I don't claim to be an expert on European matters, but I am living here most of the time at present and can't help noticing some of what is going on. This post is meant to be the first of a 3-part series: in the second I will move beyond Europe's borders to world affairs nearby, then bring it back home to America in the third.
The Inflammation and Its Causes
Europe is inflamed, by which I don't mean that it's in flames (not at all), but there is a persistent irritation in its political being. As a matter of personal health, inflammation is underrated by us non-medical people as a malady; recent studies suggest that prolonged irritants are a leading cause of cancer. So we should take this inflammation in the continent seriously: It can endanger the Euro, even the European Union, if it is not treated properly.
The dissatisfaction with Europe (by which I mean the EU) is widespread, and it seems to be growing in its extent and its severity. The discontent is primarily, but not exclusively, economic; therefore, it naturally tends to focus on the policies of the European central bankers, and on the Euro as the most identifiable target.
The acute problem is economic inequality, within the nations of Europe and across them as well. Nothing new, of course, but the high overall unemployment in many of the countries, and the exceptionally high level among the young, are disturbing facts, ones that have remained in place in many of the countries since the 2008-09 global economic crisis, or even before then. More disturbing is the absence of movement, of any effective plan on the horizon to address the inequality.
It has taken the European Central Bank several years of watching the apparent success of the US Fed's Quantitative Easing program, which provided monetary stimulus through massive bond purchases, for the ECB to move now in that direction, hesitantly and over dug-in opposition. Economic theorists generally don't seem to anticipate that the program will work as well in Europe as it did in the US because of technical differences in the bond markets, but most have come out in favor of it as at least being some action that the EU can take to promote growth. The irony is that, according to a journalistic analysis in the Wall Street Journal, the European countries that will likely benefit the most from QE are the Netherlands and Germany. The German bankers have fought the initiation of the program particularly hard, and Germany and Netherlands probably need the stimulus the least of any of the countries.
The general problem of the countries with the Euro is the "one size fits all" nature of the fiscal discipline required for all nations admitted into that group. Upon joining, these countries surrendered a piece of their sovereignty; now they are required to cap budget deficits (at 3% of GDP) and the cumulative governmental debt as a function of GDP, as well. The way this plays out is that countries like Germany with strong economies and good fiscal discipline don't mind the strictures, while the ones with a history of poor tax collection and inefficient government spending, which also tend to be the ones with slow growth and high unemployment, are blocked from deficit spending, To make matters worse, the markets can ignore the supposed unitary Euro marketplace when it comes to the price of nations' sovereign debt, so those weaker markets are penalized with higher interest rates, making the challenges even harder.
A Sensible Tumor
Grease is the time, is the place, is the motion/ Now grease is the way we are feeling
--Barry Gibb
(I never really got the point of this particular part of the song lyric, and to the extent I did, I rejected it totally. If there's one kind of nostalgia I can't stand, it's for the Fifties. However, change some of the letters, keep the pronunciation, and the lines resonate today Try to get that Frankie Valli voice out of your head, though--it will make you crazy.)
I will push the analogy further and accept the notion that there is a tumor that has grown with the European body politic, and it is the weakness of the Greek economy within the Euro. I would argue that, at this point, it is a benign tumor--though growing--and can be treated successfully. Without surgery.
In this case, the tumor arises both from inflammatory and from genetic causes. With the original rules that had been set up for entry into the Euro, Greece should never have been admitted--it was a major fudge. I was in Greece in the days before the Euro officially began, and there was a lot of enthusiasm for what it would bring, and in the early days, before the major economic crisis of 2008-09, it helped with the modernization and efficiency of the economy. The problem was building, though, in the form of the imbalance in the nation's budget and the level of the nation's debt, both of which were pushing the Euro market's established limits. Then, when the recession hit, and the GDP dropped, the debt level (measured as a % of GDP) broke the boundaries, which caused a crisis in 2011-2012 about the soundness of the country's sovereign debt. The solution then was sharp cuts in government spending--which has exacerbated the recession there--and refinancing of the debt (with a reduction in their value) with a European guarantee.
Jump ahead to the present. The discontent in Greece has finally led to the political victory of a left-wing alliance, Syriza, which pledged an end to austerity and a better domestic deal on debt repayment. Contrary to what some may think, Syriza has never advocated withdrawal from the Euro--which would be unpopular in Greece in any case--but is pushing the boundaries of what can be tolerated by its opponents (the central bankers, representing the bondholders' interests) by proposing to break agreements on budget deficits and debt servicing. Syriza could fairly be accused of some demagoguery--advocating unwise policy in telling the people what they want to hear--but there are two other key points: 1) they are absolutely correct that the austerity policy has failed Greece, was always incorrect, and must end; and 2) Syriza's success is primarily the result of the abject failure of the major parties in the country.
The European bankers at this point couldn't care less about Greece, and its fellow traveler on the edge, Cyprus, but there are two critical issues in telling them either to pay up or face dire consequences. The first is the potential harm to the Euro, and the European Union (Greece would probably go all the way out if negotiations collapsed) by creating a bad precedent, if they held the line and forced Greece out. The second is the potential harm to the Euro and the EU if they don't hold the line: Greece is the more acute case, but many or all the same problems apply (including the failure of the major parties): in Spain (the non-conformist party Podemos is on track to lead Spain down the track Greece has elected), in Italy (only one traditional party, Renzi's, retains any broad respect), and even in France (which has had a recent downturn in its economy). Even in the U.K. (see below), though of course it's not in the Euro. These countries do matter in Europe. In other words, the Greek tumor can not be allowed to metastasize. *
Fear not--the ailment is treatable, I believe. The two hard lines which the German bankers will not allow are an additional write-down of the debt and infinite postponement of repayment; thus, a formula to postpone repayment further, within limits, can be found and negotiated, assuming the goodwill remains on both sides. The big concession, one on which the Italians, Spanish, and French will fully back the Greeks, is the change in the Fiscal Compact requiring a maximum budget deficit (after adjustments) of 3% of GDP. This rule will be changed to allow countercyclical fiscal stimulus--it's just a matter of time (in Europe, it all moves slowly). Wall Street is right in taking a cautiously optimistic view of how this will all play out.
The Chronic Issue
The problem that is not going to be solved, either through easing monetary policy or fiscal policy, nor by solving in a more general way the inequality of credit ratings among the various semi-sovereign nations of the EU, is a demographic problem. Most of the European nations' governments have social benefit programs that are extremely generous and expensive by US standards, whether one is speaking of education, welfare, healthcare, or retirement. Tax rates are high, for the most part, but Europe partially compensates by spending a whole lot less on defense (read: military) programs. Fine for them, though perhaps not sustainable (President Obama is starting to lean on some of the larger European countries to pull their weight more, though it should be emphasized that the EU and the non-US membership in NATO are not congruent.)
No, the real problem for Europe is an aging population and low birthrates. In the long run, something will have to change. They will need to lower benefits, increase births, increase taxes (not much room for that), or allow more immigration, which contributes to maintaining the nations' economies because of a tendency for immigrants to be younger, working-age people. The US has the same issues, but to a lesser extent, precisely because of the growth in immigrant and minority populations, which makes it less a necessity to consider benefit reductions or tax reductions, at least for awhile.
The idea of increasing immigration to the European bloc makes many there uncomfortable, for reasons that are economic, political, and cultural. The economic issue is also an intra-Europe one, as the requirements for the free movement of labor has led to generalized resentment and frequent low-level violence. Political movements which have as central policy the reduction of outsiders have gained traction in most countries now. Often, but not always, these movements emphasize in particular Islamophobia, frequently conflated with fear of terroristic elements. Of course, there have been significant acts of terrorism in Europe, most of which can be traced to people who professed adherence to Islam. The ongoing challenge will be the degree to which Europe can successfully assimilate non-European populations, such as the North Africans in France and Italy, Indians and Pakistanis in the U.K., and Turks in Germany and elsewhere, without being overwhelmed by them (which is what the nativist parties fear).
British Influenza
One of the major events of the year, which could have broad effect on the EU and be a good indicator how these various stresses may play out, will be the general election in the U.K. in May. Economically, the situation is completely different from the Southern European countries: a fairly austere policy directed by the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition is deemed to have been fairly successful, as the U.K. economy is showing moderate growth, and the pound is strong. That doesn't mean that the policy is popular, though; opinion polls have consistently shown Labour with a small lead. And that, in turn, doesn't mean that Labour will win the elections: first, Labour's party leader Ed Miliband is broadly viewed as not being up to the challenge of leading the national government.
Second, and more critically, Parliament seats are decided by the candidate with the most votes in individual constituencies (as with the US elections), so the local dynamics of the small electoral districts make the result dependent on the summation of hundreds of micro-elections. The general historical patterns of voting in each of these constituencies is known, but the outcome of many seats will be unpredictable due to the emerging dynamics of Britain's becoming increasingly a multiparty system instead of a two-party one.
The third party which has been around forever in various forms, the Liberal Democrats (LD), have lost their way. Occupying that space between the Conservatives and Labour was sacrificed for the opportunity to participate in the last government, and the strategy has been disastrous for that party: it has no recognizable, distinctive policy positions and relies upon a handful of respected moderate names. Still, the party has its stronghold districts and will have a few seats, despite losing a large percentage of its share of the popular vote.
The real movement has been the growth in three parties which are newly factors in the growing complexity of political equations. The Scottish Nationalist Party lost last year's battle for Scottish secession, but has won greater support in the region and now is expected to win most of the seats, which will cost Labour seats. The SNP and Labour are natural allies, but the first opportunity to build a government should be expected to go to the party which wins the most seats, which (due primarily due to the loss of Scottish Labour seats) is now projected to be the Conservatives. Two other parties, the UK Independence Party on the extreme right, and the Greens, which are on Labour's left, are showing greatly increased strength in the polls, reflecting a loss of confidence in both major parties. Neither party will win many seats, but by taking away share of the votes they could throw off the calculations of both Labour and the Conservatives about the seats they should expect to win.
I will make a prediction, based on my feeling: Conservatives will have about 40-45% of seats, Labour 30-35%, SNP and LD 15% combined, and Others (UKIP, Green, Irish parties) 5-10% . With that result the Conservatives will be forced to make a deal (after the last elections they held the majority but brought in the LD from a position of strength.) The LD should be tempted to hold out rather than readily renewing their coalition and would find themselves, despite a poor result, in a potent negotiating position this time. One of the main elements in play is the promised 2017 referendum on continuing membership in the EU, and the LD's possible asking price for rejoining the coalition (postponing the referendum) could put stress on Conservative unity--many of its MP's would feel ideologically more comfortable in the UKIP. The final result could be a very messy three- or four-party government (Conservative-LD-Labour-SNP) to keep out the extremists. For that to happen, there is a major budget disagreement--the Conservatives' plan is stingy, while Labour's is spendthrift--to be settled, and there would be a clear risk of some defections to the UKIP among right-wing Conservatives unhappy with the deal. The betting parlay I would suggest is David Cameron to continue as Prime Minister but with his party in a weakened position in the new government.
*I am struck by how many of the words used in relation to the EU crisis--including Europe itself, of course--are Greek in their origin. Regardless if the population or economic share that Greece has in the Union is small, the EU needs Greece in order to claim to be the continental force it wants to be.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Oscars preview
How did the Academy flub the Oscar nominations? Let me count the ways....actually, I don't need to do it because a very thorough poll and discussion on one of the top websites, imdb.com, has done it for me. The poll's author is diplomatic and calls the items "surprises", but most (not all) are screw-ups.
To be fair--momentarily--to "the Academy", let me stipulate that 2014 was an excellent year for film, with many valid claimants for consideration. So, those who lament the absence of a nomination for X film for Y category need to back that up by making the case that X is better in Y dimension than Z film that was nominated. With two exceptions: Best Picture can now have up to 10 nominations, and only eight were nominated, so there is room to make the claim for a couple of other films that should have been nominated, and the Makeup category nominators showed restraint, with only three nominations.
I will try to follow my own directive when I can, but as always, I must beg indulgence: I am just an ordinary filmgoer, not able to attend the Film Festivals, not given special Academy screen access or distributions of courtesy copies. I have done my best, but I still have a fairly lengthy list of feature-length movies relevant to the awards season that I want to see and have not yet seen: Wild, The Theory of Everything, Selma, Whiplash, A Most Violent Year, Still Alice (if that can be found anywhere) and American Sniper (more on that later).
I'm not going to make predictions on the winners this year. It should be a very difficult year to make the picks, but there is too much Twitter, interviewing, even polls of members, so the trends are all too apparent, and they are presented well in the current edition of Entertainment Weekly--I can't improve on their graphical presentation of the probabilities of winners for the principal categories. (Note: The website has some of the articles from that issue, but not the preview: they are wising up. Get the issue, not the subscription.). There should be more suspense than there is at this point, in a year that should be a wide-open competition. ,
So, Where Are the Beefs?
Best Picture - The scuttlebutt is that this category is coming down to a battle between Birdman and Boyhood. This doesn't bother me too much, as each is an exceptional achievement in film-making, but I would say that duel is more appropriately for Best Direction, and the race for Best Picture is, or should be, broader. In particular, I would suggest The Imitation Game as a film that is fully worthy of winning Best Picture in most years--well-produced, acted, hugely important in its content--it's a movie that does more than just entertain.
In terms of the nominations, I would add three: Interstellar and Unbroken are two films which I was surprised were not nominated, and not pleasantly surprised at that, though each has significant flaws. Then, I would add The Lego Movie! I am not so much arguing that it deserves to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but it is as deserving of nomination as others--for example, The Grand Budapest Hotel, which was an amusing, well-made ball of fluff. "Lego" was the comedy of the year.
The one I would remove? American Sniper. I am unapologetic about not having seen it--it was released to the public January 15; it is a 2015 movie release. I will get around to seeing it, after I have seen the 2014 movies that rate my viewing sooner--the ones that deigned to present themselves to me last year. Same goes for A Most Violent Year, but that one, loved by the critics, did not rate any nominations. I have not yet heard anything which tells me "Sniper" is different from, better than, or somehow needed after the success of The Hurt Locker--as much as I have loved some Clint Eastwood-directed films, that in itself does not distinguish it. In fact, I am afraid a feel-good patriotic rush may end up carrying it to the Best Picture Oscar in Argo-esque fashion.
Best Supporting Actress, Jessica Chastain - I am not sure whether the problem is that she is in too many movies, splitting the votes among her admirers, or that the members are jealous of her incredible screen presence. This year, she was deserving for her role in Interstellar; I hear she also gave a huge performance in A Most Violent Year. Now, I will admit it is not easy to identify the one who she should replace, as the field in that category is very strong (stronger than for the Best Actress category, in fact)--Laura Dern in Wild, maybe? Foregoing the inevitable Meryl Streep nomination, for once? I would agree with the prevailing wisdom that Patricia Arquette is the big favorite, with Emma Stone's amazing Birdman performance the main alternative.
Best Animated Movie, The Lego Movie - I think my feelings on this are already sufficiently clear--it should win this category, going away, but cannot, as it was not nominated. Which to remove? All of them, but let's start with "How to Train Your Dragon - 2". Please.
I hope and expect that guilt about this nomination failure will lead the Academy to vote an Oscar for its Altogether Awesome Original Song, but I have two worries on that score (not to be confused with Original Score--we'll get to that momentarily): one is that a similar guilt trip about Selma (nominated only for Best Picture, for which it has no hope, and for Original Song) will get it for "Glory", and the other is the dark-horse candidate song by Glen Campbell, a formidable sympathy play (he is suffering from Alzheimer's).
I have just read a very interesting piece about the nominations--how many voters there are, and the processes to nominate in the different categories. Please check out this link; I think then you will see that the process for selecting Animated Film nominees is urgently in need of reform. What appears clear to me from that description is that, unlike most of the categories in which a small number of passionate supporters can get a film nominated in a category, in this one a small number of passionate opponents can block it. Clearly, there was some snobbish, "this isn't what I call animation" kind of viewpoint among some which caused the snub.
Best Actor - David Oyelowo, Selma - Others, perhaps more qualified, have opined on the excessive Uniformity of Whiteness among the 20 acting nominees. Oyelowo is everywhere these days, Jessica Chastain-like, and the bits I have seen suggest his portrayal of MLK was both accurate and brave. Who to remove? I would say Michael Keaton for Birdman, but that's just me. Probably, the same could be said of the next one I would suggest to remove, Bradley Cooper in American Sniper--and I like Cooper's acting (sometimes)--see above. I would hope this category will come down to Eddie Redmayne or Benedict Cumberbatch, but I have seen this kind of race go to Keaton-like comeback efforts too many times (see Mickey Rourke).
Since I nominated two to remove, I can suggest another who should be added: Ralph Fiennes, for the surprisingly over-nominated Grand Budapest Hotel. (Surprising because it's a comedy, and because it was released so early in the year.) The production, the sets, costumes, etc. were all good, but I would gladly take away the writing and Directing nominations and put him in the actor nominations: it was his performance that made the movie.
Best Documentary Feature - Life Itself - The biopic of Roger Ebert. As self-obsessed as Hollywood is, I am very surprised this will not win the category, let alone get a nomination. Maybe he offended too many, with the hate expressed by Keaton's character to the drama critic in Birdman being operative?
Supporting Actor--Bill Murray, St. Vincent - The only question is whether he should be considered a supporting actor, as his was the key role of the film. Take out the inevitable Robert Duvall nomination--he really doesn't need another, and the movie was a dud. I guess the favorite is J.K. Simmons' scenery-chewing jazz teacher from Whiplash, but I would like to speak up for Ethan Hawke, whose performance in Boyhood I rate nearly as highly as I do Patricia Arquette's.
Best Actress - Amy Adams, Big Eyes - As always, a standout performance from Amy. I suppose the movie could be said to have major flaws, though I think as a story it was quite fascinating. I can't suggest who to remove, as the only nominee I have seen is Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, and while I didn't like the movie--at all--her performance was remarkable. I will repeat myself and say that I'd like to see the performance of the award favorite, Julianne Moore, if I can find it.
More Omissions, and The Wrap: On Gone Girl, Birdman, Boyhood
Best Musical Score, Trent Reznor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Gone Girl - Speaking of GG, I think the music and the dialogue were both terrific. I just hated the movie's subject and treatment: these are just the kind of bogus, prurient, voyeuristic stories that do predominate in our culture, and this presentation--critical though it was--implicitly bought into their significance, instead of dismissing them.
Take out one of the Alexandre Desplat nominations for Musical Score--it can only hurt his chances, let him pick the one to take out, or the one that got less votes--and for Adapted Screenplay, take out any of them except Inherent Vice. I think it's also appropriate here to mention the use of the drum track (and drummer, drum set) in Birdman--I have never seen better use of such a device to drive the emotional level of the film.
The two screenplay categories are hard to handicap, but for Original Screenplay, I'd be extremely surprised if anything besides Birdman wins. (Once again, the rival would appear to be Boyhood.) In sum, while its drab premise--washed up superhero actor tries a dramatic comeback--was indeed fully borne out as being unworthy of such superb treatment, I have very little else to criticize about the movie (OK, I still don't like Michael Keaton, pretty much in anything he has done.) Five minutes into the movie, I realized I had been caught unaware by something special--yes, in my case it was indeed "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance". For me, it was above all social satire: biting commentary on our society's narcissism, especially that of the entertainment fields, but also highly humorous.
Still, I will be pulling for the early-season indie on Oscar night, though due to my personal circumstances, I doubt I will be watching. Boyhood is a one-of-a-kind film that deserves all the recognition it can get, Director Richard Linklater in particular, but also his two big stars, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. It's a film with something for anyone who sees it, and there is a really important statement, on the importance of parenting regardless of family circumstances and on the resilience of some children as they develop, despite unfavorable circumstances but assisted by parental love. I am sure Linklater will come away with something, and I will be pulling for Hawke and Arquette, as well.
To be fair--momentarily--to "the Academy", let me stipulate that 2014 was an excellent year for film, with many valid claimants for consideration. So, those who lament the absence of a nomination for X film for Y category need to back that up by making the case that X is better in Y dimension than Z film that was nominated. With two exceptions: Best Picture can now have up to 10 nominations, and only eight were nominated, so there is room to make the claim for a couple of other films that should have been nominated, and the Makeup category nominators showed restraint, with only three nominations.
I will try to follow my own directive when I can, but as always, I must beg indulgence: I am just an ordinary filmgoer, not able to attend the Film Festivals, not given special Academy screen access or distributions of courtesy copies. I have done my best, but I still have a fairly lengthy list of feature-length movies relevant to the awards season that I want to see and have not yet seen: Wild, The Theory of Everything, Selma, Whiplash, A Most Violent Year, Still Alice (if that can be found anywhere) and American Sniper (more on that later).
I'm not going to make predictions on the winners this year. It should be a very difficult year to make the picks, but there is too much Twitter, interviewing, even polls of members, so the trends are all too apparent, and they are presented well in the current edition of Entertainment Weekly--I can't improve on their graphical presentation of the probabilities of winners for the principal categories. (Note: The website has some of the articles from that issue, but not the preview: they are wising up. Get the issue, not the subscription.). There should be more suspense than there is at this point, in a year that should be a wide-open competition. ,
So, Where Are the Beefs?
Best Picture - The scuttlebutt is that this category is coming down to a battle between Birdman and Boyhood. This doesn't bother me too much, as each is an exceptional achievement in film-making, but I would say that duel is more appropriately for Best Direction, and the race for Best Picture is, or should be, broader. In particular, I would suggest The Imitation Game as a film that is fully worthy of winning Best Picture in most years--well-produced, acted, hugely important in its content--it's a movie that does more than just entertain.
In terms of the nominations, I would add three: Interstellar and Unbroken are two films which I was surprised were not nominated, and not pleasantly surprised at that, though each has significant flaws. Then, I would add The Lego Movie! I am not so much arguing that it deserves to win the Oscar for Best Picture, but it is as deserving of nomination as others--for example, The Grand Budapest Hotel, which was an amusing, well-made ball of fluff. "Lego" was the comedy of the year.
The one I would remove? American Sniper. I am unapologetic about not having seen it--it was released to the public January 15; it is a 2015 movie release. I will get around to seeing it, after I have seen the 2014 movies that rate my viewing sooner--the ones that deigned to present themselves to me last year. Same goes for A Most Violent Year, but that one, loved by the critics, did not rate any nominations. I have not yet heard anything which tells me "Sniper" is different from, better than, or somehow needed after the success of The Hurt Locker--as much as I have loved some Clint Eastwood-directed films, that in itself does not distinguish it. In fact, I am afraid a feel-good patriotic rush may end up carrying it to the Best Picture Oscar in Argo-esque fashion.
Best Supporting Actress, Jessica Chastain - I am not sure whether the problem is that she is in too many movies, splitting the votes among her admirers, or that the members are jealous of her incredible screen presence. This year, she was deserving for her role in Interstellar; I hear she also gave a huge performance in A Most Violent Year. Now, I will admit it is not easy to identify the one who she should replace, as the field in that category is very strong (stronger than for the Best Actress category, in fact)--Laura Dern in Wild, maybe? Foregoing the inevitable Meryl Streep nomination, for once? I would agree with the prevailing wisdom that Patricia Arquette is the big favorite, with Emma Stone's amazing Birdman performance the main alternative.
Best Animated Movie, The Lego Movie - I think my feelings on this are already sufficiently clear--it should win this category, going away, but cannot, as it was not nominated. Which to remove? All of them, but let's start with "How to Train Your Dragon - 2". Please.
I hope and expect that guilt about this nomination failure will lead the Academy to vote an Oscar for its Altogether Awesome Original Song, but I have two worries on that score (not to be confused with Original Score--we'll get to that momentarily): one is that a similar guilt trip about Selma (nominated only for Best Picture, for which it has no hope, and for Original Song) will get it for "Glory", and the other is the dark-horse candidate song by Glen Campbell, a formidable sympathy play (he is suffering from Alzheimer's).
I have just read a very interesting piece about the nominations--how many voters there are, and the processes to nominate in the different categories. Please check out this link; I think then you will see that the process for selecting Animated Film nominees is urgently in need of reform. What appears clear to me from that description is that, unlike most of the categories in which a small number of passionate supporters can get a film nominated in a category, in this one a small number of passionate opponents can block it. Clearly, there was some snobbish, "this isn't what I call animation" kind of viewpoint among some which caused the snub.
Best Actor - David Oyelowo, Selma - Others, perhaps more qualified, have opined on the excessive Uniformity of Whiteness among the 20 acting nominees. Oyelowo is everywhere these days, Jessica Chastain-like, and the bits I have seen suggest his portrayal of MLK was both accurate and brave. Who to remove? I would say Michael Keaton for Birdman, but that's just me. Probably, the same could be said of the next one I would suggest to remove, Bradley Cooper in American Sniper--and I like Cooper's acting (sometimes)--see above. I would hope this category will come down to Eddie Redmayne or Benedict Cumberbatch, but I have seen this kind of race go to Keaton-like comeback efforts too many times (see Mickey Rourke).
Since I nominated two to remove, I can suggest another who should be added: Ralph Fiennes, for the surprisingly over-nominated Grand Budapest Hotel. (Surprising because it's a comedy, and because it was released so early in the year.) The production, the sets, costumes, etc. were all good, but I would gladly take away the writing and Directing nominations and put him in the actor nominations: it was his performance that made the movie.
Best Documentary Feature - Life Itself - The biopic of Roger Ebert. As self-obsessed as Hollywood is, I am very surprised this will not win the category, let alone get a nomination. Maybe he offended too many, with the hate expressed by Keaton's character to the drama critic in Birdman being operative?
Supporting Actor--Bill Murray, St. Vincent - The only question is whether he should be considered a supporting actor, as his was the key role of the film. Take out the inevitable Robert Duvall nomination--he really doesn't need another, and the movie was a dud. I guess the favorite is J.K. Simmons' scenery-chewing jazz teacher from Whiplash, but I would like to speak up for Ethan Hawke, whose performance in Boyhood I rate nearly as highly as I do Patricia Arquette's.
Best Actress - Amy Adams, Big Eyes - As always, a standout performance from Amy. I suppose the movie could be said to have major flaws, though I think as a story it was quite fascinating. I can't suggest who to remove, as the only nominee I have seen is Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, and while I didn't like the movie--at all--her performance was remarkable. I will repeat myself and say that I'd like to see the performance of the award favorite, Julianne Moore, if I can find it.
More Omissions, and The Wrap: On Gone Girl, Birdman, Boyhood
Best Musical Score, Trent Reznor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Gone Girl - Speaking of GG, I think the music and the dialogue were both terrific. I just hated the movie's subject and treatment: these are just the kind of bogus, prurient, voyeuristic stories that do predominate in our culture, and this presentation--critical though it was--implicitly bought into their significance, instead of dismissing them.
