicitly. I have rarely found his decisions to have been other than correct, or at least based on sound reasoning. I find that the improvement has been most distinct in the area of foreign policy, in which a President truly has a predominant influence. I also see his initial efforts in education to be extremely promising.
On health care, I will refrain from strong criticism; his greatest mistake has been to let others put forward their thinking too much rather than insisting on his own view, and that is merely showing too much respect for our messy legislative process. With regard to military policy, as with energy, immigration, and the economy, it's still too soon to draw judgments about his administration's footprint.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel's editorial in The Nation on the topic takes the right tone in the end. While we may not agree with all that has been done, or we may think that more should have been done, we must remain firmly in the camp of loyal supporters. Only from the inside can progressive forces guide the administration toward improving its policies, programs, and regulation. The overriding objective is Obama's re-election in 2012; only this will give the victory of 2008 a full measure of time to establish marked change in our nation. Obama is the horse we must ride; if he falls, the race (toward the future) is over, at least for the next decade or two.
It will be somewhat difficult to keep this in mind in 2010; the midterm elections are going to be ugly in many ways. Unemployment will surely be too high, which will work against the Democrats, so our reasonable expectation, especially in the House, should be to limit losses. Many of our party's representatives, especially many in tight races in conservative states, will have compromised themselves through their positions and votes on healthcare, and they will be undeservedly looking for our support. Prioritizing campaign funds for true Democrats who need assistance will be a difficult task for national organizations (and for discerning contributors), and they must not settle for marginally superior candidates when the preferences are based merely on party membership.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Banking on Capital Requirements
The search for blame on the banking crisis which carved out our Great Crater has now passed on to the next phase: what to do next? Thank goodness for that, but so far I haven't seen much in the way of good ideas.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
One suggestion, made this week in The Nation, is very simplistic: Break Up the Big Banks! If they're "Too Big To Fail," making them smaller will fix the problem. I doubt that antitrust law as constituted will support this approach, and the trend has been the opposite: permitting--rather, facilitating--big acquisitions of troubled large institutions by the superbanks. And, while all the America's largest banks received bailouts during the peak of the crisis, not all of them remain basket cases (I'd point particularly to J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo as having strong recovery prospects, ignoring Goldman Sachs and American Express as not really being banks, though they took advantage of the bailout offer to become officially "bank holding companies"). Further, not all the large banks abroad have had deep problems, particularly the likes of Standard Chartered, HSBC, and BNP. It's not size, it's what they do (or don't).
Mark-to-market accounting is another false bogey: some of the banks have gotten behind a proposal to change accounting practices again (an emergency change was made earlier this year to allow some of the toxic assets to be kept on the books at estimated value, rather than market value, when there was no market). A new proposal would give banks the ability to review their own accounting standards, by putting them on a review council on FASB, and taking that power from the SEC. An interesting discussion of this brings out the point that this proposal has the support of the community banks, which are viewed as innocent of causing the recent debacle and which have a very receptive ear from Congress.
Capital Ideas
I'm not in favor of putting these particular lunatics in charge of their accounting asylum. As far as mark-to-market, some emergency change may have been necessary in the peak of the crisis early this year (the toxic assets were not worthless, though no one cared to bid on them), but I remain incredulous toward the notion that these could not or cannot be valued, and I am strongly in favor of regulation both of all mortgage-backed-security offerings and of who may purchase them and for what purposes.
I do have some sympathy for the banks in a predicament they are currently experiencing, though. Rising credit losses such as virtually all banks are experiencing will cause both a decrease in capital available to backstop creating new loans and an increase in the amount of capital required to be dedicated to reserves against future losses for the loans on their books. Additional pressure on banks' capital comes for those who have Federal government assets from the bailout. The result is a continuation of scarce credit conditions on Main Street and political pressure on the banks to make loans that their rules of governance will not, and should not, permit.
One idea to address this double-bind is for the government to come to the aid of community banks with assistance--perhaps for a limited time--to reduce the risk of new loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations. Taking on a share of the potential losses for loans that are destined to produce new hires, or even to reduce job losses, would make such loans more attractive to banks, reduce the capital required for them, and thus bring a boost to employment.
A more fundamental systemic revision would address the nature of banks' loan-loss reserves. These are supposed to be forward-looking, in the sense of preventing direct capital charges to banks in the future when loans go bad. This works to some extent with very large individual loans, but for ordinary mortgages and consumer loans it has the effect of magnifying the effect of cyclical economic downturns and freezing up credit.
A sensible revision would encourage banks to take extra reserves earlier in the credit cycle, in order that the remaining loans would be fully reserved against a continuing downturn and that the banks would show improving reserve costs, allowing them to resume lending, sooner in a recovery. This would actually help banks' profitability through the cycle: the problem is that they would need to act more forcefully to recognize losses sooner. The means of encouragement could be several, ranging from regulatory guidance to some requirement to incentives.
Update, Nov. 19:
I neglected in my initial posting to include another idea I have had: the way to deal with the TBTF is to give them incentives to break apart on their own through capital requirements. Very simply, a bank that has both consumer loans and deposits and also speculates on buying mortgage-backed securities and extensive hedging in derivatives should be required to carry a higher percentage of capital (to protect the public's interest, not just the stockholders') than would two banks of the same combined size, divided up into a traditional bank and an investment bank. Given those incentives, to name names, Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase would likely make the smart move to protect their margins and divide up without being coerced into doing so.
