In a single week, the US' prospective global participation level dropped by a couple of messy Middle Eastern affairs. Former Libyan dictator Qadhafi was captured and killed near his home in Libya, effectively ending our military involvement there, and President Obama announced that the US will withdraw its military forces completely from Iraq by the end of the year.
At least for the time being, the events in Libya should mean an end to hostilities in the civil conflict. The NATO alliance had its most successful military engagement there, achieving its objectives with a minimum of fuss and casualties to the alliance's member forces. The future for the country is far from assured, but the result gives it a chance for self-government, and, after it reactivates its oil economy, it could gain a degree of prosperity.
In the case of Iraq, we didn't really have a choice in the outcome, though Obama was quick to accept the Iraqis' decision to request our military's complete departure, which allowed him to claim fulfillment of one of his campaign promises. There were discussions to change the 2008 agreement between the Iraqis' government at the time, more or less the same they have now, and the Bush Administration, which required this departure by year-end. The negotiations broke down on the issue of whether US military would be given immunity against prosecution for crimes against Iraqis. It's a very likely premise to wreck any such discussion, basically a fundamental requirement for us to occupy another country and an unthinkable notion for any self-respecting nation which has not just suffered the indignity of being conquered.
In other words, the only terms Iraq under which it could have kept significant US forces would have been a surrender of its sovereignty. Not surprisingly, getting our forces out was one thing all of Iraq's factions could agree upon. There are still real potential problems going forward, besides a clear possibility of a reopening of internal conflict: We will have a substantial number of CIA operatives and Blackwater-type consultants operating in the country, with risks both to those individuals and possibly to Iraqis, and the largest embassy in the world is an attractive target for terrorists. The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened the embassy already, and there may still need to be a reckoning with him and his forces, if they destabilize the government or try to bring it too close to Iran's orbit of influence.
Although the circumstances and recent history are quite divergent, I'm struck by some of the similarities between Iraq's case and Libya's. Both countries' dictators were found hiding in holes and were rather brutally disposed of by their countrymen. Both countries are riven by tribal loyalties and breakaway tendencies from regions remote from the capital. Their national futures are cloudy but hopeful due to the potential oil revenues.
I'm beginning be to think there may some sort of Mideast multi-national political initiative in the offing, involving the nations recently liberated from their dictators (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya) and such possible partners as Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and (if it can shake its bonds) Syria. Such an alliance could be a powerful counter-force against an intransigent Israel and could even pose a challenge to Europe, which has rather clearly chosen to draw a clear line to keep its predominantly Muslim neighbors at a distance. As always, the trick for the US is to provide influence in a positive direction to these nations, helping to lead them toward what they should want to do for themselves, without being seen too clearly as directing their behavior.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Fruity Fisticuffs
I managed actually to watch the Republican debate tonight. There were plenty of potentially vomit-inducing statements, but also enough fireworks to keep my attention. The first set had to do with Herman Cain's controversial tax plan, where he dismissed concerns about his nine percent national sales tax being piled on top of existing state sales taxes by saying that was "mixing apples and oranges". Mitt Romney got him, though, by responding that "you get a fruit basket, with both apples and oranges, and Nevada doesn't want them". Cain's argument that low- and middle-class people would pay less under his plan "just won't fly", as Rick Perry said.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
The real problems Cain faces were illustrated in that discussion. His program is simple and largely understandable, which makes it a problem: Cain can either disguise its regressive nature (which he's trying to do), or he can acknowledge it. He's a Republican, he may as well as admit it, and it is eventually going to come out that he is a former member of the Federal Reserve Board (it doesn't seem to have come up yet), and thus a card-carrying member of the moneyed elite--the group that would benefit most from his program.
The fisticuffs were between Romney and Perry; they were not thrown, but I'd bet a closeup would show they both had their fists clenched. Romney got slammed as a hypocrite by Perry for having had illegals mowing his lawn; Perry got back a dig about how he was just getting testy because he had "a couple of bad debates". Perry's look in response to that was purely feral; Romney got frustrated with Perry's willingness to get in his face and interrupt him.
Actually, though, the glove that did touch Romney was Rick Santorum's, with his accusation that Romney has no credibility in his attacks on "Obamacare", having been a principal in the development and legislation of a healthcare coverage law in Massachusetts that closely paralleled the Affordable Care Act. It put Romney in a difficult position of having to defend the success and popularity of his Massachusetts law while condemning Obama's very similar one. It will come back.
I was impressed with how lame all of the answers were for several of the questions: on foreign aid, on what to do about the foreclosures in Nevada, about the Occupy Wall Street movement, about what any of them possibly have to offer for Latino voters. But that was to be expected, I guess.
So, especially for those who couldn't stomach it, I must answer the simple question: who won, and who lost? Bachmann, whose answers were largely irrelevant except for a couple of appeals to emotional, conservative women, and Santorum, except for his jab at Romney, were further marginalized. Ron Paul got some good points in, but he is clearly not mainstreaam Republican. Jon Huntsman definitely lost by not showing up; his absence was hardly noticed.
Newt Gingrich showed that he is the best debater, but that it won't matter in the nomination battle--he probably did well enough to keep him in the race until the balloting starts in January. Rick Perry gained by keeping himself in the ring; he didn't make any friends, but his money will buy continued viability. Cain did enough to stay in the top three, but I still see his position as a losing one. Romney came in the leader and left as the leader, but he failed to knock Perry out, and he will be bruised in a long battle with him (more than if Cain is the surviving leader of the anti-Romney forces).
The winner, because his most plausible opponent's long-term position got weaker, was Barack Obama. Except for Bachmann, most of them were too busy attacking each other to say anything intelligent about Obama's shortcomings, and there will be more of this to come.
Man of Nor and Gold
My wife picked me up from work the other day very excited. "I found this great guy on the radio--he's a Socialist!" It turns out that it was my longtime friend, Norman Goldman, or as he gives his handle on his Talk Radio program "NOR-man GOLD-man".
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
For the record, Norm is not exactly a Socialist (not that there is anything anti-American about advocating some Socialism--it's not illegal anymore). His program, which is repeated frequently on the program and on his website, NormanGoldman.com, is a very simple, populist one:
1 Tax the Rich--Also
2 Stop Corporate Welfare
3 Downsize the Global Empire
4 Bring the Jobs Home
All pretty self-explanatory. He is a fervent backer of the new Occupy (fill in the blank) Movement. He castigates the "Republi-Cons"--a great coinage, "con" meaning not convict but "con men", and it's such a true description of the politicians of that party. I like it so much I'm going to use it as the label to identify my posts about the party's politics for the 2012 election--when I do, my tribute to his insight shown in that label will always be implicit.
You may be somewhat surprised, though, when you hear him light into the Democratic politicians, which he does just as often and almost as vehemently, because they are not true to their professed principles. He is looking for a New Politics, and he is trying to capture the 99%-ers' aims in his 4-point program.
When I met Norm, he was an intern in the City Planning Department of New York (I'm going to guess mid-80's); later, I knew him as a storefront lawyer struggling against the crooked lawyers representing the insurance and banking industries. He used to fill in for Ed Schultz sometimes in the days of Air America (have I got that right?), the attempt at Progressive Talk Radio that featured Al Franken for awhile. Some of the content, as you can see above, matches up well with Ed's, but his style is radically different: highly urban, educated, but also colloquial.
He's a big baseball fan (Cleveland Indians) and a great guy, a fine American, and I'm happy for him: he really sounds like he's having the time of his life. I wish him a long run, but we all should know he's up against some big opponents, taking on both parties as strongly as he does. Let's hope there remains a place for Norm on our air waves.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Some Current Intrade Quotes
The wagerers at Intrade agree with my assessment that the rise of Herman Cain's candidacy (combined with the collapse of Rick Perry's) is the best news yet for Mitt Romney's candidacy. He had hovered in the 30-35% range on the probability of winning the Republican nomination until the last month; now he's given a 67% chance. Perry, who for a brief period was seen as having a better chance of winning the nod, still has second highest at 14%, Cain is at 8%, and the others are quoted at less than 5%.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
In terms of the Presidency, President Obama's chances of winning the 2012 election are rated at 47%, while the Republican nominee, whoever it will be, is at 49.5%. Romney is granted a 34% chance of becoming the 45th President. Perry quotes at 7%, Cain at 4%, and none of the others are even close to that.
The betting is leaning heavily toward the view that each house of Congress will have a Republican majority: 77% for the House of Representatives, and 75% for the Senate. I am less convinced about this than the majority of Intrade wagerers seem to be, but more on this later. In what will surely be one of the highlighted races next year, Scott Brown's chances of holding his Massachusetts Senate seat for the Republicans next year has fallen sharply, from 65% to 35%, since the entry into the race of his nemesis, Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Finally, on the Republican VP nominee, Marco Rubio leads the betting, but only at 27%--Cain is second at 8%. Rubio's chances are the only one of those I've named here that I'd actually bet on--even, from the point of gambling investment, Barack Obama's.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
This Month's Flavor Combination is Redneck, Black
If it seems like a contradiction in terms, it is. Herman Cain is surely the most outlandish idea for a Republican front-runner yet. He's never been elected to anything; his sole claim to fame was as the CEO of a mediocre pizza chain; his idea of a great Supreme Court justice (as he told David Gregory on Meet the Press this week) is Clarence Thomas; and his natural constituency is about as broad as Thomas's-the 5-10% of African-Americans (some 12% of the voting-eligible population) who like policies that are clearly directed against the interests of their own minority, and the people who think that our biggest problem is that we don't have a black President sufficiently willing to help the moneyed elite.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
This blog will be coming up to its 666th post shortly; we will devote it to a review of the Republican field: the Devils we know, the ones we don't, and the other candidates for Antichrist; Cain's "9-9-9" will certainly figure into that discussion.
All I have to say right now is that Cain's ascendancy is a dream come true for Mitt Romney's candidacy. The one thing that would stop Romney is someone uniting the stop-Romney factions of libertarians, right-wing paranoids, and evangelicals (now broadly referred to now as the Tea Party faction of the party), currently split among the likes of Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Santorum. If someone from that wing could emerge from the pack and pull together the various anti-Romney forces, he/she could pose a serious threat to what seems otherwise the most likely scenario: Romney's likely steady march through the primaries, competing and scoring respectably in all of them, drawing most of the support of the major party leaders, and winning big where the primary vote does not swing to the extreme right.
I absolutely cannot imagine those forces rallying around Cain. For one thing, if he somehow won the nomination, it would almost certainly provoke a split among the Republicans, ensuring their defeat, and even if it didn't, he'd get wiped out by Obama in a two-way race. I think Cain's best-case result is to win a couple of primaries, show up for a few more, and be in a position to take the second spot in the ticket if he throws his support to one of the other would-be Romney-stoppers. Even that seems unlikely: Cain's ego seems too big to accept the #2 spot, and I can't imagine any nominee, from any shade of the red spectrum, choosing anyone other than Marco Rubio as running mate (Florida being what it is, a huge swing state).
Unlike Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney, Cain communicates well, with forceful convictions, plentiful sound bites and ready formulaic answers, and with only occasional major gaffes. So it may not be easy to put his candidacy down, but it will assuredly happen--I'm guessing because he won't get the backing of the big money backers when the campaign shifts from retail politicking to expensive regional and national television.
In the debates, Bachmann, Perry, & Co. have a difficult task, as they must seek to undercut Cain's support but should avoid giving him the prestige of being the most prominent target. Attack on him for lack of public sector experience probably isn't going to work among this crowd. I would say Perry would have the best chance by showing how he's been able to manipulate Texas' legislature into giving him what he wants, and by having some semblance of a coherent national domestic and foreign policy. That's probably giving him too much credit, but surely his big bucks can get him some quality political advice, even if the Bushes and Roves of the party have turned him out. Much as I despise and fear Perry, I'm rooting for him to rebound and overtake Cain, as the best hope to stop Romney, whom I see as the only Republican candidate with a decent chance of beating Obama.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
President Obama's American Jobs Act legislation failed to get close to the 60 votes it would need to move to debate on the floor. It will come back in pieces, and a few of them may eventually be passed. I'm thinking that the payroll tax cut (tax cuts are always welcomed by both parties), probably the portion for building and modernizing schools and hospitals, and perhaps the incentive for hiring will pass in some form resembling the one that Obama originally proposed. The revenue piece designed to offset this spending, raising increase in tax rates for the wealthiest, will not, of course.
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
I'm not sure that the result will achieve any of the objectives: most importantly, employment may be bumped up a notch or two (or a bump down may be offset), but it seems certain the official rate of those without will still be upwards of 8% on Election Day 2012. The record of the vote will be a mushy political weapon: many Senators, even many Democrats, had things they didn't like in such a multi-faceted piece of legislation, and a couple of Democrats even voted against it—others indicated they might have voted against it if it had reached the floor. Obama will certainly be able to claim that he has been hamstrung by a “do-nothing Congress”, a claim which may resonate but will not necessarily buy him, or his party, much in the way of political gain.
Following my general observance of the Talking Heads' Psycho-killer philosophy (“Say something once, why say it again?”) I will not go into too much detail, but I will refer you to one of my better posts, two years ago this month, in which I diagnosed and prescribed for this jobless recovery.
I will repeat and expand my suggestion that the Federal government provide sponsorship for community programs which would restore neighborhoods ravaged by foreclosure and abandonment. Banks should be required to provide support, in the form of contribution of some percentage of owned real estate properties to be turned over and sold for public benefit or conversion to public low-income housing, as well as wages for skilled and unskilled labor doing the restoring. In return, they should get CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) credit, improved value on neighboring properties to which they would retain ownership, and tax deductions for their expenses. It's the least they should be required to do, and it might improve the public's view of their utility and relieve the pressure on them (see below).
Occupy: Is it all about Occupation?
The Chicago Tribune posted me to this site, which lists the “demands” of the Occupy Chicago movement, as follows (I could not find on the site that these “proposed demands” were actually adopted, but I assume they were):
1. Pass a bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, a safeguard separating banks' commercial lending and investment operations. “Its repeal in 1999 is considerted the major cause of the global financial meltdown of 2008-09”, the group states.
2. Repeal Bush-era tax cuts.
3. Prosecute “the Wall Street criminals who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis.”
4. Overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations “to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns”.
5. Pass the Warren Buffett rule on fair taxation, close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit hiding funds offshore.
6. Give the Securities and Exchange Commission stricter regulatory power, strengthen the Consumer Protection bureau and help victims of predatory lending whose home loans have been foreclosed.
7. Take steps to limit the influence of lobbyists and eliminate the practice of lobbyists writing legislation.
8. Eliminate (the) right of former government regulators to work for the corporations or industries they once regulated.
9. Eliminate corporate personhood.
10. Insist the Federal Elections Commission “ensure that political candidates are given equal time for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season”.
11. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act.
12. Forgive student debt.
My comments. I really only oppose the last one, which is impracticable and basically an unconstitutional confiscation of legitimate debt (“only” some $900 billion, they say), and #8, which would excessively limit the right of employment for public servants. I would favor some limited version of that one, in which incoming public servants would agree not to work for certain specified companies or narrow industry code definitions for some period of time (like 5 years), and I would favor some legislated reduction of the debt burden for many student borrowers.
On the other hand, I strongly support #9, #7, #4, and #2, although they might require major legislation (thus, unlikely to happen anytime soon) and #9 or #4 might require a Constituional amendment. I strongly support #10 and #11, though I think they have no chance with either party. I support #1, though I think its importance is overstated; it was seriously considered for the Financial Reform legislation in 2010 but other areas were considered more critical, with good reason. #6, #5, and #3 are commendable in intent but too vague to have much meaning (except the Buffett rule, which I support).
What's missing is anything that would create any jobs, though I admit I'm not sanguine about the chances of any political argument claiming to do that on a lasting basis and large scale here. I think it's a fair criticism to suggest that the Occupy Chicago movement isn't really that interested in getting jobs for its participants (who, clearly, have none)—not that they have to seek them. It just might make the movement a bit more appealing to the working stiffs that make up a good portion of the 99% they suggest that they represent.
And Then There's Mr. Jobs Himself
It's time for me to pay my respects to the late Steve Jobs. First, I must express my sympathy for his family and friends, and my admiration for his determined efforts to carry on despite his debilitating and painful disease.
Respects is most of what I will pay, though; I'm excessively proud of the fact that I don't think I've ever directly paid for any of his products. I find them too expensive for what they do, most of which I don't need. I keep waiting for the price of his laptops to come into range, and they haven't followed the usual pattern. I got an iPod for one of my round-number birthdays from my sister: I said (and say) “thanks”, but I didn't use it much and eventually gave it to my daughter, who appreciates and needs it more. OK, I may buy an iPad before too long if the price comes into line (maybe that's more likely than their laptops' prices do).
What I did do, a few months ago, was buy a few shares. There's no doubt that Apple has the consuming public, and the investment market, too, in thraldom. Not even Jobs' demise could derail the stock, and that was what I was counting upon.
I may not be a big fan of Apple's products, but there's no denying the transformation he brought about, in this country and beyond. Is it healthy? I don't know, but it's certainly what we'd call “progress”, and that should be appealing to a progressive like me.
I haven't done a study of the jobs he's created, but there must be a lot (maybe even in the US). He's certainly created a lot of wealth here, and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Finally, let's salute his success--supposed by Fitzgerald to be rare in America--in performing a hugely successful second act--and third--for himself!
Friday, October 07, 2011
Redeeming the Promise of '08
I am hardly one of those who regret their 2008 support of President Obama based on his performance in the job, or who condition their support for 2012.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Some criticism is justified, and I will get to that, but first, some deserved praise. His conduct of the most important area under his control, the diplomatic/military sphere, has earned a solid A grade.
International Wins
Last week he called for the trigger to be pulled on Anwar al-Awlaki, who imagined that he could threaten his native land safely from a desert retreat. There are legal issues about signing a finding authorizing his death by covert means, but this is another case where the result was fully justified. The previous example, last month's stunning victory by the Libyan rebels vindicated his middle-ground strategy there: encouraged by the U.N. and the Arab League, he chose to provide critical, timely support, preventing general reprisals and massacres, allowing the rebels the time to develop a winning strategy and overthrowing a bloody dictator. Most importantly, he achieved that success with minimal risk to American lives.
Back on the military side, Obama's administration won the big prize in May with the successful raid into Pakistan which took out Osama Bin Laden. He has successfully wound down the Iraq occupation, and he is on a path to achieve a reasonably successful extraction from the other inherited counterinsurgency quagmire, Afghanistan.
Not everything has gone well. Diplomatically, his policy toward Iran has not yet worked, and the country still poses a major destabilizing threat. With the critical nation of Pakistan the results are mixed, at best: the civilian regime is an ally, but a weak one, unable to overcome the nation's historic tendencies toward insubordinate security forces and regional troublemaking. There has been no progress toward resolution of the Israel-Palestine mess, which means more steps backwards. Finally, the illegal prison in Guantanamo has not been closed; though that is more a domestic failing, in the eyes of the world it's clearly a black eye on our reputation he hasn't been able to heal.
All these areas would be better served, though, from a continuation of Obama/Clinton handling rather than any foreseeable alternative. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, and if she can be persuaded to serve out a second term, could rank as one of the best ever in the position.
Domestic Woes
As good as the advice, strategy, and results have been for most of the foreign/military projects abroad, that's how bad most of the domestic initiatives have been. The first responses to the economic crisis--the Bank bailout (actually before his inauguration, though passage would've been very difficult if he'd opposed them), the auto industry assistance, the stimulus plan--these were reasonable compromises made because the urgency of the situation did not allow for prolonged consideration. Some of it--the bailouts--achieved their immediate aims, and the stimulus was not a failure--just not quite enough of a boost (though it's questionable any amount would've been sufficient, and certainly doubtful if much more could've passed Congress).
The accomodative pattern from those early, critical acts was very evident in the signature domestic legislation of his first Congress, the Affordable Care Act. Here I disagree with the notion that speed was essential, or even possible; they were in a big hurry and it still took a year or more to bring to law, not to mention the legal challenges which will take about two years to resolve.
The piece missing from the legislation, which may end up being required if, as I see being quite likely, the Supreme Court rules that the mandate to buy private health insurance is beyond Congress' authority (and thus unconstitutional) is the public option. Unfortunately, in his zeal to get a bill done, I think that Obama and his advisers made a bad deal with the private insurers--no private option, and the insurers lobby would not try to block it.
The Christmas deal to keep the tax cuts in place was one made under duress: the House was just about to be taken over by a heavily Tea-flavored Republican majority. The deal extended the tax reductions for the wealthy and for the middle class, basically an unacceptable compromise. Worse was to come with the next big deal under duress, for the debt ceiling; though the Administration rejected the confrontational approach of challenging the need for the ceiling--something which might not have worked, the deal may still produce something acceptable in the form of the desired combination of cuts and revenue enhancements, but I wouldn't count upon it. As I feared, the roster of the membership of the "Gang of 12" supercommittee seems designed to continue the partisan logjam. What that will mean, though, is a set of mandatory cuts in both domestic programs and military spending--a sharing of pain, no real gain.
Obama's tax policy lacks a coherent direction. His December, 2010 extension of the tax cuts for the rich broke a campaign promise, one he didn't so much betray as reveal that he couldn't deliver. With the backing of friendly billionaire Warren Buffett, he has come up with a modest proposal to create a new Alternative Minimum Tax for those with income over $1 million. More complication, little likelihood of success--the AMT we already have is a headache, little more, and this one will never pass through the current Congress (I can hear it now: "if the rich--excuse me, 'job creators'--knew they had to pay tax, it wouldn't be worth making a million a year".) Obama seems to welcome the idea of a revision of the tax code, but isn't providing the kind of push it would need, no doubt because he doesn't want this House anywhere near it.
The worst, for me, has been temporizing on Obama's moral and value-based position as the best protector of our greatest possession, our natural resources. He is blocking regulations of ozone and greenhouse gas emissions proposed by one of his best Cabinet members, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. He also seems to be greasing the way for oil exploration off the Arctic coast, and relaxing protection of endangered species. This sort of behavior, favoring the coal, gas, and oil interests, is less than I expected; Ohio and Pennsylvania may be important for his re-election (West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and Kentucky are not) but I am not convinced that the voters of any of these states want Obama to gain them prosperity through the sacrifice of their natural inheritance.
Obama has finally thrown down the gauntlet to this Congress with his Jobs Act. It won't pass, but the strategy of challenging the Republicans to do something about unemployment may work in the long run. While the weakness of the field of possible/likely Republican opponents for 2012 means that Obama is likely to eke out a win without taking forceful positions moving from a cautious, centrist approach, only a strong battling stance as leader of his party would give the Democrats a chance of regaining control of Congress for a second Obama term. And, without that, that second Obama term is never going to fulfill the promise his candidacy, and his inauguration, originally promised--something his first term has clearly not done.
My standard is moderately high: I expect him to be the best President we have seen in my lifetime. It's still there to be achieved--which means he has not yet done so.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Some Top 10's, Pt. 1--British Rockers
This is another in a series leading up to my All-time Rock Playlist, in which I will list my top 200 (I'm now thinking) songs, with a per-artist limit of one each (and an honorable mention or two, if applicable). I've previously given listings for a couple of the tougher ones to pick favorites--John
Lennon and Steely Dan.
For a few artists, though, ones with huge breadth of work and many great songs, I'm going to go into more depth. I need to elaborate, to explain a little my quirky preferences, and just to help me work through the task. In today's listings, we will field some really tough calls from the British Isles.
Pink Floyd
came to Floyd relatively late. I'm not so crazy about "Atom Heart Mother" (I like the cover art, though), "See Emily Play"-type stuff, or even (sacrilege!) "Dark Side of the Moon" (except the last cut). In spite of my ambivalence about the early Syd Barrett phase, I especially like the album that was clearly devoted to the absence of the late Mr. Barrett, namely "Wish You Were Here".
10. Grantchester Meadows/Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict--but of course! (Ummagumma)
9. Nile Song (More)--The hardest that Floyd rocks.
8. Fearless (Meddle)
7. Careful with that Axe, Eugene (Ummagumma)
6. Run Like Hell (The Wall)
5. Pigs (Animals)
4. Comfortably Numb (A Momentary Lapse of Reason)
3. Great Gig in the Sky (Dark Side)
2. Echoes (Meddle)
1. Wish You Were Here (the whole album belongs on the list; clearly “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”--either part, or both--would belong, I'm opting here for the title cut)
King Crimson
As I've raved previously, we're still waiting to catch up to where Robert Fripp was forty years ago. I love about 90% of Crimson's output, and about half of Fripp's other stuff. My feeling is that the middle period--"Lizard" through "Red"--has held up best.
I recently read the Wikipedia article on the band, from which I learned some new things. The most interesting was the quote from percussionist Bill Bruford—a hero of mine; he left the guaranteed celebrity and money of Yes for a musically more challenging, roller-coaster of a job with Crimson. The quote, from his biography, said that coming to KC he got a reading list including Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.
This told me quite a lot; I had a fling with schools of esoteric knowledge based on those two (with reference to great Works which had concealed references to their doctrines) in the early '80's (it ended when my jealous first wife confronted my teacher about the money I was paying for the school, and we all agreed I should give it a rest). There's a lot of good in the program,discussion about personal development and exercises to free the mind from its normal binding habits, but also a lot of outrageous blarney that you are required to follow literally. It's possible, if the band's cranky genius Robert Fripp was deep into that stuff, that some of the various machinations and formations and deformations of the band were partially due to judgments of Fripp's mentors about changes he should make to continue his personal development—and the advice of the teacher is paramount in the program.
In particular, I figure the League of Crafty Guitarists (a “solo” effort with 15-20 guitarists trained by Fripp playing together) could have been his teacher's order for him to share his skills and develop his interpersonal skills. Anyway, my top 10 from Crim:
10. Cirkus (Lizard)--The album deserves better, but it's hard to pick out an individual track other than this one for special commendation. The whole thing has a great feel, high production value.
9.Exiles (Larks' Tongue in Aspic)--I don't know what to say about it, except that it belongs in here; there's a wistful sound to the instrumentals, the tone of the lyrics, that is so appropriate for the band..
8. Trio (Starless and Bible Black)--Incredible improv., recorded live and put on this (otherwise) studio album. Bruford got writing credit for recognizing in mid-song that the performance needed no percussion whatsoever.
7. Cat Food (In the Wake of Poseidon)--I had this album on 8-track in the 70's and listened to it too much; hearing this song recently made me re-discover my appreciation of it.
6. Larks Tongue in Aspic (part 2)--Does it make sense to say it's both subtle and powerful?
5.Waiting Man (Beat)--For my money, this album is their underrated one from the '80's. I saw them on tour with this album outdoors on NYC's Pier, and this was the most memorable song they performed.
4. 21st Century Schizoid Man (In the Court of the Crimson King)--Their groundbreaking first album deserves better treatment from me, and I like all the songs (even “Moonchild”), but I couldn't squeeze them in. This song—almost perfect--is an uncanny vision of the future, and 40+ years ago, when it came out, we knew it. It was really just a matter of seeing the present with great clarity..
3. Great Deceiver/Lament (S&BB)--It's not a cheat linking the two cuts; they blend these two perfectly on the album, and together they are a marvelous study in dynamics, with some of their best lyrics.
2. Starless (Red) The best of their many organically built, chromatic instrumentals—and it's got good vocals, too (a bit melancholy, though).
1. The Night Watch (Starless & Bible Black)--Unlike a lot of their tunes which are almost perfect, this song is perfect—-it's flawless, a masterpiece. If you haven't studied it, the topic is the painting by Rembrandt by that name, and musing about the people in the painting.
Eric Clapton Even more than Fripp/Crimson's, his is a never-ending story that's hard to break into clear segments. When it comes to The List, I will probably split it into E.C. solo and E.C.-subsumed-into-bands, but that is a difficult task to draw the dividing line. Anyway, here's my miserable attempt at ranking his top 15 or so (I note a definite tone of tragedy):
15. Sittin' On Top of the World— (Cream) Many (the majority) of E.C.'s best efforts were on songs he didn't write. This song's history is as old as the hills.
14. Further on Up the Road ("solo")--This is the song Clapton chose to perform for The Band's finale concert, filmed by Scorsese, "The Last Waltz". It refers to a love affair gone bad (of course), but I see it as Clapton looking ahead to better times.
13. Layla--(Derek and the Dominos) probably deserves a better rating, but let's face it, we're all tired of hearing it, even the slow version on “Unplugged”. .
12. I'm So Glad--(Cream) after this, the sarcasm gives way to sincerity.
11. Tell the Truth (Derek and the Dominos)—pick a version, I like the really slow one.
10. Strange Brew (Cream)—-I could mention several other songs on the Cream masterpiece album, “Disraeli Gears”, such as “Dance the Night Away” or “We're Going Wrong,” (great drumming on both of those), or “World of Pain”, or “Tales of Brave Ulysses” (Clapton at least shares songwriting credit on that one), but next I would list:
9. SWLABR--says here that it stands for "She Walks Like a Bearded Rainbow"--no comment!
8. In the Presence of the Lord (Blind Faith)--a moment of Clapton seeing his future redemption.
7. Had to Cry Today (Blind Faith)-it's mostly a Steve Winwood song, but I don't think the guitar solo is...
6. After Midnight (solo)--it's by J.J. Cale; I'll take that over his Cale's “Cocaine” any time.
5. White Room (Cream)—has always been my favorite big Cream hit (over "Sunshine of My Love")
4. Badge (Cream)—my choice for the best Clapton performance—singing/playing—of the early years.
3. It Hurts Me Too (solo)--pick any song out of "From the Cradle", as they're all great, all covers.
2. Tears In Heaven (solo)
1. Why Does Love Got to Be So Sad—-(Derek and the Dominos)--The studio version w/Duane Allman was superb; the one on “In Concert” even better.
U2
This is really unfair; I could have filled the entire top 10 with songs from “Achtung Baby” and wouldn't have felt cheated—the album is that good. I settled for four of the top 10, so I could include some others that particularly fascinate me. I'm trying to give the band the respect they are due, and their work, despite stylistic and contextual changes, is all of one piece, one unchanged set of individuals. And I freely admit that I have shortchanged their excellent albums of the 2000's in favor of some of their more aged classics.
10. Gloria—My first exposure to the band; also the first music video I really liked (they're on a barge in a harbor—Belfast?)
9. An Cath Dubh—A quirky song, title is Irish for “the black cat”; from their first album, “Boy”, which I really should have represented more fully, but there's just no space.
8. Love Is Blindness—Achtung Baby!
7. Gone—This song (originally on "Pop", but remixed nicely for their best of 1990-2000 release) is rising rapidly up my chart.
6. New Year's Day—One of their best live songs; the guitar is searing. Same comments apply to another special “Day”, as in “It's A Beautiful (Day)”>
5. Until the End of the World—here I need to mention “The Fly”, “Zoo Station”, “Even Better Than The Real Thing”, and my wife's favorite, “Mysterious Ways”, all similarly great songs from “Achtung! Baby”.
4. Two Hearts Beat as One—My favorite song from “War”
3. One—A.B. Just as it's fair to say every song on the album is great (OK, maybe not “Who's Going to Ride Your Wild Horses”), it's also fair to say this one is clearly the best, for its simple but profound message of love.
2. Unknown Caller—My best from their last album, “No Line on the Horizon”. I don't mind that it's clearly religious, because it's so unconventional. For U2, religion is an irritating necessity of the human condition, which is a pretty reasonable take on it (See also "Staring at the Sun").
1. Pride in the Name of Love—My very favorite song of the '80's; this song made me realize how high their ceiling would be. .
0. Bad/Where the Streets Have No Name—OK, this is a cheat, I know, doubly so, but the way they combined these two songs (from different albums) seamlessly in their live concerts (c. 2002) was spine-tingling. I had to slip it in at the bottom, er, top.
Paul McCartney
My taste with Sir Paul is for the clever jokester rather than the romantic balladeer or the sporadic hard-rocker; he's a clever, talented fellow and that's what I think he does/did best. First, some Honorably Mentioned songs, maybe not quite serious enough to make the top 10: Oh! Darling, Rocky Raccoon, The Night Before, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, I've Just Seen a Face, Fool on the Hill.
10. When I'm 64—he's actually now 69, and going strong.
9. Hey Jude—without the “Na na na”, it's a great song with well-chosen lyrics.
8. Drive My Car—Yes, You Can!
7. Can't Buy Me Love—not with money, no, no, no.
6. Uncle Albert/Helen Wheels –the only post-Beatles song by him that makes my Top 10 list.
5. Mother Nature's Son—pretty close to autobiography
4. Penny Lane—even closer.
3. Eleanor Rigby—his masterpiece collaboration....with George Martin.
2. Lady Madonna—Of his big hits, my favorite.
1. Back in the USSR —you can call it dated; you can call it a petty dig at the Beach Boys; I'd call it inspired, and intensely clever.
Elvis Costello
OK, this guy is a chameleon. He's a great songwriter, but a lot of his best work has been collaboration and covers of others' stuff. He can rock with the best, but he's always turning his back on rock and trying other stuff—usually sappy, like his country music, or his current turn as a lounge lizard (probably it's just an effort to try to impress his wife, who's much better at it). Anyway, this list will pay due homage to his cover efforts, but none at all to when he strays from what he does best, which is intricately-worded, fast-paced rock.
10. Days—A song by Ray Davies of the Kinks, which E.C. Covers brilliantly on the “Until the End of the World” soundtrack.
9. Good Year for the Roses—If you've spent any time in England, you'd appreciate this commentary on the incessant rain.
8. No Hiding Place—Great piece on 21st-century living with fame, from “Momofuku”
7. I Want You—I love the intensity.
6. Lipstick Vogue—Great rhythm, and despite what you would think from its title, actually not sarcastic.
5. Radio Radio—My favorite from the early, Attractions-do-Buddy-Holly rocker period.
4. Beyond Belief—My favorite of his Dylanesque scornful songs about love.
3. What's So Funny about Peace Love and Understanding?--a signature Costello cut, it's by Nick Lowe.
2. I Don't Want go Go to Chelsea—I love the sharp edges, both in the music and the lyrics.
1. Oliver's Army—never more sincere or clever with his lyrics. Certainly never more politically on target (Oliver refers to Cromwell, and the song's basically about the British military occupation in Northern Ireland).
The Who
With time, critical attention has turned from their concept albums (“Tommy”, “Quadrophenia”) to their early pop and to Pete Townshend's pieces intended for the never-quite-realized “Lifehouse” masterpiece that eventually became the guts of “Who's Next” and “Odds and Sods”. Not so for me—I still love the early rock operas, as well as the hits, some of the early experiments and other Townshend
gems that didn't become hits, such as much of his collection of demos, “Scoop”. With all that scope to choose from, it's not easy for me to narrow down to a few favorites.
My experiences seeing them live—and they were at the top of the list of the very best live performers, of the ones I ever saw—came in the middle-late period, when they were doing “Who Are You” (1979) and re-creating Quadrophenia (1996). After Keith Moon, but they still had Entwistle and Townshend at peak level, playing seriously.
From the live cuts on the extra disc that came with “Endless Wire”,
though, I don't think I'd want to see them now.
Before I count down my top 10, here are 10 great songs which somehow didn't make my
list: “The Kids are Alright”, “I can See for Miles”, “Go to the Mirror”, “Amazing Journey/Sparks”, “Bargain”, “5:15”, “Trick of the Light”, “Mary Anne (with the Shaky Hand)”, and two great ones from “Scoop”--”Mary”, and “To Barney Kessell”.
10. A Quick One (While She's Away)--first preview of what would become “Tommy”
9. Eminence Front—the band's last great single
8. Naked Eye—in case you don't recognize the title, the tag line is “It don't really happen that way at all.”
7. Helpless Dancer—I always liked this short piece the best out of all the great “Quadrophenia” album.
6. Zelda—It's from “Scoop”; if you've never heard this album, and care at all about The Who, you must.
5. Won't Get Fooled Again—about as close as they ever get to a political statement, one that's held up—it's basically an eternal truth.
4. Pure and Easy—Contrary to some opinion, The Who can be uplifting, though it's not easily so.
3. Who Are You-a great, honest late statement
2. Underture—I love this piece, but it's not my #1 because it lacks Roger Daltrey's vocals; he's been a great mouthpiece.
1. Behind Blue Eyes—I think it's what they—and particularly Townshend--are all about.
Gang of Four
This is a tricky one; the range of their product is not all that broad, but it's really top-notch, with a unique approach to building a song in layers and some great chicken-scratch guitar, plucked bass, and very politically pointed lyrics (but very post-modernist in the ambiguity of their stance). My problem is that they have ten or so songs that are superior work and its hard to prefer one over another.
10. Outside the Trains Don't Run On time
9. Satellite --best of the songs I've heard from their later work after the early '80's.
8. Call Me Up--”give me a reason for living”--a later one, as in not from the first two albums.
7. Natural's Not in It
6. In the Ditch—antiwar, or is it?
5. History Is Bunk—they can't really mean that, can they?
4. Damaged Goods – their first hit
3. I Love A Man In a Uniform—clearly sarcastic, I think.
2. Anthrax—a truly bizarre, hypnotic piece: “Love is like a case of Anthrax”
1. I Found that Essence Rare—yes, it is. The bass line will knock you over.
And That Leaves, Of Course... No, not Led Zeppelin: "When the Levee Breaks", with mentions for "Kashmir" and Robert Plant's recent cover of Low's "Silver Rider".
Nor Stevie Winwood, one of my all-time favorites: my clear choice for him is "Gimme Some Lovin'" with mentions for "Empty Pages", "Night Train", and "While You See A Chance" (theme music at my wedding--not kidding). As with Clapton, I may break down Stevie's into pre-solo and solo for The List, as a little bit of cheating is permitted by Blogger to me.
Speaking of cheating, though, we are of course now up to talking about "The World's Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band", or whatever. The Stones. My preference is generally for their work from the Brian Jones Era (through sometime in 1969), though I have to give some credit for the body of work since then (up until about 1990 or so, and none after that). So we've got 22 songs here, 10 of which were from the
BJEra, 10 not, and the other two being ambiguous, from "Let it Bleed", which was recorded before Jones died--with little help from him, according to his survivors--and released after that event.
No "Satisfaction"? No "Satisfaction"!! I also lied about how many Brian Jones Era songs there were. Deal with it.
Bruford's comment on being given Ouspensky and Gurdjieff to read when joining the band is in his autobiography (per the Wikipedia): Bruford, Bill "Bill Bruford – the Autobiography", Jawbone Press, 2009.
Lennon and Steely Dan.
For a few artists, though, ones with huge breadth of work and many great songs, I'm going to go into more depth. I need to elaborate, to explain a little my quirky preferences, and just to help me work through the task. In today's listings, we will field some really tough calls from the British Isles.
Pink Floyd
came to Floyd relatively late. I'm not so crazy about "Atom Heart Mother" (I like the cover art, though), "See Emily Play"-type stuff, or even (sacrilege!) "Dark Side of the Moon" (except the last cut). In spite of my ambivalence about the early Syd Barrett phase, I especially like the album that was clearly devoted to the absence of the late Mr. Barrett, namely "Wish You Were Here".
10. Grantchester Meadows/Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict--but of course! (Ummagumma)
9. Nile Song (More)--The hardest that Floyd rocks.
8. Fearless (Meddle)
7. Careful with that Axe, Eugene (Ummagumma)
6. Run Like Hell (The Wall)
5. Pigs (Animals)
4. Comfortably Numb (A Momentary Lapse of Reason)
3. Great Gig in the Sky (Dark Side)
2. Echoes (Meddle)
1. Wish You Were Here (the whole album belongs on the list; clearly “Shine On You Crazy Diamond”--either part, or both--would belong, I'm opting here for the title cut)
King Crimson
As I've raved previously, we're still waiting to catch up to where Robert Fripp was forty years ago. I love about 90% of Crimson's output, and about half of Fripp's other stuff. My feeling is that the middle period--"Lizard" through "Red"--has held up best.
I recently read the Wikipedia article on the band, from which I learned some new things. The most interesting was the quote from percussionist Bill Bruford—a hero of mine; he left the guaranteed celebrity and money of Yes for a musically more challenging, roller-coaster of a job with Crimson. The quote, from his biography, said that coming to KC he got a reading list including Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.
This told me quite a lot; I had a fling with schools of esoteric knowledge based on those two (with reference to great Works which had concealed references to their doctrines) in the early '80's (it ended when my jealous first wife confronted my teacher about the money I was paying for the school, and we all agreed I should give it a rest). There's a lot of good in the program,discussion about personal development and exercises to free the mind from its normal binding habits, but also a lot of outrageous blarney that you are required to follow literally. It's possible, if the band's cranky genius Robert Fripp was deep into that stuff, that some of the various machinations and formations and deformations of the band were partially due to judgments of Fripp's mentors about changes he should make to continue his personal development—and the advice of the teacher is paramount in the program.
In particular, I figure the League of Crafty Guitarists (a “solo” effort with 15-20 guitarists trained by Fripp playing together) could have been his teacher's order for him to share his skills and develop his interpersonal skills. Anyway, my top 10 from Crim:
10. Cirkus (Lizard)--The album deserves better, but it's hard to pick out an individual track other than this one for special commendation. The whole thing has a great feel, high production value.
9.Exiles (Larks' Tongue in Aspic)--I don't know what to say about it, except that it belongs in here; there's a wistful sound to the instrumentals, the tone of the lyrics, that is so appropriate for the band..
8. Trio (Starless and Bible Black)--Incredible improv., recorded live and put on this (otherwise) studio album. Bruford got writing credit for recognizing in mid-song that the performance needed no percussion whatsoever.
7. Cat Food (In the Wake of Poseidon)--I had this album on 8-track in the 70's and listened to it too much; hearing this song recently made me re-discover my appreciation of it.
6. Larks Tongue in Aspic (part 2)--Does it make sense to say it's both subtle and powerful?
5.Waiting Man (Beat)--For my money, this album is their underrated one from the '80's. I saw them on tour with this album outdoors on NYC's Pier, and this was the most memorable song they performed.
4. 21st Century Schizoid Man (In the Court of the Crimson King)--Their groundbreaking first album deserves better treatment from me, and I like all the songs (even “Moonchild”), but I couldn't squeeze them in. This song—almost perfect--is an uncanny vision of the future, and 40+ years ago, when it came out, we knew it. It was really just a matter of seeing the present with great clarity..
3. Great Deceiver/Lament (S&BB)--It's not a cheat linking the two cuts; they blend these two perfectly on the album, and together they are a marvelous study in dynamics, with some of their best lyrics.
2. Starless (Red) The best of their many organically built, chromatic instrumentals—and it's got good vocals, too (a bit melancholy, though).
1. The Night Watch (Starless & Bible Black)--Unlike a lot of their tunes which are almost perfect, this song is perfect—-it's flawless, a masterpiece. If you haven't studied it, the topic is the painting by Rembrandt by that name, and musing about the people in the painting.
Eric Clapton Even more than Fripp/Crimson's, his is a never-ending story that's hard to break into clear segments. When it comes to The List, I will probably split it into E.C. solo and E.C.-subsumed-into-bands, but that is a difficult task to draw the dividing line. Anyway, here's my miserable attempt at ranking his top 15 or so (I note a definite tone of tragedy):
15. Sittin' On Top of the World— (Cream) Many (the majority) of E.C.'s best efforts were on songs he didn't write. This song's history is as old as the hills.
14. Further on Up the Road ("solo")--This is the song Clapton chose to perform for The Band's finale concert, filmed by Scorsese, "The Last Waltz". It refers to a love affair gone bad (of course), but I see it as Clapton looking ahead to better times.
13. Layla--(Derek and the Dominos) probably deserves a better rating, but let's face it, we're all tired of hearing it, even the slow version on “Unplugged”. .
12. I'm So Glad--(Cream) after this, the sarcasm gives way to sincerity.
11. Tell the Truth (Derek and the Dominos)—pick a version, I like the really slow one.
10. Strange Brew (Cream)—-I could mention several other songs on the Cream masterpiece album, “Disraeli Gears”, such as “Dance the Night Away” or “We're Going Wrong,” (great drumming on both of those), or “World of Pain”, or “Tales of Brave Ulysses” (Clapton at least shares songwriting credit on that one), but next I would list:
9. SWLABR--says here that it stands for "She Walks Like a Bearded Rainbow"--no comment!
8. In the Presence of the Lord (Blind Faith)--a moment of Clapton seeing his future redemption.
7. Had to Cry Today (Blind Faith)-it's mostly a Steve Winwood song, but I don't think the guitar solo is...
6. After Midnight (solo)--it's by J.J. Cale; I'll take that over his Cale's “Cocaine” any time.
5. White Room (Cream)—has always been my favorite big Cream hit (over "Sunshine of My Love")
4. Badge (Cream)—my choice for the best Clapton performance—singing/playing—of the early years.
3. It Hurts Me Too (solo)--pick any song out of "From the Cradle", as they're all great, all covers.
2. Tears In Heaven (solo)
1. Why Does Love Got to Be So Sad—-(Derek and the Dominos)--The studio version w/Duane Allman was superb; the one on “In Concert” even better.
U2
This is really unfair; I could have filled the entire top 10 with songs from “Achtung Baby” and wouldn't have felt cheated—the album is that good. I settled for four of the top 10, so I could include some others that particularly fascinate me. I'm trying to give the band the respect they are due, and their work, despite stylistic and contextual changes, is all of one piece, one unchanged set of individuals. And I freely admit that I have shortchanged their excellent albums of the 2000's in favor of some of their more aged classics.
10. Gloria—My first exposure to the band; also the first music video I really liked (they're on a barge in a harbor—Belfast?)
9. An Cath Dubh—A quirky song, title is Irish for “the black cat”; from their first album, “Boy”, which I really should have represented more fully, but there's just no space.
8. Love Is Blindness—Achtung Baby!
7. Gone—This song (originally on "Pop", but remixed nicely for their best of 1990-2000 release) is rising rapidly up my chart.
6. New Year's Day—One of their best live songs; the guitar is searing. Same comments apply to another special “Day”, as in “It's A Beautiful (Day)”>
5. Until the End of the World—here I need to mention “The Fly”, “Zoo Station”, “Even Better Than The Real Thing”, and my wife's favorite, “Mysterious Ways”, all similarly great songs from “Achtung! Baby”.
4. Two Hearts Beat as One—My favorite song from “War”
3. One—A.B. Just as it's fair to say every song on the album is great (OK, maybe not “Who's Going to Ride Your Wild Horses”), it's also fair to say this one is clearly the best, for its simple but profound message of love.
2. Unknown Caller—My best from their last album, “No Line on the Horizon”. I don't mind that it's clearly religious, because it's so unconventional. For U2, religion is an irritating necessity of the human condition, which is a pretty reasonable take on it (See also "Staring at the Sun").
1. Pride in the Name of Love—My very favorite song of the '80's; this song made me realize how high their ceiling would be. .
0. Bad/Where the Streets Have No Name—OK, this is a cheat, I know, doubly so, but the way they combined these two songs (from different albums) seamlessly in their live concerts (c. 2002) was spine-tingling. I had to slip it in at the bottom, er, top.
Paul McCartney
My taste with Sir Paul is for the clever jokester rather than the romantic balladeer or the sporadic hard-rocker; he's a clever, talented fellow and that's what I think he does/did best. First, some Honorably Mentioned songs, maybe not quite serious enough to make the top 10: Oh! Darling, Rocky Raccoon, The Night Before, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, I've Just Seen a Face, Fool on the Hill.
10. When I'm 64—he's actually now 69, and going strong.
9. Hey Jude—without the “Na na na”, it's a great song with well-chosen lyrics.
8. Drive My Car—Yes, You Can!
7. Can't Buy Me Love—not with money, no, no, no.
6. Uncle Albert/Helen Wheels –the only post-Beatles song by him that makes my Top 10 list.
5. Mother Nature's Son—pretty close to autobiography
4. Penny Lane—even closer.
3. Eleanor Rigby—his masterpiece collaboration....with George Martin.
2. Lady Madonna—Of his big hits, my favorite.
1. Back in the USSR —you can call it dated; you can call it a petty dig at the Beach Boys; I'd call it inspired, and intensely clever.
Elvis Costello
OK, this guy is a chameleon. He's a great songwriter, but a lot of his best work has been collaboration and covers of others' stuff. He can rock with the best, but he's always turning his back on rock and trying other stuff—usually sappy, like his country music, or his current turn as a lounge lizard (probably it's just an effort to try to impress his wife, who's much better at it). Anyway, this list will pay due homage to his cover efforts, but none at all to when he strays from what he does best, which is intricately-worded, fast-paced rock.
10. Days—A song by Ray Davies of the Kinks, which E.C. Covers brilliantly on the “Until the End of the World” soundtrack.
9. Good Year for the Roses—If you've spent any time in England, you'd appreciate this commentary on the incessant rain.
8. No Hiding Place—Great piece on 21st-century living with fame, from “Momofuku”
7. I Want You—I love the intensity.
6. Lipstick Vogue—Great rhythm, and despite what you would think from its title, actually not sarcastic.
5. Radio Radio—My favorite from the early, Attractions-do-Buddy-Holly rocker period.
4. Beyond Belief—My favorite of his Dylanesque scornful songs about love.
3. What's So Funny about Peace Love and Understanding?--a signature Costello cut, it's by Nick Lowe.
2. I Don't Want go Go to Chelsea—I love the sharp edges, both in the music and the lyrics.
1. Oliver's Army—never more sincere or clever with his lyrics. Certainly never more politically on target (Oliver refers to Cromwell, and the song's basically about the British military occupation in Northern Ireland).
The Who
With time, critical attention has turned from their concept albums (“Tommy”, “Quadrophenia”) to their early pop and to Pete Townshend's pieces intended for the never-quite-realized “Lifehouse” masterpiece that eventually became the guts of “Who's Next” and “Odds and Sods”. Not so for me—I still love the early rock operas, as well as the hits, some of the early experiments and other Townshend
gems that didn't become hits, such as much of his collection of demos, “Scoop”. With all that scope to choose from, it's not easy for me to narrow down to a few favorites.
My experiences seeing them live—and they were at the top of the list of the very best live performers, of the ones I ever saw—came in the middle-late period, when they were doing “Who Are You” (1979) and re-creating Quadrophenia (1996). After Keith Moon, but they still had Entwistle and Townshend at peak level, playing seriously.
From the live cuts on the extra disc that came with “Endless Wire”,
though, I don't think I'd want to see them now.
Before I count down my top 10, here are 10 great songs which somehow didn't make my
list: “The Kids are Alright”, “I can See for Miles”, “Go to the Mirror”, “Amazing Journey/Sparks”, “Bargain”, “5:15”, “Trick of the Light”, “Mary Anne (with the Shaky Hand)”, and two great ones from “Scoop”--”Mary”, and “To Barney Kessell”.
10. A Quick One (While She's Away)--first preview of what would become “Tommy”
9. Eminence Front—the band's last great single
8. Naked Eye—in case you don't recognize the title, the tag line is “It don't really happen that way at all.”
7. Helpless Dancer—I always liked this short piece the best out of all the great “Quadrophenia” album.
6. Zelda—It's from “Scoop”; if you've never heard this album, and care at all about The Who, you must.
5. Won't Get Fooled Again—about as close as they ever get to a political statement, one that's held up—it's basically an eternal truth.
4. Pure and Easy—Contrary to some opinion, The Who can be uplifting, though it's not easily so.
3. Who Are You-a great, honest late statement
2. Underture—I love this piece, but it's not my #1 because it lacks Roger Daltrey's vocals; he's been a great mouthpiece.
1. Behind Blue Eyes—I think it's what they—and particularly Townshend--are all about.
Gang of Four
This is a tricky one; the range of their product is not all that broad, but it's really top-notch, with a unique approach to building a song in layers and some great chicken-scratch guitar, plucked bass, and very politically pointed lyrics (but very post-modernist in the ambiguity of their stance). My problem is that they have ten or so songs that are superior work and its hard to prefer one over another.
10. Outside the Trains Don't Run On time
9. Satellite --best of the songs I've heard from their later work after the early '80's.
8. Call Me Up--”give me a reason for living”--a later one, as in not from the first two albums.
7. Natural's Not in It
6. In the Ditch—antiwar, or is it?
5. History Is Bunk—they can't really mean that, can they?
4. Damaged Goods – their first hit
3. I Love A Man In a Uniform—clearly sarcastic, I think.
2. Anthrax—a truly bizarre, hypnotic piece: “Love is like a case of Anthrax”
1. I Found that Essence Rare—yes, it is. The bass line will knock you over.
And That Leaves, Of Course... No, not Led Zeppelin: "When the Levee Breaks", with mentions for "Kashmir" and Robert Plant's recent cover of Low's "Silver Rider".
Nor Stevie Winwood, one of my all-time favorites: my clear choice for him is "Gimme Some Lovin'" with mentions for "Empty Pages", "Night Train", and "While You See A Chance" (theme music at my wedding--not kidding). As with Clapton, I may break down Stevie's into pre-solo and solo for The List, as a little bit of cheating is permitted by Blogger to me.
Speaking of cheating, though, we are of course now up to talking about "The World's Greatest Rock 'n Roll Band", or whatever. The Stones. My preference is generally for their work from the Brian Jones Era (through sometime in 1969), though I have to give some credit for the body of work since then (up until about 1990 or so, and none after that). So we've got 22 songs here, 10 of which were from the
BJEra, 10 not, and the other two being ambiguous, from "Let it Bleed", which was recorded before Jones died--with little help from him, according to his survivors--and released after that event.
22. Waitin' on a Friend
21. Before They Make Me Run
20. Get Off Of My Cloud (BJ)
19. Can't Always Get What You Want
18. We Love You (BJ)
17. Some Girls--despite the misogyny.
16. Under My Thumb (BJ)--despite the misogyny.
15. She's a Rainbow (BJ)--now, that's more like it.
14. Gimme Shelter (BJ)
13. Midnight Rambler*
12. Shattered--the classic Stones-in-NYC song--Mick Jagger's probably the most famous person I saw hanging out on the streets there, ever.
11. Wild Horses
10. Street Fighting Man (BJ)
9. Jumpin' Jack Flash (BJ)
8. Dandelion (BJ)
7. Let It Bleed*
6. Gimme Shelter
5. Paint It Black (BJ)
4. Can't You Hear Me Knockin'--there was a period when you had to have sax on your record. This was from then, for them, and they used it well.
3. Ruby Tuesday (BJ)
2. Doo Doo Doo (Heartbreaker)--"The po-lice in New York City..."--see above comment about the sax.
1. 2000 Light Years from Home (BJ)--Give me the Mellotron, every time.
No "Satisfaction"? No "Satisfaction"!! I also lied about how many Brian Jones Era songs there were. Deal with it.
Bruford's comment on being given Ouspensky and Gurdjieff to read when joining the band is in his autobiography (per the Wikipedia): Bruford, Bill "Bill Bruford – the Autobiography", Jawbone Press, 2009.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Ten Years After
The Day...
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the day of the attacks on the US through hijacked airliners (also, my 18th wedding anniversary, but that's totally another story). Rather than jingoistic breast-beating or re-cultivating the spirit of revenge, I suggest that we think of the innocents and the heroes who were lost that day, and those who were injured or killed in events both before and after 9/11/01, and give some thought to what we can do to reduce the unnecessary death toll in the future.
At this distance in time, we can begin to have some historical perspective about September 11 and what happened in the months and years following. My thought is that 9/11, though hugely significant, is neither more or less memorable a day as Pearl Harbor Day: December 7, 1941, a day that President FDR rightly said would “live in infamy”. As with that day, we were attacked suddenly—though the event of the attacks, if not the manner, might well have been anticipated—by foes who felt they had legitimate grievances against the US and wanted to carry their fight to our shores at any cost. As with Pearl Harbor, the attacks were audacious in concept, nearly flawless in execution—and certain to produce the opposite effect of the stated aims. The Japanese hoped the attack and its follow-up invasions of Pacific Islands and British and American colonies in East and Southeast Asia would lead us to sue for peace; one of Al-Qaeda's stated war aims was to get the US out of the Middle East (!)
We think of ourselves as straight shooters, but Pearl Harbor and 9/11 show how much we are misunderstood. Didn't they know our reaction would be implacable, unrelenting anger, an eagerness to unleash the greatest military power in history, the might of an industrial, technologically-advanced giant with the full support of a democratic populace and mass conscription? In retrospect, the Taliban should feel lucky they were routed from Afghanistan in a couple of months; their country would've been turned into a sheet of glass if they were somehow able to retain power and brazenly shelter Bin Laden after 9/11. Iraq, of course, was not so lucky as many previous US foes; having tried most everything else, we can only hope that the impending departure of US forces from there will allow that country's self-immolative efforts to come to an end.
...And the Band
If I hear the mawkish, 9/11-revived anthem “God Bless America”, I'm going to be thinking of the rock band with the same name as this posting, and their one big hit. Ten Years After was a popular band of the late Sixties, one of the prominent performers at Woodstock, but they have faded into justified obscurity. The band 's songs were basically excuses to allow its lead guitarist, Alvin Lee, to exhibit his speedy riffs at great length. And their big hit's chorus is practically a theme song for our generation's woolly-headed, idealistic inactivism, and its unfortunate results:
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the day of the attacks on the US through hijacked airliners (also, my 18th wedding anniversary, but that's totally another story). Rather than jingoistic breast-beating or re-cultivating the spirit of revenge, I suggest that we think of the innocents and the heroes who were lost that day, and those who were injured or killed in events both before and after 9/11/01, and give some thought to what we can do to reduce the unnecessary death toll in the future.
At this distance in time, we can begin to have some historical perspective about September 11 and what happened in the months and years following. My thought is that 9/11, though hugely significant, is neither more or less memorable a day as Pearl Harbor Day: December 7, 1941, a day that President FDR rightly said would “live in infamy”. As with that day, we were attacked suddenly—though the event of the attacks, if not the manner, might well have been anticipated—by foes who felt they had legitimate grievances against the US and wanted to carry their fight to our shores at any cost. As with Pearl Harbor, the attacks were audacious in concept, nearly flawless in execution—and certain to produce the opposite effect of the stated aims. The Japanese hoped the attack and its follow-up invasions of Pacific Islands and British and American colonies in East and Southeast Asia would lead us to sue for peace; one of Al-Qaeda's stated war aims was to get the US out of the Middle East (!)
We think of ourselves as straight shooters, but Pearl Harbor and 9/11 show how much we are misunderstood. Didn't they know our reaction would be implacable, unrelenting anger, an eagerness to unleash the greatest military power in history, the might of an industrial, technologically-advanced giant with the full support of a democratic populace and mass conscription? In retrospect, the Taliban should feel lucky they were routed from Afghanistan in a couple of months; their country would've been turned into a sheet of glass if they were somehow able to retain power and brazenly shelter Bin Laden after 9/11. Iraq, of course, was not so lucky as many previous US foes; having tried most everything else, we can only hope that the impending departure of US forces from there will allow that country's self-immolative efforts to come to an end.
...And the Band
If I hear the mawkish, 9/11-revived anthem “God Bless America”, I'm going to be thinking of the rock band with the same name as this posting, and their one big hit. Ten Years After was a popular band of the late Sixties, one of the prominent performers at Woodstock, but they have faded into justified obscurity. The band 's songs were basically excuses to allow its lead guitarist, Alvin Lee, to exhibit his speedy riffs at great length. And their big hit's chorus is practically a theme song for our generation's woolly-headed, idealistic inactivism, and its unfortunate results:
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The 2012 Race: We Move to Phase I
The Iowa straw poll yesterday marks the beginning of the active phase of the Republican presidential contest—as opposed to the preliminaries, which have been going on for several months. Not coincidentally, yesterday brought the addition to the field of an important candidate, Rick Perry, and today brings the retirement of one who was supposed to be important (but wasn't making the grade), Tim Pawlenty. I think this is a good time for a review of the progress of the Republican nomination contest.
The Republicans' politicians are a scurvy lot, full of false prescriptions for our society and our economy. With the exception of a few moderates from the Northeast, I have no use for any of them, and even those few are usually opposed by Democratic candidates who are just as good or better. They would do better to be honest with themselves and their constituents and admit that their national party is irredeemable. Their backers—the ones who count, the political pros and the big-money manipulators, are no better: self-justifying and selfish. I consider them phonies or fools. My fondest wish is that their party disintegrate and be replaced by something better, something sincere and worthy of debate, whether libertarian or moderate.
Their national leadership has once again been exposed as posturing scoundrels in the current manufactured crisis around raising the debt ceiling, but it is far from clear that they will be punished, certainly not sufficiently. I am contemptuous of their behavior and their policies, but I can not dismiss the possibility that they could win the next election.
It is therefore an important matter to consider the Republican Presidential contest and who wins the nomination. The goal is to advocate the candidate who would do the least damage if elected, who has the least chance of defeating President Obama, and someone who has a chance of getting the nomination. (Otherwise, I'd just endorse Fred Karger, the obscure Republican candidate who is the first openly-declared homosexual to seek the office.)
After the Iowa straw poll, the pundits have already narrowed that last criterion (who can win the nomination) down to three: Mitt Romney, yesterday's winner Michele Bachmann, and fancied new entrant Rick Perry. I watched several programs reviewing the event today, the day after, and all the talk was of the winner, and the third-place finisher, Tim Pawlenty, who quit the race today.
Not a word was mentioned of the person who finished second, barely a percent behind Bachmann in the poll. To the press, Ron Paul is dismissed as a crank, certainly not a person with a real chance; he is someone who has won the straw poll in the past to no great effect; however, he speaks honestly, coherently (if errantly), is more Christian than most of these in his tolerance and unwillingness to judge others, and gets some of the major issues right. His followers may not be the most numerous, but they are loyal to him and he to them; unlike Pawlenty, he will stay the course. His greatest problem is not that his views are too outlandish, but that his positions have been co-opted by much of the Republican “mainstream”. I see him as the one who would do the least damage of all of them if elected; it says here that he also meets my other criteria, of being unlikely to win the general election and of being a serious contender for the nomination.
