From the Obit Desk, with a couple of Rants

It has been awhile.....

B.B. King (May 14) - B.B. King (born Riley B. King; "B.B." was an early nickname, short for "Blues Boy", back when it was not as offensive to be referred to as "boy", maybe?  Or maybe that's why it became just "B.B.") was the classic blues guitar performer of his generation, a critical link between the early greats of the Depression and post-WWII years (Sonny Boy Williamson, Son House, Robert Johnson, others) and the explosion of blues and blues-derived rock performers of the late 20th century (a compressed list could include Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Robert Cray, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Duane Allman, along with dozens of lesser-known talents).  He was not the only one fitting that description  (Howlin' Wolf, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy), but he was the most famous and the most successful and long-lived in his career (Guy is still performing).  He and his guitar "Lucille" got around, all right;  he seems to have been a generous performer, and judging by his numerous collaborations, well-loved and highly respected in the music industry.  Music fans loved him, as well.  He drew upon the original Mississippi Delta sources (the ones from Mississippi) and played the blues straight: without excessive musical embellishment on his part, and a loud, clear singing voice which had  a style influenced by gospel. He is equally known for his original pieces and his covers of blues classics. His place in the history of American music is about as secure as anyone's.

Tariq Aziz (June 5) -  I am rather shocked to find no previous reference in this blog to the Iraqi who was Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister and mouthpiece to the rest of the world.  Aziz was a Saddam crony from all the way back: he didn't have the bluster and threatening manner of Saddam, but he was involved all the way up to his neck--which, unlike Saddam's, was somehow spared after the Iraq invasion (he was sentenced to life in prison, and died there).  The fact that the invasion occurred, after all the filibustering and prevarication on all sides, was his own singular failure:  his job was to keep the foreigners talking--with him, in particular--in order to prevent them from overrunning the country and throwing out the Baathists.  I'm sure Saddam would have liquidated him for that failure if he'd had the chance.  An interesting and somewhat ironic fact is that Aziz was a Christian;  the Baathist regime was authentically secular, and that aspect of its governance seems to be lost forever from Iraq--now most of the Christians are, too.

Ed Gilligan (May 29) - He was President and Vice Chairman of American Express when he died suddenly, after becoming seriously ill on a domestic flight.  At age 55, Gilligan was among the top candidates for the eventual succession to longtime American Express Chairman Ken Chenault.  He had an unusual career in a couple of aspects:  his entire career was with the company (that is not as common among that company's senior executives as you might think), and he built his career on an usual dimension of the company:  Instead of working his way through the mainstream US Card operations or strategic direction, he built--from scratch--the company's strategy of partnering with other financial institutions and banks that wanted to issue their own cards with American Express' logo, i.e. the franchising business.  This led to his taking on responsibilities such as developing the business-to-business capability and later to heading the international card business.   He represented very well the entrepreneurial spirit that Chenault has championed for the company, as well as trying to develop value in the (not-quite-unique, but rare) proprietary card network.

Cynthia Lennon (April 1) - Beatles fans will recognize the name--Cynthia was the first wife of John Lennon, and the mother of their son Julian.  John and Cynthia married in the early Sixties, and they were divorced one year before Yoko Ono came into (took over?) John's life.  Yoko Ono wrote a very pleasant short obituary for Cynthia Lennon for Rolling Stone.

Peter Gay and William Zinsser (May 17) -  Two Yale humanities professor colleagues who died (coincidentally) the same day.  Gay was an expert on modern European cultural history, Zinsser a practitioner and teacher of the methods of clear expository writing.  Clearly, I was not a recipient of the brilliance of either's teaching!

John F. Nash and Alicia Nash (May 23) - Their simultaneous deaths were not coincidental; they died together in an auto accident on the New Jersey Turnpike.  Students of mathematics, and especially its branch called game theory (it has very little relation to today's video games, youngsters!) will be familiar with Nash's pioneering work.  Film buffs will recognize them as the principal characters in the movie "A Beautiful Mind", which focused on the crisis which mental illness brought to John Nash's life, career, and marriage.  (The movie won four Oscars: Best Picture, Director,  Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actress.)  Alicia Nash (portrayed by Jennifer Connelly for her Oscar) is herself a fascinating story: her family immigrated from El Salvador, and she gave up a promising career in math herself to help John.  The couple separated but reunited later in life; John Nash eventually regained control over the paranoid delusions which derailed him for decades.

Lennie Merullo and Beau Biden (May 30) - Unlike the previous two pairs of coterminous life endings, these two were very asymmetrical in their significance. (sorry, Prof. Zinsser!)

Chicago Cub baseball fans might rate Merullo as the more important; they are kind of fanatic in that way.  Merullo was the last living member of the last Cubs team that played in a World Series, in 1945 (the last survivor to have actually seen the Cubs win a World Series may have died already:  that event was in 1908).   Merullo continued on in a baseball-related career as a scout and died at age 98.

Beau Biden, on the other hand, is one whose life clearly ended too soon (age 46).  The son of Vice President Joe Biden, the highest office he held was Attorney General for the state of Delaware, but he seemed headed for greatness, perhaps on the national level.  When people spoke of the possible next generation of leaders in the Democratic party, his name was among them, and President Obama himself came to deliver his eulogy. He had an outstanding military career in Iraq and served two terms as Delaware's Attorney General--he was said to be preparing to run for Governor when his illness, brain cancer, felled him.

Rant the First - Beau Biden's death from this disease, one of the most feared of all, because some forms of malignant brain tumors (glioblastoma) cause death so quickly, has occasioned a new discussion of its (generally unknown) causes.  Here and here are links to two informative discussions on the topic: both mention that ionizing radiation, such as that from nuclear radiation treatment, can cause tumors later in life.  Also worth noting is that previous brain injury or disease, or genetic predisposition--both Joe Biden and Beau Biden had strokes--may be associated with a higher risk. Then both reports go to the question of cellphones and their possible association with it, the subject of my ranting wrath.

Cellphones produce radio-emitted frequency--a non-ionizing radiation, of a form similar to microwaves, which once had suspicions of being associated with possible cancer.  The microwave producers toned down the emissions (through better screens), and eventually we stopped receiving warnings about keeping our faces too close to the microwave (not something we were likely to do, anyway).  The cellphone manufacturers have consistently said there is no danger--of course, they would say that--and have said that they have also reduced the radiation produced.  (Which begs the question: Why would they reduce it, if there was no danger?  And, what about those who used to use cellphones back in the primitive old days?)

The scientific community has not definitively concluded on this question:  there is "conflicting evidence", though perhaps more weighted to the negative side in terms of statistically significant correlations. (The evidence is a bit complicated, as there are different types of tumors, some of which the statistical evidence argues are more likely with cellphone use, some actually less likely, and don't forget to consider the question of "reporting bias" from those who later fall ill.)

I have to say I really don't like the sound of this at all:  we are producing hundreds of millions of cellphones each year, and we're not really sure if they contribute to brain cancer or not?  Unlike the microwave, we do put these things up close to our brains every day--at least most people do, though the versatility of the phones for other purposes, and the improvement of the "speaker" phone and plug-in earphone/microphone attachments make this less of an exclusive manner of use.  I don't want to say that this sounds like the debates that went on for decades about cigarette smoking and lung cancer, because I really hope it's not analogous, but....I find the unsettled nature of this question to be unacceptable.  (Yes, I know, "climate change deniers", science is never settled.)

It seems like we will have to wait 15-20 years (who knows how long it takes for these cancers all to appear, if they are in fact "caused" by an external factor?) to see if the incidence of deadly brain cancer rises dramatically--or not.

In the meantime, Berkeley, California has passed an ordinance requiring warnings about use of cellphones too close to the body.  The FCC has issued guidelines on the maximum-allowed Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), but research indicates that varies widely by the type of phone and the conditions under which the phone is operating (when it is working harder to receive transmission, it steps up the energy level!)  Call me scurrilous, but I'm advising all to keep the phones at least a couple of inches away from any sensitive organs, such as, for example, your brains.

Rant the Second - A couple of weeks ago, we celebrated Memorial Day, in which we honor those Americans who have fallen in the service of our country in our wars. I certainly share in the serious remembrance of them, and I would suggest we consider as well those innocents of all nations who have suffered in them.   Like any American, I honor our military's bravery, and I feel that our participants in those struggles have always had honorable intentions when they went to war.  My only reservation is that I feel that, as a nation, we are sometimes too willing to go to war, to believe what we are told as the reasons that we are warring.

With regard to this topic, I heard a couple of times this year what I considered to be an offensive statement:  that this is the first Memorial Day in 14 years in which the US is not at war.  (Here's an example, from Newsweek.)   There is arguably a shade of difference in the level of the US participation in conflict this year as compared to the last 14 years (the reference is to 2001, when we entered the conflict in Afghanistan after 9/11):  our participation in the hostilities in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, may have "officially" ended, but that's neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.  We haven't been in a declared war since 1945, and the conflicts go on, with our active participation, in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and in a couple other countries, like Yemen, Syria, and Somalia).