Take out one of the Alexandre Desplat nominations for Musical Score--it can only hurt his chances, let him pick the one to take out, or the one that got less votes--and for Adapted Screenplay, take out any of them except Inherent Vice. I think it's also appropriate here to mention the use of the drum track (and drummer, drum set) in Birdman--I have never seen better use of such a device to drive the emotional level of the film.
The two screenplay categories are hard to handicap, but for Original Screenplay, I'd be extremely surprised if anything besides Birdman wins. (Once again, the rival would appear to be Boyhood.) In sum, while its drab premise--washed up superhero actor tries a dramatic comeback--was indeed fully borne out as being unworthy of such superb treatment, I have very little else to criticize about the movie (OK, I still don't like Michael Keaton, pretty much in anything he has done.) Five minutes into the movie, I realized I had been caught unaware by something special--yes, in my case it was indeed "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance". For me, it was above all social satire: biting commentary on our society's narcissism, especially that of the entertainment fields, but also highly humorous.
Still, I will be pulling for the early-season indie on Oscar night, though due to my personal circumstances, I doubt I will be watching. Boyhood is a one-of-a-kind film that deserves all the recognition it can get, Director Richard Linklater in particular, but also his two big stars, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. It's a film with something for anyone who sees it, and there is a really important statement, on the importance of parenting regardless of family circumstances and on the resilience of some children as they develop, despite unfavorable circumstances but assisted by parental love. I am sure Linklater will come away with something, and I will be pulling for Hawke and Arquette, as well.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Political Drama 2016: Act I, Scene 1
Republican Kabuki
If it were a TV show, the 2016 election would begin with a spasm of violence (something like what occurred in Paris yesterday--see below), then cut to a commercial. That is the principle of the hook.
Make no mistake, the story of the 2016 elections has now begun, but it begins with drama that is, at best, fake--it's more like mundane events setting the scene. There is nothing wrong with that; Shakespeare's plays often began in like manner; the big events, if there are to be such, will come later. This week, we get the Kabuki play of John Boehner's (tearful, of course) election as Speaker, despite a handful of self-promoting fools who mistakenly believe their Congressional service will be enhanced by rebelling against their party caucus' decisions. At least their actions will identify themselves as people not to be counted on for key votes by the party's Majority Whip, Steven Scalise.
Speaking of Scalise, he had his own fake drama this week. An enterprising reporter dug up the gem that Scalise had spoken to a white supremacist group in his state of Louisiana headed by the famous racist politician David Duke--twelve years ago. It was not scandalous behavior then, because Scalise was a no-name state legislator looking for support wherever he could find it. It may be scandalous now, but it hardly qualifies as news: Scalise was fairly open at the time that his politics were like Duke's "without the baggage"; now he has the baggage and it is Duke. Beyond being "pro-white", Duke is also big on the global Jewish conspiracy topic--that is the one that Scalise will have to throw over convincingly, if he wants to remain in the party's House leadership. Not to please his party's caucus, which lost its only Jewish member when his predecessor, Eric Cantor, lost his seat last summer in a primary against an obscure tea-bagger, but to keep from alienating Sheldon Adelson, one of the party's super-rich backers--and a major backer of Israel and Netanyahu--who must be placated.
The most dramatic move to date in the budding 2016 electoral story has been made by Jeb Bush, who opted for the early headline move in positioning himself to run. The early move has worked in the past---notably, for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama--but is no guarantee of success (just look at Rick Perry, who preceded Jeb this time around but seems to be making no traction at all, in spite of trying to adopt a more intellectual persona). Jeb's move has worked well, though, putting the pressure on other potential party Establishment figures to either get in or give up: in particular, Chris Christie is on the spot, Mitt Romney's camera-shy wife now has a good reason to tell her husband the country does not, after all, need him to run again, and Marco Rubio is in a tough bind. I think all three will end up being pre-empted by Bush's move; though they may still decide to run, they will find it a tough row to hoe. In particular, if Bush has put to rest the thoughts of another Romney candidacy, he has achieved a major tactical success: the Republicans, especially the Establishment ones, like hierarchy and an orderly succession, and Romney's willingness to take on the incumbent President is endearing to them (though not to the right wing, which insists on the strange argument that he and John McCain only lost because they weren't "conservative" enough).
I don't think Bush's move prompted Mike Huckabee's withdrawal as a Fox News paid commentator; instead, he has listened to his advisers and stepped forward early, in order to try to build a structured campaign--something he failed to do in 2008, preventing him from capitalizing on his unexpected victory in the Iowa caucuses. He may be able to pull that Iowa trick off again, as he has a solid core of support that could emerge from a crowded field of right-wingers. But will he have his lines prepared for Act I, Scenes 2 and 3? If he can survive New Hampshire and make a good showing in the always-critical South Carolina Republican primary, he, rather than Ted Cruz, could be the survivor on the right-wing to make the final group of serious contenders for the nomination (as I said before, I think the other two will be Bush and Rand Paul). I have underestimated Huck before; I will try not to do it this time.
Je Suis Triste Pour Charlie
I am a big fan of political satire. For me, it is the highest form of literary art, and I hope that someday I may have the time and ability to write a decent satirical work. Dealing with the powers that be in a less than respectful manner, it is also an art which takes great risk.
We are accustomed to think that the forms of attack on press freedom come from the government: trying to get journalists to reveal their sources, pressing them when they disclose secrets, targeting them in civil wars (as has happened in Syria). Government also provides the press a safe harbor in some respects, in the form of special protection against slander and libel suits. The notion that private individuals can cripple press freedom and effectiveness of political satire through acts of violence is, in this day, a new and scary proposition.
I hope you will not think it churlish, and it may relate to my weakness with the French language, but what I have to say about the satire I have seen from the satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo that was attacked yesterday in brutal, terroristic fashion is that it doesn't seem very funny to me. Brave, defiant, irreverent, yes, but not so humorous. I have always insisted that sense of humor is subjective: I hate it when people try to get me to agree with them, contrary to what my senses and emotion tell me, that "That's funny" or "That's not funny"--so I will limit my comment to that subjective observation, but that is the reason that I am not quite in the "Je suis Charlie" camp.
I am sad for those involved (especially the policemen who had the difficult and dangerous task of trying to defend the newspaper from the attack); I am angry at those who did it (and those who may have put them up to it); I will raise my pen (or my mouse), if that form of protest makes some kind of difference. Finally, I will express my full solidarity with the French people: we Americans may find them hard to deal with (that cursed independence! I joke), but they are, in fact, our oldest and most reliable allies in the world. We have never fought a war against them (as Americans), and our alliance goes back even farther than our nationhood.
One piece on the subject that I found especially interesting was written by Daniel Burke, CNN's Religion Editor. Burke discusses the history and practice of this prohibition on the publishing of images of Mohammed. First, I found it interesting that this is never mentioned in the Quran; second, that the practice is not consistent across all of Islam (he observes that images of Mohammed--with faces--are found in the cultures of Turkey and Iran, but not often in Sunni mosques, and very rarely if ever in the Arabian peninsula). Finally, he comments on the irony that this fetish about not having the image produced comes from a directive to avoid creating idols, that Mohammed wanted Islam to treat him as an ordinary man, not a god to be worshipped. In today's society, it is a fact that the depiction of real-life heroes tends to make them more human; therefore, it would make sense for the practice of Islam to relax this prohibition, to make the religion more approachable. Certainly it should be shouted from all the minarets that the depiction of Mohammed is not a capital offense.
Is there a tie-in from this episode in Paris to the 2016 election? Not really--only this: as we saw also in the terror attack at the Boston Marathon (case finally going to trial), the threat in today's Western countries takes the form of small cells of committed fanatics with unlikely targets far removed from the centers of power and commerce. It was my fervent desire that GWOT (Global War on Terror) would end in these post-Bushite years (we may not even be post-Bushite yet--we shall see), but I recognize that the threat of terror is not completely gone, and the challenge of suppressing it is more global than ever. We are in a new phase, in which our counterterrorism must have multiple strategies, multiple tactics, flexibility, but also consistent resolve. It will be interesting to see if any of our Presidential candidates can grasp this subtlety in the electoral marathon to come.
Mario Cuomo
The three-term governor of New York died last week. In his prime (early to mid 1980's), I was a big fan of Cuomo, and I hoped he would run for President. He never did, and after he pulled back from the campaign in 1991-92 (I will never know why, maybe), his star faded and he fell, somewhat shockingly, to Republican George Pataki in 1994.
Cuomo is the man who is credited with the quote that "campaigning is poetry; governing is prose". I have to say that his administration of New York was very prosaic. He always argued for the causes of the poor and downtrodden, but during his terms New York enforced the draconian sentencing and harsh drug laws previously enacted, causing prison populations to grow enormously. He did hold out courageously against the law'n'order types who wanted to burn more criminals (which may have caused his ultimate political defeat in '94), and he maintained his principles, his willingness for political combat, and his pride throughout; however, I felt somewhat disappointed at the time that he did not succeed in doing more. In that sense, I think he helped me learn a lesson about how hard it is to accomplish progressive change in this country, even in the states where progress is possible. This has allowed me to moderate my expectations for the current national Presidential administration, which has kept me from joining the ranks of those who (from a progressive viewpoint) only criticize Obama and fail to recognize his successes.
With regard to the political career of his son Andrew, I am an agnostic: I don't see the same eloquence, though I do see a similar political combativeness. I have not lived in New York during his administration, so my view is from the outside only. I think his time to step onto the national stage is likely to come in 2020, and I will try to keep my mind open about him until then.
If it were a TV show, the 2016 election would begin with a spasm of violence (something like what occurred in Paris yesterday--see below), then cut to a commercial. That is the principle of the hook.
Make no mistake, the story of the 2016 elections has now begun, but it begins with drama that is, at best, fake--it's more like mundane events setting the scene. There is nothing wrong with that; Shakespeare's plays often began in like manner; the big events, if there are to be such, will come later. This week, we get the Kabuki play of John Boehner's (tearful, of course) election as Speaker, despite a handful of self-promoting fools who mistakenly believe their Congressional service will be enhanced by rebelling against their party caucus' decisions. At least their actions will identify themselves as people not to be counted on for key votes by the party's Majority Whip, Steven Scalise.
Speaking of Scalise, he had his own fake drama this week. An enterprising reporter dug up the gem that Scalise had spoken to a white supremacist group in his state of Louisiana headed by the famous racist politician David Duke--twelve years ago. It was not scandalous behavior then, because Scalise was a no-name state legislator looking for support wherever he could find it. It may be scandalous now, but it hardly qualifies as news: Scalise was fairly open at the time that his politics were like Duke's "without the baggage"; now he has the baggage and it is Duke. Beyond being "pro-white", Duke is also big on the global Jewish conspiracy topic--that is the one that Scalise will have to throw over convincingly, if he wants to remain in the party's House leadership. Not to please his party's caucus, which lost its only Jewish member when his predecessor, Eric Cantor, lost his seat last summer in a primary against an obscure tea-bagger, but to keep from alienating Sheldon Adelson, one of the party's super-rich backers--and a major backer of Israel and Netanyahu--who must be placated.
The most dramatic move to date in the budding 2016 electoral story has been made by Jeb Bush, who opted for the early headline move in positioning himself to run. The early move has worked in the past---notably, for Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama--but is no guarantee of success (just look at Rick Perry, who preceded Jeb this time around but seems to be making no traction at all, in spite of trying to adopt a more intellectual persona). Jeb's move has worked well, though, putting the pressure on other potential party Establishment figures to either get in or give up: in particular, Chris Christie is on the spot, Mitt Romney's camera-shy wife now has a good reason to tell her husband the country does not, after all, need him to run again, and Marco Rubio is in a tough bind. I think all three will end up being pre-empted by Bush's move; though they may still decide to run, they will find it a tough row to hoe. In particular, if Bush has put to rest the thoughts of another Romney candidacy, he has achieved a major tactical success: the Republicans, especially the Establishment ones, like hierarchy and an orderly succession, and Romney's willingness to take on the incumbent President is endearing to them (though not to the right wing, which insists on the strange argument that he and John McCain only lost because they weren't "conservative" enough).
I don't think Bush's move prompted Mike Huckabee's withdrawal as a Fox News paid commentator; instead, he has listened to his advisers and stepped forward early, in order to try to build a structured campaign--something he failed to do in 2008, preventing him from capitalizing on his unexpected victory in the Iowa caucuses. He may be able to pull that Iowa trick off again, as he has a solid core of support that could emerge from a crowded field of right-wingers. But will he have his lines prepared for Act I, Scenes 2 and 3? If he can survive New Hampshire and make a good showing in the always-critical South Carolina Republican primary, he, rather than Ted Cruz, could be the survivor on the right-wing to make the final group of serious contenders for the nomination (as I said before, I think the other two will be Bush and Rand Paul). I have underestimated Huck before; I will try not to do it this time.
Je Suis Triste Pour Charlie
I am a big fan of political satire. For me, it is the highest form of literary art, and I hope that someday I may have the time and ability to write a decent satirical work. Dealing with the powers that be in a less than respectful manner, it is also an art which takes great risk.
We are accustomed to think that the forms of attack on press freedom come from the government: trying to get journalists to reveal their sources, pressing them when they disclose secrets, targeting them in civil wars (as has happened in Syria). Government also provides the press a safe harbor in some respects, in the form of special protection against slander and libel suits. The notion that private individuals can cripple press freedom and effectiveness of political satire through acts of violence is, in this day, a new and scary proposition.
I hope you will not think it churlish, and it may relate to my weakness with the French language, but what I have to say about the satire I have seen from the satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo that was attacked yesterday in brutal, terroristic fashion is that it doesn't seem very funny to me. Brave, defiant, irreverent, yes, but not so humorous. I have always insisted that sense of humor is subjective: I hate it when people try to get me to agree with them, contrary to what my senses and emotion tell me, that "That's funny" or "That's not funny"--so I will limit my comment to that subjective observation, but that is the reason that I am not quite in the "Je suis Charlie" camp.
I am sad for those involved (especially the policemen who had the difficult and dangerous task of trying to defend the newspaper from the attack); I am angry at those who did it (and those who may have put them up to it); I will raise my pen (or my mouse), if that form of protest makes some kind of difference. Finally, I will express my full solidarity with the French people: we Americans may find them hard to deal with (that cursed independence! I joke), but they are, in fact, our oldest and most reliable allies in the world. We have never fought a war against them (as Americans), and our alliance goes back even farther than our nationhood.
One piece on the subject that I found especially interesting was written by Daniel Burke, CNN's Religion Editor. Burke discusses the history and practice of this prohibition on the publishing of images of Mohammed. First, I found it interesting that this is never mentioned in the Quran; second, that the practice is not consistent across all of Islam (he observes that images of Mohammed--with faces--are found in the cultures of Turkey and Iran, but not often in Sunni mosques, and very rarely if ever in the Arabian peninsula). Finally, he comments on the irony that this fetish about not having the image produced comes from a directive to avoid creating idols, that Mohammed wanted Islam to treat him as an ordinary man, not a god to be worshipped. In today's society, it is a fact that the depiction of real-life heroes tends to make them more human; therefore, it would make sense for the practice of Islam to relax this prohibition, to make the religion more approachable. Certainly it should be shouted from all the minarets that the depiction of Mohammed is not a capital offense.
Is there a tie-in from this episode in Paris to the 2016 election? Not really--only this: as we saw also in the terror attack at the Boston Marathon (case finally going to trial), the threat in today's Western countries takes the form of small cells of committed fanatics with unlikely targets far removed from the centers of power and commerce. It was my fervent desire that GWOT (Global War on Terror) would end in these post-Bushite years (we may not even be post-Bushite yet--we shall see), but I recognize that the threat of terror is not completely gone, and the challenge of suppressing it is more global than ever. We are in a new phase, in which our counterterrorism must have multiple strategies, multiple tactics, flexibility, but also consistent resolve. It will be interesting to see if any of our Presidential candidates can grasp this subtlety in the electoral marathon to come.
Mario Cuomo
The three-term governor of New York died last week. In his prime (early to mid 1980's), I was a big fan of Cuomo, and I hoped he would run for President. He never did, and after he pulled back from the campaign in 1991-92 (I will never know why, maybe), his star faded and he fell, somewhat shockingly, to Republican George Pataki in 1994.
Cuomo is the man who is credited with the quote that "campaigning is poetry; governing is prose". I have to say that his administration of New York was very prosaic. He always argued for the causes of the poor and downtrodden, but during his terms New York enforced the draconian sentencing and harsh drug laws previously enacted, causing prison populations to grow enormously. He did hold out courageously against the law'n'order types who wanted to burn more criminals (which may have caused his ultimate political defeat in '94), and he maintained his principles, his willingness for political combat, and his pride throughout; however, I felt somewhat disappointed at the time that he did not succeed in doing more. In that sense, I think he helped me learn a lesson about how hard it is to accomplish progressive change in this country, even in the states where progress is possible. This has allowed me to moderate my expectations for the current national Presidential administration, which has kept me from joining the ranks of those who (from a progressive viewpoint) only criticize Obama and fail to recognize his successes.
With regard to the political career of his son Andrew, I am an agnostic: I don't see the same eloquence, though I do see a similar political combativeness. I have not lived in New York during his administration, so my view is from the outside only. I think his time to step onto the national stage is likely to come in 2020, and I will try to keep my mind open about him until then.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Sports Report
In football, the preliminaries are over--time for the playoffs.
I am grateful that the big-time colleges have seen fit to add a round to their championship; now the issue is no longer "Who's #3?" but "Who's #5?" This is progress. I hope, and believe, that this stage of evolution will be successful, and that the next move will be to expand the playoffs to six teams, of which the #6 team should be the best chosen from the mid-major level (and should face #3 in the first round). They will be glad to have the opportunity.
One lesson should have been clear from the final selections of the four playoff teams: the "Big 12" needs to get two more teams, so that they really are "12"--that lack, according to the "rules", prevented them from having a conference championship game. The result was that number 5 and number 6, both from the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor) both had final games which earned them no credit and they end up missing out on the playoffs. The conference will need to pick up a couple of stragglers and fill out their roster--that or get the rule changed so they can have their conference championship game next year. That being noted, I really have no complaint with the four teams chosen. I would expect Alabama to make it to the final, but that Florida State-Oregon game is a very interesting matchup. .
In a year in which the SEC teams beat each other up all year, the main interest in the other bowl games will be to see whether the conference's #2-#9, all of which are in prominent bowls, will be able to preserve their sterling record against all comers. I would recommend betting SEC throughout--except for any cases when SEC teams' top players get arrested in the leadup to their bowl games..
In the NFL, the big story (which I didn't hear covered) was the question of which team was playing its last game before moving to Los Angeles. I would put my money on it being the San Diego Chargers, which played a gutless game and blew a playoff spot for which it had the inside track. The other two leading contenders for the LA lottery, the Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams, should be disqualified as teams that have had the blessing of an LA franchise and left there. I do feel for the SD fans, though, who deserve better: theirs is one of the original AFC franchises, one that has stayed in place through thick and thin and no SB championships --I think it and Buffalo are the only ones.
There were some new developments in the league during the regular season--I note the rise of the Arizona Cardinals and the surprising shortcomings of the 49ers--but the end product has a familiar look. The defending champion Seattle Seahawks gave their fans some anxious moments early but came on strong late in the season and secured the top seed in the conference. In a sign of the increased parity evident, no team did better than a 12-4 regular season record (five teams had that mark), but in spite of that, it would be disappointing if the conference final matchups are anything other than #1 vs. #2 (Green Bay vs. Seattle; Denver vs. New England). I will stick with my preseason prediction of the final being the QB showdown of Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady.
Speaking of parity, baseball seems to be in a bit of a leaderless confusion; although the Giants won their third World Series in five years in 2014, I would say they are far from being a favorite next year. I would generalize the offseason thus far by saying the bad teams have gotten better while the teams which have been good are not very convincing. The Dodgers are the case in point for the latter; they should be favored but have not yet demonstrated any passion or quest for postseason excellence.
The opposite of parity is occurring in college basketball these days, as a few teams scoop all the top prospects in this era of "one and done", year after year. Those that can convince their charges to stay more than one year have a bit of an edge. Last year's mediocre U of Kentucky team made it to the national championship final, but a number of their stars were unfulfilled, career-wise (i.e., not going to be drafted among the lottery picks) and stayed around--that combined with yet another stellar crop of freshman recruits makes the Wildcats one of the most potent 10-man-rotation teams ever seen in college hoops and a massive favorite to go through the regular season unbeaten. It has been a very long time since a team did that and won that championship--if that occurs it will be historic, but there are a few other fat cat teams with talent that will challenge them in the tourney.
Finally, the NBA regular season is about half over and the standings are in total chaos. Injuries to stars for the top teams of recent years has been a major factor, along with major adjustments in the personnel of some of those teams. As a result, upstart teams like Portland, Golden State, Toronto, and Washington are riding atop the conferences--not that I believe these teams will end up playing for the titles. I like Houston and Oklahoma City (assuming they get healthy) to be the best in the West, with Chicago and Cleveland (when LeBron & Co. finally get their act together) my prediction for the finalists in the East. So, like the NFL, not so different from the usual contenders in the end, though I think San Antonio's run may finally come to an end (and they may not even make the playoffs this year).
I am grateful that the big-time colleges have seen fit to add a round to their championship; now the issue is no longer "Who's #3?" but "Who's #5?" This is progress. I hope, and believe, that this stage of evolution will be successful, and that the next move will be to expand the playoffs to six teams, of which the #6 team should be the best chosen from the mid-major level (and should face #3 in the first round). They will be glad to have the opportunity.
One lesson should have been clear from the final selections of the four playoff teams: the "Big 12" needs to get two more teams, so that they really are "12"--that lack, according to the "rules", prevented them from having a conference championship game. The result was that number 5 and number 6, both from the Big 12 (TCU and Baylor) both had final games which earned them no credit and they end up missing out on the playoffs. The conference will need to pick up a couple of stragglers and fill out their roster--that or get the rule changed so they can have their conference championship game next year. That being noted, I really have no complaint with the four teams chosen. I would expect Alabama to make it to the final, but that Florida State-Oregon game is a very interesting matchup. .
In a year in which the SEC teams beat each other up all year, the main interest in the other bowl games will be to see whether the conference's #2-#9, all of which are in prominent bowls, will be able to preserve their sterling record against all comers. I would recommend betting SEC throughout--except for any cases when SEC teams' top players get arrested in the leadup to their bowl games..
In the NFL, the big story (which I didn't hear covered) was the question of which team was playing its last game before moving to Los Angeles. I would put my money on it being the San Diego Chargers, which played a gutless game and blew a playoff spot for which it had the inside track. The other two leading contenders for the LA lottery, the Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams, should be disqualified as teams that have had the blessing of an LA franchise and left there. I do feel for the SD fans, though, who deserve better: theirs is one of the original AFC franchises, one that has stayed in place through thick and thin and no SB championships --I think it and Buffalo are the only ones.
There were some new developments in the league during the regular season--I note the rise of the Arizona Cardinals and the surprising shortcomings of the 49ers--but the end product has a familiar look. The defending champion Seattle Seahawks gave their fans some anxious moments early but came on strong late in the season and secured the top seed in the conference. In a sign of the increased parity evident, no team did better than a 12-4 regular season record (five teams had that mark), but in spite of that, it would be disappointing if the conference final matchups are anything other than #1 vs. #2 (Green Bay vs. Seattle; Denver vs. New England). I will stick with my preseason prediction of the final being the QB showdown of Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady.
Speaking of parity, baseball seems to be in a bit of a leaderless confusion; although the Giants won their third World Series in five years in 2014, I would say they are far from being a favorite next year. I would generalize the offseason thus far by saying the bad teams have gotten better while the teams which have been good are not very convincing. The Dodgers are the case in point for the latter; they should be favored but have not yet demonstrated any passion or quest for postseason excellence.
The opposite of parity is occurring in college basketball these days, as a few teams scoop all the top prospects in this era of "one and done", year after year. Those that can convince their charges to stay more than one year have a bit of an edge. Last year's mediocre U of Kentucky team made it to the national championship final, but a number of their stars were unfulfilled, career-wise (i.e., not going to be drafted among the lottery picks) and stayed around--that combined with yet another stellar crop of freshman recruits makes the Wildcats one of the most potent 10-man-rotation teams ever seen in college hoops and a massive favorite to go through the regular season unbeaten. It has been a very long time since a team did that and won that championship--if that occurs it will be historic, but there are a few other fat cat teams with talent that will challenge them in the tourney.
Finally, the NBA regular season is about half over and the standings are in total chaos. Injuries to stars for the top teams of recent years has been a major factor, along with major adjustments in the personnel of some of those teams. As a result, upstart teams like Portland, Golden State, Toronto, and Washington are riding atop the conferences--not that I believe these teams will end up playing for the titles. I like Houston and Oklahoma City (assuming they get healthy) to be the best in the West, with Chicago and Cleveland (when LeBron & Co. finally get their act together) my prediction for the finalists in the East. So, like the NFL, not so different from the usual contenders in the end, though I think San Antonio's run may finally come to an end (and they may not even make the playoffs this year).
Sunday, December 07, 2014
"Interstellar" - Pt. 1: Science Fiction and Fantasy
I am inspired to write this little essay by watching "Interstellar"; I had the good fortune to find it in a cinema here in Milano yesterday evening in the original language, with subtitles. That's pretty rare here: the dubbing industry remains very strong, with skilled practitioners, and most Italians prefer to watch most films in Italian. I did find that having the original dialogue helped a lot with this movie, as it was not so much that the dialogue was complex, but that it retained the emotional content and inflections of the original actors. The titles (in Italian, of course) actually helped to keep from losing those parts which were "mumbled", an issue I see increasingly in American films. I guess it's realistic to portray speaking roles in the way people actually speak--in the opposite direction from the hearer, asides barely heard--as opposed to declaiming theatrically.
Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about. I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour. That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post-Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it. I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Let's start by making a distinction between what was the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future). Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible. Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality: instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.
Both contribute to our ability to imagine alternatives. Science fiction has the additional benefit of sometimes guiding popular understanding of where experience may be heading--in some cases, it has actually contributed to new paths of scientific exploration. Fantasy rises or falls on the completeness of the imagined world and the plausibility of the stories, given their situations and nature, and with a bit stronger suspension of disbelief involved.
I think it's fair to credit (or blame) the relative rise of fantasy to J.R.R. Tolkien's popularity starting from the Sixties, and to blame the decline of science fiction on a combination of the divergence between the recent historical development of science-based lifestyle changes and what science fiction seemed to predict for us a few decades ago (as Steve Earle put it in his excellent recent song, "21st Century Blues", "Where the Hell's my flying car?"). In other words, there has been a lowering of our expectations, or a reduction in our imagination, of what science can do for our future. Science fiction has always had a percentage of apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories; I would guess that percentage has increased with the development of the eco-apocalyptic vein ("ecolyptic"?), but I doubt that such downers have done much recently for the broad commercial potential of the genre, whereas the successfully-imagined worlds of fantasy supply the opportunity for serialized continuations ad infinitum, even beyond the lifespans of its authors. That has meant a clear path toward continuing employment as a motivator for authors of imaginative fiction, and there are plenty of cases of authors switching from sci-fi to fantasy in the course of their careers.
