I'm having some trouble being able to edit posts with Blogger using Internet Explorer. I can look at this blog, even make comments, but when I open the editor, it just says "Error on page." There's no help being provided, and I've made some experiments: it doesn't happen when I use Google Chrome (as I am right now, on my son's computer). Another clue: when I go to my gmail account ("chinshihtang@gmail.com", if you want to email my blogger ID) using Internet Explorer, Google gives me a hard time about it--every time.
My employer requires a justification to put Chrome on my business laptop, and I am not so silly as to tempt the anger of InfoSec by saying, "I need it so I can blog on my work computer". So, the opportunities to post are less--I have to wait in line for access to the homey.
Google has a monopoly on search, and it gave out this blogging software and gmail account for free, so I guess they can pull Microsoft-type monopolistic tricks (remember how you couldn't get rid of IE on Windows?) They are riding a huge investor fad in their stock price; no doubt they feel they got it all. They just don't get to pretend they are holier than MSFT anymore. (I'm sure you're watching this, GOOG, so take heed: pride goeth before the fall--and it's almost winter.)
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Fall Preview - Pt. 2 (Sports)
Let's start with baseball. (I write in the middle of the NL Wild Card game, Pittsburgh leading 3-1 in the 4th).
Last night's victory by the Tampa Bay Rays completes the official postseason roster. My preseason picks missed four of the ten teams that made it--three of them a surprise to all, really (Pirates, Red Sox, and Indians), and one of them I really should have known better than to overlook (the Cardinals). St. Louis, in particular, earned my grudging respect, overcoming major injuries and putting up the best record in the National League, tied for the best in the majors with the Red Sox. Boston, along with Cleveland, made colossal gains, improving their regular season records by over twenty games vs. 2012. Then, of course, there are the Pirates, which made the postseason for the first time in over twenty years.
I feel that, despite the recurrence of drug scandal and the failure of the Hall of Fame voters to find anyone living that was worthy of honor, this was one of baseball's best seasons in decades. The fact that overpriced Yankee and Angels teams came up short was a contributing factor, along with the turnabouts for longtime underdogs, and I personally like the realigned divisions and the expanded postseason.
Recent history suggests that it is the teams that come into the postseason the hottest, rather than the best regular season teams, that survive the brutal short-series elimination program and make it to the World Series. This year, that would be the Cardinals in the NL, and #1 Wild Card Cleveland--which has a 10-game winning streak--in the AL. If, and it's a big 'if", the Indians can get past the one-game Wild Card showdown with Tampa Bay, I do like their chances to take out #1 AL seed Boston. Detroit comes into the playoffs with only a mediocre regular season record (given their talent), and not playing particularly well at the end, but one thing I did notice was that their once-and-future-ace Justin Verlander, in the final game of the regular season, had an outstanding performance. (Few noticed it, as the attention all went to the opposing starter, Henderson Alvarez of the Marlins, who pitched a no-hitter!) I would pick the Tigers over the winner of the Red Sox-Indians/Rays bracket (as usual, I overlook the A's, who were quietly, almost starlessly, brilliant once again this year).
My Reds have the cards stacked against them this year: a one-game elim at Pittsburgh, with our presumed starter, Matt Latos, unable to go. I would say it was a longshot, but that it is Johnny Cueto instead: Cueto has magic stuff and could pull off a big win (note: didn't happen). Last year, Cueto went down in the first inning of the first game of the playoffs; this year he could turn the tables. Still, the winner of that one-gamer has to face the Cards, who take a lot of beating in the postseason. Braves-Dodgers winner deserves respect but will not be favored in my book.
World Series Bottom line: I'm looking for a rematch of the classic '68 Tigers-Cardinals series. That one pitted 31-game winner Denny McLain against Hall of Famer Bob Gibson, but it was #2 Tigers starter Mickey Lolich, and long reliever Gary Waslewski, who ended up the heroes.
I am very interested in the first month of the English Premier League in football, as Manchester United is suffering predictably due to the absence of its godlike longtime manager (just ask him!) Alex Ferguson, and the dissatisfaction of their (now) second-best player, Wayne Rooney. Once-again Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho did a great job messing with MU's minds; a little less great getting his team ready for a grueling season. I still think they can do it, but they have to deal with resurgent squads from Arsenal and Liverpool enjoying early season success, along with deep, talented Manchester City, and still-competitive Tottenham and Everton. I am not encouraged by Chelsea's early form in European competition, though, so I might have to settle for Premier title and yet another F.A. Cup. Easily done, for me, but what will Roman the Conquering Russian think?
NBA Basketball is still a month or so away, but the outlines of the upcoming season seem pretty clear: Lebron James will try to three-peat in the last year he's committed to the Miami Heat, and everyone else will be targeting the Heat. The team I am most interested in is the hometown Chicago Bulls, with Derrick Rose on the spot to show he has Jamesian leadership ability. He has a supporting cast at least as good as Lebron's, even if they did foolishly give away center Omer Asik to the Rockets before last year. The Brooklyn Nets should get an outsized share of press coverage; whether they can gell into a championship-caliber team remains to be seen. Indiana is the team under the radar that can beat any of the others, and in particular I expect their rivalry with the Bulls to be intense. In the West, Oklahoma City is due to show they can win their conference, or fold their tent and move on, while San Antonio, as always, lurks, with a mixture of veterans and youth that is a proven winner.
In the "one and done" league, a/k/a NCAA basketball, I have no idea what to expect, really--I barely know what teams are in what conferences. Not that it really matters; one of the best things about NCAA basketball is that the tournament that really counts does not depend much on who belongs to what conference. There is a good tension between the teams that ride on outstanding freshmen (of which there are plenty this year) and those that depend on team chemistry, with their star players staying around long enough to learn to understand the concept. I have personally been overjoyed with the last two seasons, with Kentucky and Louisville winning (yes, I defy the odds and root firmly for both), the first with the 1&Done concept and Louisville with the team approach. Both seem stacked with top talent again this year. I think there will be an exciting ACC season with strong teams from North Carolina and Duke (as always) being challenged by newcomer Syracuse. I would add Michigan State and VCU as teams that know how to use their talent in the team concept. Finally, I'm rooting for New Mexico to make Steve Alford wish he'd never left Albuquerque for UCLA.
I contrast the "flawed but coping" status of NCAA basketball with the "horribly broken and going downhill" description I would give to Football's AAA league (the BCS). I like the High-A and AA versions of college football, but the top second-rate level of the sport is pathetic and ugly. I missed the best game of the year (Alabama over Texas A&M, 49-42), so I think there is very little more to say or see. I like Johnny Manziel, agree with his subdued challenge to NCAA's hypocritical rules, and I think he could be another Joe Willie Namath, if he doesn't get hurt too badly (it never stopped Namath).
The NFL promises a good season; some of the old familiars (Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, Packers) are off to bad starts, and that's good. The Seahawks (I have to remind myself they are in the NFC) and the Broncos are the hot teams, while the Saints and Patriots would be the logical postseason choices. I think the Super Bowl will be made up of two of those four, but I hesitate to predict at this point--depends on injuries, and breaks in the postseason. The Bears will be either just short of the playoffs or just barely making it, which almost amounts to the same thing, as they will not be good enough to go too far. At least that's the way I see them.
The NHL is playing, and the BlackHawks are defending, which is good for local hockey fans (of which I am not one).
Last night's victory by the Tampa Bay Rays completes the official postseason roster. My preseason picks missed four of the ten teams that made it--three of them a surprise to all, really (Pirates, Red Sox, and Indians), and one of them I really should have known better than to overlook (the Cardinals). St. Louis, in particular, earned my grudging respect, overcoming major injuries and putting up the best record in the National League, tied for the best in the majors with the Red Sox. Boston, along with Cleveland, made colossal gains, improving their regular season records by over twenty games vs. 2012. Then, of course, there are the Pirates, which made the postseason for the first time in over twenty years.
I feel that, despite the recurrence of drug scandal and the failure of the Hall of Fame voters to find anyone living that was worthy of honor, this was one of baseball's best seasons in decades. The fact that overpriced Yankee and Angels teams came up short was a contributing factor, along with the turnabouts for longtime underdogs, and I personally like the realigned divisions and the expanded postseason.
Recent history suggests that it is the teams that come into the postseason the hottest, rather than the best regular season teams, that survive the brutal short-series elimination program and make it to the World Series. This year, that would be the Cardinals in the NL, and #1 Wild Card Cleveland--which has a 10-game winning streak--in the AL. If, and it's a big 'if", the Indians can get past the one-game Wild Card showdown with Tampa Bay, I do like their chances to take out #1 AL seed Boston. Detroit comes into the playoffs with only a mediocre regular season record (given their talent), and not playing particularly well at the end, but one thing I did notice was that their once-and-future-ace Justin Verlander, in the final game of the regular season, had an outstanding performance. (Few noticed it, as the attention all went to the opposing starter, Henderson Alvarez of the Marlins, who pitched a no-hitter!) I would pick the Tigers over the winner of the Red Sox-Indians/Rays bracket (as usual, I overlook the A's, who were quietly, almost starlessly, brilliant once again this year).
My Reds have the cards stacked against them this year: a one-game elim at Pittsburgh, with our presumed starter, Matt Latos, unable to go. I would say it was a longshot, but that it is Johnny Cueto instead: Cueto has magic stuff and could pull off a big win (note: didn't happen). Last year, Cueto went down in the first inning of the first game of the playoffs; this year he could turn the tables. Still, the winner of that one-gamer has to face the Cards, who take a lot of beating in the postseason. Braves-Dodgers winner deserves respect but will not be favored in my book.
World Series Bottom line: I'm looking for a rematch of the classic '68 Tigers-Cardinals series. That one pitted 31-game winner Denny McLain against Hall of Famer Bob Gibson, but it was #2 Tigers starter Mickey Lolich, and long reliever Gary Waslewski, who ended up the heroes.
I am very interested in the first month of the English Premier League in football, as Manchester United is suffering predictably due to the absence of its godlike longtime manager (just ask him!) Alex Ferguson, and the dissatisfaction of their (now) second-best player, Wayne Rooney. Once-again Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho did a great job messing with MU's minds; a little less great getting his team ready for a grueling season. I still think they can do it, but they have to deal with resurgent squads from Arsenal and Liverpool enjoying early season success, along with deep, talented Manchester City, and still-competitive Tottenham and Everton. I am not encouraged by Chelsea's early form in European competition, though, so I might have to settle for Premier title and yet another F.A. Cup. Easily done, for me, but what will Roman the Conquering Russian think?
NBA Basketball is still a month or so away, but the outlines of the upcoming season seem pretty clear: Lebron James will try to three-peat in the last year he's committed to the Miami Heat, and everyone else will be targeting the Heat. The team I am most interested in is the hometown Chicago Bulls, with Derrick Rose on the spot to show he has Jamesian leadership ability. He has a supporting cast at least as good as Lebron's, even if they did foolishly give away center Omer Asik to the Rockets before last year. The Brooklyn Nets should get an outsized share of press coverage; whether they can gell into a championship-caliber team remains to be seen. Indiana is the team under the radar that can beat any of the others, and in particular I expect their rivalry with the Bulls to be intense. In the West, Oklahoma City is due to show they can win their conference, or fold their tent and move on, while San Antonio, as always, lurks, with a mixture of veterans and youth that is a proven winner.
In the "one and done" league, a/k/a NCAA basketball, I have no idea what to expect, really--I barely know what teams are in what conferences. Not that it really matters; one of the best things about NCAA basketball is that the tournament that really counts does not depend much on who belongs to what conference. There is a good tension between the teams that ride on outstanding freshmen (of which there are plenty this year) and those that depend on team chemistry, with their star players staying around long enough to learn to understand the concept. I have personally been overjoyed with the last two seasons, with Kentucky and Louisville winning (yes, I defy the odds and root firmly for both), the first with the 1&Done concept and Louisville with the team approach. Both seem stacked with top talent again this year. I think there will be an exciting ACC season with strong teams from North Carolina and Duke (as always) being challenged by newcomer Syracuse. I would add Michigan State and VCU as teams that know how to use their talent in the team concept. Finally, I'm rooting for New Mexico to make Steve Alford wish he'd never left Albuquerque for UCLA.
I contrast the "flawed but coping" status of NCAA basketball with the "horribly broken and going downhill" description I would give to Football's AAA league (the BCS). I like the High-A and AA versions of college football, but the top second-rate level of the sport is pathetic and ugly. I missed the best game of the year (Alabama over Texas A&M, 49-42), so I think there is very little more to say or see. I like Johnny Manziel, agree with his subdued challenge to NCAA's hypocritical rules, and I think he could be another Joe Willie Namath, if he doesn't get hurt too badly (it never stopped Namath).
The NFL promises a good season; some of the old familiars (Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, Packers) are off to bad starts, and that's good. The Seahawks (I have to remind myself they are in the NFC) and the Broncos are the hot teams, while the Saints and Patriots would be the logical postseason choices. I think the Super Bowl will be made up of two of those four, but I hesitate to predict at this point--depends on injuries, and breaks in the postseason. The Bears will be either just short of the playoffs or just barely making it, which almost amounts to the same thing, as they will not be good enough to go too far. At least that's the way I see them.
The NHL is playing, and the BlackHawks are defending, which is good for local hockey fans (of which I am not one).
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Workin' for the Shutdown--
get along, get along.*
The next two weeks, the fifth round of a scheduled ten-rounder, will be the test of courage of John Boehner in his leadership of the House of Orange. He's going into the fray with his chin sticking out, suggesting that he can take a punch and then get in his licks, but there's a good chance for a knockout.
A better analogy to a boxing match, single combat with well-defined rules, would be a steel cage match (all against all, no way out) or a gang streetfight. He only gets to lead the Jets if he's willing to stand up front, his bully boys behind, and bear the brunt of the counter-attack. His gang will put up a fight, regardless of whether his profile shows the false courage of a punk in a game of chicken, or whether he takes the truly courageous act and goes against his bloodthirsty backers' taste for "action". But if he makes a deal, they will turn on him afterward.
In this opening encounter, expect Boehner to stand his ground. No one is really afraid of the clock running out on the continuing resolution funding the government for a day or two or six. In that sense, it will not prove to be the decisive proof of the Republicans' inability to be anywhere near the government that President Obama might hope for, going into the 2014 Congressional elections in which he will need a big win.
A few days of government furloughs will not cause too much pain to the public--fortunately, the peak season for the national parks, which will be closed, has passed. If there is an agreement of some sort by the end of the round, even if only a temporary one that allows the sixth round to be scheduled for late this year, a few days of shutdown will be just another bump in the road.
The real crisis, the one that would do permanent damage, is the deadline of the debt ceiling, which Treasury Secretary Lew has indicated would occur around the middle of October. I suspect that the resolution of the shutdown will be folded into the negotiation around the raising of the debt limit, something which absolutely must be approved in some form. Treasury will come up with a formula to save the government a couple more days to work with, possibly using a "payday loan" to convert some of the shutdown/sequester savings into a temporary debt payment.
It is impossible to think that the Republicans can permit a default on Federal government debt and preserve intact anything like a semblance of a reputation as fiscal conservatives. There would be one immediate, permanent result: an increase in the cost of our national debt, as our bonds and T-bills would no longer be the safe instrument the markets crave. Figure another $100 billion in the cost of our debts, every year, for the next generation or so (until all this crew are permanently gone from the scene and a more responsible elite emerges to run our government). Compared to that, anything the Republicans could hope to achieve in entitlement reform or discretionary spending would be chicken feed (feeding a giant beast).
Boehner knows this, so his challenge is to get a deal which will not rupture the full faith and credit of the US, while not appearing to give up too easily to President Obama and getting something in return. A lot of the more reasonable, establishment Republicans, like McCain and Romney, realize this, and are not signing on for the suicide pact. McConnell knows this--and he has a possibly difficult re-election campaign next year--so he will keep his head and wattle down as much as possible. Obama knows this, so he will look to find some bone to offer the hungry dogs, something that is clearly a one-time, not to be repeated, concession of some kind.
I predict the concession will have two components, and that it will come in two parts on Oct. 18 (after a huge drop on Friday, and before the Monday trading session of the week when the limit would be breached): 1) agreement to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow some additional fossil fuel development (offshore, underground, or near but outside the Arctic preserves); and 2) when that is not enough, agreement to change the formula for the cost-of-living index for Social Security, beginning in 2017 or so. As I've suggested before, 2) is not unthinkable, really, and is a reasonable trade-off to preserve the program's funding for the younger generation without much cost to today's retirees. 1) is a really bad idea that will cause him to be hated by the Left, which is beginning to rise up against him, but I feel that he is leaning that way anyway, and preserving the current low cost of gasoline will net him gains in popular support in 2014. It's not exactly a Profile in Courage, but the rules of Chicken apply to him, too, and a head-on collision is the courage of a fool.
There is one other way for Obama to go, and I encourage him to threaten it, even to use it if these bids for compromise are spurned. In the final days before the breach, he can announce that he simply will not allow the US to default on its obligations. Whether it's by issuing platinum coins, or posting a challenge to the constitutionality of the debt ceiling (it can be argued that it is contrary to the 14th Amendment, which states that the debts of the US will not be questioned), or simply violating the statutory debt limit and daring Congress to take action. This could be the "impeachable offense" the most rabid Tea Partiers have sought; I'd say bring on the challenge, as this is a battle Obama is sure to win, either in the courts or in the Senate (after a partisan Republican majority once again sinks to the level of a dubious impeachment vote).
*Cf. The Clash, "Clampdown", from "London Calling"
The next two weeks, the fifth round of a scheduled ten-rounder, will be the test of courage of John Boehner in his leadership of the House of Orange. He's going into the fray with his chin sticking out, suggesting that he can take a punch and then get in his licks, but there's a good chance for a knockout.
A better analogy to a boxing match, single combat with well-defined rules, would be a steel cage match (all against all, no way out) or a gang streetfight. He only gets to lead the Jets if he's willing to stand up front, his bully boys behind, and bear the brunt of the counter-attack. His gang will put up a fight, regardless of whether his profile shows the false courage of a punk in a game of chicken, or whether he takes the truly courageous act and goes against his bloodthirsty backers' taste for "action". But if he makes a deal, they will turn on him afterward.
In this opening encounter, expect Boehner to stand his ground. No one is really afraid of the clock running out on the continuing resolution funding the government for a day or two or six. In that sense, it will not prove to be the decisive proof of the Republicans' inability to be anywhere near the government that President Obama might hope for, going into the 2014 Congressional elections in which he will need a big win.
A few days of government furloughs will not cause too much pain to the public--fortunately, the peak season for the national parks, which will be closed, has passed. If there is an agreement of some sort by the end of the round, even if only a temporary one that allows the sixth round to be scheduled for late this year, a few days of shutdown will be just another bump in the road.
The real crisis, the one that would do permanent damage, is the deadline of the debt ceiling, which Treasury Secretary Lew has indicated would occur around the middle of October. I suspect that the resolution of the shutdown will be folded into the negotiation around the raising of the debt limit, something which absolutely must be approved in some form. Treasury will come up with a formula to save the government a couple more days to work with, possibly using a "payday loan" to convert some of the shutdown/sequester savings into a temporary debt payment.
It is impossible to think that the Republicans can permit a default on Federal government debt and preserve intact anything like a semblance of a reputation as fiscal conservatives. There would be one immediate, permanent result: an increase in the cost of our national debt, as our bonds and T-bills would no longer be the safe instrument the markets crave. Figure another $100 billion in the cost of our debts, every year, for the next generation or so (until all this crew are permanently gone from the scene and a more responsible elite emerges to run our government). Compared to that, anything the Republicans could hope to achieve in entitlement reform or discretionary spending would be chicken feed (feeding a giant beast).
Boehner knows this, so his challenge is to get a deal which will not rupture the full faith and credit of the US, while not appearing to give up too easily to President Obama and getting something in return. A lot of the more reasonable, establishment Republicans, like McCain and Romney, realize this, and are not signing on for the suicide pact. McConnell knows this--and he has a possibly difficult re-election campaign next year--so he will keep his head and wattle down as much as possible. Obama knows this, so he will look to find some bone to offer the hungry dogs, something that is clearly a one-time, not to be repeated, concession of some kind.
I predict the concession will have two components, and that it will come in two parts on Oct. 18 (after a huge drop on Friday, and before the Monday trading session of the week when the limit would be breached): 1) agreement to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow some additional fossil fuel development (offshore, underground, or near but outside the Arctic preserves); and 2) when that is not enough, agreement to change the formula for the cost-of-living index for Social Security, beginning in 2017 or so. As I've suggested before, 2) is not unthinkable, really, and is a reasonable trade-off to preserve the program's funding for the younger generation without much cost to today's retirees. 1) is a really bad idea that will cause him to be hated by the Left, which is beginning to rise up against him, but I feel that he is leaning that way anyway, and preserving the current low cost of gasoline will net him gains in popular support in 2014. It's not exactly a Profile in Courage, but the rules of Chicken apply to him, too, and a head-on collision is the courage of a fool.
There is one other way for Obama to go, and I encourage him to threaten it, even to use it if these bids for compromise are spurned. In the final days before the breach, he can announce that he simply will not allow the US to default on its obligations. Whether it's by issuing platinum coins, or posting a challenge to the constitutionality of the debt ceiling (it can be argued that it is contrary to the 14th Amendment, which states that the debts of the US will not be questioned), or simply violating the statutory debt limit and daring Congress to take action. This could be the "impeachable offense" the most rabid Tea Partiers have sought; I'd say bring on the challenge, as this is a battle Obama is sure to win, either in the courts or in the Senate (after a partisan Republican majority once again sinks to the level of a dubious impeachment vote).
*Cf. The Clash, "Clampdown", from "London Calling"
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Fall Preview - Pt. 1 (The Arts)
The weather this week has convinced me: Fall is here. For some reason, most of the significant efforts in this country's art scenes on the large scale occur in the next three months. So, let's take a very opinionated view of what's coming down the pike.
First among all, I mention "Bleeding Edge", the new novel from Thomas Pynchon, which just became available this week. ( I got my copy yesterday.) I'm planning to savor it, not devour it, and at 500 pages, it should be a good part-time read for the fall. A second successive detective novel, this one features a female New Yorker fraud investigator operating in the period between the burst of the dotcom bubble and 9/11. To me it screams "Crying of Lot 49", more than "Inherent Vice".
Television
Next we move to "the tube", though of course there's no tubes involved anymore. For me, television is programming transmitted over a specific channel at a specific time--the other stuff is "video", which is a form of entertainment but, because there is no shared simultaneous experience, not the same thing from the point of view of impact on popular culture.
The critics seem all convinced that this is a (Second?) Golden Age of Television, that it has surpassed the movies, not only in social importance or entertainment value, but in artistic quality. This is an opinion to which I do not subscribe at all--there is more good TV out there than there used to be, but it is a function of quantity: the number of channels has multiplied exponentially, and so have most forms of programming. A few categories have multiplied disproportionately--I would name college football games both major and minor, programs in which people cook and other people rave convincingly about the delicious flavors (too far ahead of the inevitable development of "Smellovision Channel"), programs about obscure groups with unusual behavior patterns and other exhibitionists (e.g., "Duck Dynasty", "Wife Swap", "America's Got Talent", etc.), and programs about violent crime and the justice system. Particularly the latter--I am so sick of programs about cops, about forensic crime research, prison drama, courtroom drama, criminal capers, legal hijinks, that I can no longer stand to watch even the better ones ("The Wire"?--I couldn't take it).
Anyway, to focus on the good side of TV, I guess a good place to start is with the Emmy awards tonight (Sunday, Sept. 22). The Emmys do not have the same cachet or dramatic intensity of the Oscars, there are a whole lot of awards for things that are not very interesting, and they have had a historic tendency to give the same award to the same show or performer year after year (John Larroquette won how many times for "Night Court"?), but I think the profile of the awards has begun to rise. I will be rooting for Tina Fey and "30 Rock" in their final Emmy appearances, and for her SNL compadre Amy Poehler of "Parks and Recreation", though "Modern Family" and its cast will be the huge favorites to repeat in the comedic categories. (Fey and Poehler's performance in the combined TV/Movie Golden Globes, itself nominated for an Emmy is an example of what the Emmy program should strive to achieve.). In terms of drama, I guess it's "Breaking Bad"--gritty meth crime isn't overdone so much yet-- over "Mad Men", "Downton Abbey", and "Homeland" (counterterrorism surely is), though I would've loved to see "Boss" (also outgoing) or "Newsroom" (based on its last episode, also halfway out the door).
In terms of the fall season, it's going to come fast and furious after this weekend. I think it's Monday that we will finally meet Ya Mutha, as in "How I Met Your Mother", after years of tease. Most of the major networks' regular weekly series will begin this week. In terms of new programs, I will give a look to 'The Goldbergs" (NBC, Tuesday) and an eponymous Michael J. Fox show (Thursday). The most successful program in TV history, "The Simpsons", returns next Sunday for what I believe is its 25th full season, and the second-most successful, "Saturday Night Live", will begin its new season next Saturday with Tina Fey as host, a bunch of replacement cast members, and SNL fave Arcade Fire as musical guest--will it be another slack period, and can it survive another? Tune in next spring.
What else? I'm going to try to watch "Scandal" more; "Mad Men" should be interesting as it heads to its final episodes, "Dr. Who" is supposed to debut a new Doctor (so my daughter tells me; she's only OK with the selected new hero of time and space), and the BBC series of "Sherlock", starring the ubiquitous and ludicrously-named Benedict Cumberbatch (note: in the future I will refer to him as simply BdCb), is supposed to return for a few teasing episodes sometime around the holidays.
Mostly, though, I watch news programs and sports--the first can have no preview, and the latter will be considered in a separate post, as I still believe it qualifies as something other than just TV.
Music
The big, built-up album of this fall is the two-disc follow-up to "The Suburbs" by Arcade Fire. One song, "Reflektor" (also the title of the album), has been released so far: it sounds like the band, but disco. I certainly sympathize with the challenges of maintaining the momentum from a superior release and sudden, massive fame, but "going disco" is not the correct response--not in this century, or any other one for that matter. We will see if the song is the exception or the rule.
Two major artists who have promised to go back to their roots in their new releases are Paul McCartney, with "New", and Elton John, with "The Diving Board". Meanwhile, Elvis Costello literally has gone to The Roots for his, joining the band from Jimmy Fallon's late-night show for a funky new one, "Wise Up Ghost". I've heard one song, and it sounds like something good, not the lounge lizard act I heard on Elvis' last two albums.
Anything else? I'm hopeful about Katy Perry and her maturation process--she has an album coming out called "Prism" (slightly different light-bending effect than Arcade Fire's), which suggests she is trying to turn the excessive light constantly upon her into something colorful and beautiful. Good idea, if you can pull it off. And U2 is working on a new album, though it's unclear whether it will make it into the market before the end of the year.
Film
The best trailer of the summer--the one that piqued my curiosity, not that showed off the best effects or jokes--was for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's "Don Jon". The memorable line--repeated for effect--is that he just cares about a few things in his life: "his body, his pad, his ride, his family, his church, his boys, his girls, and...his porn." Gordon-Levitt is a young talent; he's taking it to a new level as a first-time director. The story of Don Juan, the mind of the seducer and his undoing with the right woman, is a worthy challenge that has drawn the talents of many of the greatest over the centuries, including Byron, Mozart, Kierkegaard, and Shaw. He's got Scarlett Johansson as his foil, that foxy mix of naivete and worldly that she can do so well. It starts next weekend, and I think this combination of old and new values, sex play both subliminal and overtly indiscreet, just might find the right moment in the key movie-going demographic, teens and young adults.
As always, there is a flood of the best movies this time of year. The timing seems slightly different this year, as some of them are already out there in the film festivals, so the season will not be such a tease, with the real film powerhouses only hitting your neighborhood multiplex next year. This is a definite improvement--I may be missing something, but none of these have phony openings in the last week of the year.
I think the glum political outlook, which is likely to turn soon into bad economic feeling, will translate into movie viewers looking for solace, escape, and ways to express their suppressed anger. I've ordered the major studio releases for the fall based roughly in my level of skepticism about the projects' artistic and commercial success, from "Highly Doubtful" to "Little Doubt", but what do I really know about them at this point?
"Fifth Estate" - Looks like a whitewash of Julian Assange's story (with BdCb). Data doesn't want to be free, it lies there waiting to be manipulated. Are moviegoers any different? This one says "yes".
"Winnie Mandela" - see "The Fifth Estate". Taking advantage of Nelson Mandela's name, when he will be too weak to say anything to the contrary.
"Great Expectations" - I never even liked the book, and the story seems ripe for political posturing: the poor just need rich patrons and all will be fine.
"Enough Said" - I think it will be creepy to see the late James Gandolfini in a hopeful love story. Enough said, indeed.
"Prisoners" - Teen-age abduction drama, with Hugh Jackman in the Liam Neeson "Taken" role as the Angry Dad. Looks ugly, feels unnecessary.
"Carrie" - Didn't like it the first time; don't need it again.
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - The Scorsese/DiCaprio combo is fine by me, but I think I've seen too many of these Wall Street dramas where the big jerk gets his comeuppance at the end.
"August: Osage County" - All-star cast (including BdCb), Broadway stage play, but it looks too stagey for the big screen. I'm sure it's no fun, but will it provide the uplift we want?
"Diana" - Naomi Watts looks dead-on as the martyred Princess, but it's either a phony conspiracy play or boring.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - There are a couple of items I'm looking forward to seeing (Smaug's dwarf-built cavern, the Wood-elves, BdCb as the Voice of Smaug), but mostly I think a relatively short novel is being dragged out into four full-length parts for bad reasons.
"Rush" - I would never underestimate Ron Howard's ability to produce a popular spectacle, but I think the heyday of Formula One auto racing is over for most people.
"Catching Fire" - Will people connect the dots between this dystopian society and ours, or is it just a good flick with Jennifer Lawrence? Either way, it should be reasonably successful.
"All Is Lost" - Just Robert Redford and a sinking boat. Somehow I think it will be OK.
"All is Bright" - Looks like a holiday charmer with Pauls Rudd and Giamatti.
"Gravity" - Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Space travel drama is the best possible genre for 3-D (slight edge over aviation), and Cuaron makes powerful film. It could be awful, but I'm thinking 70% probability of magic.
"12 Years a Slave" - This story of a freed black man captured back into slavery could break hearts, if it manages to tell its story in a way that's not too familiar.
"Nebraska" - Alexander Payne has the strong track record of drawing great performances, not overplaying his hand.
"Captain Phillips" - Not a sure thing, and we do know how this Somali pirates vs. US merchant ship drama will turn out, but Tom Hanks will deliver the goods, as always.
"The Counselor" - Very little substantial information available, but it looks like it could be a powerhouse (Ridley Scott directing, Cormac McCarthy story, with Javier Bardem and Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz).
"Ender's Game" - The sci-fi special of the season, a genre classic finally adapted for the big screen, with a teenage boy hero. Should be a commercial success, even if not Oscar material.
"Inside Llewyn Davis" - The Coen Bros. are a sure thing, as far as I'm concerned. Their popular success correlates negatively with my appreciation, but the latter is never too low. I like this one, so it may be only a moderate public success.
My summary is a lot of ambitious, expensive failures, a few small-scale successes, few if any certain winners. Maybe they are right about TV?--I hope not.
First among all, I mention "Bleeding Edge", the new novel from Thomas Pynchon, which just became available this week. ( I got my copy yesterday.) I'm planning to savor it, not devour it, and at 500 pages, it should be a good part-time read for the fall. A second successive detective novel, this one features a female New Yorker fraud investigator operating in the period between the burst of the dotcom bubble and 9/11. To me it screams "Crying of Lot 49", more than "Inherent Vice".
Television
Next we move to "the tube", though of course there's no tubes involved anymore. For me, television is programming transmitted over a specific channel at a specific time--the other stuff is "video", which is a form of entertainment but, because there is no shared simultaneous experience, not the same thing from the point of view of impact on popular culture.
The critics seem all convinced that this is a (Second?) Golden Age of Television, that it has surpassed the movies, not only in social importance or entertainment value, but in artistic quality. This is an opinion to which I do not subscribe at all--there is more good TV out there than there used to be, but it is a function of quantity: the number of channels has multiplied exponentially, and so have most forms of programming. A few categories have multiplied disproportionately--I would name college football games both major and minor, programs in which people cook and other people rave convincingly about the delicious flavors (too far ahead of the inevitable development of "Smellovision Channel"), programs about obscure groups with unusual behavior patterns and other exhibitionists (e.g., "Duck Dynasty", "Wife Swap", "America's Got Talent", etc.), and programs about violent crime and the justice system. Particularly the latter--I am so sick of programs about cops, about forensic crime research, prison drama, courtroom drama, criminal capers, legal hijinks, that I can no longer stand to watch even the better ones ("The Wire"?--I couldn't take it).
Anyway, to focus on the good side of TV, I guess a good place to start is with the Emmy awards tonight (Sunday, Sept. 22). The Emmys do not have the same cachet or dramatic intensity of the Oscars, there are a whole lot of awards for things that are not very interesting, and they have had a historic tendency to give the same award to the same show or performer year after year (John Larroquette won how many times for "Night Court"?), but I think the profile of the awards has begun to rise. I will be rooting for Tina Fey and "30 Rock" in their final Emmy appearances, and for her SNL compadre Amy Poehler of "Parks and Recreation", though "Modern Family" and its cast will be the huge favorites to repeat in the comedic categories. (Fey and Poehler's performance in the combined TV/Movie Golden Globes, itself nominated for an Emmy is an example of what the Emmy program should strive to achieve.). In terms of drama, I guess it's "Breaking Bad"--gritty meth crime isn't overdone so much yet-- over "Mad Men", "Downton Abbey", and "Homeland" (counterterrorism surely is), though I would've loved to see "Boss" (also outgoing) or "Newsroom" (based on its last episode, also halfway out the door).
In terms of the fall season, it's going to come fast and furious after this weekend. I think it's Monday that we will finally meet Ya Mutha, as in "How I Met Your Mother", after years of tease. Most of the major networks' regular weekly series will begin this week. In terms of new programs, I will give a look to 'The Goldbergs" (NBC, Tuesday) and an eponymous Michael J. Fox show (Thursday). The most successful program in TV history, "The Simpsons", returns next Sunday for what I believe is its 25th full season, and the second-most successful, "Saturday Night Live", will begin its new season next Saturday with Tina Fey as host, a bunch of replacement cast members, and SNL fave Arcade Fire as musical guest--will it be another slack period, and can it survive another? Tune in next spring.
What else? I'm going to try to watch "Scandal" more; "Mad Men" should be interesting as it heads to its final episodes, "Dr. Who" is supposed to debut a new Doctor (so my daughter tells me; she's only OK with the selected new hero of time and space), and the BBC series of "Sherlock", starring the ubiquitous and ludicrously-named Benedict Cumberbatch (note: in the future I will refer to him as simply BdCb), is supposed to return for a few teasing episodes sometime around the holidays.
Mostly, though, I watch news programs and sports--the first can have no preview, and the latter will be considered in a separate post, as I still believe it qualifies as something other than just TV.
Music
The big, built-up album of this fall is the two-disc follow-up to "The Suburbs" by Arcade Fire. One song, "Reflektor" (also the title of the album), has been released so far: it sounds like the band, but disco. I certainly sympathize with the challenges of maintaining the momentum from a superior release and sudden, massive fame, but "going disco" is not the correct response--not in this century, or any other one for that matter. We will see if the song is the exception or the rule.
Two major artists who have promised to go back to their roots in their new releases are Paul McCartney, with "New", and Elton John, with "The Diving Board". Meanwhile, Elvis Costello literally has gone to The Roots for his, joining the band from Jimmy Fallon's late-night show for a funky new one, "Wise Up Ghost". I've heard one song, and it sounds like something good, not the lounge lizard act I heard on Elvis' last two albums.
Anything else? I'm hopeful about Katy Perry and her maturation process--she has an album coming out called "Prism" (slightly different light-bending effect than Arcade Fire's), which suggests she is trying to turn the excessive light constantly upon her into something colorful and beautiful. Good idea, if you can pull it off. And U2 is working on a new album, though it's unclear whether it will make it into the market before the end of the year.
Film
The best trailer of the summer--the one that piqued my curiosity, not that showed off the best effects or jokes--was for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's "Don Jon". The memorable line--repeated for effect--is that he just cares about a few things in his life: "his body, his pad, his ride, his family, his church, his boys, his girls, and...his porn." Gordon-Levitt is a young talent; he's taking it to a new level as a first-time director. The story of Don Juan, the mind of the seducer and his undoing with the right woman, is a worthy challenge that has drawn the talents of many of the greatest over the centuries, including Byron, Mozart, Kierkegaard, and Shaw. He's got Scarlett Johansson as his foil, that foxy mix of naivete and worldly that she can do so well. It starts next weekend, and I think this combination of old and new values, sex play both subliminal and overtly indiscreet, just might find the right moment in the key movie-going demographic, teens and young adults.
As always, there is a flood of the best movies this time of year. The timing seems slightly different this year, as some of them are already out there in the film festivals, so the season will not be such a tease, with the real film powerhouses only hitting your neighborhood multiplex next year. This is a definite improvement--I may be missing something, but none of these have phony openings in the last week of the year.
I think the glum political outlook, which is likely to turn soon into bad economic feeling, will translate into movie viewers looking for solace, escape, and ways to express their suppressed anger. I've ordered the major studio releases for the fall based roughly in my level of skepticism about the projects' artistic and commercial success, from "Highly Doubtful" to "Little Doubt", but what do I really know about them at this point?
"Fifth Estate" - Looks like a whitewash of Julian Assange's story (with BdCb). Data doesn't want to be free, it lies there waiting to be manipulated. Are moviegoers any different? This one says "yes".
"Winnie Mandela" - see "The Fifth Estate". Taking advantage of Nelson Mandela's name, when he will be too weak to say anything to the contrary.
"Great Expectations" - I never even liked the book, and the story seems ripe for political posturing: the poor just need rich patrons and all will be fine.
"Enough Said" - I think it will be creepy to see the late James Gandolfini in a hopeful love story. Enough said, indeed.
"Prisoners" - Teen-age abduction drama, with Hugh Jackman in the Liam Neeson "Taken" role as the Angry Dad. Looks ugly, feels unnecessary.
"Carrie" - Didn't like it the first time; don't need it again.
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - The Scorsese/DiCaprio combo is fine by me, but I think I've seen too many of these Wall Street dramas where the big jerk gets his comeuppance at the end.
"August: Osage County" - All-star cast (including BdCb), Broadway stage play, but it looks too stagey for the big screen. I'm sure it's no fun, but will it provide the uplift we want?
"Diana" - Naomi Watts looks dead-on as the martyred Princess, but it's either a phony conspiracy play or boring.
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - There are a couple of items I'm looking forward to seeing (Smaug's dwarf-built cavern, the Wood-elves, BdCb as the Voice of Smaug), but mostly I think a relatively short novel is being dragged out into four full-length parts for bad reasons.
"Rush" - I would never underestimate Ron Howard's ability to produce a popular spectacle, but I think the heyday of Formula One auto racing is over for most people.
"Catching Fire" - Will people connect the dots between this dystopian society and ours, or is it just a good flick with Jennifer Lawrence? Either way, it should be reasonably successful.
"All Is Lost" - Just Robert Redford and a sinking boat. Somehow I think it will be OK.
"All is Bright" - Looks like a holiday charmer with Pauls Rudd and Giamatti.
"Gravity" - Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Space travel drama is the best possible genre for 3-D (slight edge over aviation), and Cuaron makes powerful film. It could be awful, but I'm thinking 70% probability of magic.
"12 Years a Slave" - This story of a freed black man captured back into slavery could break hearts, if it manages to tell its story in a way that's not too familiar.
"Nebraska" - Alexander Payne has the strong track record of drawing great performances, not overplaying his hand.
"Captain Phillips" - Not a sure thing, and we do know how this Somali pirates vs. US merchant ship drama will turn out, but Tom Hanks will deliver the goods, as always.
"The Counselor" - Very little substantial information available, but it looks like it could be a powerhouse (Ridley Scott directing, Cormac McCarthy story, with Javier Bardem and Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz).
"Ender's Game" - The sci-fi special of the season, a genre classic finally adapted for the big screen, with a teenage boy hero. Should be a commercial success, even if not Oscar material.
"Inside Llewyn Davis" - The Coen Bros. are a sure thing, as far as I'm concerned. Their popular success correlates negatively with my appreciation, but the latter is never too low. I like this one, so it may be only a moderate public success.
My summary is a lot of ambitious, expensive failures, a few small-scale successes, few if any certain winners. Maybe they are right about TV?--I hope not.
Saturday, September 07, 2013
America Goes Part-time
One of my favorite topics is the decline in jobs in the US; my contention is that this is a secular trend that will continue (at least until a possible labor shortage in about 20 years), that this trend can and should be used to improve quality of life, and that politicians who pretend that more jobs are always needed are wrong, though no one ever criticizes them for that stance. (I will grant that the US economy needed the fabrication of employment in the depths of the Great Crater, but we are now mostly out of that depression).
Obamacare and the Rise in Part-time Jobs
So now I am reading that some employers are converting some jobs to part-time in order to avoid a requirement of the Affordable Care Act that those who have more than 50 full-time employees (which has been defined, for purposes of this law's enforcement, as 30 or more hours per week) must offer health insurance or pay penalties. This requirement's deadline has been postponed by the Obama administration because it does not want to be accused of reducing employment at this time (or any other time, probably); they are either stalling for time or looking for another approach.
I would like to suggest something. Although I see this trend (to cut employees' hours so to dodge the requirement to provide health insurance) as a temporary phenomenon--eventually employers will decide if they want to stay small or go big, and those that choose the latter will inevitably need to pass that threshold and offer health insurance to their employees--the current trend is the right one, occurring for the wrong reason. The problem is that all-or-nothing nature of the requirement; instead, all employers should derive a benefit from offering health insurance to their employees, and they should benefit whether the employers are full-time or part-time. A simple suggestion, and an unequivocal one, but of course the devil would be in the details. Something both Obamacare's supporters and its critics should be suggesting.
The fact that more employees are working less than full-time hours is not necessarily a problem, except to the extent that the reduction in hours causes deprivation, and for this problem of health insurance. Gaining more people access to group health insurance plans is the best answer to the current uninsured dilemma (short of Medicare/Medicaid providing health insurance for all, and I'm afraid this country does not, and will not, have the dedication to do that).
For more of my posts on this topic from past years (I know you want them!), please see here, here, and my original essay on the topic, reprinted here.
Your Job is B.S.--No, You!
I ran across a related web dialogue the other day; I saw it on a blog sponsored by The Economist, and it derived from a posting on a site called "Strike" * by a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics named David Graeber. Essentially what Graeber has provocatively charged is that most of the jobs that have been created in recent decades are service and administrative jobs that have no substance or creative/productive value. Further, that most of the people in those jobs know their jobs are "bullshit", as he puts it, and that the corrosive impact of that on society is significant.
Now, Graeber is sufficiently self-aware to realize that he, as a professor of anthropology, is not superior to others in having a job that is indispensable to society, but still he is willing to downgrade most everone else's value--he makes exceptions for teachers, fire-fighters, and the disappearing classes of servants, farmers, and manufacturing jobs. With the last one, though, I would dispute the essential nature: it is exactly the production of mass-produced objects of planned obsolescence (and I include guns, missiles, jet fighters among those) which are the most useless jobs, and the ones that I expect to be replaced rapidly by robotic means of production. It is instead the providers of services, human services, whose work will be needed, and valued, into the future.
"R.A.", in The Economist jobs market forum, examines Graeber's arguments and points out that those manufacturing jobs were unpleasant, and that was why they needed to be paid higher in the earlier industrial ages. I think Graeber is missing the real point, to which R.A. comes very close in the following:
*"Strike" magazine is an English publication--online and print, it seems--which describes itself as "anti-profit, radical" and lists its subjects in the top right of its home page as "Politics/Philosophy/Art/Subversion/Sedition". I'd never heard of it before now.
Obamacare and the Rise in Part-time Jobs
So now I am reading that some employers are converting some jobs to part-time in order to avoid a requirement of the Affordable Care Act that those who have more than 50 full-time employees (which has been defined, for purposes of this law's enforcement, as 30 or more hours per week) must offer health insurance or pay penalties. This requirement's deadline has been postponed by the Obama administration because it does not want to be accused of reducing employment at this time (or any other time, probably); they are either stalling for time or looking for another approach.
I would like to suggest something. Although I see this trend (to cut employees' hours so to dodge the requirement to provide health insurance) as a temporary phenomenon--eventually employers will decide if they want to stay small or go big, and those that choose the latter will inevitably need to pass that threshold and offer health insurance to their employees--the current trend is the right one, occurring for the wrong reason. The problem is that all-or-nothing nature of the requirement; instead, all employers should derive a benefit from offering health insurance to their employees, and they should benefit whether the employers are full-time or part-time. A simple suggestion, and an unequivocal one, but of course the devil would be in the details. Something both Obamacare's supporters and its critics should be suggesting.
The fact that more employees are working less than full-time hours is not necessarily a problem, except to the extent that the reduction in hours causes deprivation, and for this problem of health insurance. Gaining more people access to group health insurance plans is the best answer to the current uninsured dilemma (short of Medicare/Medicaid providing health insurance for all, and I'm afraid this country does not, and will not, have the dedication to do that).
For more of my posts on this topic from past years (I know you want them!), please see here, here, and my original essay on the topic, reprinted here.
Your Job is B.S.--No, You!
I ran across a related web dialogue the other day; I saw it on a blog sponsored by The Economist, and it derived from a posting on a site called "Strike" * by a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics named David Graeber. Essentially what Graeber has provocatively charged is that most of the jobs that have been created in recent decades are service and administrative jobs that have no substance or creative/productive value. Further, that most of the people in those jobs know their jobs are "bullshit", as he puts it, and that the corrosive impact of that on society is significant.
Now, Graeber is sufficiently self-aware to realize that he, as a professor of anthropology, is not superior to others in having a job that is indispensable to society, but still he is willing to downgrade most everone else's value--he makes exceptions for teachers, fire-fighters, and the disappearing classes of servants, farmers, and manufacturing jobs. With the last one, though, I would dispute the essential nature: it is exactly the production of mass-produced objects of planned obsolescence (and I include guns, missiles, jet fighters among those) which are the most useless jobs, and the ones that I expect to be replaced rapidly by robotic means of production. It is instead the providers of services, human services, whose work will be needed, and valued, into the future.
"R.A.", in The Economist jobs market forum, examines Graeber's arguments and points out that those manufacturing jobs were unpleasant, and that was why they needed to be paid higher in the earlier industrial ages. I think Graeber is missing the real point, to which R.A. comes very close in the following:
What R.A. has hit upon is that the current trends are to pay less for overworked labor and to use less of it, with the result that society is being separated into the overworked and the underemployed. We need to push toward an economic system in which less hours of work are required to meet the standard of living which should be available for most or all--everywhere. This is something within our power, but it is not something for which power is being applied to achieve.The issue is that too little of the recent gains from technological advance and economic growth have gone toward giving people the time and resources to enjoy their lives outside work. Early in the industrial era real wages soared and hours worked declined. In the past generation, by contrast, real wages have grown slowly and workweeks haven't grown shorter.
*"Strike" magazine is an English publication--online and print, it seems--which describes itself as "anti-profit, radical" and lists its subjects in the top right of its home page as "Politics/Philosophy/Art/Subversion/Sedition". I'd never heard of it before now.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Egypt Matters
That would seem to be the one thing that everyone agrees, that what happens in Egypt does matter--to them, and to the rest of us. Egypt is the most populous Arab state, and historically a pivotal one; its role in the recent political movement toward replacing dictatorships in the region, the Arab Spring, is pre-eminent. It is extremely important to Israel that the peace with Egypt established in the 1970's remain in place, and Egypt's role would be central in helping to guarantee any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace (now that negotiations have begun again).
The way I see it, there has been a triangle of power relationships since deposed dictator Mubarak's crisis in the Arab Spring two years ago. There is the military, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is People Power--the fractionalized, disorganized mass of civil society not working with the military or M.B.
Two of those groups were well-organized and prepared to act as the smoke cleared from the chaos surrounding Mubarak's fall: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. They found a way to cooperate, or at least tolerate working with each other, to conduct elections for a Constituent Assembly and for the Presidency. Mohammed Morsi was not a choice the military liked, but they accepted it. There are parties, political forces, among the third force--in fact, too many--but not much evidence of ability to act with a single purpose on a consistent basis, and that allowed Morsi to win the Presidency over a candidate who represented the military's interests.
Morsi, though, upset the power-sharing arrangement through overreach. The third force rose up, and the military switched over. The coup--and it was most assuredly a coup--was somewhat accepted by the masses, pending new arrangements.
The Muslim Brotherhood refused to accept the revised power alignment and insisted on Morsi's release (he has been arrested, pending charges) and reinstatement. After some weeks of mobilizing its members in massive demonstrations, the military made a decision, reminiscent of the Chinese in the days of Tienanmen Square, that the insubordinate behavior should not be allowed to continue.
In fairness, some of the demonstrators have been armed and violent, and some of the demonstrations threatened government installations, but the military's overreaction in the past few days has been spectacular. It seems that the military made a calculation: we have driven them underground before (for much of Mubarak's reign), we can do it again. In this, though, I think they have made a miscalculation--conditions have changed.
The views of the third force, as usual, lack clarity: I hear a call for new elections, but it is unclear the results would be much different (the Brotherhood may only have 30-40% support among Egyptian adults, but its unity can allow it to defeat a fractured opposition). Not many, if any, call for reinstating Morsi, and that would seem to be out of the question at this point for the military.
The military's statements now suggest that they would like to lower tensions. I think they will have to back away from threats to prosecute Morsi for allowing civil disorder. Making a martyr of him by imprisoning or executing him would be a disastrous move. I would see the most favorable outcome being some sort of promise that he would be released if the Brotherhood accepts the coup's outcome and agrees to some sort of new elections with a new power alignment. I don't know that they will accept that, though; this is a group that has a maximalist, long-term agenda, and they will find it difficult to back down.
Our Many Ineffectual Options
There was a lot of internal debate in the US policy-making community (inside and outside of the government) after the latest massacre of civilians by the military, which occurred when they decided to stop tolerating daily demonstrations for Morsi and occupation of a major Cairo mosque by the M.B. Over a hundred were killed, and many more injured.
The initial response from the Obama Administration was the classic "strongly worded message". The obvious leverage we had was the $billion-plus foreign aid we have given to Egypt every year since the Camp David accords. In fact, our law requires that the aid be cut off in the case of a military coup. The problem with that step (either suspending, or cancelling it) is that it might not make any difference in the military's behavior--it might make it worse--and then the leverage, such as it was, would be gone. That was the problem with the aid during the Mubarak reign, and it has surfaced again. Beyond that, our ally Israel (which feels a lot more comfortable with the military than it did with Morsi) would like us to keep the aid, and then there are the US arms manufacturers, who end up getting back a lot of the money in arms spending.
Finally, this week the US has announced it is suspending aid. I think this is the right move; it can be reinstated if there are positive political developments. I have to say I really don't care about any screams and moans from the US defense contractors. They've been profiting for too long from the indirect largesse of our taxpayers, and if jobs are at stake, then this is a very good example of the kind of non-productive employment which will be eliminated, and should be eliminated, over time (there are ever less countries willing to engage in the arms purchase game). Meanwhile, we should be looking at political aid to the third force, in the form of money to organize those forces . If there's one area of great progress that Obama's movement has produced, it is the demonstrated ability to translate money into political power.
And Then There's Syria
Wednesday morning, rocket attacks on suburbs under rebel control near Damascus killed hundreds of civilians. Many reported that victims appeared to have symptoms like those associated with sarin gas. Everyone has put together 2+2 and concluded that Syria's government forces have conducted a chemical weapons attack; there have been such allegations before, even proven cases of sarin gas being used, but this was on a larger scale, and the signs of authorship are not ambiguous. It seems like an arrogant and outrageous violation of international law.
Nevertheless, it is unclear what the response of the international community, and of the US, will end up to be. In the U.N., Russia has cooperated only to the point of agreeing that there should be an investigation of the incident. Syria has offered cooperation, then pulled back, then offered again--reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's gamesmanship on a similar topic back in the day: it's called stalling for time. Evidence of chemical weapons would tend to fade, and victims will be buried quickly, in accordance with Muslim requirements. I am certain the Syrian regime will have developed some sort of alternate interpretation of the incident which would seek to distract or diffuse blame away from themselves.
The tricks will be figuring out how to act in spite of these obstacles, and what exactly to do. NATO could be one means of rallying support, as I imagine countries like the U.K., France, and Turkey will be supportive of taking action. Again, though, what type of action would be effective? Personally, I would advocate the following sequence: 1) Establish a no-fly zone for military flights over Damascus; 2) Keep an eye on the Presidential palace and the other haunts of President Bashar al-Assad; and 3) Put a cruise missile through his office window when he's in there. Nothing else would be sufficient, and I think that would do the trick in ensuring no one else orders the use of such weapons in the civil war, which is certain to continue regardless of anything else that happens.
The way I see it, there has been a triangle of power relationships since deposed dictator Mubarak's crisis in the Arab Spring two years ago. There is the military, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is People Power--the fractionalized, disorganized mass of civil society not working with the military or M.B.
Two of those groups were well-organized and prepared to act as the smoke cleared from the chaos surrounding Mubarak's fall: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. They found a way to cooperate, or at least tolerate working with each other, to conduct elections for a Constituent Assembly and for the Presidency. Mohammed Morsi was not a choice the military liked, but they accepted it. There are parties, political forces, among the third force--in fact, too many--but not much evidence of ability to act with a single purpose on a consistent basis, and that allowed Morsi to win the Presidency over a candidate who represented the military's interests.
Morsi, though, upset the power-sharing arrangement through overreach. The third force rose up, and the military switched over. The coup--and it was most assuredly a coup--was somewhat accepted by the masses, pending new arrangements.
The Muslim Brotherhood refused to accept the revised power alignment and insisted on Morsi's release (he has been arrested, pending charges) and reinstatement. After some weeks of mobilizing its members in massive demonstrations, the military made a decision, reminiscent of the Chinese in the days of Tienanmen Square, that the insubordinate behavior should not be allowed to continue.
In fairness, some of the demonstrators have been armed and violent, and some of the demonstrations threatened government installations, but the military's overreaction in the past few days has been spectacular. It seems that the military made a calculation: we have driven them underground before (for much of Mubarak's reign), we can do it again. In this, though, I think they have made a miscalculation--conditions have changed.
The views of the third force, as usual, lack clarity: I hear a call for new elections, but it is unclear the results would be much different (the Brotherhood may only have 30-40% support among Egyptian adults, but its unity can allow it to defeat a fractured opposition). Not many, if any, call for reinstating Morsi, and that would seem to be out of the question at this point for the military.
The military's statements now suggest that they would like to lower tensions. I think they will have to back away from threats to prosecute Morsi for allowing civil disorder. Making a martyr of him by imprisoning or executing him would be a disastrous move. I would see the most favorable outcome being some sort of promise that he would be released if the Brotherhood accepts the coup's outcome and agrees to some sort of new elections with a new power alignment. I don't know that they will accept that, though; this is a group that has a maximalist, long-term agenda, and they will find it difficult to back down.
Our Many Ineffectual Options
There was a lot of internal debate in the US policy-making community (inside and outside of the government) after the latest massacre of civilians by the military, which occurred when they decided to stop tolerating daily demonstrations for Morsi and occupation of a major Cairo mosque by the M.B. Over a hundred were killed, and many more injured.
The initial response from the Obama Administration was the classic "strongly worded message". The obvious leverage we had was the $billion-plus foreign aid we have given to Egypt every year since the Camp David accords. In fact, our law requires that the aid be cut off in the case of a military coup. The problem with that step (either suspending, or cancelling it) is that it might not make any difference in the military's behavior--it might make it worse--and then the leverage, such as it was, would be gone. That was the problem with the aid during the Mubarak reign, and it has surfaced again. Beyond that, our ally Israel (which feels a lot more comfortable with the military than it did with Morsi) would like us to keep the aid, and then there are the US arms manufacturers, who end up getting back a lot of the money in arms spending.
Finally, this week the US has announced it is suspending aid. I think this is the right move; it can be reinstated if there are positive political developments. I have to say I really don't care about any screams and moans from the US defense contractors. They've been profiting for too long from the indirect largesse of our taxpayers, and if jobs are at stake, then this is a very good example of the kind of non-productive employment which will be eliminated, and should be eliminated, over time (there are ever less countries willing to engage in the arms purchase game). Meanwhile, we should be looking at political aid to the third force, in the form of money to organize those forces . If there's one area of great progress that Obama's movement has produced, it is the demonstrated ability to translate money into political power.
And Then There's Syria
Wednesday morning, rocket attacks on suburbs under rebel control near Damascus killed hundreds of civilians. Many reported that victims appeared to have symptoms like those associated with sarin gas. Everyone has put together 2+2 and concluded that Syria's government forces have conducted a chemical weapons attack; there have been such allegations before, even proven cases of sarin gas being used, but this was on a larger scale, and the signs of authorship are not ambiguous. It seems like an arrogant and outrageous violation of international law.
Nevertheless, it is unclear what the response of the international community, and of the US, will end up to be. In the U.N., Russia has cooperated only to the point of agreeing that there should be an investigation of the incident. Syria has offered cooperation, then pulled back, then offered again--reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's gamesmanship on a similar topic back in the day: it's called stalling for time. Evidence of chemical weapons would tend to fade, and victims will be buried quickly, in accordance with Muslim requirements. I am certain the Syrian regime will have developed some sort of alternate interpretation of the incident which would seek to distract or diffuse blame away from themselves.
The tricks will be figuring out how to act in spite of these obstacles, and what exactly to do. NATO could be one means of rallying support, as I imagine countries like the U.K., France, and Turkey will be supportive of taking action. Again, though, what type of action would be effective? Personally, I would advocate the following sequence: 1) Establish a no-fly zone for military flights over Damascus; 2) Keep an eye on the Presidential palace and the other haunts of President Bashar al-Assad; and 3) Put a cruise missile through his office window when he's in there. Nothing else would be sufficient, and I think that would do the trick in ensuring no one else orders the use of such weapons in the civil war, which is certain to continue regardless of anything else that happens.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Rand Paul Ryan Rick Perry Chris Christie, etc.
Has anyone noticed how there's only one real last name among the whole series above, and it's one of their first names? Of course, it's in honor of Ayn Rand, I presume.
This appears to be the field for 2016 for the Republicans. At least they are the ones who seem already to be running for the nomination, and it looks as though, once again, it will be a proper bloodbath.
The one 2016 Republican candidate of significance not included above is Marco Rubio (I'm not including Ted Cruz, if you don't mind--he could not possibly be a serious candidate, even if he is a first-term Senator). Rubio is the exception to the crew, I guess. He could be successful, both with the party and nationally, but I hasten to add the word "eventually"--I can not believe the Republicans would break with pattern so much, so quickly, as to nominate such a young Hispanic (OK, Cuban, not the same as a Mexican, but still....). He will need to wait a few years so this sacrilege of suggesting amnesty for illegal Mexicans can be forgotten.
Then there is Jeb Bush. If he were to run, I would consider him a serious threat, for the nomination and then in a general election, because unlike most of those mentioned above in the title, he has the political talent required. The key would be the ability to forget and forgive him for the family name; personally I think it is very strong among many of us Americans (big brother Dubya's reputation already seems to have improved among the populace). Jeb is reluctant to run until his last name no longer produces guffaws--I think he is wise to feel that way.
I guess Rick Santorum might run, under the mistaken belief that, because he finished second last time, it will be his turn in 2016. He is an extraordinarily weak candidate.
It is way early, but I offer a prediction: Chris Christie as the nominee, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico as the VP candidate. I think Christie will start out with some baggage (not physical, but political) because of his relatively moderate positions on social issues and relatively tolerant view of President Obama, but when he shows his hard-hitting side, he will not be confused for anything but a partisan, while anything resembling a foreign policy question for any of the others would yield Sarah Palin-type ignorance. I think Martinez will be the choice to provide a soggy bone to Hispanics and women; she is a team player and could fit with anyone not too obviously a Tea Party extremist. She's basically a Texan, too, and a superior choice for running mate over Cruz.
With regard to the Democrats, I have nothing novel to say: I do believe it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, and I presume she will, circumstances permitting. I think she would choose a loyalist running mate who's a solid policy wonk, someone like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. She wouldn't want anyone too charismatic on his own (and she probably would want a male running mate).
Virginia is to 2016 as the Spanish Civil War was to WWII
There are two significant statewide races this off-year. One is the expected easy win for Chris Christie over Barbara Buono for governor of New Jersey (and an expected easy win for Cory Booker to win Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat there); the other will be the governor's race in Virginia.
The Republicans have a right-winger, Attorney General Cuccinelli, he who originated the concept of the transvaginal sonic probe for pregnant women seeking an abortion. He should be easy meat, but this is an off, off-year, and turnout may be abysmal. The Democratic candidate is Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign manager. He is acceptably middle-of-the-road for Virginia and should have a decent chance to win; polls show the race to be very close.
There are two notable facts about the Virginia race. One is the huge money being raised on both sides; partially this is because the big money has nowhere else to go this year, and there is a lot of effort both behind the fundraising, and which will be needed to move a politics-weary public. This may be especially true in northern Virginia, a key political battleground in 2012, and home to many families of public servants getting beaten up in various ways this fall by the partisan games. McAuliffe should come out hard against Tea-bagging, sequestering government by repeal and default, and I believe his campaign will indeed be highly negative. As for Cuccinelli, he is the mouthpiece for right-wing Republicans to try out their latest anti-Hillary taunts; that's the other key fact. If the Republicans find that Cuccinelli's tactics work, they will apply them more broadly, and continuously, for the next three years.
This is not to ignore the fact that 2014 will be an expensive Boer War itself. A subject for later posts, but I'm just not that keen on the whole thing right now.
This appears to be the field for 2016 for the Republicans. At least they are the ones who seem already to be running for the nomination, and it looks as though, once again, it will be a proper bloodbath.
The one 2016 Republican candidate of significance not included above is Marco Rubio (I'm not including Ted Cruz, if you don't mind--he could not possibly be a serious candidate, even if he is a first-term Senator). Rubio is the exception to the crew, I guess. He could be successful, both with the party and nationally, but I hasten to add the word "eventually"--I can not believe the Republicans would break with pattern so much, so quickly, as to nominate such a young Hispanic (OK, Cuban, not the same as a Mexican, but still....). He will need to wait a few years so this sacrilege of suggesting amnesty for illegal Mexicans can be forgotten.
Then there is Jeb Bush. If he were to run, I would consider him a serious threat, for the nomination and then in a general election, because unlike most of those mentioned above in the title, he has the political talent required. The key would be the ability to forget and forgive him for the family name; personally I think it is very strong among many of us Americans (big brother Dubya's reputation already seems to have improved among the populace). Jeb is reluctant to run until his last name no longer produces guffaws--I think he is wise to feel that way.
I guess Rick Santorum might run, under the mistaken belief that, because he finished second last time, it will be his turn in 2016. He is an extraordinarily weak candidate.
It is way early, but I offer a prediction: Chris Christie as the nominee, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico as the VP candidate. I think Christie will start out with some baggage (not physical, but political) because of his relatively moderate positions on social issues and relatively tolerant view of President Obama, but when he shows his hard-hitting side, he will not be confused for anything but a partisan, while anything resembling a foreign policy question for any of the others would yield Sarah Palin-type ignorance. I think Martinez will be the choice to provide a soggy bone to Hispanics and women; she is a team player and could fit with anyone not too obviously a Tea Party extremist. She's basically a Texan, too, and a superior choice for running mate over Cruz.
With regard to the Democrats, I have nothing novel to say: I do believe it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, and I presume she will, circumstances permitting. I think she would choose a loyalist running mate who's a solid policy wonk, someone like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. She wouldn't want anyone too charismatic on his own (and she probably would want a male running mate).
Virginia is to 2016 as the Spanish Civil War was to WWII
There are two significant statewide races this off-year. One is the expected easy win for Chris Christie over Barbara Buono for governor of New Jersey (and an expected easy win for Cory Booker to win Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat there); the other will be the governor's race in Virginia.
The Republicans have a right-winger, Attorney General Cuccinelli, he who originated the concept of the transvaginal sonic probe for pregnant women seeking an abortion. He should be easy meat, but this is an off, off-year, and turnout may be abysmal. The Democratic candidate is Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign manager. He is acceptably middle-of-the-road for Virginia and should have a decent chance to win; polls show the race to be very close.
There are two notable facts about the Virginia race. One is the huge money being raised on both sides; partially this is because the big money has nowhere else to go this year, and there is a lot of effort both behind the fundraising, and which will be needed to move a politics-weary public. This may be especially true in northern Virginia, a key political battleground in 2012, and home to many families of public servants getting beaten up in various ways this fall by the partisan games. McAuliffe should come out hard against Tea-bagging, sequestering government by repeal and default, and I believe his campaign will indeed be highly negative. As for Cuccinelli, he is the mouthpiece for right-wing Republicans to try out their latest anti-Hillary taunts; that's the other key fact. If the Republicans find that Cuccinelli's tactics work, they will apply them more broadly, and continuously, for the next three years.
This is not to ignore the fact that 2014 will be an expensive Boer War itself. A subject for later posts, but I'm just not that keen on the whole thing right now.
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Steely Dan Setlist, August 2
Saw S.D. at Ravinia Music Festival, Highland Park, Illinois, on Friday. It was the third time I'd seen the Dan--once in Albuquerque about five years ago, once at Saratoga--about 1995, I'd say. This time, they weren't promoting a new album, so it was almost all just the old favorites, which was appropriate given the crowd was almost all just old fans. They called this the "Mood Swings Tour"; there was, as always, a lot of jazz influence, new arrangements--some dramatically different, and they had a blues band to open for them.
Their band was excellent, as one would expect ('that standard of mine', as Fagen said, in "Deacon Blues"--possibly referring to something else?) Four horns, one a local trombonist of some note, three backup singers, lead guitar, bass and drums. Becker played mostly rhythm guitar and a few lead parts (not the harder ones, I'd say), Fagen various keyboards, including the melodica. The real revelation was the lead guitarist, who I found out is named Jon Herington. They credited him with the new arrangements, and his performance of the lead guitar parts (some of the classics performed note for note, some new stuff, all brilliantly fluid) was what amazed me the most about the performance. Becker seemed to be taking it very lightly, while Fagen was...well, a hipster. Which is what he is, always has been--it's good there's now a word for it.
For my money, they played a little too much from "Aja", their most popular album. A couple more songs--in particular, I would've liked to hear "West of Hollywood"--from their albums from the 2000's would've been just fine with me. Here's the list: the numbers after the titles are from the rankings of my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, which I posted in April, 2011, to celebrate "the Royal Scam" of the wedding of British royals William and Kate (oh yeah, congratulations on the baby--"George" probably not the best choice of names from the American point of view, but, what the heck, it's your choice).
Blueport - Gerry Mulligan cover -- (the band, without Becker and Fagen, called the "Bipolar Allstars")
Your gold teeth (#10)
Aja (#1)
Hey nineteen
Show biz kids (very different arrangement) (#9)
Green Earrings
Black Cow
Time Out of Mind (somehow didn't make my list)
Godwhacker (in case it's unfamiliar, from "Everything Must Go", their most recent album)
Monkey in Your Soul (Becker singer)
Bodhisattva (#3)
Razor Boy (sung by the backup singers, called "The Borderline Brats")
Deacon Blues
Intro the band song
Josie
Peg
My Old School (#14)
Reelin in the Years (#17)
Encore: Kid Charlemagne (#4)
setlist.fm provided the name for the opening song, thanks. I checked some of the other setlists from the tour there; 12 or so of the 17 have been the same for every concert, but they've cycled in "Babylon Sisters", "King of the World", "I Got the News", and "Black Friday" for "Deacon Blues", "Black Cow", and "Green Earrings". It's all good.
Their band was excellent, as one would expect ('that standard of mine', as Fagen said, in "Deacon Blues"--possibly referring to something else?) Four horns, one a local trombonist of some note, three backup singers, lead guitar, bass and drums. Becker played mostly rhythm guitar and a few lead parts (not the harder ones, I'd say), Fagen various keyboards, including the melodica. The real revelation was the lead guitarist, who I found out is named Jon Herington. They credited him with the new arrangements, and his performance of the lead guitar parts (some of the classics performed note for note, some new stuff, all brilliantly fluid) was what amazed me the most about the performance. Becker seemed to be taking it very lightly, while Fagen was...well, a hipster. Which is what he is, always has been--it's good there's now a word for it.
For my money, they played a little too much from "Aja", their most popular album. A couple more songs--in particular, I would've liked to hear "West of Hollywood"--from their albums from the 2000's would've been just fine with me. Here's the list: the numbers after the titles are from the rankings of my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, which I posted in April, 2011, to celebrate "the Royal Scam" of the wedding of British royals William and Kate (oh yeah, congratulations on the baby--"George" probably not the best choice of names from the American point of view, but, what the heck, it's your choice).
Blueport - Gerry Mulligan cover -- (the band, without Becker and Fagen, called the "Bipolar Allstars")
Your gold teeth (#10)
Aja (#1)
Hey nineteen
Show biz kids (very different arrangement) (#9)
Green Earrings
Black Cow
Time Out of Mind (somehow didn't make my list)
Godwhacker (in case it's unfamiliar, from "Everything Must Go", their most recent album)
Monkey in Your Soul (Becker singer)
Bodhisattva (#3)
Razor Boy (sung by the backup singers, called "The Borderline Brats")
Deacon Blues
Intro the band song
Josie
Peg
My Old School (#14)
Reelin in the Years (#17)
Encore: Kid Charlemagne (#4)
setlist.fm provided the name for the opening song, thanks. I checked some of the other setlists from the tour there; 12 or so of the 17 have been the same for every concert, but they've cycled in "Babylon Sisters", "King of the World", "I Got the News", and "Black Friday" for "Deacon Blues", "Black Cow", and "Green Earrings". It's all good.
Baseball Tightens Up
Arc of ARod: Straight Down
Tomorrow, the news reports promise, will be the long-awaited announcement of suspensions for baseball players implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. Thirteen players, including three whose names have not yet been circulated, are expected to receive suspensions. Several of them are minor leaguers. One, maybe two, maybe more, will decide to appeal their suspensions--which will allow them to continue playing until the appeals are decided--while the others will accept what is expected to be 50-game suspensions, the current standard for first-time offenses. With one exception....
The advantage of accepting the suspension now is that the majors' regular season has almost exactly 50 games left, so if their teams are not in the running, it's a good time to take a hike. That was the thinking of the 14th man, Ryan Braun, when he accepted a sixty-some-odd game suspension for getting caught the first time, but with some aggravating circumstances, one would assume. (There was no disclosure of the evidence.) Braun bailed on a bad season, personally and for his team, and avoided the harsher penalty which is believed to be coming down on The Big Name. Two other major leaguers of note who may be suspended are Jhonny Peralta (spelling correct) of the Tigers, whose imminent loss led their pennant-contending team to trade with their hated rivals in Boston and Chicago to get a shortstop; and Nelson Cruz of Texas (a division and wild-card contender), who the rumors made his team, the Texas Rangers, desperate to find a hitter--so desperate, perhaps, that the price went beyond what they would pay.
Some of those accused, who have had regular testing and never failed, may be tempted to challenge the word of the Biogenesis snitch, who is the main source of the evidence against the players. (One asks: if this guy is so knowledgeable and trustworthy, is he telling Major League Baseball the chemical composition of their secret sauce and how to detect it?)
Alex Rodriguez is the big fish that MLB is trying to bring in. There were ominous threats of a lifetime suspension for him, and there is still some possibility that MLB could announce his suspension for other than mere drug abuse, for conduct damaging to the game, which would prevent him from going on the field. He could, and surely would, appeal that, too. He has admitted previous steroid use, and the Biogenesis snitch has reportedly deposed himself to the effect that he personally administered performance-enhancing drugs (PED's) to ARod. By that measure, it could qualify has a second offense (100 games, I think), plus he is accused of recruiting others (some of those lesser names may have fingered him), and generally of not cooperating with MLB's drug investigations.
Coincidentally, or not, Rodriguez is scheduled to come off an injury to his hip that has sidelined him from the beginning of the season. Monday, his Yankees come to Chicago to play the White Sox. On the one hand, the team could use him: After a strong start despite numerous injuries, they have faded and are, at best, a longshot to make the playoffs now. Derek Jeter came back at short after a similarly long injury and immediately got hurt again. Similar stories for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, though Granderson is now back in action. It would be a great turnaround for ARod if he were able to come back, play well, and help rally the Yanks, but that would be hoping for a lot. There are too many problems, and his presence potentially only creates more.
I would expect the White Sox fans to be hostile to Rodriguez, all the way up to throwing things on the field at him. On the other hand, the White Sox come home after a disastrous road trip in which they lost their last seven games. Even weakened, the Yanks are more likely than not to win tomorrow, ARod or no.
Supposedly, ARod, while maintaining his innocence or whatever, was also indicating through his people that he would accept a deal if it were not too severe. The story now is that he will be suspended through the end of the 2014 season, a total of 214 regular-season games, and if he does not accept the suspension, it will be imposed in full once his appeals are denied. Rodriguez is 37 years old, with five years and a lot of money still guaranteed on his contract (though he would not be paid during his suspension), so there is a lot at stake for him and for the Yankees. