I ran across an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday written by Liz Cheney, the former Vice President’s daughter. It is a sort of manifesto extolling the views of the right-wing of the Republican party, refuting the arguments of its more moderate members that the party’s extreme positions are what are keeping it from winning and that it needs to move to the center.
The thesis of her argument is that “(T)hose who counsel that the GOP should move left are wrongheaded or Democrats, or both," showing a fairly liberal open-mindedness to the possibility that someone who is not Democratic could be wrongheaded! She is responding in particular to those who might be suggesting that the cuts caused by the sequestering provisions are harmful, and that therefore Republicans should be more willing to negotiate with the President.
If I were someone sympathetic to Republicans’ desire to regain the White House and assessing her editorial critically, I would say that her argument is based more on a claim that right-wing Republicans’ views are correct and their opponents are wrong, rather than the the possibility that her views will be endorsed by a majority of voters; however, it's really more about just attacking President Obama and declaring opposition to him in all things to be the test of one's patriotism.
She suggests that “the Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls.” All right—like Ms. Cheney, I have a teenage girl, so I know what she is talking about, and I recognize exactly that pattern of argument in some of Cheney’s exaggerated claims about President Obama: He is "the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office." She adds that "The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent." She states that we tell the North Koreans who threaten us, and the Islamist radicals in Benghazi, that "you can attack us with impunity."
She charges that we have allowed al-Qaeda to become resurgent, and that "If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory." In this last point, she refers to a quote from St. Ronald Reagan from 1961 (when he was still a Democrat!) that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction..." and if we don't defend it and teach that "then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."
See what I mean about the sky falling? Of course, all those claims are wrong, starting with the “occupy” charge (probably made as an incitement to anger for the WSJ readers who were outraged and scared by the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which Obama did not endorse nor condemn): I would say that the most radical “occupants” have all been radical conservatives, with the Administration headed by her father and the figurehead President George W. Bush the most radical in recent decades (Calvin Coolidge’s perhaps being the most radical all-time). The reference to “occupy the Oval Office”, with its suggestion of usurpation and improperly gaining the Presidency rather than “being elected and serving in” it seems particularly suited to the Bush-Cheney Administration. Beyond that, North Korea’s threats to the U.S. are pretty laughable (our threats against them much less so), and al-Qaeda has been pulverized; though a few grains remain, their ability to strike against the US and other developed countries has been seriously degraded. As for Reagan's quote, I would say that the main thing that has changed since 1961 is that a lot more men--and women--are now experiencing what it is like to be free, and that--contrary to Cheney's suggestions--our freedoms are not now seriously endangered by such things as having either to purchase healthcare insurance or to pay a fine, or to submit to a screen to see if you are a lunatic or criminal before buying a gun, or if our national defense spending falls below that of all the rest of the countries of the world combined.
She claims that “you can be sure that President Obama would welcome an America in which the Republican Party is preoccupied with remaking itself into a watered-down version of the Democrats." Presumably, she is referring to a desire Obama might have that some of the Republicans be willing to negotiate legislation in the nation’s interest instead of blocking anything that might definitively avoid the slow-motion trainwreck still in progress. I’d guess that desire exists, though I have never heard Obama attempt to advise the Republican party how to conduct its internal affairs.
As for me, though, I wish Liz all the success possible in maintaining total control of the party for the extreme right-wing. The GOP is much more a threat when it has some claim to moderate voters than when it doesn’t (as is generally the case now), even if that appeal is illusory (with the right controlling policy positions but masking their intent somewhat to gull “low-information voters”).
Some would argue that the country is better off with two strong national parties; at this point in time, I would disagree. I’m hoping for the Republicans to solidify their base with the mid-thirty percent nationally that genuinely understand and agree with their positions, with the rest also understanding Republican positions but voting their interest with the Democrats as the only sane choice.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Global Update
Matters of State and Fossil Fuels
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
I have been a bit neglectful and need to catch up on international developments. First up is the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal. Contrary to what we may think, this is not a domestic matter--that is why the project's analysis is coming from the State Department. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the State Department's primary mission is to serve the interests of the homeland, so the fear that we could miss out on the economic benefits would be a paramount concern.
The question is whether to link up a pipeline to the existing refineries in the South Central U.S. with the Canadian tar sands oil production. A previous round of analysis criticized the route planned for potential damage to wildlife; the route has been changed to mitigate the damage. The essence of the current report is that the tar sands are ripe to be developed now, regardless of whether the pipeline is built. Given that conclusion, it would appear inevitable that the decision will be to go forward with it, seeking perhaps to mitigate further harm from the production, through improvements in industrial methods at the site or in the refineries.
Much of the environmental movement will be disappointed when President Obama signs off on the initiative; opposition to it has been a rallying point for domestic organization to drive public policy toward limiting climate change effects from fossil fuels. There's been an attempt to draw a line in the sand, to say that a decision to proceed is "game over" for the effort to limit the growth of greenhouse gases.
Frankly, the movement will need to find a new game, and we should expect that the rising sea level will wipe away this line and future ones, as well. 350 parts per million of CO2 is just a number at this point; there is a point at which the growth of damage from climate change stops being linear and becomes exponential, but the climate models are not that precise that we know 340 is not too high, nor 360. The key to eventual success to limit permanent damage to our global ecosystem is not the absolute number but the trend: the rate of change in the level must be slowed. If that trend--the second derivative turning, then staying, negative--can be continued long enough, then the level will reduce. This will be a struggle of several decades, of a scope much broader than the U.S., and it is a mistake ever to view a single outcome as decisive at this point.
Venezuela: Can It Turn the Page on Hugo?
Hugo Chavez died Tuesday, March 5. The second greatest figure in Venezuelan history (after the Liberator, Simon Bolivar) left an uncertain legacy for his nation and an unlikely future for the movement centered around his cult of personality, called "Chavismo".
Reviews of his country's status at the time of his death varied widely, depending on the ideology of the reviewer. Inflation was either too high, or normal for a third-world country with vast oil money flowing in; the poor were either rising in economic status or deluded into thinking they were; the country either is free, open, and democratic, or cynically stage-managed by the Chavez ruling clique, etc. Two facts seemed unambiguous: there is too much crime, and Chavez was indisputably able to rally the lower-class and working-class to vote for him--even in the last campaign, when he was near death, out of the country, never appeared in public, and had a worthy challenger.
Chavez seemed to have a Teflon-like ability to deflect the criticism and maintain popularity. He was a successful populist, or, if you prefer, demagogue. His great success was the ability to rise up, after having been jailed as a failed leader of a military coup attempt, and win the presidency through electoral means. The glow of popularity is expected to last long enough to get his designated successor Maduro through a special election, but he looks to me like the designated scapegoat, the one who will be blamed as the public awakens from their infatuation with Chavez and realizes that friendship with a few impoverished socialist republics is no substitute for a truly healthy economy or good relations with their Yankee relations to the north.
As for the US, we should awaken from our Bushite-era paranoid conviction that Chavez was another Castro and re-establish a healthy relationship with the republic, whatever leadership it takes on in the years to come.
Obama in the Middle East
It was good timing that President Obama visited Israel now; I feel that Israel, currently struggling to form a new government behind Benyamin Netayahu, may be at a stage in which his efforts could positively affect public opinion in the country. It is also well that he met with Al Fatah President Abbas in the Palestinian West Bank; it gives the West Bank Palestinians' faltering bid for nationhood a boost (as did the United Nations General Assembly vote last fall to give them official observer status) and will reinforce their sense of responsibility and (I hope) their willingness to engage with the Israelis.
I would view the effort as an attempt to signal that the US is willing to facilitate the peace process, if the two main participants, Israel and Al Fatah, are willing to take the risk. There is a third possible participant, which I would see as Egypt, representing Hamas in the Gaza Strip. That is, if Egypt's government headed by Mohammed Morsi can establish itself as being at least as responsible as Al Fatah has done in recent years.
Trying to accomplish anything in the Holy Lands is a long process, and comparable in difficulty and long-term importance to what the Obama administration is trying to do in Asia (which I would describe as "build up the economies and capabilities of our allies and provide a check on any bullying tendencies by the Chinese, while encouraging Chinese development in positive directions"). Some success, even limited success of something like extending cease-fire by Hamas, slowing or stopping aggressive settlement development by Israel, and preventing the Syrian mess from blowing up into a bigger war, would counter the loss of influence in the region which will come from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. A complete withdrawal from Afghanistan is now looking to be the likeliest outcome there, rather than a significant residual force or a tiny tripwire force.
Cyprus: FAQ
There's only one question: What's the fuss about, and why should I care?
Cyprus has a mushrooming deficit threatening default on its debt obligations. Rather than doing that, it worked out an arrangement with the European Central Bank (with the International Monetary Fund and representatives of the European Community) to raise revenue--to recapitalize Cypriot banks--by giving a haircut to domestic deposits greater than the insured amount (100,000 Euros or about $125,000). This is the price requested by the "troika" of international agencies to provide the support needed to stop the pain.
There are other onerous provisions, but this one was worked out after an initial foray by Cyprus. That one, which would have taxed all deposits, was unanimously rejected by its Parliament. This deal will not harm the smaller depositors, but instead puts all deposits over the insured deposit limit of 100K Euros--particularly in the second-largest Cypriot bank--at risk of loss (there will be some sort of paper offset, worth about as much as the paper). There will be very tight limitations on withdrawals from all accounts, to prevent a massive run on deposits--something that had already started before this deal. From Cyprus' point of view, what finally emerged appears to be a better deal, as the ones who will be hurt are mostly wealthy Russians and Ukrainians who wanted to park the money in a Eurozone country that didn't ask too many questions. Until now.
Still, why should we care? Well, there is the danger that loss of value on Eurozone insured deposits could affect deposits throughout the region, and that the contagion could even spread beyond Europe, directly through a loss of confidence in banks throughout the developed world, or indirectly through loss of confidence in the European recovery in general. The "breaking of the buck" for money market funds in 2008 was a critical step in the freezing of credit and loss of investor confidence in the US which led to the Great Crater.
This hit upon deposits--money-laundered or not, made in good faith--is a fairly extreme step and its effects are uncertain, but Europe has demanded--from Greece, and from Italy and Spain--pain for the gain of backstopping their shaky national finances. This sort of pain was the only thing Cyprus could offer that compared with the size of bailout required (its domestic economy being much smaller than a country like Greece). It's yet another scar which the Euro countries will bear if they end up surviving their battle with themselves, and the Eurozone surviving remains the most likely outcome.
OK, one more question: why does the European Union and the Eurozone get involved with a time-bomb country like Cyprus?
Sorry, I can't give you an answer to that, except maybe as a favor to Greece and a calculated snub to the Turks. Cyprus has been divided for some 30 years into a Greek sector--75% or more of the land, the people, and the economy--and a Turkish sector, recognized by no one, but stubbornly supported out of Ankara.