What those who would say we are not "at war" mean is that we do not have "boots on the ground" in "active combat roles"--though of course we do have them grounded in Iraq (and I don't care how far they are from the current "front", it is that changeable) and in Afghanistan (a variety of levels of on-the-ground participation in training, special operations, whatever else is needed on the day, and the trend is toward increasing it).  As far as I can tell, we are "at war" with ISIS (or whatever you want to call them), even if proxies are doing the combat.  I guess drones don't count, bombs don't count, special operations don't count, and cruise missiles won't count. Only dead American soldiers count.

Mind you, I am not saying that we should not consider ourselves in a state of active hostilities with regard to the Taliban, or with ISIS, or with al-Qaeda, for that matter:  we have had reason to go after them, and we certainly have not made peace with them.  I am saying, as a friend of mine had on his bumper sticker, "I am already against the next war"--the one that some want to start with Iran.  I am saying, let's at least be honest with ourselves, on a day like Memorial Day, that we still have men and women in our military subject to danger from hostile forces in multiple countries.  I am saying, in the next Presidential campaign, that when candidates start talking tough about what they want to do in our military campaigns, that we ask them how many American servicepeople's lives they are willing to commit--in the most permanent way--to those ends.   That was the real problem with the Iraq war: you could call it "sticker shock" about how many lives were lost, but the real point was that there was no sticker.

Timely Sports Report

This would seem a good moment to cover sports topics of the moment, as there is much that is just about to happen, and I just can't resist analyzing these imminent events.

NBA Finals - Cleveland Cavaliers vs. Golden State Warriors -  (starts Thursday) - Though I don't have any particular rooting interest, this finals matchup intrigues me more than any for several years. We seem to be entering a new era in the battle at the highest level for basketball supremacy, with new teams among the several contenders (besides the two finalists, the Los Angeles Clippers, Atlanta Hawks, and Washington Wizards all emerged),  and this may be the first of a series of epic confrontations, in the manner of Bird vs. Magic in the '80's.  Lebron James and Stephen Curry are that good, if their drive, skill, and health persist.

The historical perspective suggests strongly that the Cavaliers and Lebron should be heavily favored: they have far more playoff experience, and teams that rely so heavily on the 3-pointer as the Warriors do have rarely, if ever, won the NBA championship.  Sooner or later, such teams run into an opponent who can shut down their offense.  Yet, I hesitate to simply follow that conventional wisdom.  Golden State had the regular season's best record by a fair margin, and it has cruised fairly easily through very tough competition to win the Western Conference title.  Curry has a unique ability to hit the long ones even when fully covered on defense, and he makes good decisions with his ball handling and passing.  He has good options in his backcourt partner, Klay Thompson, and volatile, injury-prone center Andrew Bogut, who is playing well.  Finally, in Harrison Barnes they have an young, athletic forward who can stay with Lebron and make everything difficult for him on offense. Unfortunately, I don't think James' supporting cast is strong enough this year, with Kevin Love and Anderson Varejao out and Kyrie Irving's health undependable.  There is, of course, James' indomitable will to be overcome, and he has a determination to bring the championship to his home area.  He may have to be patient for another year.

Belmont Stakes - Can American Pharoah Complete the Triple Crown?  - (Saturday) - How many times have we been here since 1978?  Twelve?  When will it end?  As always, there are plenty of reasons to back the colt that won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, and reasons to doubt, as well. For the latter, past history is convincing.  The Triple Crown is like a Triathlon, but one in which everyone starts evenly in the second and third phases.   And, like the marathon at the end of the Triathlon, the final phase is the greatest challenge.

It does seem as though the field opposing American Pharoah is not too strong, from what I can see.(By the way, I love the misspelling of "pharaoh", if that's what it is, and not merely a trick to avoid duplicating a name previously used--a requirement that is always a challenge with naming thoroughbreds.)   There are a couple of horses who have not been defeated in the previous rounds, skipping those races, which often in these circumstances has made for a fresher horse at the finish of the endless, lung-bursting stretch run at Belmont.  Apparently Frosted is a horse that surges late, which could make for a thrilling finish.  American Pharoah looks as though it will go off as an even-money favorite, reflecting some healthy skepticism, but that doesn't seem like a bargain betting price, either. Having not seen either of the first two races, I will hope for completion of the triple but eschew a prediction.

French Open Quarterfinals - Djokovic vs. Nadal - (in a few hours) - This looks to  be one of the great tennis showdowns of the decade, not diminished by the fact that it is occurring in the quarterfinals.  Rafael Nadal was seeded 6th for this tournament because injuries limited his appearances last year, but he has an incredible record in the French:  he has won the tournament nine times and has only lost once there, ever.  Novak Djokovic is playing as well, or better, than he has ever done, and this year he seemed to be targeting this, the one major tournament he has not won.

The first set will be the feeling-out period, as Djokovic will want to test to see if Nadal is fully healthy (he has been playing his way back into shape, and actually lost a couple of times--on clay!--in the warmup tournaments).  The outcome of the first set will not be critical, though, as both players are ones in which the best shot to get a set from them is early.  If it goes five sets, I would pick Nadal, but my bet would be on Djokovic in four.

The rest of the tournament is hardly an afterthought for the winner, as difficult opponents await in the two rounds which will remain (probably Murray, who is also in top form, in the next round); however, the winner of this match will already have made history.

Stanley Cup Finals (Hockey) - Chicago Blackhawks vs. Tampa Bay Lightning - (starts in a few minutes) - I can't pretend to be a hockey fan, but I am excited for the town of my primary residence these days, as the Blackhawks go for their third championship in six years.  Winning will not make this quite a dynasty, but would make comparisons to the NBA's San Antonio Spurs appropriate, for their resiliency and ability to deliver when the chips are down.  It has been a difficult road for the Blackhawks, but they have shown the ability to rise to the occasion on the road, as they did in Game 7 of the last round.  They will need to do something comparable, as Tampa Bay has the home ice advantage.  Still, the Blackhawks are favored, based on their experience and having a healthy squad.

Champions Cup Final (UEFA--that's "Football") - Juventus vs. Barcelona - (Saturday) - The European club championship will take place in a neutral stadium, in Berlin this year.  Juventus won the Italian league easily this year, which allowed it to concentrate on the challenge of head-to-head, home-and-away matchups through the last three rounds.  Its success against Real Madrid in the semifinals was very impressive, and will allow it to go into this final with the confidence needed for this challenge.  Barcelona has remained at the top level for several years and has regrouped this year as strong as it ever has been; it held off Real Madrid to win the Spanish league title this year.  Barcelona's strategy will be the same as always:  maximizing ball possession, looking to set up Lionel Messi to cut through the opponents' defense and find an open player with a perfect pass, or take the shot on goal himself.   When it comes to defense, Barcelona's theory is that there is no need to worry about that while they have ball, but they have improved their ability to contain the counterattacks that the top teams can muster.  Barcelona should be favored, but the outcome of a single-game final is always uncertain. The key for Juventus will be to ride out the pressure in the first 30 minutes, then find a goal which can give them a chance to hold on for the win, or even open a bigger lead if Barcelona overcommits on offense. (a/k/a The Chelsea Strategy)

Baseball -  As is usually the case with the sport, there is less urgency with regard to baseball.  The regular season will be one-third over in the next couple of days; certainly long enough to detect the significant emergence of some teams and declines of some from which more was expected.  The biggest surprise has been the faster-than-expected rise of the Houston Astros, which have led most of the way in the tough AL West Division with a cast of good young stars.  They have an abundance of power; their pitching may not be enough to sustain them.  Similarly, the Chicago Cubs have come forward as a contender in the NL Central; they are packed with top prospects now arriving, and the surprise is that they have all come up and are doing so well, so quickly.  The Cubs also have to contend with a tough division, as the St. Louis Cardinals continue to overcome all adversity--and have the best record in the majors so far--and the Pittsburgh Pirates are also likely playoff contenders. An even bigger surprise is the Minnesota Twins, who are currently on a hot streak and have a narrow lead over last year's AL champions, the Kansas City Royals. I had none of those three (Astros, Cubs, Twins) making the playoffs in my preseason predictions; I will stick with those predicted outcomes, but I accept they are teams to reckon with for the future.

The two eastern divisions look like dogfights of mediocre teams:  the Washington Nationals have been inconsistent, despite having more talent than any of their rivals in the NL East.  The AL East is a five-team race at this point, all the teams hovering around the .500 mark. The two teams that have been the greatest disappointments so far are the Oakland Athletics, in contention for the worst record in the majors, and their division rivals in the AL West the Seattle Mariners, who I picked to win the World Series this year.  They are the only team of the ones I picked for my final four (those in the two League Championship series) which I have reason to doubt, though it is not too late for them yet (the others are the Cardinals, and the Los Angeles Angels and Dodgers).

Of course, my primary preoccupation is the Cincinnati Reds; their performance has been a little worse than the mediocrity I expected.  Cincinnati hosts the All-Star game this year, and its manager, Bryan Price will be honored as an assistant coach for that game if he lasts that long.  I had some doubts in the past couple of weeks,when it looked as though they might never win again, but a weekend series sweep of the Nationals has relieved his worries on that score--he will probably make it to the end of the year before getting fired.

Political Drama 2016: Sideshows

The 2015 storylines for the 2016 US Presidential contest have clearly emerged and are unlikely to change for the rest of this year:  On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's status as clear front-runner has invited a variety of attacks upon her with little hammers in sensitive areas, the effect of which will be painful but not mortal; and on the Republican side, the profusion of candidates leading to confusion of polls, with no one emerging, even slightly, from the fog.

Therefore, we can leave the main stage to its script and observe a sidelight which the audience has barely spotted:  the likelihood of dramatic storyline change from third-, fourth, or even fifth-party candidacies of a significant nature.

Hey, ho, what's the Scenario? 
The discussion starts with the most likely major-party matchup:  Clinton vs. Jeb Bush.  One cannot say it is probable, as there are too many other possible outcomes, and the current momentum for both candidates is probably downward; however, it is clearly the one with the highest probability. For example, the current quote on oddshark.com, drawing on the sportsbook Bovada, a place where people bet real money--note:  not Americans!--has the Clinton-Bush matchup favored at -250 vs. all other alternatives +170.

For me, this matchup is also the one that is most certain to draw other candidacies, as an open bowl of fruit will draw fruit flies (I avoided more vulgar comparisons).  There are a host of people in both parties who declare they would never vote for Clinton, or for Bush, and of course at least as many among independents, and power abhors a vacuum--somebody will look at the discontent and say, "Why not me?"  Clinton-Bush is a matchup that could draw challenges from any of the three alternate directions I think are likely in the 2016 race:

• Populists, moderately libertarian, who object to both candidates' corporativist, militarily-hawkish perceived stances; 
• Right-wingers for whom Bush is too liberal on subjects like immigration; and 
• Left-wingers for whom Clinton is too moderate. 

Substitute some other relatively-moderate Republican establishment type (Kasich, Fiorina, Pataki, Christie, if he should dare to present himself) for Bush and the scenario and the opportunity remain the same. 

There is a much less likely possibility for a fourth angle of opposition, if the Republicans nominate an extreme right-winger (Perry, Cruz, Santorum, or Walker, if he fails to moderate his positions during the campaign) or someone totally out of the mainstream political establishment (Paul, Carson, Trump!); then, after a fractious party convention, there could be a split among Republicans with a moderate daring to uphold the sensible party line. 

Finally, there is the possibility of a single-issue, or regional candidate emerging.  Historically, this has been the most-frequent source of third-party challenges.  There are a host of possible issues that could become salient, if the major-party nominees don't give it attention:  anti-immigration, pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-gun control, pro- or anti-war, opposing the trade deals, states rights, judicial reform, drought, flooding, marijuana decriminalization, etc.  These candidacies probably, but not necessarily, fit into one of the four types mentioned above. 

Taking Names

The trickiest part is identifying who the third-party hero, or heroes, will be.  I have to give Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal some credit for pointing out in a recent column the potential for a populist third-party to arise.  He goes through all the good reasons, but then, because he can't identify the person who will have the resources or the courage to oppose, he concludes that it is something more likely for a future Presidential cycle.  I disagree with him on that; he cites specifically the trade accords as being a hot topic, but that one will be long gone by 2020.  The time, and the opportunity, is now (or next year, rather), and Bush-Clinton would be the perfect foil. 

By definition, any challenger should be someone who is disaffected from both parties, or at least from the temporary direction of his/her party.  Going up against your party's nominee is writing off your future within the party for a long time. Anyway, here are some names I have come up with:

1. Rand Paul - He has estranged himself from the party regulars with his current stance against re-affirming the Patriot Act with its infringement on civil liberties.  He also is unique among all his party's candidates in many of his positions, his libertarians get very little respect from Republican party regulars, and he could choose to go the reverse direction from his father's history:  from the Republican party, to the Libertarian Party. One particular scenario would be if he shows real strength among independents, and the young, but can't get any delegates because of party rules.
2. Lincoln Chaffee - He is running as a Democrat, and no one seems to know why.  His history (previous terms as a Republican, and an independent) marks him as anything but a party loyalist.. 
3. Ted Cruz - His route to his Senate seat included defying the party regulars in Texas to win his primary, and he doesn't seem to be getting much respect in the shadow primary. Plus, he's an opportunist.. 
4. Mike Huckabee - He seems a party regular, but with his independent power base (evangelicals, plus millions of Fox News devotees) he could attract some support for an indpendent run.  He also is getting no respect, despite showing decently in the early polls.
5. Donald Trump - Because he can. It wouldn't hurt his p.r., and he has the money.
6. Al Sharpton - Or, it could be some other prominent African-American who feels the Democrats are not giving sufficient attention to his ethnic group's concerns.. 
7. Bernie Sanders - I really don't think he's going to run; however, it's well-known that he is not a Democratic party regular.  We'll see how it goes in the primaries: if he can't move Clinton toward a couple of his platform planks, he may feel he has to run.. 
8. Bill McKibben, or some other radical advocate of initiatives to counter climate change (think: Green Party). 
9. George Pataki - I see him as the most likely moderate Republican to respond negatively to a Tea Party-type nominee.. 
10. Ralph Nader - He's still around, isn't he? 

There is also the possibility, though I can't name him, of some megabuck CEO with somewhat unconventional views whose point of view isn't being listened to, someone who fancies himself as Ross Perot redux, or a woman candidate frustrated if Hillary Clinton cannot get the nomination (it is still true that no major party has nominated a woman as the Presidential nominee).

The Needle and The Damage Done
If you read up on the recent Parliamentary elections in the U.K. (for example, my previous post), you will see that third-party candidacies add unpredictability to a "first past the post" election--which the Presidential election is, a mosh of 51 state races to gain a simple plurality in each--in two ways: strength in a single state could deprive a major party of expected Electoral College votes, and broader strength can upset the dynamics of the national popular vote.  (I exclude here the possibility of a third-party candidate actually winning the election.   It has never happened in the US, unless you consider Abraham Lincoln's win in 1860 to be that; he won as the majority faction of a split major party.)

A challenge from a breakway candidate or an outsider, from either the left or right wing, should be expected to hurt the chances of the Democrat, or Republican, respectively. A challenge in the middle, or a populist candidacy coming from either party, or from a true independent, would have an effect that is much more difficult to predict (note the effect of the Perot candidacy, which probably hurt the Republicans more, or of Republican John Anderson's in 1980, which probably hurt the Democrats more).  Clearly, Clinton and Bush (or any other major party nominee) will each try to suppress the possibility of a challenge, relying on the inevitability that a major-party candidate will end up winning, and urging the wavering not to waste their votes. Their "unified" stance--as for example, in national debates--would be to cooperate to keep those other folks out of the running, and at the same time to pose himself/herself as the only one who can prevent that Other Person from getting the White House.

Res Publica

Some Bloodied Brits
I have to start by putting in my tuppence on the recent Parliamentary elections in Great Britain.

First, I have to congratulate myself on not putting forward any late predictions on the outcome, thus avoiding the general punditic fiasco.  My last words in this space on the subject were back in late February, in which I made the following guesses:

 Conservatives will have about 40-45% of seats, Labour 30-35%,  SNP and LD 15% combined, and Others (UKIP, Green, Irish parties) 5-10%

In the event, the results, with those groupings, were as follows:  Conservatives 51% of seats, Labour 36%, SNP (Scottish National Party) and LD 10%, and Others 4%.   The relatively large misses were on the Conservatives' and Liberal Democrats' percentage of seats (SNP and Labour were about as expected).

Clearly, the Conservatives were the big winners on the night:  the gains by the SNP were on target with near-term expectations, and with the Conservatives having an outright majority, SNP's leverage on the new Parliament will not be as strong as otherwise it may have been.

Now to list the losers, in order of the magnitude of their setbacks:

1) Liberal Democrats - This was a near-death experience for them, as they lost more than half their popular vote and over 80% of seats.  Participating as a junior member in the last Cabinet was, officially, a complete disaster for their political prospects. They wouldn't do it again, but then again, now they won't be asked.
2) The British polling industry - They suffered massive embarrassment for their pre-election polls (though the exit polls on Election Day were accurate).  Their polls converged on a set of numbers for overall nationwide party percentages, and this set was erroneous, near to the edge of their (95% confidence interval) margin of error.  They had it at 33-33% for Conservative/Labour, and it ended up about 37-30%   There will be some soul-searching about methods--I would expect there to be much greater effort to poll within individual districts ("constituencies") in the next elections, assuming the current election processes continue, and some renewed attention to composition of the polling (between land and mobile phone lines, and methods to get responses); however, I don't think we should all be so hard on them: 1 out of 20 elections, by definition, would be outside the margin of error, and I think there was a shift of opinion in the last days (which they did fail to pick up).
3) Labour - Labour's tactics failed, leading to a defeat of strategic significance (and inversely, Conservatives' tactical success led to strategic victory).  Nationally, Labour actually gained 1.5% in its vote, but lost about 10% of its seats:  the large losses in Scotland to the SNP exceeded some marginal gains elsewhere.  The party and its leader, Ed Millibrand, failed to provide a convincing reason to change, relying too much on the unpopularity of the Conservatives and their leader, David Cameron, both of whom are widely perceived as upper-class elitists.  Cameron had a strong case for maintaining the status quo, in terms of reasonably good economics, and creating fear of change.  Perhaps believing too much in the polls, Labour played for the tie (the hung Parliament most expected may have led to their leading the new government), when they had the chance for a win.
4)  Legitimacy of the British "first past the post" electoral system in a multiparty environment.  The other national third/fourth parties (U.K Independence Party--UKIP--and the Greens) suffered, as the UKIP increased its share of vote dramatically vs. the previous Parliamentary elections (from 3% to 13%) and the Greens went from 1.4% to 3.8%, yet each emerged from the election with only one MP. They have inherited the Liberal Democrats' old problem, which is that the national system is rigged in favor of a two-party system--nationally, and regionally.  In England, and nationally, it is Labour vs. Conservative with the others squeezed out; in Scotland, it's the SNP and Labour (though this year, that favored the SNP), in Northern Ireland, it's the Unionist parties vs. the primarily Catholic parties  (Wales is a bit of a four-party free-for-all, with areas that favor the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and the Welsh Cyru Plaid party). Overall, "national third parties" (UKIP, Greens, and the LibDems) had 24% of the votes and 1.5% of the seats, while the regional parties (other than Labour/Conservative) had 7.2% of the votes and 12% of the seats. And, of course, Conservative/Labour had 67% of votes and 87% of seats.   

Will something give here, leading to a change in the electoral scheme?  I don't see any reason; until there is a situation in which a third party has true leverage, Labour and the Conservatives have no reason to support change, and those two parties still get 60-70% of popular votes.  The LibDems managed to get the Conservatives to agree to a referendum on second-preference voting, which was presented without the government's endorsement a couple years ago and fell badly in a snoozefest turnout.

Labour got played in Scotland by the Conservatives' kept promise of the Scottish secession referendum.  Labour had to support the No vote (against separation), as it needed Scotland to stay in Great Britain for all kinds of reasons, some of which were self-serving.  Some Scots saw the Conservative/Labour/LibDems alliance against separation as a betrayal of their interests by the English, and Labour was the party that was punished for it.

This time, the Conservatives have promised a referendum on continuing in the European Union--that will come first, before any reconsideration of the SNP's desire for a new Scottish referendum, The Conservatives are badly split on the issue; Cameron's strategy will be to do his best (or at least appear to do his best) to get improved terms for Britain to remain in the EU.  If he fails to get concessions, he can go with his party's more extreme Euroskeptic elements and support withdrawal (which may win his party back much of the UKIP's support next time); if he gets them--the EU would compromise, even as far as allowing a bad precedent, but not to the point that it would break up the whole deal--his support, even lukewarm, could be decisive.  Then he can reopen the Scottish question and the wounds it causes Labour. (Scotland's voters strongly prefer remaining in the EU, so will surely want out if Britain removes itself from the EU).

There is a path Labour can tread--strongly in favor of remaining in the EU and of keeping Scotland in the Union--that will distinguish itself from the Conservatives'.  As for Cameron, he has said he will not run for Prime Minister again in 2020--current law ensures his party can hold power until then. We shall see about that.

TPP:  Trade Perishes before Politicians? 
Yesterday's vote in the Senate provided a rare political defeat to President Obama at the hands of his own party. The complicated backdrop to the debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal being negotiated by Obama's administration with a number of nations on the Pacific Rim resulted in a test vote to end debate on a bill to give Obama the so-called "fast-track" authority.  If passed, this authority would ultimately lead to bringing the final negotiated agreement before Congress for a simple up-down vote, without amendments.

This kind of authority is always supported by the Executive Branch as being required in order to provide it the ability to negotiate terms with other countries for a trade deal, and President Obama is no exception.  The unusual aspect of this proposal is that Obama has the support of (most, but not all) Republicans in Congress for fast-track authority, and ultimately, would expect to have it for approval of the trade agreement.

The Democrats are split:  most would, in theory, support some sort of trade bill; however, what the majority of Democrats are doing is creating conditions which will ultimately make passage of the final bill difficult or impossible.  The most frequent objection from Democrats is that Obama is asking them to greenlight an agreement that most Americans have not yet seen.  This argument is appealing, but somewhat hypocritical:  those in Congress know what is likely to be in the final trade agreement (though details will remain to be settled).  Requiring public debate before giving fast-track approval negates the idea of fast-track approval:  if everything needs to be settled before the authority is given, then there is no authority. For the most part, those arguing against this measure will end up opposing whatever deal is finally proposed.

There is a group of Democrats who have leverage, though, and they applied it yesterday:  those who are in favor of the legislation, but want conditions on the fast-track authority.  They blocked the motion to end debate yesterday, and today they forced concessions from Obama's side:  there will be a separate vote on "enforcement provisions" within the authority for the draft agreement to penalize trading partners who break the rules.   This will be a very delicate issue for the US trade negotiators, a possible deal-breaker, but Obama has no choice but to agree to this now.

My view of the eventual outcome:  Obama will agree to what is necessary to get fast-track authority approved.  This will make the ensuing negotiations much more difficult; the trade deal that will result may not be finished during Obama's administration, which may make it easier for most Democrats to oppose it (it would either be picked up by a Republican administration or defended by a Clinton one which did not negotiate the agreement and may remain somewhat neutral on it, as she is at present). Even if it does come before this Congress for a vote, I think it will be unlikely to pass--the longer the debate and the longer the agreement is delayed, the less chance it will have, and this is the understanding which the "progressive" opponents of the trade deal have shown in this round of polemics.

Democrats can disagree, based on their priorities, whether the trade bill will ultimately favor the US (economically, probably so; labor interests, probably not), but they should avoid letting their political opponents use this as a wedge issue to divide the party--primarily by being decent to one another.  In that sense, I don't appreciate the tactics of the populist left, who are really opposed to any international trade agreement, and are using the tactic of attacking President Obama's credibility to get their way. Fast-track authority is a means to an end; any trade agreement would ultimately need to be approved in a public debate.

Clown-Car Tracking 
(I anticipate this will be a regular feature for the next 12 months.)
Although it is now clearly underway, nothing too dramatic is happening in the 2016 Presidential campaign lately:  various candidates announce (or semi-announce), get their bump of publicity and any possible bump of popularity, then the press bus and the spotlight move on.  (Excluding Hillary Clinton, of course; the spotlight never moves very far from her.) Recent polls of Republicans in the two states with the first contests, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, show no candidate above 20% support and a whole bunch in the 5-10% range.  And the list just keeps getting bigger, with many more (such as Governors Snyder of Michigan, Kasich of Ohio, even the highly doubtful Christie of New Jersey and the newly doubtful Pence of Indiana) still "on the fence" but not likely to see any obstacle that will dissuade them from entering.  Unless it's to avoid being on stage with candidate Donald Trump, an unpleasant but still unlikely prospect.

With the exception of a couple (Jeb Bush, maybe Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, or Rand Paul), they all seem to be hoping to benefit from an unresolved outcome and some kind of random brokering event. As it was for British Labour (and is usually in Sadistic Whist), playing for the tie is a losing strategy (unless, as might be the case with Kasich, Rubio, or Snyder, the real objective is the VP nomination). The path to nomination must be the following:  avoid embarrassment (below 2%) in Iowa (Feb. 1) and New Hampshire (Feb. 9), make a decent showing in South Carolina (Feb. 20) or Nevada (Feb. 23), then pick a state or two in early March to make a statement, and parlay that into "momentum" through having a strong multi-state organization.  The primary calendar is quite concentrated (in March/April/May) this time, so the organization will have to be built ahead of time, and not on the gains from the muddled early primary results.

To me, March 1 appears to be the key date on the Republican nomination calendar, with primaries in five southern states, plus Vermont, Massachusetts, and caucuses in Colorado.  If South Carolina hasn't already whittled it down to three or four legitimate contenders (eliminating several of the also-rans from the far right), that day will.  Then, after a few more tallies in the next 10 days (including three more southern states, plus Ohio, and Michigan) comes the Florida primary on March 15, and a possible Bush-Rubio showdown:  only one of them will walk out of there with nomination hopes still alive.

The Republicans can continue to not sort themselves out in a very public way for the next nine months or so; meanwhile. I continue to not see anyone tackle the various major third-party scenarios, so that will be the subject of my next post on the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Anniversaries
Because of having five digits on two hands, we are in love with multiples of five, ten, fifty, 100, etc. Coincidentally, a lot of major events seemed to happen in years(Christian calendar) ending in ...5. Therefore, our historical attention this year turns to anniversaries.  Recently, there was the 150th of Lincoln's Second Inaugural, the end of the Civil War, and his assassination (I hope you didn't miss the "...we are indebted..." gaffe on the subject from the Republican Senate caucus).   There is the 50th of the Selma march for voting rights in the South.  This month, it's the 70th of  V-E Day for the Second World War; in August, there will be V-J day.  In Turkey, there were the conflicting demands of observing the 100th of the Gallipoli invasion and of obscuring the 100th of the beginning of the Armenian "genocide".  Next month will be the 200th of the Battle of Waterloo.

The one I'd like to call a little extra attention toward is the 70th of WWII.  It's actually a little less "round" a number than the other ones I mentioned, but its importance comes because of the age of the participants in that uniquely-important world event: the youngest surviving soldiers are in their late eighties, and their recollections and insights in the last Great War, including the uncovering of the Holocaust in Europe, are important for us to note while we still can.  Compared to that consideration, I give little weight to Russia's desire to show off this year (a celebration of its military widely snubbed by Western countries); though the USSR's role in defeating the Axis was unparalleled in its historical importance, Russia is not the USSR, and, in this case, 70 is just another number.



  .

My Milano Pt. 1

Some of those who follow this site may have detected that I have been on assignment in Milan, Italy for most of the past 16 months. The city is having a big year in 2015--it is the site of a world's fair, Expo 2015.   In the January New York Times article in its Travel section listing 52 places to visit this year (one per week, a pretty aggressive timetable, even for affluent readers), Milano was listed as #1.

"Nourish the Planet, Energy for Life"
That would be my translation of the theme of Expo 2015 ('nutrire la pianeta, energia per la vita').  In other words, it's all about food--food production, agriculture, agricultural workers, food distribution, and, yes, there's going to be plenty to eat and drink there.  Here's the plan, for your (in)convenience:

I saw the opening ceremony yesterday--well attended, despite some rain.  The site looks quite beautiful.  All of the pavilions are open, though some are not quite finished inside; the one from Japan looked particularly good.  There are many national pavilions--there will be national days for many of the major nations, with the big political guys coming for theirs--but also some theme areas within which  nations can participate for smaller investments--there are 145 countries represented.   The emphasis seems to be on sustainable agriculture, and, architecturally, fancy prefab buildings that can be taken down after the expo ends (October 31). There's strong backing from the Pope, who reminds us all to keep the hungry in mind, and a cast of major corporate sponsors, private benefactors, etc.   For more information, here's a site for the Expo (it's in English, Italian, and French), and here's one for the B.I.E., the official sponsors of the big World's Fairs.   I will report more on this once I've been there.

Almost enough about that, though I should mention the political dimension.  This thing has been about 10 years in the making, and there has been plenty of controversy (as one would expect, in Italy). The timing is quite good, though, I think; the economy is beginning to recover from a prolonged, double-dip financial crisis and this has provided a shot in the arm, for the city, for tourism, and for the country as a whole.  Nevertheless, it has occasioned protests (including some imported anarchists to start riots), there were some arrests for corruption last year, and the more general question remains of what the long-term impact will be.

The city of Milan has been gearing up for this in a number of ways.  There was a lot of infrastructure development (among other things, new lines of the Metro going out to the Expo site), and a number of cultural events in town, both during the lead-up to the opening, and through the season.  We will come back to this.  First, though, a personal travelogue (for the Times' version--'36 Hours'--see here.)


Background
Milan is the second-largest city in Italy, after Rome. Milan dates back to Roman times, though, unlike Rome, few traces of that period remain.  It became an important city during the later Empire days--named "Mediolanum".  In those days, its approaches were navigable for ships going either to the Ligurian (western) coast of Italy or, via the Po River, to the Adriatic as well. Nowadays, the streams are suppressed, pushed underground or reduced to canals.

One analogy that might help Americans, in particular, is that Rome is a bigger version of Washington, older and even more spread out, while Milan is a smaller version of New York.  Milan is the financial and business hub, a major center for fashion, journalism, and sports.  It is close to the major manufacturing areas throughout Italy's North, though nowadays Milan is more likely to house the headquarters than the factories.   In its physical layout, though, Milan resembles London--also a Roman city in its origins--more than New York.  Instead of a rectilinear grid, it is a chaotic maze of streets going at all angles, changing names and angles frequently, and particularly of concentric rings.  I count four of them:

1) The innermost ring is quite small in area and probably corresponds to the original Roman walls (of which few, if any, remain).  It is the site of most, but not all, of the main attractions in the city proper.  Certain roads mark the edge of the ring, and there are a couple of wide ones (probably originaly canals or streams), but, apart from the cleared squares near the Duomo (the city's cathedral, the heart of the city), it's mostly a jumble. There are major bank headquarters here, the Cathedral (the Duomo), the famous opera house La Scala, and the stock market (La Borsa).
2) The second ring is still considered part of the city center.  The principal roads are either lines radiating from the first ring outward to "porte" (gates) that would have been in use during medieval times (though the walls, again, rarely remain), or the wide ones (where the walls were) that generally mark the boundary of the "zona limitada", the edge of the areas where cars can normally go (without special permission, which residents and others with pull can get).  It's not quite as crowded, and it has some nice parks, a very old university, and lots of old churches.
3) The third ring is a mix of residential neighborhoods, good and bad, old and new, along with some semi-industrial areas, large shopping complexes, etc. Particularly noteworthy are the new developments on the North side of town with modern high-rises both residential and commercial.  The third zone out is readily navigable by car, though there is also bus and tram service.
4) The outer ring is marked by the "autostrade" (the equivalent of the interstate highways), the airport closer to town, more industry, some office complexes which moved seeking lower rents, and some open areas, one of which will be the site of the Expo.  The big soccer stadium (San Siro) is out there as well (it also has a new Metro connection).  Some of it is technically within the city limits, some outside of it.  There are a lot of small towns and cities in every direction which feed into the city. 

All four rings have some nice residential areas and major offices, though the style differs:  the inner rings have imposing palaces, the third ring high-rises built from urban renewal land or postwar reconstruction, the outer rings sprawling campuses.  The inner ring's skyline is dominated by the Duomo and buildings are only a few stories high--a mix of postwar, older (1800's), or really old.

Getting Around
First, of course, you have to get to Milan.  If you're arriving by long-distance flight from abroad, you will almost inevitably come through Malpensa airport.  I am not a big fan--through some historical naming accident, the word literally would be translated as "Bad-Thinking"--it is some 45 minutes from the center of town by the best means of access (the "Malpensa Express" train, it costs 12 Euros, and make sure you "validate" your ticket!), while a taxi costs about 100 Euros.  There is a bus into town that is priced comparably to the train, but then you risk getting caught in traffic. It's basically out in the country, halfway to the Alps, and your airport experience will feature long lines (security, getting your passport stamped), long walks within the airport, and your general Sixties-era big-airport blues.  The one thing I like about it is the set of giant picture windows in the check-in area, from which you can see all the activity on the runways and service areas.

I am a proponent of arriving by train--high speed trains go to Milan from many other European cities, the one from Rome is particularly fast.  The Central Station is a huge Fascist-era edifice (third ring) where most of the trains arrive, though there are several other stations around the periphery, as the train lines generally don't run through the city (a couple of them are way underground, the topic for another post maybe).

 If you're flying from another European city, landing at the Linate airport, just outside the fourth ring, is the preferred destination.  Linate is small, really quick to get through, the taxi costs 10% as much, and if you're cheap or have plenty of time, you can take a bus to town for Euro 1.50.  Of course you could drive there from somewhere else, stay at a hotel/motel on the outer ring (probably there are several new, half-full ones near the Expo, or near Malpensa, which is in that general direction), or in one of the many nearby towns or cities, and avoid the Milan city center entirely, but I think that would be missing out on about 75% of the fun.

Within the city, there are lots of ways to get around, and locals use all of them.  In spite of the traffic limitations, cars are plentiful and allowed on most streets (if you have the right permit), motorcycles and motor scooters, taxis, bicycles (there is a popular bike exchange program for those who don't want to risk theirs getting stolen), streetcars (called "tram"), buses, and, my two favorite ones--walking, and the Metro.    I live, work, and spend 95% of my time in Milano within the first two rings:  the first one is less than a mile in diameter and the second some 2-3 miles (4 km).

First, a few comments about all the other modes of transportation:

Cars:  You don't actually need a permit to drive into the center of the city in the off-hours, outside the workday, but you're still going to need to park somewhere (it's all permit on the streets, and the parking lots are expensive), and there's all the one-way streets to deal with.  It's OK if you're going to a specific destination, have a place to park, and don't get lost.  The locals generally go for tiny cars (Smart cars, and even smaller ones) which are easy to maneuver and park, or have a place to park inside the gates of their building, or both.
Tram: They go lots of places, but you need to know the routes, and--most important--buy the ticket ahead of time, in a tobacco shop or at a newsstand.  If you research, sometimes it will be the best way to get to certain destinations distant from any Metro stops, especially in the third ring. Some of them are really cute, I must say.
Bikes:  There are a lot of them, and a fair number of bike lanes.  I don't think it's a good biking town, though, except in the parks and on the bike paths separated from the main part of the roads. Many of the roads are old paving stones and very treacherous when wet, and the motorized vehicles drive fairly aggressively. To use the "bike Mi" service you need a monthly subscription; then you can pick one up for an hour or so for practically nothing at one of the many stations in town and leave it at the same, or a different one.
Motorbikes:  Same general comments as for bicycles (except the Bike Mi part)--obviously they are faster and more dangerous.  I've seen many near-misses, and only a few accidents.
Taxis:  They are expensive to use.  The quality of the rolling stock is very good (a lot of Prius, some good vans and station wagons).  Generally you have to go to one of the Taxi stations (big orange sign that says "Taxi" near most principal squares); they won't stop for you on the street often (even if the light on top is lit, meaning available), and depending on the time and location, there may not be any taxis at the stand.  A lot of the taxi service is arranged by cellphone (there is usually a sign at the stand with a number you  can call, if you have cellphone service).  Their big new challenge is Uber, and the taxi drivers are not happy about the competition. They don't all take all cards, and may grumble if you ask.  Tipping is optional, as is giving you a receipt.  I have had drivers just give me a receipt and tell me to put in whatever I want.
Buses:  See above for "Tram", except you can do something when leaving the Metro to have your ticket work on the buses, if you're attentive and know where you want to go with the bus.  There don't seem to be as many bus routes as the Tram service in the center of the city; I think they are used a lot to come in from the periphery. 

Tram along via Turati

well-chosen parking spot for a Fiat 500

This leaves my two main modes.  The Metro system is a very good one, in general.  It doesn't go everywhere, but there are five main routes that dissect the city in different directions, so it's very good to go between points within the center if it's a longer trip or you're in a hurry--generally with no more than one change of lines.  It costs Euro 1.50 per ride (except to the Expo, that's a longer ride and costs Euro 2.50).  It's not open 24 hours, but it's open until late and starts early.  It's safe, clean, and only crowded at the peak of the rush hours. And if it doesn't go exactly where you want....then I recommend walking.

Having gone on a bit long, the next section with my favorite walking routes (Part 1A) will be posted separately, but it's the best part.

Sciopero
A final introductory note:  any visitor to Milan, to Italy for that matter, needs to be aware of the possibility of a "sciopero" (strike).  The labor unions are strong, and they may call a strike, with little advance warning, at any time.  The general theory of how these work is to maximize disruption, while minimizing inconvenience to the working population.  So, often the strike will start at 9 a.m. and end at the beginning of the evening rush hour, shutting down as much as possible all the public means of transport in the meantime.  Before counting too much on any intra-day travel plans, make sure there is not a 'sciopero', by checking newspaper, Google, International advisories, etc.  I got stuck arriving from Malpensa the other day and had to walk two miles, with my bags, to get to the office.

My Milano, Part 1A - Walking Routes

I love walking in Milan--I do it every day, weather permitting (and it usually does, as long as you bring an umbrella and have appropriate shoes).

Top Walking Routes
A couple of notes--these are continuous routes, more-or-less straight, but changing names frequently. These are not the main thoroughfares of cars; on most of these roads, cars are limited or blocked from using them, or they are one-way streets which it is difficult to enter.  Obviously, since we're talking walking, you can go the other way from what I have here (I had to pick a direction), reversing the side of the turns and the landmarks.

Milan has installed a number of new neighborhood maps at key intersections in the popular areas, which should help a lot. It can be quite difficult to navigate, even with GPS apps. There isn't that much danger if one makes a wrong turn, though; the tough part will be to decide whether to continue on to unknown parts, or turn around and go back to the last known landmark.

1) Piazza Castello to Piazza San Babila.  Via Dante/Via Orefici/Piazza Duomo/Corso Vittorio Emmanuele II.  This one has to be listed first, not that it is the best route of all, but it's a good starting point, hitting several of the high points and linking up with the other routes.  This one describes a rough East-West arc across the center of the inner ring, beginning at the Castello Sforzesco (the in-town temporary Expo pavilion can be the starting point), heading southeast along wide pedestrian-only Via Dante.  At Piazza Cordusio, either veer right to stay on Via Dante or veer left to Via dei Mercanti--each brings you into the impressive Piazza Duomo, which you cross along its length, staying to the left of the Cathedral (unless, of course, you want to go in).  On the right is Palazzo Reale, on the left the famous Galleria Vittorio Emmanuele II (more about both in Pt. 2). Leaving Piazza Duomo to the northwest (left of the Cathedral), you go along Corso Vittorio Emmanuele II, like Via Dante wide and pedestrian only.  Depending on the daty of the week, time of day, and the weather, this whole route could be packed with people and street performers, or it could be totally deserted.  In any case, it is surely lined with commercial establishments, particularly the less-elegant clothing stores, restaurants catering to tourists, and (in the Piazza Duomo and the Galeria V.E. II), major department stores and book/music stores. .

2) Piazza Della Scala to Porta Nuova. Via Verdi/via Brera/via Solferino.  This route goes South to North, through the top half of the inner two rings.  From the Duomo, pass straight through the Galleria V.E II under its great arched Victorian roof.--you may have to wade through sizable crowds--exiting into a large square with a fountain and a statue of Leonardo (usually with some street musician; the acoustics are good there).  On the opposite side of this Piazza is the front entrance to the La Scala opera house.  Cross the busy cross-street and pass La Scala on the right to enter via Verdi; after a couple of blocks and some monumental bank offices, the street becomes via Brera, pedestrian-only, broad, quiet, and lined with landmarks buildings and monuments.  Via Brera ends at a major East-west thoroughfare (via Pontaccio/via Fatebenefratelli--the edge of the first ring); cross it and continue onto via Solferino.  (Just before that intersection  is an east-west pedestrian route--via Fiori Chiari to the left/via Fiori Oscuri to the right--with Bar Brera at the corner.  This one can be useful at night--the East-West routes are generally more problematic--but it is narrow, crowded and a little too touristy otherwise.) Via Solferino is a fairly long street, with some parts more interesting (nice restaurants) and a fairly long stretch in which you pass the offices of Corriere della Sera, the New York Times of Italy.  At the end of the road, where you reach the busy road at the edge of the second ring, is the remains of an old canal, where there is a nice beer hall on the left, and one block to the left (via Milazzo) is the nicest art cinema in town (though I warn you that even there, 90% of the movies will either be Italian or dubbed into Italian).

piazza Duomo
and Galleria V.Emmanuele II

pocket park and Hayez statue - via Brera

3)  Stazione Garibaldi to Piazza Cordusio.  Corso Como/Corso Garibaldi/via Mercato/via Ponte Vetero/via Broletto.  Garibaldi (inner part of the third ring) is the second-most significant train station of general use (routes to the north and northwest, also a major linkage point for the Metro), thus an easy starting point.  Corso Como is a fairly short, but busy route, with some limited traffic and a couple of the most popular disco clubs; then you cross the Piazza XXV Aprile (April 25th is the date celebrating the end of WWII in Italy)  continuing onto Corso Garibaldi. This street is long, wide with a narrow, limited car lane, and lined on both sides with shops and restaurants in low-rise buildings.  It continues through a busy intersection (via della Moscova), after which it only gets nicer.  At the next major intersection (it's a bit messy; you have to cross the Tram tracks)  the road continues on in the same manner, under the names of via Mercato and then via Ponte Vetero.  There is finally a major intersection (cross street is via Cusani to the right, via dell'Orso to the left), at which you can decide:  turn right to Castello Sforzesco, turn left toward via Monte di Pieta and the Fashion District (see #4), or straight onto via Broletto.  Broletto is a less pleasing street, with a busy tram line in the middle, but it feeds into Piazza Cordusio at its end (see route #1).

At this point, I must mention a key linkage between routes #2 and #3.  At via Ancona and via Solferino (if going North), or just past Piazza San Simpliciano on Corso Garibaldi (major church on the left, if going South), you can find my favorite side street.  The entrance is called via dello Tessa from Corso Garibaldi (though San Simpliciano also feeds into it beside the church).  This interior, pedestrian-only street runs by the seminary and Piazza Paolo VI, and is called  via dei Cavalleri del Santo Sepolcro ("Knights of the Holy Sepulchre", doubtlessly a Crusader-era gang).  It's only 100m or so in length, but is lined with flowering trees, and beautiful buildings--it's also one without motorized traffic.

4) Stazione Centrale to Piazza San Babila.  Via Pisani/Piazza della Repubblica/via Turati/via Principe Amedeo/via Marco dei Marchi/via Giardini/via Montenapoleone.  This is a long but rewarding route going roughly North-South down the Northeastern corner of the city center, starting at the principal train station (middle third ring)..  Via Pisani, which runs from the station to Piazza della Repubblica, is a busy street, but extremely wide with broad sidewalks and lots of office entrances, sidewalk cafes, etc.  You cross Piazza della Repubblica, which is oriented at a right angle to your direction, and I have to say it can be difficult, with lots of cross traffic:  better obey the pedestrian street signals in this case.  Via Turati is a another busy street but not difficult to walk; at a major cross-street (via della Moscova, at the Piazza Stati Uniti d'America--that's right; the intersection of Moscow and the USA!), bear right (the American consulate will then be on the left).  The road gets really nice then, with some of the most beautiful residences in the city center, and a lovely, largely unused park (Giardini Perego) on the right.  At via Pisoni (not to be confused with via Pisani), you must decide whether you want the full or partial Armani exposure.  If the former, turn at Pisoni, go one block, and turn right on via Manzoni (super-busy street) for one block.  You will walk by the entrances of the Hotel Armani.  Otherwise, continue one more block on via dei Giardini, turn left at Via Croce Rosso (walking behind the Hotel) and cross Manzoni onto via Montenapoleone.

Via Montenapoleone is probably the most famous street in Milan, it has a lightly-traveled car lane, but it is basically all about the fabulous shop windows of dozens of major fashion houses, on both sides of the street, and other luxury items (Tiffany, Chopard; there are usually a couple of Ferraris or Lamborghinis around; Four Seasons is on a side street to the left, etc.)  Take your time and observe Milan's elite out for a stroll or trying to do the high-fashion business.  The street is even nicer at night, when it's not so crowded.  It will end at the mouth of Piazza San Babila (see #1).

To make it a bit more complicated still, there are a couple of alternatives.  At via della Moscova, if you bear to the left of the building with the American consulate, you stay on via Turati.  Cross over at some point before the arch and square which you see ahead, at the end (thus avoiding having to cross messy Piazza Cavour).  Go under the arch, immediately cross the street, and you will be at the entrance of Via della Spiga, which is like via Montenapoleone, only better.  The same line of (different) fabulous fashion shop windows, but a pedestrian-only street (technically, a couple parts allow cars).  I give it my highest recommendation.  At its end, you take a right on Corso Venezia for a short distance and you get to San Babila.   Finally, if walking through all the luxury of via Montenapoleone/via della Spiga offends you, just stay on via Manzoni, and it will take you back to Piazza della Scala (see #1, #2).

(At left, Via della Spiga, at night).


5) Duomo to Porta Ticinese.  via Torino/corso di Porta Ticinese.  Clearly, this route has the advantage of being a lot simpler than the last one.  We move from the elite/bourgeois attractions of the first four routes to the more popular routes of the everyday folks.  Exit the Piazza Duomo from its Southwest corner onto via Torino.  It's a busy street, with a tram running down the middle, so somewhat difficult to cross.  Shops and cafes and street food run continuously on both sides, and there are a number of interesting side streets going off in both directions--just don't get too far off the main drag, though, or you will get lost quickly.  Eventually, you arrive at the Corso di Porta Ticinese; turning left, you head due South.  It's a fairly normal big city street for awhile, but with parks and churches off to both sides, and plenty of bars in sight.  Near the arch of the Porta Ticinese, there's a large square with several more bars.  Lots of young people will be found on any evening with reasonable weather or a good soccer game.

6) The Navigli. If Porta Ticinese only whetted your appetite for partying, then continue on through the arch.  There is a small lagoon to traverse, bearing to the right, and there will be two different canals heading South and Southwest.  Both canals are lined with restaurants and club; the one further to the right (toward the Southwest) is the wider one, Naviglio (Canal) Grande, the other is the Naviglio Pavese (it goes toward the town of Pavia).  The Naviglio Grande has to be crossed through one of several pedestrian bridges; there is also a boat which goes up and down the canal when the conditions are right.   The water flows fairly well on the canals, but there are some side ditches which tend to breed mosquitoes during the summer.  This lively area goes on for quite a while--in distance, and into the night.

7) Via Guastalla/Via della Commenda.  Finally (!), a route I discovered recently.  It's a quiet, beautiful, straight path in the North-South direction which cuts a great deal of distance off the other routes in the Southeast direction, between the first ring (marked by the Via Larga) and the second (ending at Porta Romana). It basically avoids the interruptions of the roads for the complexes of the old hospital and the Universita degli Studi (though that ancient college complex is also worth a visit).  It's mostly pedestrian-only, passing by some beautiful residential buildings, a synagogue (guarded 24 hours a day) and a park (Giardino della Guastalla) which faces on the back of the university complex. There are entrances to the public hospital, the remnants of what appears to be a 19th-century asylum, and the road gives way to shops, restaurants, and a high school on via della Commenda.  At the road's South end (via Orti), turn right for a short distance and turn left on Corso di Porta Romana, if the Porta (which has some old Spanish walls and a Roman ceremonial arch at the center of the square, along with a refurbished old spa) is your destination.

The only trick is finding the beginning of via Guastalla on its North end.  From the Duomo or Corso VE II, go South, passing through Piazza Fontana, and continuing on until Via Larga (the "Wide Road"--probably was once a canal, I imagine), turning left onto Verzieres, then onto Largo Augusto, staying to the right.  You need to cross a wide street (via Francesco Sforza to the right/via Uberto Visconti di Modrone to the left) , which leads to the beginning of a wide avenue, the Corso di Porta Vittoria--looking down that wide avenue, you can see a large pedestal and statue at its end.  Instead, go one short block, in front of an old building (the Biblioteca Comunale, or public library), and turn right on the dark, empty street.  That is via Guastalla--at most you will see a pedestrian or two coming out of it, as it's practically impossible to enter the last stretch of the road by car.  And then you can breathe easier, walking relaxedly and safely.

Sounding Off

In my efforts to cover the topics of the moment, sometimes I neglect to express my point of view with sufficient force or clarity, so this post will attempt to correct that.

Trust Not in Bibi

I was much too easy on Bibi when he came to the US to speak to the joint session of Congress.  Maybe I was just trying to be a good host.  Anyway, my main beef at the time was with the Republicans, who were interfering improperly with Israeli domestic politics.  I never thought anything Netanyahu was going to say was going to affect the outcome of the negotiations with Iran—certainly not with regard to President Obama’s stance, even less for the other participants (Iran, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union).  And in fact it did not; maybe the pressure succeeded in moving the end of the agreement from 10 years to 15 years--that's all fantasyland, anyway; by 2030 many things are likely to have changed, in Iran, in the global nuclear proliferation framework, maybe even in Israel.  One can hope.

I do want to point out that Netanyahu’s last minute demagoguery in the Israeli campaign showed his true colors.  I have said it before:  When Netanyahu complained that the required negotiation partners were lacking for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, it was true.  He was unsuitable, and re­­­mains so.  I will give him credit:  his despicable, racist threats in the last minutes of the campaign succeeded in gaining him that little nudge he needed to be sure that it was to him that the Israeli President turned, as the head of the party with a clear lead in the number of Knesset seats.  Those 2-3 seats were basically gained at the expense of the far-right parties; however, for them it was perhaps an acceptable deal (maybe not for the 2-3 candidates who didn’t get seated).  With Netanyahu in control of the new government's coalition-building, those parties will be  included in the final coalition (at least most of them will be), while they probably would not have been invited in if the Livni/Herzog Zionist Front had ended up in the driver’s seat.   In that case it would probably have ended up being  a coalition of the parties across the center-left and center-right, which would have included Netanyahu’s Likud (needed to get the numbers), but in a lesser role.

I see the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has been suckered into echoing Netanyahu's line with regard to the anti-Semitic slant of some of the recent terroristic events in Europe in recent days.  As has often occurred in the past, his editors put a shock headline (“Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe“) on his more reasoned discussion, but I would suggest that, just as Netanyahu argues for more Jews in Israel for his narrow political objectives (countering the demographic decline in the percentage of first-generation Jewish immigrants, usually more likely to support his side), Europeans could counter that Israelis would do better to move to Europe and help balance the growth in Islamist numbers.  From the security point of view, I’m not sure Israel has the edge, either:  Western European governments are now highly sensitized toward protection of their Jewish minorities, and security has been stepped up noticeably. 

Final comment:  I hope the Israeli Arab alliance is not discouraged by the outcome of the Israeli elections.  What was clear from Netanyahu’s conquering stoop is that, united, the Israeli Arabs are a political force to be regarded—though not yet to be considered in forming governments.  If/when Netanyahu’s last term (surely) fails, the next round may favor a more forthright stance toward negotiation (if the failure is not in the form of massive violence, an intifada 3.0) and a switch in economic policy to the left.  That will be the time when the Israeli Arabs can make their growing presence felt and help bring about some sort of final agreement in Palestine.  Clearly, nothing will happen until then.

Give Peace a Chance

With regard to the draft agreement on nuclear power with Iran:  The world should rejoice, at least for a couple of days until the professional nitpickers start finding flaws.  Certainly, there will be some blemishes, and I would be underrating the Iranians' subtlety and watchful attention to the West were I to suggest that they will not exploit them. . They should then thank the paid negativistic natterers (thanks for the alliteration, Spiro Agnew speechwriter!) for pointing them out.  I think most of the nations involved will be earnest and sincere in following through on the terms of the agreement, while I would expect the Iranians to observe the letter of it, while pressing to relieve the sanctions sooner than the terms--yet to be finalized--will specify.

  

There will be a debate in the US Congress about relieving the sanctions, whenever that is supposed to happen, and I would not suppose the outcome will be favorable.  The point that should be clearly understood up front, however, is that refusing unilaterally to relieve them will be a pointless political charade:  if the rest of the world is not observing the sanctions, the US’ insistence on maintaining them will be relatively inconsequential (except to be a major pain in the ass for those institutions required to observe US law).   It’s something to make hardliners feel good when they have nothing to feel good about.  

Instead, the Congressional critics of the prospects of a peaceful resolution should look at the deal as a win-win opportunity for them:  if Iran fails to live up to its agreement, or even if their compliance is dodgy, Saddam Hussein-style, there would be a legitimate basis for punitive action.  Though the agreement is limited in its scope, the negotiations' progress also presents a political opportunity for a big victory in the region, if it strengthens the hand of the wing more open to reforms, currently headed by Iran's elected President Rouhani.  That can only happen if the US acts in good faith with its allies, negotiating partners, and respects its promises to Iran. I don't expect such good sense, though, expecting instead the reflexive opposition to anything originated by the Obama Administration.

Campaign 2016:  Act I, Scene 2   

Although I have remained pretty strict in my observance of my “no new political contributions in 2015” rule—trying to do my little part to reduce the PAC arms race while I can—I cannot remain totally silent about the 2016 campaign, which is starting to impose itself.  I am in the “Almost Ready for Hillary” camp, where I expect to remain for the rest of the year.  I am not in favor of a serious challenge to her candidacy on the Democratic side.  Maybe a silly one, like ex-Governor O’Malley’s attempt to gain some recognition for the future, or a Bernie Sanders issue-oriented Jesse Jackson-type candidacy, which will at least give Hillary some practice expressing her points of view, but will not require any serious expenditure of energy or money.

With regard to Democrats’ preparations for the other races, I am heartily in favor of some counterforce development to start winning back statehouses—it’s early, but 2020 will be here before we know it, and there is a long, long way to go.  Gaining control of the House seems an impossible dream now, but it could become a possible one if the Republicans continue on their path toward obsolescence (see the disastrous Religious Freedom law passed in Indiana)—and what is going to stop them from voluntary self-destruction?  Therefore, I am giving (a small amount) to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) each month, to help them prepare their warchest.  Ben Ray Lujan is the Chairman, he is my Congressman, and I respect his judgment and his political integrity.  I am not going to repeat my disastrous attempt to cherry-pick Congressional races to support.  With regard to the Senate, I think it’s looking good, for the most part:  I am very excited by the apparent decision by Russ Feingold to challenge Ron Johnson to a rematch in Wisconsin, and I disagree with you party pros who are reluctant to get behind Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania:  that seat is a must-win, and he is the best man for the job, even if he makes you uncomfortable sometimes.  Illinois is shaping up as an interesting, also essential, contest:  Mark Kirk is vulnerable,  but his mix of chosen nuggets of red meat for the right-wing and careful selection of socially responsible positions to avoid turning off the independents will require a strong opponent and turnout to defeat him:  Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth could be the right kind of Democratic candidate. 

I was asked recently by a DNC email to vote for the scariest Republican presidential candidate.  After voting, I was disappointed not to see any results, I hope they release some.  My vote is for Scott Walker:  he is a lamebrained tool who has been propped up as a new face, but to me (living in a neighboring state) that face is familiar, disgusting and scary.  Contrary to what some may say, he is not popular in Wisconsin (he narrowly defeated two weak opponents), he has not accomplished anything (except for some right-wing posturing anti-union measures), his state’s economy is weak, and (as some have recognized) he is extremely limited in his understanding of national, let alone international, issues.  Since the elections of Ronald Raygun, Richard Nixon and Dubya, I no longer have any interest in the “the worse, the better” argument for the Republican nomination process—one should never assume that any Republican nominee, no matter how unqualified, hypocritical, or offensive, cannot be elected.  Therefore, it is better to oppose the worst potential Presidents and mildly favor the better ones. 

With regard to other likely Republican candidates, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I need to waste ammo on the likes of Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Lindsay Graham, or Marco Rubio.  With regard to this last one, he’s setting himself up for some future ambition, and will retreat back to Florida to run for re-election when he fails to win any of the primaries in early 2016.  Ted Cruz is certainly worthy of fervent opposition, if and when it looks as though he could become the clear favorite of the right-wing nutjobs who make up such a large percentage of the Republican primary voting base; in the meantime I am mostly amused by the awkward stances of Obama-birthers with regard to the validity of his qualification to run (mind you, I do not question it myself).   

Who else? –I don’t think we have to worry about Mike Pence anymore.  John Kasich is a formidable VP candidate but is insufficiently rabid for Republican primary foodfights.  Yes, Jeb Bush is the most reasonable candidate the Republicans have;  my point of view is to let the sharks have at him for now—he should be weakened, not killed—while I look somewhat anxiously to see if the possible third-party candidates (which I consider extremely likely if the major parties offer up Clinton v. Bush) will hurt or help the Democrats’ chances.   I am relatively unconcerned by the possibility of a candidacy for Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee; it’s not that I agree with the pundits that it is unlikely that either could win the nomination, it is my feeling that they have some live brain cells and would govern pragmatically, with a relatively light touch, if they were in fact elected. 

The Real Hard Case
It's easy to share the outrage at the excesses of groups like Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, ISIS, or this week, Al-Shabaab with its massacre of Christian college students in Kenya. I am about as tempted as others to buy into radical violent approaches (I've seen "Bomb Them Even Further into the Stone Age",  "Keep Calm and Bomb Everyone"); certainly many of those have forfeited their natural right to continued existence, and those who submit to their domination should be aware that ignominious death in the form of faceless violence (drones, cruise missiles), at the angered hands of offended world opinion, is their most likely destiny.

Rather than offering such short-term prescriptions, though, we should consider what the desired endgame for the peoples of the region should be, and then how can we possibly move toward that kind of outcome.  Political role models for the Arabs and the lands of Central and East Africa are few--the options seem to be limited to tyranny, either the secular or fanatical varieties, or chaos (which provides safe haven for the extremists).  Turkey and Indonesia provide examples of successful democratic governments in Muslim-dominated electorates, but neither is Arab or African (and Turkey's Erdogan has been veering toward Putinesque maneuvers to retain control in recent years). Algeria and Tunisia have both managed to integrate Islamist forces into existing secular elitist governments, perhaps a model Egypt could move toward, once the restored military power has convinced itself that it has suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood challenge. 

There is no consistent trend in recent events:  Yemen descends toward chaos, Northeast Nigeria (shamed by the success against Boko Haram of neighboring nations' forces) emerges from it.  ISIS is in retreat in Syria and Iraq.  My own  feeling is that there is no stable solution to the problems of those two countries, as currently constituted; they need either to be broken up--something no one dares consider--or some sort of weak federation, with autonomous areas under weakened (and Balkanized) cosmopolitan capitals in Damascus and Baghdad--something like the formula which evolved after decades of disaster in Lebanon and Beirut.