I am happy to say that it appears that the draft financial reform legislation being introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd is including this concept.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Jagged Little Pill: Review for Amazon
Pure Estrogen High
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
After Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged Little Pill" came out in 1995, radio played the heck out of several different songs on it. I liked what I heard, and I purchased the CD, but put it away and listened to it rarely if at all.
Now at a distance of more than 10 years, I pulled out the CD to give it a fresh hearing and decide how it stands up to the test of time. First observation is that it still stands alone--there is nothing really like it, and that includes the subsequent albums by Alanis herself. There are some suggestions of her pull-your-hair-back-and-belt-it-out performance in others` work--I'm thinking particularly of Katy Perry or, very differently, of Slater-Kinney.. I am still struck that this is a unique artistic work, though, the female equivalent of early albums by The Who, or The Rolling Stones in their most popular phase in the `70's and `80's: a pure expression of hormonal-driven emotion.
This is not to say that she did this all by herself: full props to her partner, musical accompanist, and producer Glen Ballard for his contributions. Some of the songs were just Glen and Alanis, take after take, layer after layer, but there are other strong musical contributions, especially Benmont Tench on keyboards and some guest guitarists (Michael Landau, and Dave Navarro and Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers). Me, I love the layered sound, and Ballard brought it right up to the line of being overproduced. But not over it: the effect is to give a full, detailed frame to enhance the power of her vocal performances.
I would generalize those performances by saying they are fairly dripping with emotion. The range of emotions, and the dynamics suiting them, vary quite a lot, though: fury at the lover who scorned her ("You Oughta Know"), and at a record producer who didn't take her seriously ("Right Through You"), disgust at the weakness of others ("Wake Up", "Not the Doctor"), but also sympathy ("Mary Jane"), a pure expression of love for her companion ("Head Over Feet"), and some real , wise recognition of the ambiguity in life ("Perfect", "Hand In Pocket", "Ironic").
One of my two favorite cuts on the disk is "All I Really Want", which I take as humorous (if not, it would be insufferable!)--a puckish, self-mocking lyric set to a whiny, Oriental soundtrack (think "hippie chick") that includes her "short list" of deliverables: patience, deliverance, companionship, sincerity, purity, spirituality, profundity, intellectuality, peace, harmony, and justice. (I'm reminded of the Stones in "Some Girls" and their stereotypes of women: "American women want...everything in the world you can possibly imagine." OK, she's Canadian, but you get the idea.)
Catholic School as Metaphor for Universal Experience
My favorite song on the album, though, and one of my absolute all-time favorites, is "Forgiven", which I notice many of my fellow Amazon reviewers have shied away from trying to interpret. On the face of it, it's a rueful remembrance of her bad old days in Catholic school, from which she has managed to recover her faith. I think there's something more, though.
The framing of the message is a supremely long crescendo, from acoustic guitar and soft crooning, to a massive, wall-banging chorus with Alanis wailing the chorus at the top of her lungs, the notes tinged heavily with emotion. And what a chorus:
"We all had our reasons to be there/We all had a thing or two to learn/We all needed something to cling to/So we did";
and the second chorus:
"We all had delusions in our head/We all had our minds made up for us/We had to believe in something/So we did".
There, in a few short lines, is a summary of the entire lived experience of most of humanity, from the very beginnings of time all the way to the present, and well into the future. So, yes, I think there's something there. Whatever her sins, for those lines alone I would judge her to be "forgiven".
I can see how some might not like this album: for the purist, for example, she shows a beautiful voice, then abuses it terribly. She sounds screechy at times, and the anger can be off-putting: many of my brothers had defensive, cover-your-crotch reactions. (An acoustic version of the songs put out 10 years later might be a good corrective for those who thought it "too angry".) After JLP, though, it can never be said that women can`t rock just as furiously as men, and in their own mode, not merely a pale imitation of male rock. Her performance on this album was a pure expression of human nature (for at least half of humanity), and as such it demands at least our respect.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Offyear Election View
As I write, the polls have closed in Virginia, but no result has been announced in the governor's race. New Jersey's polls will close soon.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
This election's significance can easily be overestimated; only a few states have meaningful contests, and low turnout will be the rule in all.
Virginia is a state with a solid 30% or so of Democrats, primarily in the D.C. suburbs and Tidewater area, and a solid 40% of so of Republicans. Republicans have a slight edge, but races are determined by a swing group of moderately conservative voters with loose party affiliations, if any. Virginia laws don't allow governors to run for re-election, so there is an unusual effect in which the swing vote punishes the incumbent's party if they don't like the state of affairs, an anti-incumbent effect which doesn't punish the incumbent (who can't run).
New Jersey is a state which normally votes Democratic, but politics there have been conditioned by a massive corruption problem for local politicians, primarily Democrats. Incumbent governor Jon Corzine is a rich banker, so resentment about the bank bailout may also work against him; countering that is an enormous advantage in spending for Corzine. This will probably be the race that will remain undetermined late into the evening.
The third race being closely watched is a special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District, from which the moderate Republican Congressman left to become Secretary of the Army for the Obama administration. The moderate Republican woman who had been nominated by the local party machinery was lagging badly behind a candidate from the Conservative Party (which has a long history of providing a check on tendencies of some Republican candidates to drift too far from the right wing). She dropped out last weekend and recommended her supporters vote for the Democrat (!)
The immediate result was a large increase in undecided voters and a small bump for the Conservative, probably among those who hadn't been able to decide between the Republican and Conservative when both were in the race.
There are some other races, like the mayoral race in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg is expected to win easily a third term.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