It was one thing to let Cyprus into the EU, but to include it in the Eurozone compounded the error. It provided a boost to Cyprus--in the form of funds flowing in that would not otherwise have happened--but it appears the sense of prosperity resulting from that was deceptive, and may end up being toxic, if Russia takes the hit to its oligarchs personally.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Comments Upon Comments
I was reading a column by Joel Stein in Time magazine the other day*, the title of which was "No Comment", and the point of which was to include his remarks on how moronic are most of the comments on websites, and to proudly boast that he will not allow comments on his column.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
OK, I agree with his categorization of most commentary I have seen online as being moronic, or troll-like, or possibly paid provocateurs. (Possibly the worst I've seen is on Yahoo!, where they have a policy to suppress postings if they have to high a ratio of thumbs down to thumbs up, which seems to quickly remove all my comments there; the best might be what I saw on 538.com during the election campaign, through the NY Times). Regardless of my opinion of online posting specifically or in general, however, I don't find his rejection of input from others to be worth the column space devoted to it, or at all worth bragging about, and the fact that Time would support his choices of column subject and comment suppression is not a very good commentary on that publication.
For the record, we welcome comments, though we do screen them before we allow them to be published. I try to review all within 24-48 hours at the most. My policy is not to allow overt spam, or random babbling which has no relation to the post, or abusive language, or stuff in double-key entry foreign languages which I can not see. With regard to foreign language comments, I will allow them if they are recognizable. I will allow people to put a link to their blogs, if their comment has any relation to the subject at hand.
So, please--feel free to voice your opinions on the subject of the blog posts here, whatever your opinions may be, and to put a backlink if you want to invite others to discuss further on your site.
* I did not buy the Time, nor do I have a subscription (the link above will only give you the full column if you're a subscriber). I read it in the health club. For the record, the only paid subscriptions I personally have are to National Geographic, Atlantic, The Nation, and the Yale Alumni Magazine (and maybe a couple others that I get for contributions to their causes)--and that's plenty, for me.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sports Update
Manchester United- Chelsea
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Today's F.A. Cup match is one of the highlights of the English footbll season, M.U. having basically wrapped up the Premier league title and, with the Red Devils' spectacular flameout this week vs. Real Madrid completing the deal, the English failure in the European Champions League now being complete.
The match will be just for a spot in the semifinals, but the team that emerges from this round will be a huge favorite to win the Cup. Chelsea is the defending champion, Manchester United has 11 titles, the most of any (Chelsea has seven, and four of the last six).
M.U. had a midweek failure in the Champions league--at home, no less. While leading 1-0, their midfield wing player Nani suffered a red card ("a bit harsh" was the judgment of the commentators; I did not watch it), and things fell apart. While their coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, raged at the decision, the team's defense faltered and they gave up two goals. The lead held and the last English team in the premier competition was out.
This game now has the fans, the crowd, and the players all worked up. Ferguson is starting Rooney at center forward, over probable Player of the Year Robin Van Persie, making up for not playing him Wednesday. Chelsea has its own issue: underwhelming superstar Fernando Torres, their longtime captain John Terry (feuding with his coach, Rafa Benitez), and rising star Eden Hazard are all on the bench. Both teams have plenty of talent to put out there, and options to make strategic substitutions as the game goes forward.
Manchester United will attack early; the key will be whether Chelsea can withstand the charge and then successfully counter-attack, as they did in their run to the Champions League title last year. I think it will be a high-scoring game, unless Chelsea gets an early lead. I will be watching the referees closely to see whether Ferguson, the crowd, and the M.U. mystique will get into their head and lead to critical calls against us. Otherwise, I think we have a chance for a huge win--which would demolish the aura of superiority for M.U. that they have earned through a brilliant Premier League season--or, at least a tie (a "draw") which would bring the replay back to Chelsea and could turn the tables in their favor.
Baseball: It's Back!
It's a bit too early for my official season preview, but I am thrilled by its approach. My Cincinnati Reds had a great season, a disappointing postseason (losing three straight home games and their Divisional Series to eventual World Champion San Francisco after jumping out to a 2-0 lead on the road), and a good offseason, so I think they are primed to achieve all that is possible for them in 2013.
So that's number one for me, but there are many other interesting themes going into the season. Are the Yankees fading? Are the Rangers? Can the Angels buy their way to the top? Can the Blue Jays trade their way into contention? Will the Cardinals retain their status as a top contender despite the probable permanent loss of their ace pitcher, Chris Carpenter? Can the Giants' pitching lead them once again? Is the Phillies' run as a top contender over? Are the Orioles for real? The A's? Can the Astros, big-time NL losers now in the American League, break the alltime record for losses?
My (provisional) answers: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; no; no; no.
Meanwhile, there's the "World Baseball Classic"--the invention, inspired by the World Cup, to have an inernational competition with players organized into national teams. It may not be all that it should be--and I do think there needs to be some change in the timing of the competition, so that the major league teams will have less reason to hold out key players--but I like the fact that it has been organized, that many players do want to participate, and that several nations' fans (though not so much the Americans) have gotten behind it. I have also heard talk that there may be a move, before too long, to have our "World Series" championships play a truer world series against the Japanese major league champion.
This last development could cause a change in the season plan--the WBC, as presently constituted, will not, because it just substitutes for a couple of early weeks of spring training, time which is generally considered a waste of time and effort by players--to shorten the season by a week or so. I've already called for this to allow another round of wild-card playoffs; this would be another reason, and another good reason, to do it. The oldtime regular season of 154 games was plenty.
A Very Few Words About the NHL
I didn't miss the NHL at all during the lockout, but the run of the Chicago Blackhawks to start the delayed regular season was just what the league needed. It certainly created some genuine excitement here in the Windy City metro area, but I think it also helped generate interest beyond the area in all of the league cities. Now that the season-opening blitz is over--their string without a loss lasted nearly half of the truncated regular season, being fully the equivalent of a 20-25 game win streak in baseball which has not happened in a very long time--we can move to the real point of the regular season, which is the battle of the middle-level teams to make it into the Stanley Cup playoffs. Then the real season, the second season when anything can happen, will begin.
Just as Short on the NBA, in a Similar Position
The NBA didn't have a lockout; they had the full regular season (this year, anyway--the did the NHL thing last year), but it's almost as though the early part of the season didn't happen. The surprising teams that were hot early, like the Clippers, Knicks, Nets, 76ers, are all fading badly; some teams that were disastrously below expectations, like the Lakers and Heat, are ferociously coming onto their game. The Eastern conference's eight playoff teams are totally set (a ten-game spread back to #9), so the battle there will be for first-round opponent and home-court advantage. The West is a free-for-all with all positions and the borderline slots up for grabs. The exception is that the two teams who have been consistently good all year, the Spurs and the Thunder, should be number 1 and 2 in the West.
...And Finally, the Madhouse of NCAA Basketball
We've got a week before the brackets will be announced. There will be a lot of excitement and drama with the conference tournaments this week, but nothing too substantial will change. All of the teams have lost games they shouldn't have; all the marginal teams have won games that belie their mediocre chaacter. There may be afew teams that get top seeds and easy first-round matchups, but mostly it will be, from the beginning, an unstructured tournament, nearly impossible to predict with accuracy. The second round should have a huge number of upsets, defined as a lower seed defeating a higher seed, so many that it will be hard to truly call them upsets.
Before the brackets come out, I will make a very rough prediction of the teams that will make the Final Eight, five based on some evidence they can win big games on the road, the key characteristic required for success in the NCAA tournament: Georgetown, Louisville, Gonzaga, Duke, New Mexico; and three "wild-card picks", teams that have not proved it, but will get it together in the tournament somehow. I'll take one--of the many, many possible teams--from the "Big 10" (Michigan St. or Indiana), one from the "Big 12" (Kansas St. or Oklahoma St.), and one lower-seeded team from a "lesser" conference (I'll go with VCU or St. Louis). Obviously, not all of these will be feasible, once the brackets are announced, and probably two or three will be out after the first weekend (when there will be 16 left), but I think this is the most likely outline.
Correction: Arsenal is still in the Champions League--technically. They are behind 3-1 to Bayern Munich after the first game, so they need to make up a two-goal deficit with three goals or more--on the road--to stay in it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Who Rules in Rome?
Candidate I: The New Pope
Pope Benedict's most interesting move as Pope was his last--choosing to abdicate. There seemed not to be a rule against it, but no pope had left vertically from the job in 600 years or so. I have heard all the gossip about the supposed "real reason" why he left--gay intrigue, financial shenanigans, cover-up of whatever. They may all be true, but I don't believe any of them is the reason he is leaving: he saw how his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was reduced at the end and didn't want to go out that way. I give him credit, and I recommend his example to future popes who can see their faculties irreversibly slipping away.
Pope Benedict's term officially ends now, and the conclave of Cardinals of the church will begin to select a new pope. I do not pretend to have followed the politics of the Vatican enough to be able to guess on whose feet will be fitted "The Shoes of the Fisherman", ready or not, but I do think the rest of the world (and not just the Catholics) has an interest in their judgment.
I do not have any expectation that the new pope will be any kind of an innovator, one who will change the current state of papal bull. What I have read is that all of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Pope Benedict or by his predecessor, and that means it is unlikely that the next pope will be even slightly inclined to change things, or that even any of those who will be voting will be so inclined. That means no prospect of female priests, no change to celibacy rules, no change to policies on contraception, etc.
That being said, there are some things that could change, and selection of the right Pope could help with them. What I am looking for above all is a change to the Eurocentric, even Italocentric, focus of the papacy and of the College of Cardinals. There are many more Catholics in Latin America than in Europe, and if one adds the Catholics from Asia, Africa, and North America to those in South and Central America, one realizes that 100% of modern popes (in the last ten centuries or so) have come from the continent of 25% of modern Catholics. The last two popes were not Italian--so the Italian cardinals think they are due, no doubt--but the previous fifty or so were, and of course Italians represent a much smaller, steadily shrinking, percentage. The origin of the cardinals themselves has been broadening; a non-European pope might assist that process, which--since the church is such a hierarchical, patriarchal organization--might lead to those in the rest of the world feeling a little less like second-class Catholics. More likely, I will be disappointed at the end, as I was when the current pope was chosen.
Candidate II: The New Prime Minister
Italians went to the polls this week to choose a new Parliament. The results were shocking, but not very significant. How can this be true? To answer this, we must delve a little into the morass of Italian politics, one of my favorite subjects.
Italy is a true multi-party Parliamentary democracy, one of the purest in the world (Israel is another). Unlike Great Britain, where the parties are stable, with long history and hereditary patterns of membership, Italian parties come and go, burning brightly then burning out, and, even more so, the groupings of parties are short-lived. Credibility is the big issue for Italian parties; in order to come into governing coalitions, parties bend their principles out of shape until no one believes their platforms anymore. Then, the parties, or their leaders, usually do something which confirms peoples' worst impressions of them.
It's been going on for more than six decades, since WWII, and it went on for several decades before then, from independence through WWI. The one party which remained true to its principles, in many Italians' minds, was the Fascist party of Mussolini. That was the good part, the bad side was that most of their principles, in fact, were ugly, repressive, and self-destructive.*
The Italians made an effort in the last decade to develop something like a two-party system. Their (excessively) proportional representation was revised to give a sizable bonus of seats in the lower house to the party winning the most votes. Two big groupings formed, one around "The Cavalier"--Silvio Berlusconi, multimillionaire industrialist, media magnate, and self-imagined ladies' man--and one called "The Olive Tree" of all the groups which couldn't stand him. Of course, Italian politics being what they are, both groups fractured within a few years.
The elections this month occurred in a more typical fragmented environment, but there were really only four major parties contesting the election. The first two were the renamed remnants of the Berlusconi coalition and the anti-Berlusconi one, Berlusconi's we will refer to as "center-right" and the other "center-left". The center-left coalition's largest group is the Democratic Party (PD), which is really the former Italian Communists and Socialists of the postwar period (both of their parties self-destructed). Italian Communists are like no other Communists in the world: they have a long tradition for clean government, support of labor unions, using the rules of electoral democracy to achieve their ends, and responsible, bourgeois bureaucracy. The leader of the PD for this election was Pier Luigi Bersani, another in a series of former Euro-Communists with impeccable democratic credentials. Berlusconi's supporters are middle-class patriots, businesspeople, and a significant bloc of Northern Italians sick of subsidies in favor of the relatively poor South of the country,
As you might imagine from the descriptions above, your average non-special interest, free-thinking iconoclastic Italian hates both of them. The third force is made up of the technocrats who rallied behind central banker Mario Monti, Prime Minister of the last governing coalition (destroyed by the tidal pulls of austerity), while the fourth is a unique Italian phenomenon, the Five Stars Movement of comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo ("grillo" means "cricket", and I'm assuming that is not his real name). Grillo is anti-everything, and particularly anti-Berlusconi and anti-EuroCommunist, and in his long career his humor has been satiric, vicious, and often vulgar.
In Italy, organization is everything, and the many who hate politics and politicians have organized, and their man with a megaphone is currently Grillo, who has been very adept at using the Internet, cell phones, and flash mobs to create a political movement of the disaffected. Grillo is the latest in a unique Italian tradition which I would call the "vafanculo" party. The one I would compare him most to is Marco Pannella, head of the new-Left Radicals of the Seventies through Nineties. Pannella and the Radicals accomplished much--through hunger strikes, referendums, political organizing for issues--but never went into the government. Eventually, time passed them by, and now these random elements converged on Grillo, who made a late run. Bersani's coalition had a sizable lead, but it shrunk by the day.
The final results were a very narrow popular vote victory for the center-left coalition over the Berlusconi forces (29.5% to 29.1% in the lower house; 31.6% to 30.7% in the Senate). Grillo's M5S (Movimento 5 Stelle) came in a very strong third, with 25.5% in the lower house and 23.8% in the Senate, while Monti's group finished fourth, around 10%, but still high enough to get a strategically-important slice of representatives.
Thanks to Bersani's narrow win in the lower House of Deputies and the bonus he received, the only conceivable choice for Prime Minister, really, is Bersani--his party has an absolute majority in that house with 345 of 630 seats. (Results, and some of the background are from the online version of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.) In order to be confirmed in office, though, his Cabinet will need to be approved by both houses, and in the Senate his party has only 123 of 315 seats (Berlusconi controls 117, Grillo 54, and Monti 19). The immediate reaction was that no government can be formed, a hasty judgment, and one that does not give full credit to the Italians' creativity, though it does recognize their ability to dispute endlessly.
Anyway, Bersani will surely get the initial chance to form a government, which will be granted by President Napolitano, an aged former PCI and WWII partisan leader, who was quoted on a visit to Germany this week calling both Berlusconi and Grillo "clowns". Subsequently, he walked back his comment, saying it was "out of place"--but not mistaken, for surely it is correct. Italian politics is nothing if not a stage play with its leaders as dramatic actors, and the role these two play are that of "pagliacci" for sure (sorry for the opera reference). The amusement factor should be multiplied, though, now that there are two clowns at the very front of the stage beating each other over the head with rubber bats.
If no one can put together a government--the Italians call that not-unusal situation a government "crisis in the dark"--eventually the President would call for new elections. One alternative that I saw mentioned in my research is the possibility that new elections might be called for just the Senate--I didn't know that was possible, and it might not have the desired effect. My reading of the math is that Bersani--who would normally be able to count on Monti's group for support and to fill responsibly key positions in the Cabinet--will have to deal with either Berlusconi or Grillo. Berlusconi's price might well be to make Monti the PM in a unity government; Grillo's might be to water down the austerity in exchange for his willingness to abstain in a vote of no confidence in the Senate. In any of these outcomes, the answer to the title question will be: Nobody.
But, Really...
It is a debatable proposition which authority has more influence, the secular government of the Republic of Italy, or the presumed holy one of Vatican City. The Italian central government has always--since the nation's unification in the 19th century--been a relatively weak one, hardly able to manage the disputatious and endlessly politically creative Italian people. Both before and after the Risorgimento, Italy was a land in which the Roman Catholic church meddled, often, frequently in a decisive way, and not necessarily to the benefit of the native population.
The current equation governing power in the Italian peninsula was worked out during the rule of Mussolini, and it has survived both his fall and the Italian monarchy that was in place at the time. Basically, Italy--the secular state--has agreed to leave the Vatican alone and sovereign within its walls, and the Vatican agreed to stay out of domestic politics. The formula has worked to allow the Vatican to project its power worldwide, probably more effectively than it had for centuries, and the state has eliminated a messy distraction from its many obstacles to effective government.
Italy now has a new distraction, one that overpowers the relatively puny efforts of its central government and the regions, provinces, and comuni (the localities). The relatively impotent European Community government provided a neutral battleground for Italians to exercise their volatile political arguments but didn't rule their world, but the European central bankers responsible (mostly to the various national governments, and especially to Germany's) for safeguarding the Euro have not been able to leave Italy alone in the past few years. Italy entered the Euro under somewhat false pretenses, not really meeting the requirements for government debt or budget-balancing, but the European Community needed Italy in the deal. And, they still do: while Greece is a relatively small appendage to the Eurozone which could be excised if it were done before its corruption spread to the rest of the body, Italy is a pound of flesh too near the heart.
So, I would say that the near-universal perception in Italy (I will confirm it this summer) is that the shots are being called by the Eurobankers, on behalf of the "tedeschi" (Germans). This is different from what I often experienced in the past, when the Italians were convinced their country was controlled by the CIA (and they had plenty of evidence of such conspiracy), but this would not be a system of order that will appeal much, either. Economically, they may not have any better alternative, but a lot of Italians have very little invested in the globalized national economy, relatively successful though it appears.
In summary, a very combustible situation; one could conclude that there is the potential for massive, even revolutionary, upheaval, but that is often the case in Italy and it occurs much less frequently than would seem possible.
*Another group remaining true to its principles--even now-- that I discovered in my research is the Italian Republican Party, which dates back to the 19th century. It has always stood for respectable, democratic government and has produced many of the leading figures of modern Italian history--though I don't think it has ever attained more than 5% of the vote in postwar Italy. The leader of its leading fragment (there was a PRI list that got about 5000 votes nationally) now is Oscar Giannino, his party is called "Fare" (to do/to make) and its slogan is "to stop the decline". It got about 1% of the vote (300,000 or so) and no seats in Parliament. Draw your own conclusions.
Pope Benedict's most interesting move as Pope was his last--choosing to abdicate. There seemed not to be a rule against it, but no pope had left vertically from the job in 600 years or so. I have heard all the gossip about the supposed "real reason" why he left--gay intrigue, financial shenanigans, cover-up of whatever. They may all be true, but I don't believe any of them is the reason he is leaving: he saw how his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was reduced at the end and didn't want to go out that way. I give him credit, and I recommend his example to future popes who can see their faculties irreversibly slipping away.
Pope Benedict's term officially ends now, and the conclave of Cardinals of the church will begin to select a new pope. I do not pretend to have followed the politics of the Vatican enough to be able to guess on whose feet will be fitted "The Shoes of the Fisherman", ready or not, but I do think the rest of the world (and not just the Catholics) has an interest in their judgment.
I do not have any expectation that the new pope will be any kind of an innovator, one who will change the current state of papal bull. What I have read is that all of the current voting cardinals have been appointed by Pope Benedict or by his predecessor, and that means it is unlikely that the next pope will be even slightly inclined to change things, or that even any of those who will be voting will be so inclined. That means no prospect of female priests, no change to celibacy rules, no change to policies on contraception, etc.
That being said, there are some things that could change, and selection of the right Pope could help with them. What I am looking for above all is a change to the Eurocentric, even Italocentric, focus of the papacy and of the College of Cardinals. There are many more Catholics in Latin America than in Europe, and if one adds the Catholics from Asia, Africa, and North America to those in South and Central America, one realizes that 100% of modern popes (in the last ten centuries or so) have come from the continent of 25% of modern Catholics. The last two popes were not Italian--so the Italian cardinals think they are due, no doubt--but the previous fifty or so were, and of course Italians represent a much smaller, steadily shrinking, percentage. The origin of the cardinals themselves has been broadening; a non-European pope might assist that process, which--since the church is such a hierarchical, patriarchal organization--might lead to those in the rest of the world feeling a little less like second-class Catholics. More likely, I will be disappointed at the end, as I was when the current pope was chosen.
Candidate II: The New Prime Minister
Italians went to the polls this week to choose a new Parliament. The results were shocking, but not very significant. How can this be true? To answer this, we must delve a little into the morass of Italian politics, one of my favorite subjects.
Italy is a true multi-party Parliamentary democracy, one of the purest in the world (Israel is another). Unlike Great Britain, where the parties are stable, with long history and hereditary patterns of membership, Italian parties come and go, burning brightly then burning out, and, even more so, the groupings of parties are short-lived. Credibility is the big issue for Italian parties; in order to come into governing coalitions, parties bend their principles out of shape until no one believes their platforms anymore. Then, the parties, or their leaders, usually do something which confirms peoples' worst impressions of them.
It's been going on for more than six decades, since WWII, and it went on for several decades before then, from independence through WWI. The one party which remained true to its principles, in many Italians' minds, was the Fascist party of Mussolini. That was the good part, the bad side was that most of their principles, in fact, were ugly, repressive, and self-destructive.*
The Italians made an effort in the last decade to develop something like a two-party system. Their (excessively) proportional representation was revised to give a sizable bonus of seats in the lower house to the party winning the most votes. Two big groupings formed, one around "The Cavalier"--Silvio Berlusconi, multimillionaire industrialist, media magnate, and self-imagined ladies' man--and one called "The Olive Tree" of all the groups which couldn't stand him. Of course, Italian politics being what they are, both groups fractured within a few years.
The elections this month occurred in a more typical fragmented environment, but there were really only four major parties contesting the election. The first two were the renamed remnants of the Berlusconi coalition and the anti-Berlusconi one, Berlusconi's we will refer to as "center-right" and the other "center-left". The center-left coalition's largest group is the Democratic Party (PD), which is really the former Italian Communists and Socialists of the postwar period (both of their parties self-destructed). Italian Communists are like no other Communists in the world: they have a long tradition for clean government, support of labor unions, using the rules of electoral democracy to achieve their ends, and responsible, bourgeois bureaucracy. The leader of the PD for this election was Pier Luigi Bersani, another in a series of former Euro-Communists with impeccable democratic credentials. Berlusconi's supporters are middle-class patriots, businesspeople, and a significant bloc of Northern Italians sick of subsidies in favor of the relatively poor South of the country,
As you might imagine from the descriptions above, your average non-special interest, free-thinking iconoclastic Italian hates both of them. The third force is made up of the technocrats who rallied behind central banker Mario Monti, Prime Minister of the last governing coalition (destroyed by the tidal pulls of austerity), while the fourth is a unique Italian phenomenon, the Five Stars Movement of comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo ("grillo" means "cricket", and I'm assuming that is not his real name). Grillo is anti-everything, and particularly anti-Berlusconi and anti-EuroCommunist, and in his long career his humor has been satiric, vicious, and often vulgar.
In Italy, organization is everything, and the many who hate politics and politicians have organized, and their man with a megaphone is currently Grillo, who has been very adept at using the Internet, cell phones, and flash mobs to create a political movement of the disaffected. Grillo is the latest in a unique Italian tradition which I would call the "vafanculo" party. The one I would compare him most to is Marco Pannella, head of the new-Left Radicals of the Seventies through Nineties. Pannella and the Radicals accomplished much--through hunger strikes, referendums, political organizing for issues--but never went into the government. Eventually, time passed them by, and now these random elements converged on Grillo, who made a late run. Bersani's coalition had a sizable lead, but it shrunk by the day.
The final results were a very narrow popular vote victory for the center-left coalition over the Berlusconi forces (29.5% to 29.1% in the lower house; 31.6% to 30.7% in the Senate). Grillo's M5S (Movimento 5 Stelle) came in a very strong third, with 25.5% in the lower house and 23.8% in the Senate, while Monti's group finished fourth, around 10%, but still high enough to get a strategically-important slice of representatives.
Thanks to Bersani's narrow win in the lower House of Deputies and the bonus he received, the only conceivable choice for Prime Minister, really, is Bersani--his party has an absolute majority in that house with 345 of 630 seats. (Results, and some of the background are from the online version of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.) In order to be confirmed in office, though, his Cabinet will need to be approved by both houses, and in the Senate his party has only 123 of 315 seats (Berlusconi controls 117, Grillo 54, and Monti 19). The immediate reaction was that no government can be formed, a hasty judgment, and one that does not give full credit to the Italians' creativity, though it does recognize their ability to dispute endlessly.
Anyway, Bersani will surely get the initial chance to form a government, which will be granted by President Napolitano, an aged former PCI and WWII partisan leader, who was quoted on a visit to Germany this week calling both Berlusconi and Grillo "clowns". Subsequently, he walked back his comment, saying it was "out of place"--but not mistaken, for surely it is correct. Italian politics is nothing if not a stage play with its leaders as dramatic actors, and the role these two play are that of "pagliacci" for sure (sorry for the opera reference). The amusement factor should be multiplied, though, now that there are two clowns at the very front of the stage beating each other over the head with rubber bats.
If no one can put together a government--the Italians call that not-unusal situation a government "crisis in the dark"--eventually the President would call for new elections. One alternative that I saw mentioned in my research is the possibility that new elections might be called for just the Senate--I didn't know that was possible, and it might not have the desired effect. My reading of the math is that Bersani--who would normally be able to count on Monti's group for support and to fill responsibly key positions in the Cabinet--will have to deal with either Berlusconi or Grillo. Berlusconi's price might well be to make Monti the PM in a unity government; Grillo's might be to water down the austerity in exchange for his willingness to abstain in a vote of no confidence in the Senate. In any of these outcomes, the answer to the title question will be: Nobody.
But, Really...
It is a debatable proposition which authority has more influence, the secular government of the Republic of Italy, or the presumed holy one of Vatican City. The Italian central government has always--since the nation's unification in the 19th century--been a relatively weak one, hardly able to manage the disputatious and endlessly politically creative Italian people. Both before and after the Risorgimento, Italy was a land in which the Roman Catholic church meddled, often, frequently in a decisive way, and not necessarily to the benefit of the native population.
The current equation governing power in the Italian peninsula was worked out during the rule of Mussolini, and it has survived both his fall and the Italian monarchy that was in place at the time. Basically, Italy--the secular state--has agreed to leave the Vatican alone and sovereign within its walls, and the Vatican agreed to stay out of domestic politics. The formula has worked to allow the Vatican to project its power worldwide, probably more effectively than it had for centuries, and the state has eliminated a messy distraction from its many obstacles to effective government.
Italy now has a new distraction, one that overpowers the relatively puny efforts of its central government and the regions, provinces, and comuni (the localities). The relatively impotent European Community government provided a neutral battleground for Italians to exercise their volatile political arguments but didn't rule their world, but the European central bankers responsible (mostly to the various national governments, and especially to Germany's) for safeguarding the Euro have not been able to leave Italy alone in the past few years. Italy entered the Euro under somewhat false pretenses, not really meeting the requirements for government debt or budget-balancing, but the European Community needed Italy in the deal. And, they still do: while Greece is a relatively small appendage to the Eurozone which could be excised if it were done before its corruption spread to the rest of the body, Italy is a pound of flesh too near the heart.
So, I would say that the near-universal perception in Italy (I will confirm it this summer) is that the shots are being called by the Eurobankers, on behalf of the "tedeschi" (Germans). This is different from what I often experienced in the past, when the Italians were convinced their country was controlled by the CIA (and they had plenty of evidence of such conspiracy), but this would not be a system of order that will appeal much, either. Economically, they may not have any better alternative, but a lot of Italians have very little invested in the globalized national economy, relatively successful though it appears.
In summary, a very combustible situation; one could conclude that there is the potential for massive, even revolutionary, upheaval, but that is often the case in Italy and it occurs much less frequently than would seem possible.
*Another group remaining true to its principles--even now-- that I discovered in my research is the Italian Republican Party, which dates back to the 19th century. It has always stood for respectable, democratic government and has produced many of the leading figures of modern Italian history--though I don't think it has ever attained more than 5% of the vote in postwar Italy. The leader of its leading fragment (there was a PRI list that got about 5000 votes nationally) now is Oscar Giannino, his party is called "Fare" (to do/to make) and its slogan is "to stop the decline". It got about 1% of the vote (300,000 or so) and no seats in Parliament. Draw your own conclusions.
The Slowest Train-Wreck of All Time
In a couple of days, the sequester of spending will begin to apply. This reduction in spending--a percentage of the total, with entitlement areas excluded--had been agreed by Congress and the President in 2011 as a compromise to end the debt ceiling crisis of that time. The across-the-board reductions were supposed to be replaced by a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Super-committee's decisions on prudent deficit reduction measures, but they could come to no agreement by the time deadline they were given. The cuts were postponed, kicked down the road, but there was still no agreement on spending priorities, and so we are come to this. Two trains heading toward each other on the same track, a game of low-speed chicken.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Both sides have taken similar positions with regard to the impending exposition of mismanagement: predicting dire consequences, doing nothing to avoid it, blaming the other side. The Republicans are more focused on the deterioration of military readiness through cuts to Pentagon spending, the Democrats on the loss of jobs that will result, directly and indirectly, from the reductions in domestic spending.
Both have exaggerated the impact, particularly in the short run. The $85 billion in annual reductions are crowded into a few months for fiscal 2013, so think of it as a 4-5% reduction for a few months in the affected programs, then moving to a lower rate of reduction for future years, if necessary. A fairly high level of reduction, and its indiscriminate nature will be unfortunate, but the effects will barely be noticeable for a month or two--there is that much slack in the Federal government's work effort. When the TSA lines at the airports get longer (spring break, maybe?), when the checks to beneficiaries, veterans, military contractors are not processed in a timely manner, then the public will begin to notice.
And, it appears, a majority of them will blame the Congressional Republicans for the lack of legislative effectiveness. In the longer run, there is much risk for the Democrats, as they will ultimately be blamed if the economy stalls. Also, in the long run, governmental ineptness, if it happens, may work for the Republicans' benefit; the one thing that they can all agree upon is the superior effectiveness of the private sector over the public sector in all activities, so the argument that "government isn't working, so let there be less of it" is right in their wheelhouse.
The Democrats, led by President Obama's White House, are well aware of this. The negotiation plan is to let the sequestering begin on March 1, and work toward agreement on broad outlines of spending, with cuts of about this size built in, as part of a budgetary agreement to replace the continuing resolution, under which Federal spending has been operating for the last two years, and which is scheduled to end in late March. Apparently there could be general agreement on where those cuts should fall and where they shouldn't.
The hangup is not where to cut the spending, but around the issues of closing tax loopholes and infrastructure investment. I feel that Obama would give a green light to agreement on the cuts, if there is a second agreement that infrastructure would be funded to the extent that tax reform savings can be identified. That will be a tough one to sell to the Republicans, though.
The Republicans also seem aware that they are, so far, being played. They remind me of a pit bull trained never to release the hold of what's in its teeth, even when what is in its mouth is its own tail.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Here's to the Losers!
I have to endorse the sentiment of the Oscars-closing song that Seth McFarlane and Kristen Chenoweth performed. Rather than last night's winners, I want to praise the losers.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
There were some deserving winners, no doubt, but those were largely identified and known from their wins in the previous award shows: Daniel Day-Lewis and Jennifer Lawrence in the lead acting roles (Lawrence was not the certain choice, but she was the likely one, and in my view an acceptable one), Anne Hathaway as supporting actress, "Amour" for foreign language film and "Brave" for animated feature, and Adele's for original song. Les Miz for makeup and sound were well signaled, and "Life of Pi" for visual effects and cinematography were reasonable choices (though I would have picked "Zero Dark Thirty"--not nominated--in first place for cinematography, and "Skyfall" second). Not having had opportunity to view them, I had no opinion about the shorts or documentaries.
The results in the contested, uncertain categories were the ones that struck me as perverse, misguided, or shallow. The award for Best Director was clearly up for grabs: there had been a consistent avoidance of the obvious choice, Spielberg, through the award shows, and that Ben Affleck was unavailable for the award was too well known: that omission had sparked the reaction which--everyone somehow knew--was bringing "Argo" from also-ran to favorite for Best Picture. Both the selection of "Argo" and the voting for Ang Lee seemed a willful rejection of the "great film", one that was viewed as overly praised for its virtue but lacked sufficient Hollywood characteristics--"Lincoln", of course. "Argo", on the other hand was a "great flick"--entertaining, fast and loose with its history, implausible but somehow true (at least, partially true), and so was the other surprising multi-award winner, "Django Unchained". I had a beef with Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor--it was a highly-competitive category with all five being both worthy and previous award winners, but for me his performance was the least of the five.
The greatest outrages of the night for me, though, were the two awards for screenplay. Tony Kushner's painstaking, brilliant script for "Lincoln" and Mark Boal's for "0D30" were overlooked for "Argo" and "Django Unchained"--if anything, those movies' greatest fault was the flawed execution of their storylines, redeemed in the voters' eyes by their abundant punch lines.
As for McFarlane, I would give his jokes about a 60% hit rate, not bad for a fairly stuffy audience. He did a good job of anticipating the responses to most of his jibes (the reference to "loser" Christoph Waltz was, I think, a genuine editing mistake, but he fit most of the other notable ones into his closing song successfully). For example, he foresaw the mixed reaction to his "I SawYour Boobs" ditty (yes, with a "d"!), and I think his dodge by putting it on tape was genius. Recognizing the quality of the field, the idea to recognize the inevitable set of high-quality losing films and performers in the closing song was also a good notion.
I think he and the Academy would come to love each other, as happened with his wise-cracking long-term predecessor, Bob Hope. McFarlane is a post-modernist Hope, full of old-fashioned singing, dancing, and an abiding respect for old school values (including misogyny, respect for elders) well-disguised by his willingness to mouth off in nearly anyone's direction. He will have to grow up a little to hold the job long; he may not need or want to do that, as he has other, more lucrative gigs. Finally on the topic of McFarlane, something about his hairstyle--his hairline a little too regular--also stuck out; is it possible it was a toupee? He better watch out if he wants to preserve his status with the coveted age 17-29 male demographic.
To close, I have to agree with Mick LaSalle, the San Francisco Chronicle's film critic, in his review of the award decisions: "It's a far better thing to have good movies and bad Oscars than the reverse." So, like his, my complaints are of a lesser variety: I would call the Oscars show, and the Academy's awards decisions, to be mediocre rather than bad.
It is high time to bring the excellent 2012 season to an end (still want to catch "Life of Pi" and "Anna Karenina", though; the former at the cinema and the latter on DVD). As McFarlane said, just in time for the 2014 awards.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
My 10's
In honor of the Academy Awards, here are the ones I've rated as 10 on imdb.com (out of 713 items rated, at last count). In order to rate a 10 with me, a movie needs to change the way I think, forever, and for better.
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
A few of these are TV; I haven't rated too much TV, though. They are in no particular order.
The President's Analyst ('67 political satire with James Coburn)
The Dead (John Huston's last film)
John Adams (TV miniseries)
Angels in America (TV miniseries)
Man on Wire (documentary on Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC buildings)
Lincoln
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (sorry, non-fans: Peter Jackson did it right)
American Beauty
30 Rock (TV; duh)
Casablanca
The Godfather: Part II (Robert DeNiro, talking Italian)
True Grit (not the John Wayne version)
The Pianist
Unforgiven
Children of Men
Dr. Strangelove (my all-time #1 favorite, still)
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Being John Malkovich
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Maltese Falcon
Miller's Crossing (my favorite Coen brothers, and that's saying something)
Paths of Glory
Ran (Kurosawa does King Lear)
The Man Who Wasn't There
The Simpsons (TV)
I will be happy to address any omissions you may cite.
For my 2012 picks of favorite movies, see here; and the post and comments to it also have my Oscar picks. Bet upon it!
Monday, February 18, 2013
Background Checks: Do or Die!
I read a shocking story on the front page of The Chicago Tribune yesterday, about a couple of young men--one a seemingly respectable college student--who ran guns to the gangs in Chicago. Or anyone, really--they got caught selling a couple dozen of them to a Federal informant.
All they had to do was go across the border into northwest Indiana and go to the gun shows. The "licensed gun dealers" there are required to do background checks, but there is no waiting period, and the checks can easily be avoided through access to "private sales" also present at the gun shows.
Here is the answer to those gun apologists who would suggest that, because Chicago has strict gun laws but a high homicide rate, those gun laws don't work. The answer is that they would work, except our borders between communities and states are open! This is the clearest evidence possible that Federally-mandated standards on all gun sales are required--the "background checks" that are part of the legislation that President Obama has proposed.
It doesn't look too promising for the banning of sale and manufacture of semi-automatic rifles, or even for the smaller "magazine" for such guns--so we would still be under the threat of those uncertified lunatics who prefer such killing machines for their convenience and capacity to produce mass slaughter. However, far more people are being killed through the access criminals and would-be criminals get for underground weapons of all kinds.
Those who vote against this provision, or if somehow they can block a vote, deserve the fate that results nowadays to too many of us--to be shot by gunmen bearing unlicensed arms (of which I am not one). I wish them only their just rewards.
All they had to do was go across the border into northwest Indiana and go to the gun shows. The "licensed gun dealers" there are required to do background checks, but there is no waiting period, and the checks can easily be avoided through access to "private sales" also present at the gun shows.
Here is the answer to those gun apologists who would suggest that, because Chicago has strict gun laws but a high homicide rate, those gun laws don't work. The answer is that they would work, except our borders between communities and states are open! This is the clearest evidence possible that Federally-mandated standards on all gun sales are required--the "background checks" that are part of the legislation that President Obama has proposed.
It doesn't look too promising for the banning of sale and manufacture of semi-automatic rifles, or even for the smaller "magazine" for such guns--so we would still be under the threat of those uncertified lunatics who prefer such killing machines for their convenience and capacity to produce mass slaughter. However, far more people are being killed through the access criminals and would-be criminals get for underground weapons of all kinds.
Those who vote against this provision, or if somehow they can block a vote, deserve the fate that results nowadays to too many of us--to be shot by gunmen bearing unlicensed arms (of which I am not one). I wish them only their just rewards.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Manic Hoops
College: Riot of Upsets
On college basketball, let me make my feelings clear: I am an enthusiastic fan, almost an uncritical one. This year's wide-open regular season, with its revolving door at the top, has been fascinating and promises an incredible championship tourney, one that is almost impossible to forecast.
I know there are aspects of the game that are not as they should be. The clearest issue is the "one and done" rule that the NBA has practiced with regard to its draft, thus preserving the NCAA game's role as training and proving ground for the pros, yet not requiring the top pro prospects to waste more than a single year in unpaid practice of their profession. I can live with it, but I don't like it. The second biggest problem I have is how the conferences have been de-stabilized by the madness of college football and the search for playoff and conference championship money there. Since basketball's tourney has long-since opened up sufficient at-large bids that the winners of conference regular season and postseason conference tourneys have little advantage, the main problem is the breaking of treasured rivalries, but with basketball's busy season there is room to re-schedule the most important ones.
The "one-and-done" rule certainly has its effect on the recruitment of top high school players. Certain colleges, or more precisely, certain college coaches, have earned a reputation for developing guys who can make it in the pros and for not holding them back. Foremost among them is John Calipari, who has inherited the seat--an honored one, but a very hot one--as head coach of the University of Kentucky, my #1 team. I am one of the rare Kentucky fans who also roots openly for the Wildcats' instate rivals, the University of Louisville, coached for several years now by Rick Pitino, another who does well in preparing NBA players (though as pros they don't have to work quite as hard as Pitino makes them do with his all-time, full-court press--it didn't go over too well in his stint as an NBA coach). I've also got rooting interest in two more proven NBA star producers, U. of Indiana and Syracuse University. Bottom line, I seem perfectly willing to attach myself emotionally to the efforts of those who utilize and develop the talents of future pros.
As is true in many or most years, these teams are right at the heart of this year's drama for NCAA basketball leadership: Indiana, Louisville, and Syracuse have all had their moments to be the #1 team in the rankings (not that they really matter). Defending champion Kentucky had to rebuild its team after five players turned pro; it became clear very quickly that it had been rated too highly in the preseason, based on a strong freshman class and the dominating performance of the previous year's freshmen, and U of K's ranking fell off quickly. Kentucky was showing signs of recovering and competing, but its top freshman, center Merlen Noels, was injured for the season and they are floundering once again.
Compared to last year, what is different this year is the uncontrolled chaos at the top. Besides those three I mentioned above, Duke, Michigan, Florida,and Kansas have all had their turns at the top, some of those runs lasting just days, or even fractions of days. The common theme is that the best teams in the top conferences can not win consistently on the road. Since the NCAA tourney is, after the first couple of rounds, conducted in neutral arenas, the performance of these homers suggests that none of them are going to earn the title; instead, I would look to outsiders like Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, or, most surprisingly, ACC leader Miami (Fla.), teams which have proven they can win big games against the top teams outside their home gyms. This would be the year to bet on a relative longshot; the only prediction I will make at this point, with the brackets yet to be determined, is a huge number of upsets and several teams from the "mid-majors" among the final 16.
NBA: Midseason Assessment
Tonight is the All-Star game; not much of a game, really, but a good time to review the course of the season so far and where it is likely to go. In terms of the regular season, teams have played between 50 and 56 games so far (a surprisingly wide range) of the 82 games, so 60-65%, but when one considers the two-months of playoffs (somewhere between 16-28 additional games for the finalists), it's about halfway for the better teams.
First, I am struck by the number of teams which have been profoundly affected by injuries and trades. A few examples: Derrick Rose not able to return yet for the Bulls, Rajan Rondo's season-ending injury for the Celtics, Pau Gasol's injuries, the ramifications of the Dwight Howard trade to the Lakers, the ascendancy of the New York teams--the Knicks, and now the Brooklyn nets--assembled through ambitious trades, the Grizzlies' trading Rudy Gay in midseason, and the trades which may be coming up before the deadline: the Clippers and Celtics? the Lakers?
Second is the mix of new and old among the contenders, and, logically, among those not contending. The Mavs and the Lakers are, at this point, not playoff teams at all, while rising teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Clippers, and Nets figure among those which seem headed for home-court advantage in the first and even the second round. Then there are the San Antonio Spurs, the most successful team over the last 15 years or so, which have the best record in the league and have a 9-1 record in their last ten games; those ten included their longest road-trip of the year, and they did not have their perennial All-Star Tim Duncan for most of it. It is unclear how they are doing it and whether they can continue, but they have earned respect and consideration as the favorite in the West.
In the East, there is Miami and then the rest; the Heat have opened a significant lead over several teams that will vie for the second spot. This does not mean that Miami will sail through the playoffs unchallenged: Indiana, the Bulls, and the Knicks all have the kind of defensive prowess and front-line scoring that can pose a problem; even the Celtics could be a difficult first-round opponent if the conference standings end up setting them up (right now, the Celtics are in 7th, so it would be 8th-place Milwaukee that would be the Heat's first-round opponent).
The biggest news of the season, so far, is the continued emergence of LeBron James as the king of the NBA; he is beginning to draw awed comparison to Michael Jordan; though their games have different stylistic features, they are alike in terms of the difficulty of stopping them from scoring and the way they control the games at the finish. Jordan is drawing a lot of press notice here in Chicago this weekend for his 50th birthday, but he has so far not emerged to make any public statements; he remains a mystery to most; a bit of a loner in a team game who overwhelmed with his desire to win above all else. From the games I watched him play, I remember thinking that he was relatively slight and skinny next to many of the league's behemoths, but his skills and speed were what impressed daily, and his ruthless leadership what impressed in the clutch. James, instead, is an awesome power on the court; and his basketball IQ (for playing) seems just as high as Jordan's. If he can continue to improve--and add to his number of championship rings--the comparison to the man most consider the game's greatest acheiver may yet become apt.
On college basketball, let me make my feelings clear: I am an enthusiastic fan, almost an uncritical one. This year's wide-open regular season, with its revolving door at the top, has been fascinating and promises an incredible championship tourney, one that is almost impossible to forecast.
I know there are aspects of the game that are not as they should be. The clearest issue is the "one and done" rule that the NBA has practiced with regard to its draft, thus preserving the NCAA game's role as training and proving ground for the pros, yet not requiring the top pro prospects to waste more than a single year in unpaid practice of their profession. I can live with it, but I don't like it. The second biggest problem I have is how the conferences have been de-stabilized by the madness of college football and the search for playoff and conference championship money there. Since basketball's tourney has long-since opened up sufficient at-large bids that the winners of conference regular season and postseason conference tourneys have little advantage, the main problem is the breaking of treasured rivalries, but with basketball's busy season there is room to re-schedule the most important ones.
The "one-and-done" rule certainly has its effect on the recruitment of top high school players. Certain colleges, or more precisely, certain college coaches, have earned a reputation for developing guys who can make it in the pros and for not holding them back. Foremost among them is John Calipari, who has inherited the seat--an honored one, but a very hot one--as head coach of the University of Kentucky, my #1 team. I am one of the rare Kentucky fans who also roots openly for the Wildcats' instate rivals, the University of Louisville, coached for several years now by Rick Pitino, another who does well in preparing NBA players (though as pros they don't have to work quite as hard as Pitino makes them do with his all-time, full-court press--it didn't go over too well in his stint as an NBA coach). I've also got rooting interest in two more proven NBA star producers, U. of Indiana and Syracuse University. Bottom line, I seem perfectly willing to attach myself emotionally to the efforts of those who utilize and develop the talents of future pros.
As is true in many or most years, these teams are right at the heart of this year's drama for NCAA basketball leadership: Indiana, Louisville, and Syracuse have all had their moments to be the #1 team in the rankings (not that they really matter). Defending champion Kentucky had to rebuild its team after five players turned pro; it became clear very quickly that it had been rated too highly in the preseason, based on a strong freshman class and the dominating performance of the previous year's freshmen, and U of K's ranking fell off quickly. Kentucky was showing signs of recovering and competing, but its top freshman, center Merlen Noels, was injured for the season and they are floundering once again.
Compared to last year, what is different this year is the uncontrolled chaos at the top. Besides those three I mentioned above, Duke, Michigan, Florida,and Kansas have all had their turns at the top, some of those runs lasting just days, or even fractions of days. The common theme is that the best teams in the top conferences can not win consistently on the road. Since the NCAA tourney is, after the first couple of rounds, conducted in neutral arenas, the performance of these homers suggests that none of them are going to earn the title; instead, I would look to outsiders like Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, or, most surprisingly, ACC leader Miami (Fla.), teams which have proven they can win big games against the top teams outside their home gyms. This would be the year to bet on a relative longshot; the only prediction I will make at this point, with the brackets yet to be determined, is a huge number of upsets and several teams from the "mid-majors" among the final 16.
NBA: Midseason Assessment
Tonight is the All-Star game; not much of a game, really, but a good time to review the course of the season so far and where it is likely to go. In terms of the regular season, teams have played between 50 and 56 games so far (a surprisingly wide range) of the 82 games, so 60-65%, but when one considers the two-months of playoffs (somewhere between 16-28 additional games for the finalists), it's about halfway for the better teams.
First, I am struck by the number of teams which have been profoundly affected by injuries and trades. A few examples: Derrick Rose not able to return yet for the Bulls, Rajan Rondo's season-ending injury for the Celtics, Pau Gasol's injuries, the ramifications of the Dwight Howard trade to the Lakers, the ascendancy of the New York teams--the Knicks, and now the Brooklyn nets--assembled through ambitious trades, the Grizzlies' trading Rudy Gay in midseason, and the trades which may be coming up before the deadline: the Clippers and Celtics? the Lakers?
Second is the mix of new and old among the contenders, and, logically, among those not contending. The Mavs and the Lakers are, at this point, not playoff teams at all, while rising teams like the Knicks, Pacers, Clippers, and Nets figure among those which seem headed for home-court advantage in the first and even the second round. Then there are the San Antonio Spurs, the most successful team over the last 15 years or so, which have the best record in the league and have a 9-1 record in their last ten games; those ten included their longest road-trip of the year, and they did not have their perennial All-Star Tim Duncan for most of it. It is unclear how they are doing it and whether they can continue, but they have earned respect and consideration as the favorite in the West.
In the East, there is Miami and then the rest; the Heat have opened a significant lead over several teams that will vie for the second spot. This does not mean that Miami will sail through the playoffs unchallenged: Indiana, the Bulls, and the Knicks all have the kind of defensive prowess and front-line scoring that can pose a problem; even the Celtics could be a difficult first-round opponent if the conference standings end up setting them up (right now, the Celtics are in 7th, so it would be 8th-place Milwaukee that would be the Heat's first-round opponent).
The biggest news of the season, so far, is the continued emergence of LeBron James as the king of the NBA; he is beginning to draw awed comparison to Michael Jordan; though their games have different stylistic features, they are alike in terms of the difficulty of stopping them from scoring and the way they control the games at the finish. Jordan is drawing a lot of press notice here in Chicago this weekend for his 50th birthday, but he has so far not emerged to make any public statements; he remains a mystery to most; a bit of a loner in a team game who overwhelmed with his desire to win above all else. From the games I watched him play, I remember thinking that he was relatively slight and skinny next to many of the league's behemoths, but his skills and speed were what impressed daily, and his ruthless leadership what impressed in the clutch. James, instead, is an awesome power on the court; and his basketball IQ (for playing) seems just as high as Jordan's. If he can continue to improve--and add to his number of championship rings--the comparison to the man most consider the game's greatest acheiver may yet become apt.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Finally, the First Shoe Drops
The Justice Department's announcement of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Standard and Poor's could be a one-off cherry-picking against one of the most egregious culprits of the financial collapse, but I think it is the beginning of a new phase of long-suppressed recriminations. Now that we are finally out of the Great Crater, it's time to see why we fell in, and S&P is a good place to start--we pointed the finger at the rating agencies' role 4 1/2 years ago (in our essential Bailout FAQ post).
No doubt there was considerable jockeying (years' worth, I'm guessing), as the Attorney General sought to obtain a settlement, but not just any settlement: One that admitted some culpability. And, I'm guessing that S&P--due to the tsunami of lawsuits they would then expect from investors, banks, insurance companies--basically everybody who lost money in the landslide (i.e. everybody)--couldn't do it. Now the game has gone public, and even if S&P (owned by McGraw-Hill, mentioned in case you may own some of its stock; but never mind, it's already too late!*) can make a settlement now, it will still be subject to the derivative lawsuits. Derivatives are what this is about, after all, and the second derivative of their prospects has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
What's it all about? The problem is that the rating agencies were available for hire to the big banks and other financial institutions to rate their re-packaged credit products. The process was anything but transparent; the rating agencies' motivations all too transparent. A lot of attention has been given to the emails and other accounts of bad behavior within the organization which demonstrated that people there knew their ratings were deceiving the purchasers; proving bad intent is necessary to get fraud convictions, but the facts--that the agencies' ratings proved worthless and misleading--should be indictment enough for S&P and the way they did (and still do) business. As for "Analyst D" and his mangled lyrics of Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House", to say "nice try" would be way off target; the concept (we are destroying our own food chain through our self-destructive and short-sighted approach) was right, but the meter was all wrong, the wit lacking. (I do think "Analyst D" has some potential as a handle for a rap artist who attacks capitalism, something in itself I'd like to see.) The Justice Department's case is not a criminal one, but David Byrne would be right to accuse them of criminal misuse of artistic license.
S&P is the largest of the three major rating agencies; Moody's and Fitch should be quaking with fear, as well as many of the banks and insurance companies that were packaging up the garbage, polishing it, and selling off their risk. There may be opportunities to prove broader conspiracy to defraud, once the Feds get S&P under their thumb, and to get pre-emptive settlements from the agencies who did the same things S&P did. Ultimately, though, it is the system--in which the sellers of the products pay for their ratings, and know the rules that will ensure top investment-grade ratings, and the buyers must beware--that is the long-term issue to be fixed. Snakes will be snakes.
*McGraw-Hill's stock price dropped 10% from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, 2/4; 10% more from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 2/5; and 10% more since Tuesday 10 a.m. Probably three or four more hits of that magnitude are yet to follow. Moody's has also taken a hit last week.
John Cassidy's New Yorker blog post, which has the link cited above to read Analyst D's original lyrics, confirms many of the thoughts I wrote above, especially regarding the prolonged negotiations which preceded the announcement of the lawsuit. I'd already written those guesses up and posted this; it was just--after completing it--when I Googled for a link with the full lyrics hat I found his article.
No doubt there was considerable jockeying (years' worth, I'm guessing), as the Attorney General sought to obtain a settlement, but not just any settlement: One that admitted some culpability. And, I'm guessing that S&P--due to the tsunami of lawsuits they would then expect from investors, banks, insurance companies--basically everybody who lost money in the landslide (i.e. everybody)--couldn't do it. Now the game has gone public, and even if S&P (owned by McGraw-Hill, mentioned in case you may own some of its stock; but never mind, it's already too late!*) can make a settlement now, it will still be subject to the derivative lawsuits. Derivatives are what this is about, after all, and the second derivative of their prospects has taken a sharp turn for the worse.
What's it all about? The problem is that the rating agencies were available for hire to the big banks and other financial institutions to rate their re-packaged credit products. The process was anything but transparent; the rating agencies' motivations all too transparent. A lot of attention has been given to the emails and other accounts of bad behavior within the organization which demonstrated that people there knew their ratings were deceiving the purchasers; proving bad intent is necessary to get fraud convictions, but the facts--that the agencies' ratings proved worthless and misleading--should be indictment enough for S&P and the way they did (and still do) business. As for "Analyst D" and his mangled lyrics of Talking Heads' "Burning Down the House", to say "nice try" would be way off target; the concept (we are destroying our own food chain through our self-destructive and short-sighted approach) was right, but the meter was all wrong, the wit lacking. (I do think "Analyst D" has some potential as a handle for a rap artist who attacks capitalism, something in itself I'd like to see.) The Justice Department's case is not a criminal one, but David Byrne would be right to accuse them of criminal misuse of artistic license.
S&P is the largest of the three major rating agencies; Moody's and Fitch should be quaking with fear, as well as many of the banks and insurance companies that were packaging up the garbage, polishing it, and selling off their risk. There may be opportunities to prove broader conspiracy to defraud, once the Feds get S&P under their thumb, and to get pre-emptive settlements from the agencies who did the same things S&P did. Ultimately, though, it is the system--in which the sellers of the products pay for their ratings, and know the rules that will ensure top investment-grade ratings, and the buyers must beware--that is the long-term issue to be fixed. Snakes will be snakes.
*McGraw-Hill's stock price dropped 10% from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, 2/4; 10% more from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. on 2/5; and 10% more since Tuesday 10 a.m. Probably three or four more hits of that magnitude are yet to follow. Moody's has also taken a hit last week.
John Cassidy's New Yorker blog post, which has the link cited above to read Analyst D's original lyrics, confirms many of the thoughts I wrote above, especially regarding the prolonged negotiations which preceded the announcement of the lawsuit. I'd already written those guesses up and posted this; it was just--after completing it--when I Googled for a link with the full lyrics hat I found his article.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
One of the Best
Like most of America, I enjoyed the Super Bowl without getting too emotionally caught up in the outcome. The first half of most Super Bowls is when the game gets decided; for the players, the game goes by too fast, things happen, and suddenly it's out of control. That almost happened here, and the kickoff runback by Jacoby Jones which put the Ravens ahead 28-6 seemed to signal the rout was on.
Instead, the power outage came, a couple of minutes later. It wasn't a matter of night and day (with the lights, either; there was enough light to play, but not for the many support systems, and leaving the fans to fend in partial darkness was a security issue), but the break gave the 49ers one more chance to recover their poise; they did, and the Ravens almost lost theirs.
For keeping his cool, when the 49ers rush was on--they scored 17 points incredibly fast--Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco deserved the MVP award that he got when they finally held off SF's final charge. I would've voted for Jones, though; besides the 108-yard kickoff return, he had a receiving touchdown, and a little change from the usual diet of winning quarterback MVP awards would have been nice. (For the record, Joe Flacco was quoted as a flaccid 2-1 choice in the proposition bet for the winner, while Jones was not even one of the named candidates, just part of "the field", at 8-1).
It was a Super Bowl without any major disasters (though yet another with an "equipment malfunction"); there were injuries--most notably, to the Ravens defensive nose tackle, which contributed to the 49ers comeback. The ending was a surprise one; the 49ers were so sure they would score from 1st-and-goal that they let the clock run down to the two-minute warning, giving up 15 seconds they would have dearly loved to have at the end (forget about the wasted timeout; that was the real waste). The play calling was not the best on that final series, about the only beef I had with either of the Harbaugh head coaches.
For Baltimore, it was a great last hurrah--Flacco will, presumably, be back, but they seem unlikely to scale the heights again--while for San Francisco and their sudden superstar Colin Kaepernick, it would seem there is plenty more to anticipate.
Finally, my vote for best Super Bowl ad was the Tide ad about the stain that looked like Joe Montana. It has a level of absurdity that was about right for the occasion.
The Big Deal for the NFL
As the liability issue burgeons, the league has to make a big decision about the head injury problems that are widespread among former players. Generally speaking, compared to other big-time professional sports leagues in the US, football players are underpaid (a few positions being the exceptions), and to ask them to ruin their lives to do it is too much--for the parents of the ballers, if not for the punchdrunk, starry-eyed players themselves.
Football faced a similar crisis in the early 1900's--the "flying wing" was leading to huge numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The play--in which the lines linked arms as they flew into each other--was banned, and safety improvements like pads and helmets followed, with the thing that really saved the sport--the forward pass, which opened things up--coming a decade or two later.
Football will need to re-invent itself again somewhat. The masters of the game might do well to look at rugby--a game almost as rough as our football, without pads, in which the rules of tackling prevent most of the serious injuries that occur (I don't know about the long-term brain deterioration-type illness, though). I would predict a massive fund to pay the retired players who suffer from it, some rule changes, and some equipment changes, with the NFL somehow surviving the emerging crisis and figuring out how to preserve their feeder systems (the high school and college games). The American way of life is at stake!
Instead, the power outage came, a couple of minutes later. It wasn't a matter of night and day (with the lights, either; there was enough light to play, but not for the many support systems, and leaving the fans to fend in partial darkness was a security issue), but the break gave the 49ers one more chance to recover their poise; they did, and the Ravens almost lost theirs.
For keeping his cool, when the 49ers rush was on--they scored 17 points incredibly fast--Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco deserved the MVP award that he got when they finally held off SF's final charge. I would've voted for Jones, though; besides the 108-yard kickoff return, he had a receiving touchdown, and a little change from the usual diet of winning quarterback MVP awards would have been nice. (For the record, Joe Flacco was quoted as a flaccid 2-1 choice in the proposition bet for the winner, while Jones was not even one of the named candidates, just part of "the field", at 8-1).
It was a Super Bowl without any major disasters (though yet another with an "equipment malfunction"); there were injuries--most notably, to the Ravens defensive nose tackle, which contributed to the 49ers comeback. The ending was a surprise one; the 49ers were so sure they would score from 1st-and-goal that they let the clock run down to the two-minute warning, giving up 15 seconds they would have dearly loved to have at the end (forget about the wasted timeout; that was the real waste). The play calling was not the best on that final series, about the only beef I had with either of the Harbaugh head coaches.
For Baltimore, it was a great last hurrah--Flacco will, presumably, be back, but they seem unlikely to scale the heights again--while for San Francisco and their sudden superstar Colin Kaepernick, it would seem there is plenty more to anticipate.
Finally, my vote for best Super Bowl ad was the Tide ad about the stain that looked like Joe Montana. It has a level of absurdity that was about right for the occasion.
The Big Deal for the NFL
As the liability issue burgeons, the league has to make a big decision about the head injury problems that are widespread among former players. Generally speaking, compared to other big-time professional sports leagues in the US, football players are underpaid (a few positions being the exceptions), and to ask them to ruin their lives to do it is too much--for the parents of the ballers, if not for the punchdrunk, starry-eyed players themselves.
Football faced a similar crisis in the early 1900's--the "flying wing" was leading to huge numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The play--in which the lines linked arms as they flew into each other--was banned, and safety improvements like pads and helmets followed, with the thing that really saved the sport--the forward pass, which opened things up--coming a decade or two later.
Football will need to re-invent itself again somewhat. The masters of the game might do well to look at rugby--a game almost as rough as our football, without pads, in which the rules of tackling prevent most of the serious injuries that occur (I don't know about the long-term brain deterioration-type illness, though). I would predict a massive fund to pay the retired players who suffer from it, some rule changes, and some equipment changes, with the NFL somehow surviving the emerging crisis and figuring out how to preserve their feeder systems (the high school and college games). The American way of life is at stake!
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Ed Koch, 1924-2013
As someone who lived in New York City through most of the Eighties, I had a good look at Hizzoner, who died yesterday at the ripe age of 89 or so. He was a very typical Homo Politico of his era (not referring to his sexuality; I'll get to that later); a hard worker, totally committed to his personal political ambition, full of bad motives but not financially corrupt, neither all good nor all evil. He was a man of longstanding grudges, most of them against fellow Democrats.
In terms of his lasting legacy, I'd say look at NYC, and specifically Manhattan, of today--if you like it, he showed the way for it to change from the unruly, dangerous place it was in the Seventies to the gentrified, safe (for wealthy whites), stopped-and-frisked (if you're a minority) theme park of the 21st century. He started the transformation with his 12-years in City Hall; then, after the brief, unhappy misdirection of David Dinkins' mayoralty, it returned to his path--law-and-order, fiscal sanity through challenge to the public unions--followed by Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.
He was an incredibly popular mayor in New York, winning against divided opposition by huge margins, until he rather suddenly was not; then he got "primaried" and dumped. That was probably his bitterest moment, even worse than his loss in the 1982 New York gubernatorial primary to his arch-enemy, Mario Cuomo; that loss pretty much ended any ambition Koch had of going beyond the city limits, but the loss of control in the city in 1989 was a deeper blow. He responded by opposing Dinkins at every turn, helping to ensure his failure, and then backed Republican Rudy Giuliani in his successful challenge to D.D. four years later.
His endorsement of Giuliani started a pattern of bizarre and ill-considered endorsements. His guiding principle seemed to be that of personal enmity. He fell out with Giuliani, endorsed the odious Republican ratfink Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and, worst of all, opted for George W. Bush in 2004 (that, probably, was out of a vain hope to get a job in his second-term Administration; needless to say, it didn't happen).
His endorsement, like that of someone like David Duke or, nowadays, Donald Trump, was a tainted thing. In 1988, his dislike of the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, led him to endorse Al Gore before the New York primary. I was supporting Gore, too, largely because I saw Dukakis and Jackson as sure losers and considered Gore a perfectly reasonable Democratic alternative (anticipating the moderate road Bill Clinton would take to victory in 1992), but Koch's backing put the sure stamp of stink on Gore's candidacy. Sure enough, his support in NY dropped like a rock, Dukakis won big, putting him on a clear path to the nomination, and Gore soon dropped out.
Koch's career as a Congressman from the city was before my time there; he seemed to be a standard-variety "limousine liberal" (in the memorable words of GeorgeWallace) who had successfully challenged the Democratic party machine in rising through Greenwich Village neighborhood organization. The turning point in his career from just another liberal House backbencher to a historical figure of significance was his bitter 1977 mayoral primary vs. Mario Cuomo. I was not there, but I have heard the tales of the cars roaming the streets with voices in bullhorns urging "Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo" (Cuomo, of course, disavowed the tactic). Koch narrowly won the primary, and his career hit the big time.
Koch was a lifelong bachelor who kept his private life private (bravo!), but it led to the rumors and their unkind, unsuccessful alleged exploitation by overzealous Cuomo backers. I would say the best description of him was asexual, turned on mostly by politics. He certainly didn't do ny favors to the gay community in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when he was the mayor in New York and could have done more.
In sum, with his ups and downs, personal vendettas, notable accomplishments and failures, and his general shifty politics, I would describe him as a Democratic version of Richard Nixon. The difference was that Koch outlived his political career by a quarter century of near-irrelevance, while Nixon faded from the scene and died much more quickly.
In terms of his lasting legacy, I'd say look at NYC, and specifically Manhattan, of today--if you like it, he showed the way for it to change from the unruly, dangerous place it was in the Seventies to the gentrified, safe (for wealthy whites), stopped-and-frisked (if you're a minority) theme park of the 21st century. He started the transformation with his 12-years in City Hall; then, after the brief, unhappy misdirection of David Dinkins' mayoralty, it returned to his path--law-and-order, fiscal sanity through challenge to the public unions--followed by Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.
He was an incredibly popular mayor in New York, winning against divided opposition by huge margins, until he rather suddenly was not; then he got "primaried" and dumped. That was probably his bitterest moment, even worse than his loss in the 1982 New York gubernatorial primary to his arch-enemy, Mario Cuomo; that loss pretty much ended any ambition Koch had of going beyond the city limits, but the loss of control in the city in 1989 was a deeper blow. He responded by opposing Dinkins at every turn, helping to ensure his failure, and then backed Republican Rudy Giuliani in his successful challenge to D.D. four years later.
His endorsement of Giuliani started a pattern of bizarre and ill-considered endorsements. His guiding principle seemed to be that of personal enmity. He fell out with Giuliani, endorsed the odious Republican ratfink Senator Alfonse D'Amato, and, worst of all, opted for George W. Bush in 2004 (that, probably, was out of a vain hope to get a job in his second-term Administration; needless to say, it didn't happen).
His endorsement, like that of someone like David Duke or, nowadays, Donald Trump, was a tainted thing. In 1988, his dislike of the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, led him to endorse Al Gore before the New York primary. I was supporting Gore, too, largely because I saw Dukakis and Jackson as sure losers and considered Gore a perfectly reasonable Democratic alternative (anticipating the moderate road Bill Clinton would take to victory in 1992), but Koch's backing put the sure stamp of stink on Gore's candidacy. Sure enough, his support in NY dropped like a rock, Dukakis won big, putting him on a clear path to the nomination, and Gore soon dropped out.
Koch's career as a Congressman from the city was before my time there; he seemed to be a standard-variety "limousine liberal" (in the memorable words of GeorgeWallace) who had successfully challenged the Democratic party machine in rising through Greenwich Village neighborhood organization. The turning point in his career from just another liberal House backbencher to a historical figure of significance was his bitter 1977 mayoral primary vs. Mario Cuomo. I was not there, but I have heard the tales of the cars roaming the streets with voices in bullhorns urging "Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo" (Cuomo, of course, disavowed the tactic). Koch narrowly won the primary, and his career hit the big time.
Koch was a lifelong bachelor who kept his private life private (bravo!), but it led to the rumors and their unkind, unsuccessful alleged exploitation by overzealous Cuomo backers. I would say the best description of him was asexual, turned on mostly by politics. He certainly didn't do ny favors to the gay community in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when he was the mayor in New York and could have done more.
In sum, with his ups and downs, personal vendettas, notable accomplishments and failures, and his general shifty politics, I would describe him as a Democratic version of Richard Nixon. The difference was that Koch outlived his political career by a quarter century of near-irrelevance, while Nixon faded from the scene and died much more quickly.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Second-term Suggestions/First-term Grades
I remembered that I posted my suggested 10-Point Program for a Barack Obama Presidency; what I was surprised to see was that I posted it way back in December, 2006 (if I'm not mistaken, before he had even announced his run for the office). It's a very ambitious agenda with a high bar of expectations, but my goals back then, and my grading below, show that I really had high expectations (and I still do). Here's a quick synopsis of what I was looking for back then, what has been accomplished--fully or partly--what remains to be done, and whether I think he should or will do anything about it.
(Here they are--the numbers are not in a particular order, but for reference):
10. Get Control of climate-changing gases - He's done one significant thing, setting up aggressive goals for improving the fuel efficiency of the U.S. motor vehicles. There is still much to do, plenty of evidence more needs to be done, and reason to doubt it will get done. Cap-and-trade is a spoiled concept, we are congenitally opposed to participation in any global agreement, and we seem committed to fracking and tar sands use. My suggestions would be to commit also to development of: 1) solar; 2) wind; 3) better batteries; and 4) recycling of animal waste for fuel. This is playing the long game, aiming at progress that will outlive his Presidency. Obama Grade (up 'til now): C.
9. Preserve our biosphere. We are losing the battle to preserve species rather quickly--the best I can suggest are various forms of natural and artificial arks. O.G.: D-
8. Rebuild our relations with the world. With a few exceptions, this has been successfully completed. Russia, China--those are countries with which we are doing our best, their political obtuseness is not our fault; Iran--we just need a clear concept and success can be obtained; the world of Islam--some improvement, more possible; Europe, other developed world allies--no problem; the underdeveloped world--see Islam. O.G.: A-
7. Visualize our children's/grandchildren's society, and the implications of that vision. I would rate this as the most urgent and most practicable area for a focus of Obama's second term. It will translate into intelligent Medicare/Social Security revisions, as well as the needed educational and infrastructure improvements. It's a topic that's a bit high-falutin' for a speech to self-absorbed American adults, but not for a commission. The grade so far really is an Incomplete, but I would have to judge rather harshly the lack of visible effort. I do think Obama's heart is in it, as shown by his frequent references to his children's future, so I realistically think he can improve his grade with a little diligent effort. O.G.: D+
6. Reform the U.N. Charter. I really want Obama to do this; now that Susan Rice isn't going anywhere else, she could focus on this and maybe make some real progress. If not now (the freedom of a second term, an internationalist President with an eye on his legacy), it will never happen. O.G.: C-
5. Get control of armaments. Even back then, my description of this objective included both nuclear non-proliferation and private weapons in Americans' hands. It's taken awhile, but Obama has now stepped up on the latter, and he's doing his best on the former. Of course, the critical near-term outcomes for both ("common-sense" new gun restrictions, successfully keeping Iran from going nuke without war) are still in doubt. O.G.: B+
4. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is a difficult topic, and time is working against us: government's ability to snoop effectively expands, and resistance is beaten down mercilessly. Although I don't really agree with the "data must be free" philosophy, the recent case histories of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz are troubling, in that all indicate the trend is for power of the State overpowering those individuals who challenge on the basis of freedom of information. If you think it through, though, those efforts do not help preserve the eroding right to privacy. What I am looking for is some restoration of limits on intrusion into people's privacy--whether they are "normal" or famous--and I'm not seeing any progress. I'm not sure Obama or his Administration are on my side, or if they have any point of view on this. On the other hand, their offenses in this area have not been massive, like the Bushite ones were. O.G.: C-
3. Provide healthcare to our people. Back then, what I was advocating would be recognizable as (optional) Medicare for All. We didn't get anything like that, but we did get the Affordable Care Act, and even that he had to spend huge amounts of political capital to ram it down the throat of the resisting Republicans. I am advocating, rather than raising the Medicare eligibility age, reducing it (to 55), which would a great step forward. I know it has no chance, but my job clearly is to advocate sense in opposition to nonsense. O.G.: B
2. Electoral reform. This is my second-highest priority for the Second Term, after #7 above. We have gone backwards since my original 10-Point Program was presented; consider that it was before the Citizens United decision, the two most expensive elections in history, and renewed efforts to suppress voters (albeit, failed ones). All is yet to be done, and Obama is in a great position to push for it, and his rare comments upon it (he made one on Election Night 2012) have been favorable. On the other hand, the Electoral College worked very well for him, and he might (mistakenly) view it as a friend. O.G.: C-
1. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones). The latter phrase in parentheses is the operative objective, and President Obama seems to be going that way--though without expending any political capital. The key test in upcoming months will be his Attorney General's directives with regard to the new laws in Washington and Colorado permitting personal, non-medical possession of marijuana. So far, it seems to be a live and let live approach: if the states don't impinge on Federal prerogatives, he will leave them alone. That's OK, as long as it persists, as public opinion is moving the right way on this for the first time in--forever. The Colorado/Washington initiatives are the opposite of the pernicious exercise of states' exercise of their authority to which I have occasionally referred as "States Wrought". O.G.: B
My calculation of his overall grade on this course, which I will call Greatness 101, is a 2.63 average, a C (on a 5-point GPA basis). It is at least an Honors course, if not an Advanced Placement level one (in high school terms). Again, this is a measure of my strict grading against a difficult set of standards, and certainly not grading on the curve.
(Here they are--the numbers are not in a particular order, but for reference):
10. Get Control of climate-changing gases - He's done one significant thing, setting up aggressive goals for improving the fuel efficiency of the U.S. motor vehicles. There is still much to do, plenty of evidence more needs to be done, and reason to doubt it will get done. Cap-and-trade is a spoiled concept, we are congenitally opposed to participation in any global agreement, and we seem committed to fracking and tar sands use. My suggestions would be to commit also to development of: 1) solar; 2) wind; 3) better batteries; and 4) recycling of animal waste for fuel. This is playing the long game, aiming at progress that will outlive his Presidency. Obama Grade (up 'til now): C.
9. Preserve our biosphere. We are losing the battle to preserve species rather quickly--the best I can suggest are various forms of natural and artificial arks. O.G.: D-
8. Rebuild our relations with the world. With a few exceptions, this has been successfully completed. Russia, China--those are countries with which we are doing our best, their political obtuseness is not our fault; Iran--we just need a clear concept and success can be obtained; the world of Islam--some improvement, more possible; Europe, other developed world allies--no problem; the underdeveloped world--see Islam. O.G.: A-
7. Visualize our children's/grandchildren's society, and the implications of that vision. I would rate this as the most urgent and most practicable area for a focus of Obama's second term. It will translate into intelligent Medicare/Social Security revisions, as well as the needed educational and infrastructure improvements. It's a topic that's a bit high-falutin' for a speech to self-absorbed American adults, but not for a commission. The grade so far really is an Incomplete, but I would have to judge rather harshly the lack of visible effort. I do think Obama's heart is in it, as shown by his frequent references to his children's future, so I realistically think he can improve his grade with a little diligent effort. O.G.: D+
6. Reform the U.N. Charter. I really want Obama to do this; now that Susan Rice isn't going anywhere else, she could focus on this and maybe make some real progress. If not now (the freedom of a second term, an internationalist President with an eye on his legacy), it will never happen. O.G.: C-
5. Get control of armaments. Even back then, my description of this objective included both nuclear non-proliferation and private weapons in Americans' hands. It's taken awhile, but Obama has now stepped up on the latter, and he's doing his best on the former. Of course, the critical near-term outcomes for both ("common-sense" new gun restrictions, successfully keeping Iran from going nuke without war) are still in doubt. O.G.: B+
4. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is a difficult topic, and time is working against us: government's ability to snoop effectively expands, and resistance is beaten down mercilessly. Although I don't really agree with the "data must be free" philosophy, the recent case histories of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz are troubling, in that all indicate the trend is for power of the State overpowering those individuals who challenge on the basis of freedom of information. If you think it through, though, those efforts do not help preserve the eroding right to privacy. What I am looking for is some restoration of limits on intrusion into people's privacy--whether they are "normal" or famous--and I'm not seeing any progress. I'm not sure Obama or his Administration are on my side, or if they have any point of view on this. On the other hand, their offenses in this area have not been massive, like the Bushite ones were. O.G.: C-
3. Provide healthcare to our people. Back then, what I was advocating would be recognizable as (optional) Medicare for All. We didn't get anything like that, but we did get the Affordable Care Act, and even that he had to spend huge amounts of political capital to ram it down the throat of the resisting Republicans. I am advocating, rather than raising the Medicare eligibility age, reducing it (to 55), which would a great step forward. I know it has no chance, but my job clearly is to advocate sense in opposition to nonsense. O.G.: B
2. Electoral reform. This is my second-highest priority for the Second Term, after #7 above. We have gone backwards since my original 10-Point Program was presented; consider that it was before the Citizens United decision, the two most expensive elections in history, and renewed efforts to suppress voters (albeit, failed ones). All is yet to be done, and Obama is in a great position to push for it, and his rare comments upon it (he made one on Election Night 2012) have been favorable. On the other hand, the Electoral College worked very well for him, and he might (mistakenly) view it as a friend. O.G.: C-
1. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones). The latter phrase in parentheses is the operative objective, and President Obama seems to be going that way--though without expending any political capital. The key test in upcoming months will be his Attorney General's directives with regard to the new laws in Washington and Colorado permitting personal, non-medical possession of marijuana. So far, it seems to be a live and let live approach: if the states don't impinge on Federal prerogatives, he will leave them alone. That's OK, as long as it persists, as public opinion is moving the right way on this for the first time in--forever. The Colorado/Washington initiatives are the opposite of the pernicious exercise of states' exercise of their authority to which I have occasionally referred as "States Wrought". O.G.: B
My calculation of his overall grade on this course, which I will call Greatness 101, is a 2.63 average, a C (on a 5-point GPA basis). It is at least an Honors course, if not an Advanced Placement level one (in high school terms). Again, this is a measure of my strict grading against a difficult set of standards, and certainly not grading on the curve.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
January Variety Post
I am constraining myself to cover, in a single, wide-ranging posting, a number of topics which might merit more lengthy discussion. For which I would apologize profusely, but there's no time for that.
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
- no one with any suspicion should ever get in the Hall (and those already in, if there are any, should be cast out);
- "untainted" peformance by the accused should somehow be measured and discounted by the tainted performance; and
- there will be some recognition of the widespread nature of PED use, and those with damaged reputations would be admitted with some qualifications.
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