Space Fantasy
To sum up, all fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real. Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality. I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.
To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops. Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk. The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out. A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.
One little problem: interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future. Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct. Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.
This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though. What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior. There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy. It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor. As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one: complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)
I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar". I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan). Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it. "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves--even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss"). Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy: "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).
Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much. Check the time capsule in a few months.
My guess for Oscar: about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins.
Anyway, the movie made a deep impression and gave me a lot to think about. I am actually doing two reviews of it--this one, of a more general nature, and one which will go into more depth about some of the issues brought up in the climactic final hour. That one, which necessarily has some spoilers about some of the surprising turns toward the end of the movie, will go into a time capsule here and be released in a few months, when the first run (and anticipated post-Oscar continuation of that run) are over, and everyone has had the opportunity and time to see it. I feel that is very appropriate treatment for this movie.
Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Let's start by making a distinction between what was the old-style science fiction and the genre which has largely displaced it in recent decades, fantasy fiction. The main difference between the two is that science fiction should seek to place its narratives in a world we can see as a possible one (past, present, or future). Recognition, or explanation, of scientific understanding helps guide key aspects of the story in directions outside our normal experience, but still possible. Fantasy is not limited by the conventions of possible reality: instead its authors are allowed to consider worlds that may not be possible, beings that may never exist, and scenarios that could never realistically occur.
Both contribute to our ability to imagine alternatives. Science fiction has the additional benefit of sometimes guiding popular understanding of where experience may be heading--in some cases, it has actually contributed to new paths of scientific exploration. Fantasy rises or falls on the completeness of the imagined world and the plausibility of the stories, given their situations and nature, and with a bit stronger suspension of disbelief involved.
I think it's fair to credit (or blame) the relative rise of fantasy to J.R.R. Tolkien's popularity starting from the Sixties, and to blame the decline of science fiction on a combination of the divergence between the recent historical development of science-based lifestyle changes and what science fiction seemed to predict for us a few decades ago (as Steve Earle put it in his excellent recent song, "21st Century Blues", "Where the Hell's my flying car?"). In other words, there has been a lowering of our expectations, or a reduction in our imagination, of what science can do for our future. Science fiction has always had a percentage of apocalyptic or post-apocalyptic stories; I would guess that percentage has increased with the development of the eco-apocalyptic vein ("ecolyptic"?), but I doubt that such downers have done much recently for the broad commercial potential of the genre, whereas the successfully-imagined worlds of fantasy supply the opportunity for serialized continuations ad infinitum, even beyond the lifespans of its authors. That has meant a clear path toward continuing employment as a motivator for authors of imaginative fiction, and there are plenty of cases of authors switching from sci-fi to fantasy in the course of their careers.
Space Fantasy
To sum up, all fiction requires the suspension of disbelief--we need to believe, in the case of historical fiction for example, that the dialogues and events not historically recorded are real. Fantasy differs in that we need to accept, temporarily, an alternate reality. I would argue that "Interstellar" is fantasy--a well-presented one--but one that is contrary to what could ever be possible.
To recap the premise of the story of the movie, something that has been widely disclosed (so no spoiler here), a near-future plague is destroying all of the world's food crops. Only corn remains, and its continued viability is at risk. The population is already decimated and is in the process of dying out. A possible way to continue the species appears in the form of interstellar travel, through the fortuitous appearance of a space-time wormhole near Saturn, to some distant galaxies which may be able to support human life.
One little problem: interstellar travel is way beyond the capability of the human race, now and for the foreseeable future. Of course, in a movie titled "Interstellar", set just a few decades in the future, this is actually a fundamental problem. Director Christopher Nolan, who with his brother wrote the story, goes to great lengths to provide scientific underpinning for his fantastic construct. Some of it has validity, while some I could recognize, even with my freshman physics knowledge, was impossible, though mostly subtly so. I give him credit for trying to make the workings of interstellar travel believable, something that others--I think of "Avatar", the "Aliens" series, "Star Trek"--don't even attempt.
This effort does contribute to the value of the entertainment, though. What we see in "Interstellar" is a variety of people, people not unlike us, in a highly-stressful situation and their human reactions and behavior. There is emotional content, there are characters who develop through the story, there is some study of how decisions are made under stress, there is even philosophy. It is a human story, and a humane one. Violence is present, but in the proper measure; love is a primary factor. As a fantasy, it is quite a satisfying one: complex in its presentation, plenty of food for thought during and after, and the audio-visual aspect is all we should expect. (I might like to see it in Imax.)
I would say it sets a new standard in the genre of space fantasy for its depth and attempt at lucidity. In that sense, it exceeds movies like "Gravity"--which was not fantasy but similar in its drama and some key aspects--or "Avatar". I would compare it most directly to "2001: A Space Odyssey" (to which it's certainly better in the lucidity aspect, though maybe not the artistic ones) and to "Contact" (the Jodie Foster movie from some 20 years ago, based on a story by Carl Sagan). Both share with "Interstellar" a philosophy that man's destiny is in the stars, but "Interstellar" puts a different twist on it. "Interstellar" has a great cast, with several big stars playing their characters (not just themselves--even Matthew McConnaughy, though he does bring a bit more redneck to the role than I thought was needed)--I was particularly tickled to see Wes Bentley (of "American Beauty") and Jeff Hephner (of "Boss"). Finally, I see some parallels with another, supposedly earth-bound, fantasy: "The Wizard of Oz" (however, no singing, though the musical score was excellent).
Even as a fantasy, "Interstellar" is hardly perfect, but to go into the errors--in concept, and in details--would require giving away too much. Check the time capsule in a few months.
My guess for Oscar: about 8-9 nominations, including sound, music, sets, a couple for acting, original screenplay, director, Best Picture, and 3-4 wins.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Response to Democracy For America's Poll Question
I received a survey recently from Democracy for America, which, if I am not mistaken, is the PAC founded by Howard Dean--progressive, mostly within the Democratic party tent. They asked me to pick my three preferred choices, from a list of about 15, for the Democratic nomination in 2016. My first choice was Hillary Clinton, my second was Kirsten Gillenbrand (an agreeable Hillary surrogate, should HRC decide she can't run or some such thing), and my third was Joaquin Castro (he must be too young to run for President, but I like putting his name out there).
No mention in my ballot of the two whom I knew were the preferred votegetters of this group's members (and who got the most votes in the end, Hillary being third), Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren has flat out, repeatedly, said she is not running. Bernie has hedged on that and now does seem to be about to run, I am guessing because of the renewed war footing Obama has recently placed us on, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But let's be serious: Bernie has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination--he's not even a Democrat--and even less chance (a negative probability, if such a thing were to exist) of winning in a general election.
If anyone should understand this, it's Howard Dean, who was branded a slightly-left winger (i.e., a wacko) and couldn't make it out of New Hampshire as a party favorite. The Democrats have had one national candidate since FDR who dared to tell the truth and was more than a little left-of-center: his name was George McGovern, and he won 17 electoral votes out of 538, against one of the most cynical, corrupt Presidents in modern history (Richard Nixon, for you young people unaware of history)--and McGovern was an authentic WWII hero, a decent man, a loyal American, and they threw everything in the book at him. Those who saw Barack Obama as such a person were either reacting in fear or deluded by hope--they never looked at the reality of his political stances, which were, again, slightly left-of-center (if one insists on a single left-right spectrum, something I resist, but will accept for purposes of argument). Sanders and Warren have no chance of being elected in these United States--maybe in some other, hypothetical one, with a fair electoral process, equal access to media, and less vested-interest talking heads getting in their way, but not this one.
Anyway, the folks at Democracy for America were nice enough to come back to me a few days later and ask me to explain my choice. Here is my verbatim answer to them:
No mention in my ballot of the two whom I knew were the preferred votegetters of this group's members (and who got the most votes in the end, Hillary being third), Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren has flat out, repeatedly, said she is not running. Bernie has hedged on that and now does seem to be about to run, I am guessing because of the renewed war footing Obama has recently placed us on, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But let's be serious: Bernie has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination--he's not even a Democrat--and even less chance (a negative probability, if such a thing were to exist) of winning in a general election.
If anyone should understand this, it's Howard Dean, who was branded a slightly-left winger (i.e., a wacko) and couldn't make it out of New Hampshire as a party favorite. The Democrats have had one national candidate since FDR who dared to tell the truth and was more than a little left-of-center: his name was George McGovern, and he won 17 electoral votes out of 538, against one of the most cynical, corrupt Presidents in modern history (Richard Nixon, for you young people unaware of history)--and McGovern was an authentic WWII hero, a decent man, a loyal American, and they threw everything in the book at him. Those who saw Barack Obama as such a person were either reacting in fear or deluded by hope--they never looked at the reality of his political stances, which were, again, slightly left-of-center (if one insists on a single left-right spectrum, something I resist, but will accept for purposes of argument). Sanders and Warren have no chance of being elected in these United States--maybe in some other, hypothetical one, with a fair electoral process, equal access to media, and less vested-interest talking heads getting in their way, but not this one.
Anyway, the folks at Democracy for America were nice enough to come back to me a few days later and ask me to explain my choice. Here is my verbatim answer to them:
Hillary Clinton has the best chance to win the general election, and that is the objective--to win, and win big (so as to win back Congress).
She can be a leader to unify the Democrats, if she has the right program, which in my view should be the following:*
1) A Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and support for a variety of measures--such as ease of registration, Federal control over redistricting abuse, absentee or early voting- to open up and facilitate popular (as opposed to elitist) participation in the political process;
2) A new set of environmental measures suited to addressing the challenge of climate change;
3) Investment in infrastructure, education, and retraining for a competitive future economy;
4) Settling the long-term budgetary issues of the retirement and healthcare programs in a way that deals equitably with each generation's concerns and assures the programs' long-term survival; and
5) She should announce--before her nomination acceptance speech, maybe when she has the nomination locked up, that she will serve for one term only!
The only problem for some will be her close relations with business and with the military-industrial complex (she is a hawk, no doubt). The key will be her strong stance for helping the middle-and lower-classes economically and to propose a clear plan to wind up the war in the middle east (if it is still going on in 2016).
Obviously, serving for just one term will break the glass ceiling, she will avoid nasty comments about being old, and avoid the Second-Term Syndrome (which has affected every Presidency in 50 years). The Democrats can have their battle over future leadership four years later, having accomplished a great deal in her single, historic term in office. I call it "The Polk Option", after Pres. Polk in the 1840's who did something comparable.
I am Ready for Hillary!
*And I have a catchy name for the program: "Vision 20/20"
(as in, seeing things clearly, getting it done by 2020).
Attentive readers will recognize many of the same points in the above that I made in my previous post on "The Polk Option" earlier this year--I have not changed my mind one iota on this topic, and I am willing to spout freely on the subject as long as space permits, to anyone who might listen. My next recipients of this unsolicited advice will probably be James Carville--a noted, though untitled, Clintonian--and Stephanie Schriock, a journalist/political advisor/Emily's list director whom I like a lot, and who is rumored to be in contention to be Hillary's campaign manager.
I am not asking for Hillary to announce her one-term plan so early, or as a condition for my support (though I will enthusiastically support the idea if I hear it is being considered): She should think--and discuss with her advisors--about the optimum timing for such an announcement (above, I suggest either her nomination acceptance speech, or to keep things interesting once she has wrapped up the nomination). I do feel very strongly that this is the right thing for her to do, the politically most advantageous approach, and one that will cost her none of her effectiveness as President--it will help her win a big majority in Congress, which she will need to accomplish her reforms.
I do ask--require--that she have a plan for what she wants to accomplish as President, in order to earn my support, and for me to feel it appropriate to advocate her Presidency to anyone else. I also am concerned about the ISIS/Afghanistan moves President Obama has made recently--not their validity in the sense of the war against the pathological ISIS, or the intransigent reactionaries of the Taliban--but the political box they may end up putting Hillary into if the wars do not go well enough to permit Obama to begin pulling back by 2016.
Finally, I would like to provide a little historical backup for my contention above that the last President who has had a successful second term is Eisenhower--in the sense of being able to continue effectively the policies and approach of the first term. It's probably out of the question now for Obama; though I feel he can still accomplish a great deal, possibly more than he has in the first six years, whatever he does from here on would be as the result of a complete change of approach, one in which he may have already made a few dramatic steps. The clock is ticking, though, and Congress is against him.
JFK - didn't make it to a second term
LBJ - the second half of his second term (counting the 1 1/2 years from '63-'65 as his first) was totally ruined by the Vietnam War morass he allowed the US to sink into
Nixon - didn't make it through the second term (Watergate)
Ford - not re-elected
Carter - not re-elected
Reagan - Iran-Contra was just the clearest example of a second-term Presidency with lights on, nobody home (the man was senile in his second term, face it)
Poppy Bush - not- re-elected
Clinton - Didn't get much done in the second term, except surviving impeachment and getting some backlash support in the '98 midterm elections.
Dubya - To my way of thinking, he was not nearly as odious in the second term as in the first, but his popularity hit the skids by 2006 and never rebounded. Plus, he presided over the collapse of the economy into the Great Crater--if you call that presiding.
Obama - Political pattern paralleling Dubya, only for the other party. Gets zero credit for the slow but steady recovery of the economy from the worst recession since the '30's (or early '80's, if you want to argue the point).
Ferguson This, Ferguson That
I have ignored this simmering pot and its frequent spillovers up until now, but I think it's time to make a few points, which should be clearer than they are from all the attention being given to the case:*
1) Mothers (and fathers), you need to tell your children not to pick fights with armed police officers. Not just black kids, all kids should understand that. Whatever irrelevant details about Michael Brown and his life are thrown around, one fact is clear: he made a big mistake challenging the police officer, and he ended up paying with his life.
2) The DA is being totally disingenuous with his "all of the evidence" line. A grand jury exists to indict the people the DA wants indicted, end of story. I don't need to examine the reams of evidence to figure out that his strategy was to baffle them with b.s. so they would not return an indictment.
As an aside, I recommend watching the film "Q and A" (1990, good performances from Nick Nolte as the bad cop, Tim Hutton as the conflicted Assistant D.A., and others as well). It was written by a State Circuit Judge named Edwin Torres, who knew what he was talking about from experience. (I actually had the occasion to be a juror in his courtroom roughly around that time--a typically lousy case, the only kind that actually goes to a jury these days.) The movie's fictional case was quite different from Ferguson's, but the principles which apply to the Ferguson case are the same that are spelled out in the movie (though, slight spoiler, the case is not resolved in the courtroom): the DA selects the facts that are presented to the grand jury, and thus the outcome.
3) The cop was genuinely scared--maybe angry, somewhat legitimately--and overreacted with excessive use of force. He didn't have the right equipment to subdue Brown in a non-lethal way, nor did he have a partner who would have balanced out the power relationship in the incident. So, yes, the officer is to blame, but no, the blame is hardly exclusively on him.
4) It's not over. There will be a civil case, and the officer may lose it. Cops in the US are almost never criminally indicted for bad policing, and that's true whether the cop is black, white, or brown, and also with regard to the victims of it. A civil case is a different matter, and it will largely depend on the skill of jury selection, to which both sides are likely to apply high-priced legal/statistical muscle.
5) The real issue hasn't seemed to come up lately: Why is a town with a black majority being run by a bunch of prejudiced whiteys? There was an election between the actual incident and the current crisis: did the blacks show up and vote them out? Why or why not?
Final, heavily-opinionated note: I am taken back in my musings to the days of the late '60's/early '70's, when "pigs" was a name often applied to the forces of law-and-order (police, also the National Guard). That kind of epithet drew a strong counter-reaction, one which was entirely successful for some 30-40 years. That extreme action/reaction produced a synthesis which basically has left any kind of police behavior beyond reproach from the judicial system. Violent reaction is, of course, not the right answer, but a little bit more translation of healthy skepticism into policies which reduce lethal use of force and put review of police actions in the hands of more independent authorities would be worth a sober examination. It's hard to imagine the Ferguson hysterics leading to that, however.
*Way too much attention, in my view: for me, the Florida Trayvon Martin case was a clearer case of unusual injustice--this is just the "normal" kind.
1) Mothers (and fathers), you need to tell your children not to pick fights with armed police officers. Not just black kids, all kids should understand that. Whatever irrelevant details about Michael Brown and his life are thrown around, one fact is clear: he made a big mistake challenging the police officer, and he ended up paying with his life.
2) The DA is being totally disingenuous with his "all of the evidence" line. A grand jury exists to indict the people the DA wants indicted, end of story. I don't need to examine the reams of evidence to figure out that his strategy was to baffle them with b.s. so they would not return an indictment.
As an aside, I recommend watching the film "Q and A" (1990, good performances from Nick Nolte as the bad cop, Tim Hutton as the conflicted Assistant D.A., and others as well). It was written by a State Circuit Judge named Edwin Torres, who knew what he was talking about from experience. (I actually had the occasion to be a juror in his courtroom roughly around that time--a typically lousy case, the only kind that actually goes to a jury these days.) The movie's fictional case was quite different from Ferguson's, but the principles which apply to the Ferguson case are the same that are spelled out in the movie (though, slight spoiler, the case is not resolved in the courtroom): the DA selects the facts that are presented to the grand jury, and thus the outcome.
3) The cop was genuinely scared--maybe angry, somewhat legitimately--and overreacted with excessive use of force. He didn't have the right equipment to subdue Brown in a non-lethal way, nor did he have a partner who would have balanced out the power relationship in the incident. So, yes, the officer is to blame, but no, the blame is hardly exclusively on him.
4) It's not over. There will be a civil case, and the officer may lose it. Cops in the US are almost never criminally indicted for bad policing, and that's true whether the cop is black, white, or brown, and also with regard to the victims of it. A civil case is a different matter, and it will largely depend on the skill of jury selection, to which both sides are likely to apply high-priced legal/statistical muscle.
5) The real issue hasn't seemed to come up lately: Why is a town with a black majority being run by a bunch of prejudiced whiteys? There was an election between the actual incident and the current crisis: did the blacks show up and vote them out? Why or why not?
Final, heavily-opinionated note: I am taken back in my musings to the days of the late '60's/early '70's, when "pigs" was a name often applied to the forces of law-and-order (police, also the National Guard). That kind of epithet drew a strong counter-reaction, one which was entirely successful for some 30-40 years. That extreme action/reaction produced a synthesis which basically has left any kind of police behavior beyond reproach from the judicial system. Violent reaction is, of course, not the right answer, but a little bit more translation of healthy skepticism into policies which reduce lethal use of force and put review of police actions in the hands of more independent authorities would be worth a sober examination. It's hard to imagine the Ferguson hysterics leading to that, however.
*Way too much attention, in my view: for me, the Florida Trayvon Martin case was a clearer case of unusual injustice--this is just the "normal" kind.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Whirl D'Oh Fares
This wordplay title restacking the more pedestrian expression "world affairs" (as if we really had any other kind of meaningful affairs than the ones here on this planet) may not fit together as a phrase, but each component has been carefully considered. First, think of of the events around us today as a wild ride, a "Tilt-a-Whirl", full of centrifugal forces throwing us apart. "D'Oh" is a Homeric reference, as in the dullard of Simpsons fame, not the blind Greek bard, and should be understood to connote the awkward and lamebrained methods the nation-states and international bodies use to confront the issues of the moment; while "fares" is a synonym for prices, as in the prices we pay now, and will pay even more in the future, for our reckless disregard for consequences.
One thing that has become clear in recent months is that a number of powerful nation-states are seeking to fill perceived vacuums and increase their ability to affect, coercively, other nations. This is called asserting a nation's "sphere of influence", and I have heard the term applied recently to Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, India, and most frequently, China and Russia.
Really, though, there is only one country with a "sphere of influence", and that is the US, which can project its influence almost anywhere on the globe. The rest of them only have "nearby regions of influence"--even Russia, which, with the possible exception of Syria, really can only bully the neighbors that are contiguous to it.
So, let's start with a nation close to my heart which is, as ever in recent decades, critical, but not determinative to the outcome of current events on the surface of our sphere. We begin with its internal issues, which are often closely connected with its behavior in the world at large.
D'oh-mestic Matters
(These observations on the US are rather obvious--to me, at least.)
The Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections proved they could win the Senate without any Hispanic votes; this is good for them because they are currently ensuring they will never get any in the future. President Obama has had plenty of time to plan the immigration Executive Order he announced this week, and it seems he has used the time well: they are outfoxed, spluttering with anger, unable to counter.
Those who looked for Obama's true colors to emerge in a second term (like me, I must admit) had to wait two more years; now he really doesn't have to concern himself about electoral consequences. That being said, "Obama being Obama" will probably have a net positive effect for his party.
Following this line of thought, Obama is racing against the clock to achieve successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that he can leave the legacy of beating down the Taliban and ISIS, without leaving troops on the battlefield. This will help Hillary Clinton in her campaign; it is essential to avoid an antiwar schism in her party which could be fatal.
The Keystone pipeline is an issue of only symbolic importance to all participants. It's now clearly established that it's not a jobs issue, there is no current problem of high oil prices that it would help affect, it's not about energy independence (as the oil will be exported elsewhere), and, finally, the Canadian tar sands oil will be developed, when it is economical to do so (now is questionable for the oil companies), whether there is a pipeline or not (they would use rail lines to send it to ports, if necessary). I predict it will be hung up in litigation for several more years, then quietly forgotten. The alternative is that someone foolishly gives the go-ahead, which would lead to massive, possibly violent, resistance. In either case, I do not think the pipeline will ever be completed, nor do I think the tar sands will remain undeveloped for long.
All these late-stage fossil fuel sources--tar sands, dirty coal, oil shale, deep gas, undersea deposits--are best left in the ground for our grandchildren to exploit, when technologies will be far more advanced, resulting in much lower social costs. It's OK to experiment with some of these new methods (preferably in relatively uninhabited areas) and develop the techniques, but we really should be investing now in the renewable sources and slowing the drain of these irreplaceable non-renewable sources. We will still need petrochemicals for some purposes a century from now.
As for the polar bears--the poster children for charities looking to hold back climate change--we may as well face the fact that Arctic Sea ice is going away. I'd like to suggest an idea, inspired by the nests we put on poles for the raptors in some locations: we should put floating platforms, anchored in some way, out on the Arctic Sea, spaced properly to support a desired number of polar bears in their aquatic foraging. It seems like a good idea to me--let's see how the bears like it (I'm sure there would be a certain amount of pushing and shoving for space on the platforms.)
There is now a single US meta-issue: to use Tolkien's phrasing, "one issue to rule them all and in the darkness bind them". It's the failure, so far, to come up with the means or the strategy which will make the meaningful electoral/political reforms we need. Until this is addressed, the Republicans will continue to come up with tricks to hide their strategy of preventing "popular sovereignty" (a phrase from the political slavery battles of the 1800's; it means the untrammeled exercise of the people's will); elites will continue to control legislation, or the blocking of legislation; the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, the middle-class scarcer. This needs to become the central campaign issue of 2016, but it needs to be done in the right way to achieve progress.
The Democrats' biggest problem right now is the inability to distinguish between the fundamentally non-partisan nature of the meta-issue of electoral reform (as all of us will benefit from progress in democratic institutions) and their own partisan interest in it--as greater democracy will inevitably benefit the Democratic party. According to a HuffPost poll, a 53-23 majority support a Constitutional amendment (48% among Republicans) to overturn Citizens United; the trick will be getting the 22% "unsure" to weigh in for democracy, and not to forget about this ugly 2014 campaign until the next one comes up with even more waste and negativity. Even Bernie Sanders, who hardly qualifies as a Democrat, makes the mistake of seeing this as a partisan issue, differentiating between the Democratic and Republican positions on Citizens United, voter ID, and the like
The latest trick is trying to leverage the states' power to control the method of selecting their Electors to the odious Electoral College. There are two states that consistently vote Democratic for President and have a Republican governor with Republican-dominated state legislatures, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both states are candidates to go the Maine/Nebraska route and assign most of their electoral votes based on the popular vote of the individual Congressional districts, which could send half or more of the EV to the Republicans. (Florida could become another candidate before long, if the national Republican party keeps alienating the Hispanics.) This is a fairly desperate move, and its passage would reflect badly on the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan, both of whom may end up being candidates for the Presidential nomination (or, more likely, the Vice-Presidential one)--their support would indicate they recognize their inability to carry their home state in a national election. .
Of course, the Electoral College itself (the all-or-nothing voting; its separation from the popular vote) is another example, though in this case the Democrats seem to be benefiting from its un-democratic nature: if the Presidential election were decided based on the majority vote by Congressional district, for example, the Democrats' Presidential near-lock would be long gone.
The smart Democratic strategy is to assist in riling up the electorate about the deficiencies in our political process--the constant appeals for money, the dark money, the constant negative ads, gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc.--then let the anger move forward on its own, non-partisan momentum, and reap the benefits afterwards.
Over the Horizon
As a transition, let's start with a few comments about Ebola. It has become a major problem this year in several African countries, and its containment has not yet been achieved, but the idea that it became a significant campaign issue this year in the US was beyond "D'oh"--it was malicious misinformation. There have been a handful of cases in the US, of people working in healthcare in the outbreak areas in Africa who have caught it and come back for treatment, and two healthcare workers who caught it from one of those people. That's it. It presents a serious challenge to public health, but not in the US. If there is an issue of concern outside the affected region, it was about the slow response of the formal international health agencies to the evidence that the Ebola outbreak was surging beyond levels previously seen.
I would compare Ebola to be most similar, in the nature of the course of the disease in humans, to the plague. Although Ebola is a virus, not a bacterium like the plague, they have in common several facts: outbreaks begin with the transmission from an animal to a person, they produce very acute infections with high mortality rates, they are moderately contagious, difficult but not impossible to treat, and outbreaks can be controlled by modern medicine with some basic precautions. This is not to minimize the severity of the plague, which killed a large percentage of the population of Europe in the 14th century, with serious outbreaks for centuries afterwards, but to say that, though the plague is still around, we can handle the outbreaks if we use some intelligence.
Much more dangerous in America are the continuous outbreaks of Nutballs with Guns; in some other countries, Nostalgic Jihadi Fever. I feel sad for those impressionable youths in many countries who are inspired to go, voluntarily, into the hellholes of ISIS-occupied Syria and Iraq; I should have much more sympathy still for those who live there and cannot leave, but both groups should be made aware that any illusions of tranquil, Sharia-inspired, religiously orthodox life there are impossible under a regime such as ISIS', as impossible as ISIS' dreams of world dominion. There are only two possible outcomes for those there: moderation and integration, or collective doom.
Even if Obama is successful in bringing Iraq and Afghanistan to some kind of positive result, though, there will still be huge problems for the next President to deal with: Syria--even apart from the tumor of ISIS--has no solution in sight, Iran could become a huge issue if the current nuclear talks fail, and now it looks as though the stagnant Israel-Palestine issue may be about to overheat. It's now Jerusalem, not just Gaza, or even the West Bank, which is the hot spot of the confrontation, which to me indicates the issue is heading for a climax; meanwhile, the possibility of an agreement on the "two-state solution" is ever more remote.
I come back often to the rising importance of Turkey in the 21st century whirl. Along with Russia (maybe Israel), it is the only country with ambitions to be a direct player in both Europe and in Asia. Its lengthy borders with Syria and with Iran will make it a critical component in the international efforts directed toward those countries, whether in war or in peace. Turkey is a longtime ally of the US and a critical member of NATO (it has its second-largest standing military); its role is consistently underrated. It has been a critical counterweight to Russian expansionism since the Tsarist period, and it is once again in countering the new czar, Putin. As the only significant democracy in an Islamic-majority nation in the region (a possible argument could be made for Lebanon), its behavior is an important indicator of how events are perceived by moderate Muslims there. A good example is its up-and-down relationship with Israel, a barometer of that country's ability to get along with its neighbors.
Turkey aims to join the European Community (if not the European Union); its dynamic economy could provide a boost to that somewhat stagnant (economically and demographically) group, but doing so in a way that explains the resistance: Europe fears integration with such a large Islamic population--superficially for concerns about immigration and job security, but xenophobia is just as strong a factor. In fact, Turkey's people, in terms of per capita GDP, are more wealthy than several states already in the EU.
Turkey was criticized for a lack of alacrity in springing to the US' call to arms against ISIS; it has moved forward, but its hesitancy and ambivalence are apparent. This is a complex problem for President Erdogan: Turkey is strongly opposed to the regime of Syrian President Assad, who has oppressed the country's Sunni majority (Turkey has a Sunni majority, as well), and Turkey has had to absorb milions of refugees from the Syrian Civil War. ISIS' gruesome aggression has inflamed the passions of the Kurds, who are in a life-and-death struggle in parts of Syria (read this eyewitness account of the epic Kobane battle) and in Iraq, and who have been fighting for decades for autonomy in Turkey: Erdogan has sought a middle ground between support for Kurdish separatists and pacifying his anguished Kurdish minority. And, there is the inescapable fact that any help he gives to the battle against ISIS will inevitably help Assad. At the end of the day, the help Turkey will give to contain and destroy ISIS will be conditioned on taking actions to prevent Assad's taking advantage, or it will be passive assistance.
Pivot to (East) Asia
This post is getting long, and we haven't gotten to the populous hub of the world. We hope to return soon to the broader topic and pick up some other areas: Western Europe and its doldrums, Africa, Latin America and Mexico (dealing with a climactic moment in its struggle against the narco-trafficking mobs), Canada (which recently showed us once again its greater maturity in dealing with a security crisis), South Asia, our antipodal mirror image Australia, and Antarctica.
Among our US Presidents, there have been various sportsmen: Teddy Roosevelt the big-game hunter, Gerald Ford was an All-American football player, Poppy Bush a star baseball first baseman (I think Reagan and Nixon played football, too; Dubya was a cheerleader....) I feel confident saying that our current President is the only basketball player among them, so when Obama talks about making a pivot to Asia, he actually knows what he is talking about. Keep one foot planted in the home turf, and spin body and front foot to the East....
One of the most significant developments in recent months has been the rise of Xi Jinping as the undisputed top leader in China. Unlike some of his recent predecessors, his style is less being first among many and more using his decision-making authority to focus it even more on himself. He is surely the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping.
China flexes its muscles in trying to shoulder aside the claims of Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines around disputed islands in the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. The objective appears to be economic, not territorial expansion, as control of these islands may permit offshore drilling, and China remains highly dependent on imported oil. So far, Xi has not weighed in on the Hong Kong democracy movement's challenge to Beijing's limitations on the free election of the territory's chief executive; when he does so, the matter will be settled. I would imagine he is looking for a peaceful outcome and wishes to avoid another Tienanmen-style heavy-handed one.
Japan seems to be falling back into recession yet again. Prime Minister Abe seized the moment of the announcement of a negative GDP to announce early Parliamentary elections. To be honest, I don't understand the logic, unless it's that he is so confident of winning, and then subsequently he plans to do something to upset the electorate. Like, stimulating the economy, maybe?
Finally, I want to congratulate the new President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, or as he's known, Jokowi. He seems to have the popular touch, and so a bit different from previous Indonesian heads of state, who were from rich, dynastic families or prominent military figures. Indonesia is another country whose importance to the US and to the world economy is not fully understood, a vast, multicultural population with a Muslim majority, and now a liberal democracy.
In this month of the 25th anniversary of the annus mirabilis when the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain parted, we should recognize the enormous positive changes that have occurred in our lifetime. We still have wars, famines, pestilence, and death, but the quality of life has improved for billions. My note for Thanksgiving!
One thing that has become clear in recent months is that a number of powerful nation-states are seeking to fill perceived vacuums and increase their ability to affect, coercively, other nations. This is called asserting a nation's "sphere of influence", and I have heard the term applied recently to Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, India, and most frequently, China and Russia.
Really, though, there is only one country with a "sphere of influence", and that is the US, which can project its influence almost anywhere on the globe. The rest of them only have "nearby regions of influence"--even Russia, which, with the possible exception of Syria, really can only bully the neighbors that are contiguous to it.
So, let's start with a nation close to my heart which is, as ever in recent decades, critical, but not determinative to the outcome of current events on the surface of our sphere. We begin with its internal issues, which are often closely connected with its behavior in the world at large.
D'oh-mestic Matters
(These observations on the US are rather obvious--to me, at least.)
The Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections proved they could win the Senate without any Hispanic votes; this is good for them because they are currently ensuring they will never get any in the future. President Obama has had plenty of time to plan the immigration Executive Order he announced this week, and it seems he has used the time well: they are outfoxed, spluttering with anger, unable to counter.
Those who looked for Obama's true colors to emerge in a second term (like me, I must admit) had to wait two more years; now he really doesn't have to concern himself about electoral consequences. That being said, "Obama being Obama" will probably have a net positive effect for his party.
Following this line of thought, Obama is racing against the clock to achieve successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that he can leave the legacy of beating down the Taliban and ISIS, without leaving troops on the battlefield. This will help Hillary Clinton in her campaign; it is essential to avoid an antiwar schism in her party which could be fatal.
The Keystone pipeline is an issue of only symbolic importance to all participants. It's now clearly established that it's not a jobs issue, there is no current problem of high oil prices that it would help affect, it's not about energy independence (as the oil will be exported elsewhere), and, finally, the Canadian tar sands oil will be developed, when it is economical to do so (now is questionable for the oil companies), whether there is a pipeline or not (they would use rail lines to send it to ports, if necessary). I predict it will be hung up in litigation for several more years, then quietly forgotten. The alternative is that someone foolishly gives the go-ahead, which would lead to massive, possibly violent, resistance. In either case, I do not think the pipeline will ever be completed, nor do I think the tar sands will remain undeveloped for long.
All these late-stage fossil fuel sources--tar sands, dirty coal, oil shale, deep gas, undersea deposits--are best left in the ground for our grandchildren to exploit, when technologies will be far more advanced, resulting in much lower social costs. It's OK to experiment with some of these new methods (preferably in relatively uninhabited areas) and develop the techniques, but we really should be investing now in the renewable sources and slowing the drain of these irreplaceable non-renewable sources. We will still need petrochemicals for some purposes a century from now.
As for the polar bears--the poster children for charities looking to hold back climate change--we may as well face the fact that Arctic Sea ice is going away. I'd like to suggest an idea, inspired by the nests we put on poles for the raptors in some locations: we should put floating platforms, anchored in some way, out on the Arctic Sea, spaced properly to support a desired number of polar bears in their aquatic foraging. It seems like a good idea to me--let's see how the bears like it (I'm sure there would be a certain amount of pushing and shoving for space on the platforms.)
There is now a single US meta-issue: to use Tolkien's phrasing, "one issue to rule them all and in the darkness bind them". It's the failure, so far, to come up with the means or the strategy which will make the meaningful electoral/political reforms we need. Until this is addressed, the Republicans will continue to come up with tricks to hide their strategy of preventing "popular sovereignty" (a phrase from the political slavery battles of the 1800's; it means the untrammeled exercise of the people's will); elites will continue to control legislation, or the blocking of legislation; the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, the middle-class scarcer. This needs to become the central campaign issue of 2016, but it needs to be done in the right way to achieve progress.
The Democrats' biggest problem right now is the inability to distinguish between the fundamentally non-partisan nature of the meta-issue of electoral reform (as all of us will benefit from progress in democratic institutions) and their own partisan interest in it--as greater democracy will inevitably benefit the Democratic party. According to a HuffPost poll, a 53-23 majority support a Constitutional amendment (48% among Republicans) to overturn Citizens United; the trick will be getting the 22% "unsure" to weigh in for democracy, and not to forget about this ugly 2014 campaign until the next one comes up with even more waste and negativity. Even Bernie Sanders, who hardly qualifies as a Democrat, makes the mistake of seeing this as a partisan issue, differentiating between the Democratic and Republican positions on Citizens United, voter ID, and the like
The latest trick is trying to leverage the states' power to control the method of selecting their Electors to the odious Electoral College. There are two states that consistently vote Democratic for President and have a Republican governor with Republican-dominated state legislatures, Michigan and Wisconsin. Both states are candidates to go the Maine/Nebraska route and assign most of their electoral votes based on the popular vote of the individual Congressional districts, which could send half or more of the EV to the Republicans. (Florida could become another candidate before long, if the national Republican party keeps alienating the Hispanics.) This is a fairly desperate move, and its passage would reflect badly on the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan, both of whom may end up being candidates for the Presidential nomination (or, more likely, the Vice-Presidential one)--their support would indicate they recognize their inability to carry their home state in a national election. .
Of course, the Electoral College itself (the all-or-nothing voting; its separation from the popular vote) is another example, though in this case the Democrats seem to be benefiting from its un-democratic nature: if the Presidential election were decided based on the majority vote by Congressional district, for example, the Democrats' Presidential near-lock would be long gone.
The smart Democratic strategy is to assist in riling up the electorate about the deficiencies in our political process--the constant appeals for money, the dark money, the constant negative ads, gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc.--then let the anger move forward on its own, non-partisan momentum, and reap the benefits afterwards.
Over the Horizon
As a transition, let's start with a few comments about Ebola. It has become a major problem this year in several African countries, and its containment has not yet been achieved, but the idea that it became a significant campaign issue this year in the US was beyond "D'oh"--it was malicious misinformation. There have been a handful of cases in the US, of people working in healthcare in the outbreak areas in Africa who have caught it and come back for treatment, and two healthcare workers who caught it from one of those people. That's it. It presents a serious challenge to public health, but not in the US. If there is an issue of concern outside the affected region, it was about the slow response of the formal international health agencies to the evidence that the Ebola outbreak was surging beyond levels previously seen.
I would compare Ebola to be most similar, in the nature of the course of the disease in humans, to the plague. Although Ebola is a virus, not a bacterium like the plague, they have in common several facts: outbreaks begin with the transmission from an animal to a person, they produce very acute infections with high mortality rates, they are moderately contagious, difficult but not impossible to treat, and outbreaks can be controlled by modern medicine with some basic precautions. This is not to minimize the severity of the plague, which killed a large percentage of the population of Europe in the 14th century, with serious outbreaks for centuries afterwards, but to say that, though the plague is still around, we can handle the outbreaks if we use some intelligence.
Much more dangerous in America are the continuous outbreaks of Nutballs with Guns; in some other countries, Nostalgic Jihadi Fever. I feel sad for those impressionable youths in many countries who are inspired to go, voluntarily, into the hellholes of ISIS-occupied Syria and Iraq; I should have much more sympathy still for those who live there and cannot leave, but both groups should be made aware that any illusions of tranquil, Sharia-inspired, religiously orthodox life there are impossible under a regime such as ISIS', as impossible as ISIS' dreams of world dominion. There are only two possible outcomes for those there: moderation and integration, or collective doom.
Even if Obama is successful in bringing Iraq and Afghanistan to some kind of positive result, though, there will still be huge problems for the next President to deal with: Syria--even apart from the tumor of ISIS--has no solution in sight, Iran could become a huge issue if the current nuclear talks fail, and now it looks as though the stagnant Israel-Palestine issue may be about to overheat. It's now Jerusalem, not just Gaza, or even the West Bank, which is the hot spot of the confrontation, which to me indicates the issue is heading for a climax; meanwhile, the possibility of an agreement on the "two-state solution" is ever more remote.
I come back often to the rising importance of Turkey in the 21st century whirl. Along with Russia (maybe Israel), it is the only country with ambitions to be a direct player in both Europe and in Asia. Its lengthy borders with Syria and with Iran will make it a critical component in the international efforts directed toward those countries, whether in war or in peace. Turkey is a longtime ally of the US and a critical member of NATO (it has its second-largest standing military); its role is consistently underrated. It has been a critical counterweight to Russian expansionism since the Tsarist period, and it is once again in countering the new czar, Putin. As the only significant democracy in an Islamic-majority nation in the region (a possible argument could be made for Lebanon), its behavior is an important indicator of how events are perceived by moderate Muslims there. A good example is its up-and-down relationship with Israel, a barometer of that country's ability to get along with its neighbors.
Turkey aims to join the European Community (if not the European Union); its dynamic economy could provide a boost to that somewhat stagnant (economically and demographically) group, but doing so in a way that explains the resistance: Europe fears integration with such a large Islamic population--superficially for concerns about immigration and job security, but xenophobia is just as strong a factor. In fact, Turkey's people, in terms of per capita GDP, are more wealthy than several states already in the EU.
Turkey was criticized for a lack of alacrity in springing to the US' call to arms against ISIS; it has moved forward, but its hesitancy and ambivalence are apparent. This is a complex problem for President Erdogan: Turkey is strongly opposed to the regime of Syrian President Assad, who has oppressed the country's Sunni majority (Turkey has a Sunni majority, as well), and Turkey has had to absorb milions of refugees from the Syrian Civil War. ISIS' gruesome aggression has inflamed the passions of the Kurds, who are in a life-and-death struggle in parts of Syria (read this eyewitness account of the epic Kobane battle) and in Iraq, and who have been fighting for decades for autonomy in Turkey: Erdogan has sought a middle ground between support for Kurdish separatists and pacifying his anguished Kurdish minority. And, there is the inescapable fact that any help he gives to the battle against ISIS will inevitably help Assad. At the end of the day, the help Turkey will give to contain and destroy ISIS will be conditioned on taking actions to prevent Assad's taking advantage, or it will be passive assistance.
Pivot to (East) Asia
This post is getting long, and we haven't gotten to the populous hub of the world. We hope to return soon to the broader topic and pick up some other areas: Western Europe and its doldrums, Africa, Latin America and Mexico (dealing with a climactic moment in its struggle against the narco-trafficking mobs), Canada (which recently showed us once again its greater maturity in dealing with a security crisis), South Asia, our antipodal mirror image Australia, and Antarctica.
Among our US Presidents, there have been various sportsmen: Teddy Roosevelt the big-game hunter, Gerald Ford was an All-American football player, Poppy Bush a star baseball first baseman (I think Reagan and Nixon played football, too; Dubya was a cheerleader....) I feel confident saying that our current President is the only basketball player among them, so when Obama talks about making a pivot to Asia, he actually knows what he is talking about. Keep one foot planted in the home turf, and spin body and front foot to the East....
One of the most significant developments in recent months has been the rise of Xi Jinping as the undisputed top leader in China. Unlike some of his recent predecessors, his style is less being first among many and more using his decision-making authority to focus it even more on himself. He is surely the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping.
China flexes its muscles in trying to shoulder aside the claims of Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines around disputed islands in the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan. The objective appears to be economic, not territorial expansion, as control of these islands may permit offshore drilling, and China remains highly dependent on imported oil. So far, Xi has not weighed in on the Hong Kong democracy movement's challenge to Beijing's limitations on the free election of the territory's chief executive; when he does so, the matter will be settled. I would imagine he is looking for a peaceful outcome and wishes to avoid another Tienanmen-style heavy-handed one.
Japan seems to be falling back into recession yet again. Prime Minister Abe seized the moment of the announcement of a negative GDP to announce early Parliamentary elections. To be honest, I don't understand the logic, unless it's that he is so confident of winning, and then subsequently he plans to do something to upset the electorate. Like, stimulating the economy, maybe?
Finally, I want to congratulate the new President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, or as he's known, Jokowi. He seems to have the popular touch, and so a bit different from previous Indonesian heads of state, who were from rich, dynastic families or prominent military figures. Indonesia is another country whose importance to the US and to the world economy is not fully understood, a vast, multicultural population with a Muslim majority, and now a liberal democracy.
In this month of the 25th anniversary of the annus mirabilis when the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain parted, we should recognize the enormous positive changes that have occurred in our lifetime. We still have wars, famines, pestilence, and death, but the quality of life has improved for billions. My note for Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Mike Nichols
I subscribe to a service with CNN that provides me brief email notices of "Breaking News". Mysteriously, I received a couple yesterday that were empty--no news item contained within. I figure now that one of them must have been the notification of the death of Mike Nichols.
Let's call him a film director, as he was one of huge importance. He, along with a few others--I would name Altman, Scorsese, maybe Coppola, Woody Allen, the odious Brian De Palma--were the key figures in the Renaissance of Hollywood film making in the late '60's and early '70's, a wave to which others gave additional impetus, and is just now, maybe, starting to break. In his heyday, he made the big movies--movies with big actors, big scripts, big budgets--but they were not like today's movies, about Big Toys, or The Most Amazing Thing That Ever Could Have Been Accomplished If It Were True. His characters were not superheroes; sometimes antiheroes, sometimes villains, sometimes just regular folks. His movies, without exception I would think, were stories of people, and the portrayal through people's actions of their motivations, their inner feelings, their place in society, their anger, their sense of humor. His art was very humane.
His first films were like cannon shots: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", "The Graduate". If he stopped there, with that film (his only Academy Award winner), his place in film history would be secure. Then he made "Catch-22" and "Carnal Knowledge"--at that time, the release of a Mike Nichols film was major entertainment news. He would cool off, put out his share of flops, but still he came up with some winners through the decades: "Silkwood", "Working Girl", "The Birdcage", and his last major release (in 2007), "Charlie Wilson's War", about the secret aid in the '80's to the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets.
He was also much more than a film director, though I didn't know so much about the other parts. With Elaine May, he had a successful comedy team in the 1950's (!) and was instrumental in starting Second City, the improvisational troupe that sourced most of the stars of Saturday Night Live, through all of its run to date. He was a producer of stage, very successfully, and movies as well. Most notably, he was the producer and director of the TV miniseries version of "Angels in America", one of the finest TV productions in the history of the medium.
We will probably now learn more about his life; he seems to have been a private person. His imdb.com biography points out that he was real name was "Michael Igor Peschkowsky", born in Berlin in 1931. That should mean something that we should learn more about; how did he become "Mike Nichols"?
The younger generation may not know Mike Nichols. They should watch some of his work, but doing so they should be careful not to conclude that he was just working the same vein as all the '60's rehash nostalgia stuff. Instead, they should realize that, like the Beatles, or the Kennedys, his work is one of the motherlodes, where it all came from.
Let's call him a film director, as he was one of huge importance. He, along with a few others--I would name Altman, Scorsese, maybe Coppola, Woody Allen, the odious Brian De Palma--were the key figures in the Renaissance of Hollywood film making in the late '60's and early '70's, a wave to which others gave additional impetus, and is just now, maybe, starting to break. In his heyday, he made the big movies--movies with big actors, big scripts, big budgets--but they were not like today's movies, about Big Toys, or The Most Amazing Thing That Ever Could Have Been Accomplished If It Were True. His characters were not superheroes; sometimes antiheroes, sometimes villains, sometimes just regular folks. His movies, without exception I would think, were stories of people, and the portrayal through people's actions of their motivations, their inner feelings, their place in society, their anger, their sense of humor. His art was very humane.
His first films were like cannon shots: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", "The Graduate". If he stopped there, with that film (his only Academy Award winner), his place in film history would be secure. Then he made "Catch-22" and "Carnal Knowledge"--at that time, the release of a Mike Nichols film was major entertainment news. He would cool off, put out his share of flops, but still he came up with some winners through the decades: "Silkwood", "Working Girl", "The Birdcage", and his last major release (in 2007), "Charlie Wilson's War", about the secret aid in the '80's to the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets.
He was also much more than a film director, though I didn't know so much about the other parts. With Elaine May, he had a successful comedy team in the 1950's (!) and was instrumental in starting Second City, the improvisational troupe that sourced most of the stars of Saturday Night Live, through all of its run to date. He was a producer of stage, very successfully, and movies as well. Most notably, he was the producer and director of the TV miniseries version of "Angels in America", one of the finest TV productions in the history of the medium.
We will probably now learn more about his life; he seems to have been a private person. His imdb.com biography points out that he was real name was "Michael Igor Peschkowsky", born in Berlin in 1931. That should mean something that we should learn more about; how did he become "Mike Nichols"?
The younger generation may not know Mike Nichols. They should watch some of his work, but doing so they should be careful not to conclude that he was just working the same vein as all the '60's rehash nostalgia stuff. Instead, they should realize that, like the Beatles, or the Kennedys, his work is one of the motherlodes, where it all came from.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
Accomplished: 0; Spent: $4 billion--A few lessons
Of course, that's just my perspective. Based on my scoring proposed in my final Pre-election post, absolutely none of the objectives were accomplished. A few things of a negative nature were accomplished, though I did not put a pre-election valuation on them:
What did I learn? No more money for piecemeal contributions to individual candidates, trying to leverage close races (my miserable $5-$10 bits, spread around too widely, were drowned by megabucks, even if they added up to more than 1 or 2 ninety-millionths of that $4 billion in wasted money, 90,000,000 being the approximate number of voters in the elections); almost all of the candidates I backed lost (and it is stupid to try to improve that percentage by only contributing to candidates who are going to win, at my level). It was like throwing a coin to a few selected beggars who were all crowded around me; there were always more of them, and even the ones who received my pittance immediately came back for more.
Although President Obama will continue to labor tirelessly for us ingrates, I don't feel there is much he can do or could have done this time around. What, exactly (without getting into name-calling), is the problem with him, anyway? (That's directed to those who "disapprove" of him.) To give just the most obvious example, the economy was in shambles and falling into a deep Crater when he came in; his policies helped get us out, and onto a reasonably healthy basis. How much credit did he get in the campaign for that? Similar things could be said about healthcare, diplomacy, involvement in wars. And Ebola? Please.
I will never draw the lesson that politics, the art and science of large-scale human interaction through the advocacy and administration of public policy, doesn't matter in this country (a conclusion many seem to have drawn); it is among the things that matter most, in the long-term view of a society which is critical for the future success of the human experiment. I will say that this election's failure will have effects that are mostly transitory (loss of opportunity), because I expect them to be washed away in two years by a larger wave, in an opposite direction, by leaders with a plan and a new organizational approach to win elections. We'll just have to muddle through a couple more years of asinine Congressional behavior, with some of the leading protagonists being the donkeys who just won their elections with their dirty money.
The face of the miserable short-term future chosen by the Florida voters "in their wisdom".
- The Republicans will have drawn the conclusion that they have just the thing to offset the Democrats' Get-Out-the-Vote strategy: dumping a couple hundred million in attack ads from dark sources in the last days of the campaign. That's what they did this time, and it moved the needle 2-3% across the board, about the equivalent of what the Democrats' GOTV can accomplish in its best days. Unfortunately, the massive money dump worked for the Republicans this time, while the Democrats' "we don't spend as much, but we do it better" did not. So, the Republicans will be even less open to the idea of spending restrictions.
- Some Democrats will have learned that their strategy--avoiding their party and their nation's leader in the hopes of maintaining some sort of squishy moderate, non-Obama Democratic posture in states where Obama approval was weak and Democratic identification also--reeked of hypocrisy and failed miserably. Those Democrats may not have much of a political career to come back to after that failure, though. A few who fell honorably and did not fail miserably as campaigners--I'm thinking of Kay Hagan, possibly Mary Landrieu if her runoff does not succeed, a few of the Congressional candidates--may live to fight another day.
- The American electorate--those low-participation, low-information voters who allowed themselves to be numbed into staying home or browbeaten into voting against their economic interests by the wave of negative ads--they will experience the joy of continued gridlock and obstruction (the Democrats might get into blocking things more, now, to give the Republicans a taste of frustration) which they have richly earned ("in their wisdom").
- The central Democratic committees will have learned that they cannot "localize" Federal elections anymore; further, state legislative and gubernatorial elections must be understood to directly impact the Federal elections through rules on voter ID, vote counting, redistricting, and now, perhaps, even Electoral College vote allocation. Also, it might help to have something like an issue to point to as a reason voters might want to choose their candidates.
What did I learn? No more money for piecemeal contributions to individual candidates, trying to leverage close races (my miserable $5-$10 bits, spread around too widely, were drowned by megabucks, even if they added up to more than 1 or 2 ninety-millionths of that $4 billion in wasted money, 90,000,000 being the approximate number of voters in the elections); almost all of the candidates I backed lost (and it is stupid to try to improve that percentage by only contributing to candidates who are going to win, at my level). It was like throwing a coin to a few selected beggars who were all crowded around me; there were always more of them, and even the ones who received my pittance immediately came back for more.
Although President Obama will continue to labor tirelessly for us ingrates, I don't feel there is much he can do or could have done this time around. What, exactly (without getting into name-calling), is the problem with him, anyway? (That's directed to those who "disapprove" of him.) To give just the most obvious example, the economy was in shambles and falling into a deep Crater when he came in; his policies helped get us out, and onto a reasonably healthy basis. How much credit did he get in the campaign for that? Similar things could be said about healthcare, diplomacy, involvement in wars. And Ebola? Please.
I will never draw the lesson that politics, the art and science of large-scale human interaction through the advocacy and administration of public policy, doesn't matter in this country (a conclusion many seem to have drawn); it is among the things that matter most, in the long-term view of a society which is critical for the future success of the human experiment. I will say that this election's failure will have effects that are mostly transitory (loss of opportunity), because I expect them to be washed away in two years by a larger wave, in an opposite direction, by leaders with a plan and a new organizational approach to win elections. We'll just have to muddle through a couple more years of asinine Congressional behavior, with some of the leading protagonists being the donkeys who just won their elections with their dirty money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