I find the policies he advocates as being much less harmful than those of Bachmann, or Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum, or the black redneck millionaire, Herman Cain. It's pretty clear that Rick Perry's candidacy is likely to swallow up their support in short order, anyway, particularly that of Santorum and Cain—their backers have just been biding their time waiting for someone like Perry to come along. Bachmann has outperformed expectations, but I think she will have a hard time holdiing her support beyond Iowa, unless Perry makes a major gaffe, which probably for him would be either failing to handle his little Texas/secession remarks tactfully (accidentally revealing his contempt for the rest of the country), or somehow letting his facade slip and showing a bit too much sensible moderation. I consider the former more likely than the latter.
If, as I fear, Perry smites down his opponents on the right, reduces Paul to irrelevancy, and Mitt doesn't drop the ball (allowing Jon Huntsman somehow to make an impression), it will come down to Romney and Perry. There, I'd have to go with Romney: not so much because I think he'd be an easier opponent for Obama—my opinion is that the opposite is true—but because Perry would be such a dangerous person to allow anywhere near the White House. He's basically George W. Bush all over, but worse.
See also my previous posting, on "Mitt and the Seven Dwarves".
The Republicans' politicians are a scurvy lot, full of false prescriptions for our society and our economy. With the exception of a few moderates from the Northeast, I have no use for any of them, and even those few are usually opposed by Democratic candidates who are just as good or better. They would do better to be honest with themselves and their constituents and admit that their national party is irredeemable. Their backers—the ones who count, the political pros and the big-money manipulators, are no better: self-justifying and selfish. I consider them phonies or fools. My fondest wish is that their party disintegrate and be replaced by something better, something sincere and worthy of debate, whether libertarian or moderate.
Their national leadership has once again been exposed as posturing scoundrels in the current manufactured crisis around raising the debt ceiling, but it is far from clear that they will be punished, certainly not sufficiently. I am contemptuous of their behavior and their policies, but I can not dismiss the possibility that they could win the next election.
It is therefore an important matter to consider the Republican Presidential contest and who wins the nomination. The goal is to advocate the candidate who would do the least damage if elected, who has the least chance of defeating President Obama, and someone who has a chance of getting the nomination. (Otherwise, I'd just endorse Fred Karger, the obscure Republican candidate who is the first openly-declared homosexual to seek the office.)
After the Iowa straw poll, the pundits have already narrowed that last criterion (who can win the nomination) down to three: Mitt Romney, yesterday's winner Michele Bachmann, and fancied new entrant Rick Perry. I watched several programs reviewing the event today, the day after, and all the talk was of the winner, and the third-place finisher, Tim Pawlenty, who quit the race today.
Not a word was mentioned of the person who finished second, barely a percent behind Bachmann in the poll. To the press, Ron Paul is dismissed as a crank, certainly not a person with a real chance; he is someone who has won the straw poll in the past to no great effect; however, he speaks honestly, coherently (if errantly), is more Christian than most of these in his tolerance and unwillingness to judge others, and gets some of the major issues right. His followers may not be the most numerous, but they are loyal to him and he to them; unlike Pawlenty, he will stay the course. His greatest problem is not that his views are too outlandish, but that his positions have been co-opted by much of the Republican “mainstream”. I see him as the one who would do the least damage of all of them if elected; it says here that he also meets my other criteria, of being unlikely to win the general election and of being a serious contender for the nomination.
I find the policies he advocates as being much less harmful than those of Bachmann, or Rick “Sanctimonious” Santorum, or the black redneck millionaire, Herman Cain. It's pretty clear that Rick Perry's candidacy is likely to swallow up their support in short order, anyway, particularly that of Santorum and Cain—their backers have just been biding their time waiting for someone like Perry to come along. Bachmann has outperformed expectations, but I think she will have a hard time holdiing her support beyond Iowa, unless Perry makes a major gaffe, which probably for him would be either failing to handle his little Texas/secession remarks tactfully (accidentally revealing his contempt for the rest of the country), or somehow letting his facade slip and showing a bit too much sensible moderation. I consider the former more likely than the latter.
If, as I fear, Perry smites down his opponents on the right, reduces Paul to irrelevancy, and Mitt doesn't drop the ball (allowing Jon Huntsman somehow to make an impression), it will come down to Romney and Perry. There, I'd have to go with Romney: not so much because I think he'd be an easier opponent for Obama—my opinion is that the opposite is true—but because Perry would be such a dangerous person to allow anywhere near the White House. He's basically George W. Bush all over, but worse.
See also my previous posting, on "Mitt and the Seven Dwarves".
Friday, August 05, 2011
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Deal?
There are several parts of the debt ceiling deal legislation that was passed that I don't like, but the worst is that it really isn't over. Yes, in theory, President Obama kicked the debt ceiling obstacle down the road enough to get it past the 2012 election, which was his bottom-line requirement of this debacle. But I don't think it's really a done deal.
There will be another crisis towards the end of the year, hopefully a little less dramatic but probably just as intractable, just as partisan. A "supercommittee of 12", three Democrats and three Republicans from each House, are required by the legislation to come up with recommendations on additional debt reduction--there is an understanding that their focus will be on tax reform and on entitlement reform. If the committee makes recommendations of sufficient magnitude by a majority vote, these are to be guaranteed straight votes in both houses of Congress without amendments. If they don't, a series of automatic cuts are supposed to come into effect, across the board reductions on discretionary spending, military spending, and Medicare payments to health care providers.
There are several potential pratfalls in this scheme, but I want to highlight just one now: the selection of the members of the supercommittee (the SC). There have been several of these kinds of improvised panels in U.S. history--one of the most momentous was in the 1876 presidential election. If the membership is chosen based on reliable partisanship, a deadlock is assured. It would be a great sign if a moderate Republican were chosen for one member, as it would if a moderate/conservative Democrat would be. Either of these would suggest that the powerbrokers in Congress want a deal.
The Tea Party members in the House who rejected the deal, even though it was a very favorable outcome for the Republicans, should be excluded from the negotiations on merit: they had a chance to contribute positively to the country's avoidance of misfortune, and they turned their backs. It would probably be more politic, though, to include one or two of them, though; otherwise, I could see a populist movement to politicize the SC's deliberations even before they start. If that were to happen, its success would be most unlikely, and I could even see an attempt to undermine the year-end schedule; a bill could be passed to undo the debt ceiling deal, in the form of a measure of disapproval, one to change the automatic cuts, one to preclude tax changes, one to override the protection of Medicare benefits envisioned in the deal...the list of possible partisan misadventures goes on and on endlessly.
My grades on the key players and their handliing of this unnecessary calamity: President Obama gets a C grade; he didn't oontrol the terms of the debate well, his leadership was late, and not successful in most of his stated objectives. Speaker Boehner gets a B: he could have lost his leadership post if he'd handled it badly; he got a decent number of his members to vote for the final agreement, and of course got most of what he wanted in the deal (whether what he wanted is what he should have wanted is another question). Majority Leader Byrd, like Obama, was fairly ineffectual and gets a C as well; Minority Leader McConnell came out relatively unscathed and actually contributed something positive to the deal, so he gets an A-. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor was in great danger at one point, as a point negotiator who was getting squeezed from all sides, but Boehner stood with him and they both survived, Cantor earns a shaky C+. The payback, for him, will be probably another thankless negotiating role on the SC.
As for the deal itself, it came short of what I expected, because there was no tax increase on the wealthy paying for a payroll tax reduction. The devil will be in the details of the automatic cuts, which I think are very likely to end up being the legacy of the deal: I'm confident our military can survive the squeeze, and it will probably be healthier for it (in the way our corporations have made do with less expenses); the cuts to Medicare providers worry me as they will weaken the program without reducing demand for it, and the cuts to discretionary programs are sure to be overridden by the priorities that will arise in the next 10 years, so a nuisance rather than a disaster. I'd give it a pass, a D-.
Don't Let the Downgrade Get You Down
In the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling deal, the economy took a one-two punch, in the form of a huge stock market sell-off on Thursday--driven by new bad news from Europe as much as anything--and the announcement Friday evening that Standard & Poor's was downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from a AAA rating to AA+.
We should be able to get over both of these insults/injuries, though our immune system has been weakened by the events of recent weeks. AAA does not mean what it used to mean, partly because S&P itself contributed to the rating's debasement during the run-up to the financial crisis, bestowing it upon many doomed mortgage backed securities. Also, though, because many other institutions have survived downgrades fairly readily, and because of the way S&P did it, with shoddy care for the numbers it published (even if its arguments were somewhat undeniable), and going against the decisions of its competitors Moody's and Fitch to uphold the AAA for the moment means S&P will be the exclusive target for some sort of retribution from the U.S. Treasury--just you wait and see. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As a result of the S&P downgrade, there will be another bearish run in stocks, a discounting of the dollar, and possibly an increase in the ridiculously low interest rates for debt. I'm just hoping we won't be seeing 10,000 again in the Dow, as I've already tried to say goodbye to The Best Prediction I Ever Made.
Stock Market Aside...
This does seem to be a bit of a watershed moment in the way we look at our economy and its prospects. You could call it pessimism; I call it a realistic view of the end of the perpetual growth machine. I believe that there have always been limits to our ability to grow the economy endlessly; this is starting to become apparent to more, and I consider that progress.
For example, I recommend reading a provocative article by Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Beast on the subject. Sullivan doesn't really have much of a coherent view of the world (he's veered from Trotskyism to neocon and back, was a fervent Obama supporter in '08 and a persistent critic recently), but he does still have the ability to think creatively and write stylishly.
I think it is time for us to be a lot less vainglorious about our domestic economy, and a little more cognizant (and even proud) of the fact that the American economy is just a part--a very sizable part--of an integrated global economy. Americans ascribe much more influence over our economy to the federal government than it has--President Obama can do very little about unemployment by himself (though, by contrast, the Executive has a great deal of ability to control foreign and military affairs on its own), Congress is no better, and the Fed is a creature created by, and acting for, the banks and their creditors.
Obama's policies have actually been very business-friendly; this stuff about businesses requiring "certainty" to hire is nonsense--businesses always have to invest in a climate of uncertainty; they just see no necessity to invest, and especially, not in hiring in America. That is largely because there is a surplus of cheap labor all over the world. Simply put, enterprises do not need to employ all able-bodied Americans who want to work in order to produce all the goods and services we need--not even close.
There is little solution for the jobs problem in the middle-to-long term, except to restructure our economy so that it can survive and thrive with less full-time employment. That means making it possible for individuals or families to live on part-time work, and in particular it means inexpensive catastrophic health care insurance, convenient mass transit, and affordable housing.
In terms of the latter, I think there is something quite significant that we could do in these days to help get our domestic economy back on a track towards health. A public/private partnership to rescue our housing from vast foreclosure and decay could restore home values and the construction industry, two huge issues in the current doldrums. When banks can show legitimate ownership of the property they have confiscated, government-backed enterprise can help restore that housing; in return, the banks need to contribute to the restoration of the housing they have taken without proper documentation (numbering in the millions) and to the generous refinancing of those that they would seek to take with similarly improper documentation. I am certain the banks would sign up, if the government--and I mean the Administration, with backing from both parties--were to offer. If they did not, they should be subjected to harsh justice which would wipe out much of their largely-undeserved windfall profits since the 2008-09 crash.
Finally, I advocate some form of incentives to hire for small, private enterprises. Our tax code is a mess, full of old, outdated, and ineffective loopholes, but I don't advocate a flat tax: taxation can be a valid form of public policy, properly applied. With our debt problems, it is one of the few methods left to government to try to improve the job situation.
There will be another crisis towards the end of the year, hopefully a little less dramatic but probably just as intractable, just as partisan. A "supercommittee of 12", three Democrats and three Republicans from each House, are required by the legislation to come up with recommendations on additional debt reduction--there is an understanding that their focus will be on tax reform and on entitlement reform. If the committee makes recommendations of sufficient magnitude by a majority vote, these are to be guaranteed straight votes in both houses of Congress without amendments. If they don't, a series of automatic cuts are supposed to come into effect, across the board reductions on discretionary spending, military spending, and Medicare payments to health care providers.
There are several potential pratfalls in this scheme, but I want to highlight just one now: the selection of the members of the supercommittee (the SC). There have been several of these kinds of improvised panels in U.S. history--one of the most momentous was in the 1876 presidential election. If the membership is chosen based on reliable partisanship, a deadlock is assured. It would be a great sign if a moderate Republican were chosen for one member, as it would if a moderate/conservative Democrat would be. Either of these would suggest that the powerbrokers in Congress want a deal.
The Tea Party members in the House who rejected the deal, even though it was a very favorable outcome for the Republicans, should be excluded from the negotiations on merit: they had a chance to contribute positively to the country's avoidance of misfortune, and they turned their backs. It would probably be more politic, though, to include one or two of them, though; otherwise, I could see a populist movement to politicize the SC's deliberations even before they start. If that were to happen, its success would be most unlikely, and I could even see an attempt to undermine the year-end schedule; a bill could be passed to undo the debt ceiling deal, in the form of a measure of disapproval, one to change the automatic cuts, one to preclude tax changes, one to override the protection of Medicare benefits envisioned in the deal...the list of possible partisan misadventures goes on and on endlessly.
My grades on the key players and their handliing of this unnecessary calamity: President Obama gets a C grade; he didn't oontrol the terms of the debate well, his leadership was late, and not successful in most of his stated objectives. Speaker Boehner gets a B: he could have lost his leadership post if he'd handled it badly; he got a decent number of his members to vote for the final agreement, and of course got most of what he wanted in the deal (whether what he wanted is what he should have wanted is another question). Majority Leader Byrd, like Obama, was fairly ineffectual and gets a C as well; Minority Leader McConnell came out relatively unscathed and actually contributed something positive to the deal, so he gets an A-. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor was in great danger at one point, as a point negotiator who was getting squeezed from all sides, but Boehner stood with him and they both survived, Cantor earns a shaky C+. The payback, for him, will be probably another thankless negotiating role on the SC.
As for the deal itself, it came short of what I expected, because there was no tax increase on the wealthy paying for a payroll tax reduction. The devil will be in the details of the automatic cuts, which I think are very likely to end up being the legacy of the deal: I'm confident our military can survive the squeeze, and it will probably be healthier for it (in the way our corporations have made do with less expenses); the cuts to Medicare providers worry me as they will weaken the program without reducing demand for it, and the cuts to discretionary programs are sure to be overridden by the priorities that will arise in the next 10 years, so a nuisance rather than a disaster. I'd give it a pass, a D-.
Don't Let the Downgrade Get You Down
In the immediate aftermath of the debt ceiling deal, the economy took a one-two punch, in the form of a huge stock market sell-off on Thursday--driven by new bad news from Europe as much as anything--and the announcement Friday evening that Standard & Poor's was downgrading U.S. sovereign debt from a AAA rating to AA+.
We should be able to get over both of these insults/injuries, though our immune system has been weakened by the events of recent weeks. AAA does not mean what it used to mean, partly because S&P itself contributed to the rating's debasement during the run-up to the financial crisis, bestowing it upon many doomed mortgage backed securities. Also, though, because many other institutions have survived downgrades fairly readily, and because of the way S&P did it, with shoddy care for the numbers it published (even if its arguments were somewhat undeniable), and going against the decisions of its competitors Moody's and Fitch to uphold the AAA for the moment means S&P will be the exclusive target for some sort of retribution from the U.S. Treasury--just you wait and see. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
As a result of the S&P downgrade, there will be another bearish run in stocks, a discounting of the dollar, and possibly an increase in the ridiculously low interest rates for debt. I'm just hoping we won't be seeing 10,000 again in the Dow, as I've already tried to say goodbye to The Best Prediction I Ever Made.
Stock Market Aside...
This does seem to be a bit of a watershed moment in the way we look at our economy and its prospects. You could call it pessimism; I call it a realistic view of the end of the perpetual growth machine. I believe that there have always been limits to our ability to grow the economy endlessly; this is starting to become apparent to more, and I consider that progress.
For example, I recommend reading a provocative article by Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Beast on the subject. Sullivan doesn't really have much of a coherent view of the world (he's veered from Trotskyism to neocon and back, was a fervent Obama supporter in '08 and a persistent critic recently), but he does still have the ability to think creatively and write stylishly.
I think it is time for us to be a lot less vainglorious about our domestic economy, and a little more cognizant (and even proud) of the fact that the American economy is just a part--a very sizable part--of an integrated global economy. Americans ascribe much more influence over our economy to the federal government than it has--President Obama can do very little about unemployment by himself (though, by contrast, the Executive has a great deal of ability to control foreign and military affairs on its own), Congress is no better, and the Fed is a creature created by, and acting for, the banks and their creditors.
Obama's policies have actually been very business-friendly; this stuff about businesses requiring "certainty" to hire is nonsense--businesses always have to invest in a climate of uncertainty; they just see no necessity to invest, and especially, not in hiring in America. That is largely because there is a surplus of cheap labor all over the world. Simply put, enterprises do not need to employ all able-bodied Americans who want to work in order to produce all the goods and services we need--not even close.
There is little solution for the jobs problem in the middle-to-long term, except to restructure our economy so that it can survive and thrive with less full-time employment. That means making it possible for individuals or families to live on part-time work, and in particular it means inexpensive catastrophic health care insurance, convenient mass transit, and affordable housing.
In terms of the latter, I think there is something quite significant that we could do in these days to help get our domestic economy back on a track towards health. A public/private partnership to rescue our housing from vast foreclosure and decay could restore home values and the construction industry, two huge issues in the current doldrums. When banks can show legitimate ownership of the property they have confiscated, government-backed enterprise can help restore that housing; in return, the banks need to contribute to the restoration of the housing they have taken without proper documentation (numbering in the millions) and to the generous refinancing of those that they would seek to take with similarly improper documentation. I am certain the banks would sign up, if the government--and I mean the Administration, with backing from both parties--were to offer. If they did not, they should be subjected to harsh justice which would wipe out much of their largely-undeserved windfall profits since the 2008-09 crash.
Finally, I advocate some form of incentives to hire for small, private enterprises. Our tax code is a mess, full of old, outdated, and ineffective loopholes, but I don't advocate a flat tax: taxation can be a valid form of public policy, properly applied. With our debt problems, it is one of the few methods left to government to try to improve the job situation.
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Sound of Distant Thunder*
I was watching Gwen Ifill's excellent public TV public affairs show "Washington Week" tonight when the cable signal began breaking up, then dropped completely. Outside, thunder rumbled in the distance from yet another tempest, none of which has yet been able to break this execrable heat wave.
Ifill & Co. were discussing the hubristic failure of the Obama-Boehner talks on a grand deal to reduce the deficit towards coming up with an increase in the debt ceiling. They made a mistake going for too big a deal, one that necessarily had cuts in Medicare and Social Security as well as tax increases on the rich. All well and good, I say (the increase in eligibility age for Medicare and indexation formula for S.S. are coming, sooner or later, as are the tax increases), but Obama's party rebelled against one, and even more forcefully, Boehner's rebelled against the other, and Boehner had to pull out So to speak.
Our political leaders now basically have one weekend to get a deal together, the necessary characteristics of which I outlined recently. Monday, if there is no deal (or a fig-leaf kind of deal with no significant budget cuts agreed), Armageddon will be visited upon us in the form of a massive selloff of both stocks and bonds. If you can get some gold on the weekend, Sunday night would be a good time.
*with honor due to Ray Bradbury for the title
Ifill & Co. were discussing the hubristic failure of the Obama-Boehner talks on a grand deal to reduce the deficit towards coming up with an increase in the debt ceiling. They made a mistake going for too big a deal, one that necessarily had cuts in Medicare and Social Security as well as tax increases on the rich. All well and good, I say (the increase in eligibility age for Medicare and indexation formula for S.S. are coming, sooner or later, as are the tax increases), but Obama's party rebelled against one, and even more forcefully, Boehner's rebelled against the other, and Boehner had to pull out So to speak.
Our political leaders now basically have one weekend to get a deal together, the necessary characteristics of which I outlined recently. Monday, if there is no deal (or a fig-leaf kind of deal with no significant budget cuts agreed), Armageddon will be visited upon us in the form of a massive selloff of both stocks and bonds. If you can get some gold on the weekend, Sunday night would be a good time.
*with honor due to Ray Bradbury for the title
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Live By the 120th Minute Tying Goal and Penalty Kicks...
The US women's soccer team victory over Brazil in the quarterfinals of the Women's World Cup last weekend was one of the most exciting games I've seen in any venue. Abby Wambach's 122nd-minute goal, tying the score at 2-2 and putting the outcome into a penalty kick shootout (which the US, with that kind of momentum, finished successfully), was a thing of beauty, equalled by Megan Rapinoe's crossing pass from some thirty yards away right onto Wambach's forehead.
In today's final, Wambach had a similar goal (crossing pass, just by a diving defender, straight off her forehead, though the cross was from shorter range) that put the US up in overtime 2-1 with a dozen minutes or so to go. Problem was, Japan's team had seen this show and wanted to play their part. Today, they got the goal with a couple minutes to go, took the momentum into the PK shootout, and we were the ones left devastated.
I congratulate the Japanese women's team on an impressive, inspirational effort through the whole tournament (they knocked out tourney favorite, host team, and two-time defending champion Germany the same weekend the US pulled off its win over competitive rival Brazil). They came back--twice--courageously against the US women, and, given their country's tragedy this year, are more than deserving of our emotional favor. I also congratulate the US women's team, for which nothing was easy (they barely made it into the WC field, after losing a key qualification match vs. Mexico). They accomplished a great deal and should be proud of it.
In today's final, Wambach had a similar goal (crossing pass, just by a diving defender, straight off her forehead, though the cross was from shorter range) that put the US up in overtime 2-1 with a dozen minutes or so to go. Problem was, Japan's team had seen this show and wanted to play their part. Today, they got the goal with a couple minutes to go, took the momentum into the PK shootout, and we were the ones left devastated.
I congratulate the Japanese women's team on an impressive, inspirational effort through the whole tournament (they knocked out tourney favorite, host team, and two-time defending champion Germany the same weekend the US pulled off its win over competitive rival Brazil). They came back--twice--courageously against the US women, and, given their country's tragedy this year, are more than deserving of our emotional favor. I also congratulate the US women's team, for which nothing was easy (they barely made it into the WC field, after losing a key qualification match vs. Mexico). They accomplished a great deal and should be proud of it.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Slow Trains Coming Together on the Same Track
It's disappointing, but it became clear this week that the $4 billion deficit reduction deal is not going to happen. It seemed close at one point about a week ago, with Speaker Boehner and President Obama negotiating directly on a package of that size--the size that a number of parties have indicated all along was needed for credible deficit reform--that included some reductions in entitlement costs and tax revenue increases, both of which were clearly necessary for an agreement of that size.
What happened since then is that Speaker Boehner was rebuffed by his party's caucus in the House. The problem is the Grover Norquist Pledge to vote against any net increase in Federal taxes--most House Republicans, and sufficient Senate Republicans, have signed it--and most who've signed it are unwilling to go back on it. Republican House Minority Leader Eric Cantor became the mouthpiece of those House Republicans, and they effectively undercut Boehner's ability to negotiate a deal of this magnitude.
So, there will be no tax increases, and there will be no corresponding ground offered on Medicare cuts (My proposal, to make Medicare benefits taxable, would make the two items--increase in revenue, and effective reduction in Medicare costs--equal, without making an explicit tradeoff, but I haven't heard it proposed yet, just "means tests" to make Medicare benefits more expensive for the wealthy.) This seems to limit the cuts that can be agreed upon to something like $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.
Boehner laid down a principle that the budget cuts should exceed the approved amount in the debt ceiling, which would need to be some $2.5 billion to get the government safely past the 2012 elections (or so I'm told). This is where the nefarious scheming of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes in. He's proposed some kind of complicated approach would give Obama the power to increase the debt limit for some amount of time unless two-thirds majorities of both houses voted to block it; it has the benefit of removing debt limit increases as a stumbling block for the economy, and it would allow most Republicans to vote against Obama's Debt Limit Increases.
So, the outlines of the final deal become clear--at least to me. $1.5 billion in cuts over ten years, some small increases in taxes through loophole closing, offset entirely by extensions of the payroll tax cut (so, no net increase in taxes and no violation of the Norquist Pledge), which would ensure sufficient Democratic votes for passage, and the McConnell clause which would come up in a year or so, during the election campaign, to allow Obama to get the debt limit past the election, but in a sufficiently politically damaging fashion to please Republican Congresspeople.
Tea Party Economics
Michele Bachmann has emerged as the anti-Romney candidate for at least the first portion of the 2012 Republican nomination race--I still think she will fade, and that Rick Perry will take up the torch--but that will happen sometime around when she loses in New Hampshire, gets creamed in Nevada, and doesn't do quite well enough in South Carolina. Meanwhile, her strong standing in polls, particularly in Iowa, make her someone everyone has to notice.
What she's saying about the debt ceiling is that Tim Geithner and Company are not telling us the truth if they say we will default on our debts on August 3rd if the debt ceiling is not raised. In this, I think she is factually correct, but completely wrong in the conclusion she draws from this, namely that it is OK to deny President Obama an increase in the debt ceiling, something she's basically promised to vote to do.
The statements of Geithner and Obama on this have been careful and are relatively clear. The Federal government is limited by statute to $14.8 billion (or whatever the exact number) in debt. When we reach that debt, they will pay some bills from cash on hand, they will raise money by selling assets to pay other debts, and they could challenge the constitutionality of the statute (on the 14th Amendment grounds), though they don't mention that one. They could prolong any default on any debts for some number of months--not a lot, but long enough to create a major crisis and probably break the resolve of Republicans to prevent a debt limit increase--if they had a resolve to do that.
I think it is clear that they do not have such a united resolved. The Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have shown that they recognize the danger: it's not so much an economic danger (more of that in a moment), but a political one that they don't want to face. They don't want to re-do 1995, which had a shutdown crisis which caused the Republicans to lose their hard-won House majority and go into the 1996 Presidential election already defeated. Something like half of the Republican members of the House have a hardcore Tea Party view like Bachmann's and will vote against any debt limit increase, but that will be offset if there is a compromise that is acceptable to a comparable number of Democratic House members.
The economic consequences of an actual government default are huge, but that is not going to happen, for the political and administrative reasons I've outlined. An economic catastrophe could still happen, though, and it would look something like this: we get to the last week in July and there is still no deal. Wall Street and the global capital markets finally decide the crisis is real and interest rates shoot up dramatically, led by Treasuries, but including all forms of debts. A small, late deal is produced by August 2, or shortly thereafter, so there is no default, but the meager nature of the deal inspires no confidence--rates come down very little or not at all, the country is plunged back into recession (with the rest of the globe following), and the political consequences--well, they would be severe, most likely punishing both parties somehow, with some kind of third-party desperation move (or multiple ones) emerging (Bloomberg? Donald Trump? Something even worse?)
I would conclude that it is in the interest of both parties to come up with that middle-small, face-saving deal that I outlined, and that they should do it in the next 10 days.
What happened since then is that Speaker Boehner was rebuffed by his party's caucus in the House. The problem is the Grover Norquist Pledge to vote against any net increase in Federal taxes--most House Republicans, and sufficient Senate Republicans, have signed it--and most who've signed it are unwilling to go back on it. Republican House Minority Leader Eric Cantor became the mouthpiece of those House Republicans, and they effectively undercut Boehner's ability to negotiate a deal of this magnitude.
So, there will be no tax increases, and there will be no corresponding ground offered on Medicare cuts (My proposal, to make Medicare benefits taxable, would make the two items--increase in revenue, and effective reduction in Medicare costs--equal, without making an explicit tradeoff, but I haven't heard it proposed yet, just "means tests" to make Medicare benefits more expensive for the wealthy.) This seems to limit the cuts that can be agreed upon to something like $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.
Boehner laid down a principle that the budget cuts should exceed the approved amount in the debt ceiling, which would need to be some $2.5 billion to get the government safely past the 2012 elections (or so I'm told). This is where the nefarious scheming of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes in. He's proposed some kind of complicated approach would give Obama the power to increase the debt limit for some amount of time unless two-thirds majorities of both houses voted to block it; it has the benefit of removing debt limit increases as a stumbling block for the economy, and it would allow most Republicans to vote against Obama's Debt Limit Increases.
So, the outlines of the final deal become clear--at least to me. $1.5 billion in cuts over ten years, some small increases in taxes through loophole closing, offset entirely by extensions of the payroll tax cut (so, no net increase in taxes and no violation of the Norquist Pledge), which would ensure sufficient Democratic votes for passage, and the McConnell clause which would come up in a year or so, during the election campaign, to allow Obama to get the debt limit past the election, but in a sufficiently politically damaging fashion to please Republican Congresspeople.
Tea Party Economics
Michele Bachmann has emerged as the anti-Romney candidate for at least the first portion of the 2012 Republican nomination race--I still think she will fade, and that Rick Perry will take up the torch--but that will happen sometime around when she loses in New Hampshire, gets creamed in Nevada, and doesn't do quite well enough in South Carolina. Meanwhile, her strong standing in polls, particularly in Iowa, make her someone everyone has to notice.
What she's saying about the debt ceiling is that Tim Geithner and Company are not telling us the truth if they say we will default on our debts on August 3rd if the debt ceiling is not raised. In this, I think she is factually correct, but completely wrong in the conclusion she draws from this, namely that it is OK to deny President Obama an increase in the debt ceiling, something she's basically promised to vote to do.
The statements of Geithner and Obama on this have been careful and are relatively clear. The Federal government is limited by statute to $14.8 billion (or whatever the exact number) in debt. When we reach that debt, they will pay some bills from cash on hand, they will raise money by selling assets to pay other debts, and they could challenge the constitutionality of the statute (on the 14th Amendment grounds), though they don't mention that one. They could prolong any default on any debts for some number of months--not a lot, but long enough to create a major crisis and probably break the resolve of Republicans to prevent a debt limit increase--if they had a resolve to do that.
I think it is clear that they do not have such a united resolved. The Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have shown that they recognize the danger: it's not so much an economic danger (more of that in a moment), but a political one that they don't want to face. They don't want to re-do 1995, which had a shutdown crisis which caused the Republicans to lose their hard-won House majority and go into the 1996 Presidential election already defeated. Something like half of the Republican members of the House have a hardcore Tea Party view like Bachmann's and will vote against any debt limit increase, but that will be offset if there is a compromise that is acceptable to a comparable number of Democratic House members.
The economic consequences of an actual government default are huge, but that is not going to happen, for the political and administrative reasons I've outlined. An economic catastrophe could still happen, though, and it would look something like this: we get to the last week in July and there is still no deal. Wall Street and the global capital markets finally decide the crisis is real and interest rates shoot up dramatically, led by Treasuries, but including all forms of debts. A small, late deal is produced by August 2, or shortly thereafter, so there is no default, but the meager nature of the deal inspires no confidence--rates come down very little or not at all, the country is plunged back into recession (with the rest of the globe following), and the political consequences--well, they would be severe, most likely punishing both parties somehow, with some kind of third-party desperation move (or multiple ones) emerging (Bloomberg? Donald Trump? Something even worse?)
I would conclude that it is in the interest of both parties to come up with that middle-small, face-saving deal that I outlined, and that they should do it in the next 10 days.
Monday, July 04, 2011
In Which We Attempt to Solve Some Major Sports Issues
MLB: How to Realign
It's been reported that Major League Baseball is taking a hard look at realignment. What I've heard is, first, that the playoffs would be expanded to five teams per league, the first round being a brief elimination contest between the fourth- and fifth-place teams; and second, that one team would go back to the AL, bringing each league to 15 teams. Finally, there is a notion of eliminating the divisional races i, simply having the playoffs consist of the top five teams in each league.
My advice would be to keep the first two ideas, but lose the third. Another round of playoffs means a few more high-ratings games in the fall (hopefully cutting deeper into the early-season ratings of the NFL), and it could be constructed in such a way that the three divisional winners get more of an advantage vs. the wild card survivor than is currently the case (they'd get the days off, but there could also be a more pronounced home-field advantage in the next round).
I get the idea, and I sympathize with it: The lords of baseball would like to enhance interest in the regular season, and in the playoffs, too; however, I think that having six playoff races (or at least two or three, with the inevitable Wild Card year-end frenzy) is better than—at best—two, and those would probably be for the unenviable fourth and fifth spots, with the league leaders coasting in.
The key question for the realignment is probably the team that will need to go over from the NL to the (I hate to say it, as a NL fan, but tougher) AL. The answer is definitely not the one I've heard, of moving over, so it can compete with its natural rival, the Texas (Dallas) Rangers. Houston should play Texas, but as its “natural rival” in interleague play, which will become more fundamental—going throughout the year—when both leagues are at 15 and there will need to be an interleague game in any full-schedule day of play. No, I'd say it should be an NL West team—Colorado, San Diego, or Arizona, and probably one of the latter two—that should go over, with Houston moving to the NL West.
That would achieve the key objective of balancing out the league with 6 divisions of five teams each (just like the NBA), with a good natural pairing for each team: a lot are obvious, but one pairing would be America's Team (Atlanta) vs. Canada's (the Blue Jays), and another would be the best in the NL, 2011 version (Philadelphia) vs. the AL's best (Boston).
Under this framework, there is a very natural breakdown of the schedule, as follows: 64 games vs. one's own division (16 per each opponent), 80 vs. the other teams in one's league (8 per), and 18 vs. the other league's teams in the same geographical division—three vs. four of them, and six vs. the natural rival. In terms of interleague, this is a slight increase—288 games vs. the 2011 schedule's 252—but not a big change. The AL teams already played 18 interleague games each this year (NL teams played differing amounts; for some reason unknown reason MLB did not go with the logical number of 224, which is 16X14).
There would be a stable set of appealing matchups, and the home vs. away nature of the interleague games against secondary rivals would alternate. Seems pretty fair, except that there would be some variation in the interleague difficulty for purposes of Wild Card qualification—but I don't consider that a big problem if the divisional races are fair. Compared to today's approach, it is much more fair, and the amount of change is small (except for the team convinced to move, which should be generously compensated).
My honest advice would be more ambitious: expand MLB to 36 teams, adding two in Asia (Korea and Taiwan—leave Japan's league alone), two in Latin America (San Jose/Santo Domingo and Mexico City) and two more in Canada (Montreal and Seattle's only real natural rival, Vancouver). To those who think it would water down the talent, I would respond that the talent is out there, it just needs a heightened worldwide interest level in the game in order to emerge (again, see the NBA). I think it will happen; I hope I live to see it.
NBA: Don't Be Blockheads
On the tail of probably the most successful season ever for the league—in terms of quality playoffs in all rounds, high fan interest in the finals, and (I presume) TV ratings—the owners have chosen to put a gun to their own heads and are threatening to use it. They've already fired a warning shot in the form of announcing a lockout, the same player-and-fan-unfriendly tactic currently in use by the NFL's greedy, blockheaded owners.
Unlike the NFL owners, the NBA's have been fairly open about their books, which show that they are not making much money, at least in relation to the cost (or value) of their franchises. The bad news is that they are looking to make up huge amounts of money in a new deal, unrealistic amounts. The good news is that the relations with the players' union are fairly respectful, and that the players are motivated to make a deal. NBA players are a relatively small number, compared with baseball and football, and they are really very well compensated, and they know it.
The main problem, as I see it, is the owners' zeal to compete has caused them to make a lot of very bad guaranteed contracts to a fairly sizable set of players who are underperforming or perennially injured. My solution does not cover the bad performers—owners just need to be a little more restrained about giving the big contracts to guys who are unproven (and that especially applies to big men jumping from Europe or skipping college)--but I think the injuries are a problem they can easily be protected from losing money upon. The players should offer to fund insurance, on the order of $300 million in potential annual benefit, to the owners. The conditions should be no more than $20 million in a year, $50 million in five years, and no more than three players at a time. If the owners need more injury insurance benefit than that, they're gambling on too many physically shaky individuals.
P.S. Congratulations to Dirk Nowitzki, Jasons Kidd and Terry, and the rest of the Mavericks' players for their championship win over Miami. They earned it, for sure.
Tennis: A Midyear Championship Series?
While we're at it, I congratulate Novak Djokovic for his success this year, capped by his gaining the No. 1 ranking, then defeating Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final. I have to say it's a good thing that he won the final (though he didn't need to do it to attain the top ranking). I'd be in favor of a midseason championship series—maybe just the top four players, playing on three different surfaces—as a big moneymaker which might make the ratings a lot less important in our consideration of the game.
The women's game shows how bad things are: unlike the men's game, where the top four are clearly known, and, despite intense competition, show up in the semis and finals with regularity, the women's game has no one deserving of the top spot. It's been that way since Kim Clijsters and the Williams sisters went out with injuries (the Williams' just got back, but not quite all the way) and Justine Henin retired. Suppose they had a championship series and no one qualified?
NFL: Just Give Up
The owners are doing their best imitation of Congress: they dither and make unreasonable demands until the last minute, then they will rush a deal, force the players (who've been locked out of training) to show up for their precious preseason travesties, and make other moves to grind the players' brain pans and limbs into glue and dust.
My only advice is: the players should refuse any deal in which they have to play more than two preseason games—this year, especially, and for the future, too. Other than that, I continue to enjoy the absence of the NFL and continue my boycott of all things related, until we get a new set of owners.
It's been reported that Major League Baseball is taking a hard look at realignment. What I've heard is, first, that the playoffs would be expanded to five teams per league, the first round being a brief elimination contest between the fourth- and fifth-place teams; and second, that one team would go back to the AL, bringing each league to 15 teams. Finally, there is a notion of eliminating the divisional races i, simply having the playoffs consist of the top five teams in each league.
My advice would be to keep the first two ideas, but lose the third. Another round of playoffs means a few more high-ratings games in the fall (hopefully cutting deeper into the early-season ratings of the NFL), and it could be constructed in such a way that the three divisional winners get more of an advantage vs. the wild card survivor than is currently the case (they'd get the days off, but there could also be a more pronounced home-field advantage in the next round).
I get the idea, and I sympathize with it: The lords of baseball would like to enhance interest in the regular season, and in the playoffs, too; however, I think that having six playoff races (or at least two or three, with the inevitable Wild Card year-end frenzy) is better than—at best—two, and those would probably be for the unenviable fourth and fifth spots, with the league leaders coasting in.
The key question for the realignment is probably the team that will need to go over from the NL to the (I hate to say it, as a NL fan, but tougher) AL. The answer is definitely not the one I've heard, of moving over, so it can compete with its natural rival, the Texas (Dallas) Rangers. Houston should play Texas, but as its “natural rival” in interleague play, which will become more fundamental—going throughout the year—when both leagues are at 15 and there will need to be an interleague game in any full-schedule day of play. No, I'd say it should be an NL West team—Colorado, San Diego, or Arizona, and probably one of the latter two—that should go over, with Houston moving to the NL West.
That would achieve the key objective of balancing out the league with 6 divisions of five teams each (just like the NBA), with a good natural pairing for each team: a lot are obvious, but one pairing would be America's Team (Atlanta) vs. Canada's (the Blue Jays), and another would be the best in the NL, 2011 version (Philadelphia) vs. the AL's best (Boston).
Under this framework, there is a very natural breakdown of the schedule, as follows: 64 games vs. one's own division (16 per each opponent), 80 vs. the other teams in one's league (8 per), and 18 vs. the other league's teams in the same geographical division—three vs. four of them, and six vs. the natural rival. In terms of interleague, this is a slight increase—288 games vs. the 2011 schedule's 252—but not a big change. The AL teams already played 18 interleague games each this year (NL teams played differing amounts; for some reason unknown reason MLB did not go with the logical number of 224, which is 16X14).
There would be a stable set of appealing matchups, and the home vs. away nature of the interleague games against secondary rivals would alternate. Seems pretty fair, except that there would be some variation in the interleague difficulty for purposes of Wild Card qualification—but I don't consider that a big problem if the divisional races are fair. Compared to today's approach, it is much more fair, and the amount of change is small (except for the team convinced to move, which should be generously compensated).
My honest advice would be more ambitious: expand MLB to 36 teams, adding two in Asia (Korea and Taiwan—leave Japan's league alone), two in Latin America (San Jose/Santo Domingo and Mexico City) and two more in Canada (Montreal and Seattle's only real natural rival, Vancouver). To those who think it would water down the talent, I would respond that the talent is out there, it just needs a heightened worldwide interest level in the game in order to emerge (again, see the NBA). I think it will happen; I hope I live to see it.
NBA: Don't Be Blockheads
On the tail of probably the most successful season ever for the league—in terms of quality playoffs in all rounds, high fan interest in the finals, and (I presume) TV ratings—the owners have chosen to put a gun to their own heads and are threatening to use it. They've already fired a warning shot in the form of announcing a lockout, the same player-and-fan-unfriendly tactic currently in use by the NFL's greedy, blockheaded owners.
Unlike the NFL owners, the NBA's have been fairly open about their books, which show that they are not making much money, at least in relation to the cost (or value) of their franchises. The bad news is that they are looking to make up huge amounts of money in a new deal, unrealistic amounts. The good news is that the relations with the players' union are fairly respectful, and that the players are motivated to make a deal. NBA players are a relatively small number, compared with baseball and football, and they are really very well compensated, and they know it.
The main problem, as I see it, is the owners' zeal to compete has caused them to make a lot of very bad guaranteed contracts to a fairly sizable set of players who are underperforming or perennially injured. My solution does not cover the bad performers—owners just need to be a little more restrained about giving the big contracts to guys who are unproven (and that especially applies to big men jumping from Europe or skipping college)--but I think the injuries are a problem they can easily be protected from losing money upon. The players should offer to fund insurance, on the order of $300 million in potential annual benefit, to the owners. The conditions should be no more than $20 million in a year, $50 million in five years, and no more than three players at a time. If the owners need more injury insurance benefit than that, they're gambling on too many physically shaky individuals.
P.S. Congratulations to Dirk Nowitzki, Jasons Kidd and Terry, and the rest of the Mavericks' players for their championship win over Miami. They earned it, for sure.
Tennis: A Midyear Championship Series?
While we're at it, I congratulate Novak Djokovic for his success this year, capped by his gaining the No. 1 ranking, then defeating Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final. I have to say it's a good thing that he won the final (though he didn't need to do it to attain the top ranking). I'd be in favor of a midseason championship series—maybe just the top four players, playing on three different surfaces—as a big moneymaker which might make the ratings a lot less important in our consideration of the game.
The women's game shows how bad things are: unlike the men's game, where the top four are clearly known, and, despite intense competition, show up in the semis and finals with regularity, the women's game has no one deserving of the top spot. It's been that way since Kim Clijsters and the Williams sisters went out with injuries (the Williams' just got back, but not quite all the way) and Justine Henin retired. Suppose they had a championship series and no one qualified?
NFL: Just Give Up
The owners are doing their best imitation of Congress: they dither and make unreasonable demands until the last minute, then they will rush a deal, force the players (who've been locked out of training) to show up for their precious preseason travesties, and make other moves to grind the players' brain pans and limbs into glue and dust.
My only advice is: the players should refuse any deal in which they have to play more than two preseason games—this year, especially, and for the future, too. Other than that, I continue to enjoy the absence of the NFL and continue my boycott of all things related, until we get a new set of owners.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Halperin's Painful Boner
Warning: As with my recent posting on Anthony Weiner, this posting contains an excessive amount of silly reference--direct and indirect--to male sex organs. I apologize for the necessity.
Last week, Time political editor and MSNBC regular talking head Mark Halperin went on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" show to talk about President Obama's news conference the day before. Obama had scolded Congress for failing to do its assignment of finding a way to pass the debt limit and warned them that, if they didn't get their work done, the public would give them bad grades, in the process comparing them unfavorably to his daughters.
Helperin was asked about his opinion of the Obama scolding. He indicated his honest opinion should be bleeped out and checked that they could and would do so, then said, "basically, I think he was being a dick". Pretty soon, he was mortified to find out that the producer had tried to use bleep the comment (using the six-second delay on this type of telecast), but had failed to do so. Halperin "manned up" (boy, I hate that expression) and apologized, on air at the time, and since then.
Helperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC and probably will be disciplined in some way by Time. Personally, I think this unfair: if anybody's job should be endangered, it's the producer (or the person who trained him/her and didn't sufficiently emphasize the necessity of keeping his/her thumb by the button at all times). Whether or not you believe in the appropriateness of the delay and the squelch button, this was one time it should have been used, as Halperin's comments clearly show he meant the characterization should be off the record. I think that an appropriate punishment for Halperin is for him to live with a new nickname, a dimutive of Richard.
The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page had it about right in today's column when he pointed out that the real issue is not "Dick" Halperin's mild vulgarity or "Morning Joe's" failure to push the button, but whether Obama's scolding isn't right on target. It's not "being a dick" to expect them to do their job. He should be playing hardball, and wielding the bat is how to do it.
Finally, it's way past due for me to credit Garrett Epps, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, for a brilliant constitutional argument that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional. A provision of the 14th amendment, passed during Reconstruction, clearly states that the Federal government's debt must be honored. It's certainly not a strategy to be preferred, but if the stalemate looks to go past August 2, it is now looking like a possibility for Obama to announce that he will require all debts be honored, and, if necessary, challenge the constitutionality of the ultimate debt ceiling legislation ("the debt shall not exceed $XXX trillion").
Last week, Time political editor and MSNBC regular talking head Mark Halperin went on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" show to talk about President Obama's news conference the day before. Obama had scolded Congress for failing to do its assignment of finding a way to pass the debt limit and warned them that, if they didn't get their work done, the public would give them bad grades, in the process comparing them unfavorably to his daughters.
Helperin was asked about his opinion of the Obama scolding. He indicated his honest opinion should be bleeped out and checked that they could and would do so, then said, "basically, I think he was being a dick". Pretty soon, he was mortified to find out that the producer had tried to use bleep the comment (using the six-second delay on this type of telecast), but had failed to do so. Halperin "manned up" (boy, I hate that expression) and apologized, on air at the time, and since then.
Helperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC and probably will be disciplined in some way by Time. Personally, I think this unfair: if anybody's job should be endangered, it's the producer (or the person who trained him/her and didn't sufficiently emphasize the necessity of keeping his/her thumb by the button at all times). Whether or not you believe in the appropriateness of the delay and the squelch button, this was one time it should have been used, as Halperin's comments clearly show he meant the characterization should be off the record. I think that an appropriate punishment for Halperin is for him to live with a new nickname, a dimutive of Richard.
The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page had it about right in today's column when he pointed out that the real issue is not "Dick" Halperin's mild vulgarity or "Morning Joe's" failure to push the button, but whether Obama's scolding isn't right on target. It's not "being a dick" to expect them to do their job. He should be playing hardball, and wielding the bat is how to do it.
Finally, it's way past due for me to credit Garrett Epps, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, for a brilliant constitutional argument that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional. A provision of the 14th amendment, passed during Reconstruction, clearly states that the Federal government's debt must be honored. It's certainly not a strategy to be preferred, but if the stalemate looks to go past August 2, it is now looking like a possibility for Obama to announce that he will require all debts be honored, and, if necessary, challenge the constitutionality of the ultimate debt ceiling legislation ("the debt shall not exceed $XXX trillion").
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Political Catchup Post
(I'm thinking of the messy red stuff, a good image to describe our domestic economy, and also the fact that I've been remiss in commenting on recent political news.)
Why Isn't Capital Making Jobs Here?
This is, more or less, the theme of a discussion on the business social network Linked In, to which I contributed the following post:
Unfortunately, there is no law of economics that means everyone who wants a decent job can get one, even in times of prosperity. We have raised productivity and outsourced jobs to the point that I see an oversupply of labor--under any government--for the next 15 years or so (until the Baby Boomers are largely out to pasture). It is true that the cost of medical benefits to employers means less will be employed; this is nothing new, though, and we failed to fix this problem with the health care insurance reform.
We can't spend our way out of this--the 2009 program was the best we could do, politically, in a crisis, and it wasn't enough. Tax cuts to create jobs are a joke, it wasn't even funny in the '000's (job market was weak, held up temporarily by wars, building houses we didn't need, and phony mortgages), and the party out of power is selling the same snake oil in the same bottle with a new label.
Here are three things I think could help on the margin:
1) A government-and-bank-supported effort to reclaim and restore foreclosed homes in ravaged neighborhoods.
2) Make a low-cost catastrophic health care insurance plan available to all (a/k/a the public option) so people can live on part-time jobs; and
3) Reduce future entitlement liabilities by making Medicare benefits taxable, and by allowing people going into well-funded retirement to give up their Social Security benefits in exchange for unused Federal land in trust (a new homesteading program).
While Playing Golf...
Here are some points the President might make with his orange-hued playing partner:
1) We are going to make a proposal that is going to revitalize the states that are hardest hit by the recession (see #1 above). It will be very popular, and you will oppose it at your peril. If you go along, we will all benefit.
2) We have some major suggestions to reduce future deficits (see #2 above), including $500 billion or more in defense spending, totalling some $2 billion, which will take this off the table until 2013. Again, you will oppose them at your peril, because we are prepared to take steps to prevent default and keep the government running indefinitely without an increase in the debt limit, but it will destroy your party's political fortunes.
3) We will consult with you on the Libya campaign, but a vote is not required, and we will ignore any measure that ties the hands of NATO in the program. We look to wrap it up within 60 days, one way or another.
4) We are close to a political deal in Afghanistan, and the troop withdrawals are going to be very real.
Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs
I have to admit that I couldn't watch the Republican Presidential debate the other night--it was too much for me to stand. So I'll take the word of those who watched it that Romney won (by not losing), Pawlenty missed his big chance to lay mitts on, and Bachmann emerged as the purest anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-government Tea Party-type candidate. Fine.
I recommend Larry Sabato's recent column handicapping the candidates--Sabato's a political scientist with moderate to conservative leanings, but on something like this is very reliable and well-informed. So I will accept his point of view that Ron Paul's support is too much on the margins of the party primary electorate to be a serious threat to Romney, that Cain (who I see as a black redneck, if such a thing is possible) will yield his support to Bachmann if she takes the early lead with a strong performance in Iowa.
Fine. I would still say that there is an opening for a major entrant, and it looks to me that it will be Rick Perry (not Palin, not Christie). I have to say that this disturbs me more than a little, and I will not dismiss his chances by saying what should be obvious--we've seen his like before, and we're just starting to recover from it. Perry's popularity in Texas is at a peak now--2016 will be too late for him--he's got the bug to run, he'll get Bushite money, and his story might just gull the voters yet again, even in the general election. So, I see the race as being Romney and Bachmann leading early, Perry trying to break in before South Carolina, and Romney and Perry being a very typical high-forehead white-guy Republican nomination battle.
As for the VP nominee, whoever the Presidential nominee will be, I think he/she/it will choose Marco Rubio. I think it's clear he would take the job, add value to the ticket (in Florida, and with Hispanics), and any nominee would be crazy not to choose him.
Now, I was originally thinking of the race as Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. But, in trying to cast the original (Gingich is Grumpy, or maybe Doc, Huntsman--the last guy to appear--Sleepy, etc.) it occurs to me that Bachmann is actually better cast as Snow White (with Palin as the Wicked Stepmother, who will bring a poisoned apple to her at some point--a tainted endorsement?), and Romney is really one of the dwarfs (Dopey?) Then there's Perry, Prince Charming, who would come to S.W.'s rescue when her campaign becomes paralyzed, winning the nomination and rides off into the sunset with her riding behind as the V.P. It works better--as an analogy, as a dramatic plot--but is it realistic? Then again, the GOP has been living in a fantasy world for quite a while.
Why Isn't Capital Making Jobs Here?
This is, more or less, the theme of a discussion on the business social network Linked In, to which I contributed the following post:
Unfortunately, there is no law of economics that means everyone who wants a decent job can get one, even in times of prosperity. We have raised productivity and outsourced jobs to the point that I see an oversupply of labor--under any government--for the next 15 years or so (until the Baby Boomers are largely out to pasture). It is true that the cost of medical benefits to employers means less will be employed; this is nothing new, though, and we failed to fix this problem with the health care insurance reform.
We can't spend our way out of this--the 2009 program was the best we could do, politically, in a crisis, and it wasn't enough. Tax cuts to create jobs are a joke, it wasn't even funny in the '000's (job market was weak, held up temporarily by wars, building houses we didn't need, and phony mortgages), and the party out of power is selling the same snake oil in the same bottle with a new label.
Here are three things I think could help on the margin:
1) A government-and-bank-supported effort to reclaim and restore foreclosed homes in ravaged neighborhoods.
2) Make a low-cost catastrophic health care insurance plan available to all (a/k/a the public option) so people can live on part-time jobs; and
3) Reduce future entitlement liabilities by making Medicare benefits taxable, and by allowing people going into well-funded retirement to give up their Social Security benefits in exchange for unused Federal land in trust (a new homesteading program).
While Playing Golf...
Here are some points the President might make with his orange-hued playing partner:
1) We are going to make a proposal that is going to revitalize the states that are hardest hit by the recession (see #1 above). It will be very popular, and you will oppose it at your peril. If you go along, we will all benefit.
2) We have some major suggestions to reduce future deficits (see #2 above), including $500 billion or more in defense spending, totalling some $2 billion, which will take this off the table until 2013. Again, you will oppose them at your peril, because we are prepared to take steps to prevent default and keep the government running indefinitely without an increase in the debt limit, but it will destroy your party's political fortunes.
3) We will consult with you on the Libya campaign, but a vote is not required, and we will ignore any measure that ties the hands of NATO in the program. We look to wrap it up within 60 days, one way or another.
4) We are close to a political deal in Afghanistan, and the troop withdrawals are going to be very real.
Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs
I have to admit that I couldn't watch the Republican Presidential debate the other night--it was too much for me to stand. So I'll take the word of those who watched it that Romney won (by not losing), Pawlenty missed his big chance to lay mitts on, and Bachmann emerged as the purest anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-government Tea Party-type candidate. Fine.
I recommend Larry Sabato's recent column handicapping the candidates--Sabato's a political scientist with moderate to conservative leanings, but on something like this is very reliable and well-informed. So I will accept his point of view that Ron Paul's support is too much on the margins of the party primary electorate to be a serious threat to Romney, that Cain (who I see as a black redneck, if such a thing is possible) will yield his support to Bachmann if she takes the early lead with a strong performance in Iowa.
Fine. I would still say that there is an opening for a major entrant, and it looks to me that it will be Rick Perry (not Palin, not Christie). I have to say that this disturbs me more than a little, and I will not dismiss his chances by saying what should be obvious--we've seen his like before, and we're just starting to recover from it. Perry's popularity in Texas is at a peak now--2016 will be too late for him--he's got the bug to run, he'll get Bushite money, and his story might just gull the voters yet again, even in the general election. So, I see the race as being Romney and Bachmann leading early, Perry trying to break in before South Carolina, and Romney and Perry being a very typical high-forehead white-guy Republican nomination battle.
As for the VP nominee, whoever the Presidential nominee will be, I think he/she/it will choose Marco Rubio. I think it's clear he would take the job, add value to the ticket (in Florida, and with Hispanics), and any nominee would be crazy not to choose him.
Now, I was originally thinking of the race as Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. But, in trying to cast the original (Gingich is Grumpy, or maybe Doc, Huntsman--the last guy to appear--Sleepy, etc.) it occurs to me that Bachmann is actually better cast as Snow White (with Palin as the Wicked Stepmother, who will bring a poisoned apple to her at some point--a tainted endorsement?), and Romney is really one of the dwarfs (Dopey?) Then there's Perry, Prince Charming, who would come to S.W.'s rescue when her campaign becomes paralyzed, winning the nomination and rides off into the sunset with her riding behind as the V.P. It works better--as an analogy, as a dramatic plot--but is it realistic? Then again, the GOP has been living in a fantasy world for quite a while.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
"Bulworth" in Real Life
It's not new, but in going through my old emails the other day I ran across this incredible piece in the New Yorker about Rodrigo Rosenberg of Guatemala, and his decision to arrange a hired killing--of himself:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
The article, by Curtis Grann, is very well written and suspenseful, so I won't spoil it any more. The upper class of Guatemalan society is extreme in its no-holds-barred, rough-and-tumble battle for power and all it brings. Rosenberg comes off as someone who was too credulous for full-tilt Machiavellianism.
"Bulworth", of course, was the movie starring Warren Beatty from the '90's in which the Senator pays hit men to kill him off, then he falls in love (with a character played by Halle Berry), and changes his mind and tries--unsuccessfully--to call it off. It's quite amusing, particularly when Beatty/Bulworth, with nothing to lose, starts telling the truth--in rhymes, white-man hip-hop style. Rosenberg's story is not at all humorous, but it is fascinating in its own way.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
The article, by Curtis Grann, is very well written and suspenseful, so I won't spoil it any more. The upper class of Guatemalan society is extreme in its no-holds-barred, rough-and-tumble battle for power and all it brings. Rosenberg comes off as someone who was too credulous for full-tilt Machiavellianism.
"Bulworth", of course, was the movie starring Warren Beatty from the '90's in which the Senator pays hit men to kill him off, then he falls in love (with a character played by Halle Berry), and changes his mind and tries--unsuccessfully--to call it off. It's quite amusing, particularly when Beatty/Bulworth, with nothing to lose, starts telling the truth--in rhymes, white-man hip-hop style. Rosenberg's story is not at all humorous, but it is fascinating in its own way.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Weiner: Cooked
It's hardly worth debating whether Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign or should have to resign or should be somehow removed from his job (the latest I heard was to gerrymander his district out of existence). He will resign; the pressure on him will increase steadily, irresistibly, until he gives up--and it won't be long.
Speaking of which, I would say that someone with his name has three choices: 1) don't be a "weiner", 2) admit his "weiner-ness", or 3) try to change what it means to be one. As someone often known as "stoner", I should know: I've tried them all, settled on 3) (hence the blog).
Speaking of "should know", the most bizarre aspect of this has been watching former Gov. Elliot Spitzer commenting to other talking heads (on his CNN show "In the Arena") about how Weiner should handle his sex scandal. I feel like those folks should be saying, "well, Elliot, he should do what you did and hide from public view until he shows up with his wife to announce his resignation". Wonder what Spitz would say to that one?
I have to disagree with those who say that it was his lie--not his sins--that has let the animals permanently out of his barn. For one thing, it was the fact of his denial! One must not deny such things, true or not true. There are two valid responses to an accusation of this sort (and I repeat, true or not): "I don't remember" or "None of your business". I would suggest the following: "I've got two answers, take your pick: 'I don't remember' or 'None of your business'. Or both." The key is to use that answer consistently, not just when there is something embarrassing that you'd rather not admit.
Beyond that, though, it's not true that it was his lie, not his sin, that brought him down. It was the disclosure (and clearly, his poor choice of the target(s) of his indiscretions)--after that, it was just a matter of how, and how long. Americans are prudes, and voyeurs, and journalists are the worst of them, dogs with a bone they just can't ever give up. Andrew Breitbart, the contemptible right-wing blogger who has apparently been exonerated of misdeeds in this case, said on Spitzer's show that he was not part of the Morality Police, and in the next sentence said that public figures should never do anything that could subject themselves to blackmail. The point is, there's always a reason to drag it out until the climax, the public confession, the denouement.
I want three, and only three, things of my elected representatives: 1) to take no compensation for the job beyond the publicly approved amount; 2) to be informed enough to know what they are talking about; and 3) to faithfully represent the views and interests of their constituents (in this case, me). I could not care less about what they are 'tweeting', to whom, whether they are good spouses/parents, whether they show up in a clown costume, whatever. If they broke the law (not venally), well, they may have to go to jail, so that only impacts their ability to represent me.
Finally, my advice to the young: fame is an illusion and a calamity. Avoid it if you can, and if you can't, try to limit its damage.
Speaking of which, I would say that someone with his name has three choices: 1) don't be a "weiner", 2) admit his "weiner-ness", or 3) try to change what it means to be one. As someone often known as "stoner", I should know: I've tried them all, settled on 3) (hence the blog).
Speaking of "should know", the most bizarre aspect of this has been watching former Gov. Elliot Spitzer commenting to other talking heads (on his CNN show "In the Arena") about how Weiner should handle his sex scandal. I feel like those folks should be saying, "well, Elliot, he should do what you did and hide from public view until he shows up with his wife to announce his resignation". Wonder what Spitz would say to that one?
I have to disagree with those who say that it was his lie--not his sins--that has let the animals permanently out of his barn. For one thing, it was the fact of his denial! One must not deny such things, true or not true. There are two valid responses to an accusation of this sort (and I repeat, true or not): "I don't remember" or "None of your business". I would suggest the following: "I've got two answers, take your pick: 'I don't remember' or 'None of your business'. Or both." The key is to use that answer consistently, not just when there is something embarrassing that you'd rather not admit.
Beyond that, though, it's not true that it was his lie, not his sin, that brought him down. It was the disclosure (and clearly, his poor choice of the target(s) of his indiscretions)--after that, it was just a matter of how, and how long. Americans are prudes, and voyeurs, and journalists are the worst of them, dogs with a bone they just can't ever give up. Andrew Breitbart, the contemptible right-wing blogger who has apparently been exonerated of misdeeds in this case, said on Spitzer's show that he was not part of the Morality Police, and in the next sentence said that public figures should never do anything that could subject themselves to blackmail. The point is, there's always a reason to drag it out until the climax, the public confession, the denouement.
I want three, and only three, things of my elected representatives: 1) to take no compensation for the job beyond the publicly approved amount; 2) to be informed enough to know what they are talking about; and 3) to faithfully represent the views and interests of their constituents (in this case, me). I could not care less about what they are 'tweeting', to whom, whether they are good spouses/parents, whether they show up in a clown costume, whatever. If they broke the law (not venally), well, they may have to go to jail, so that only impacts their ability to represent me.
Finally, my advice to the young: fame is an illusion and a calamity. Avoid it if you can, and if you can't, try to limit its damage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
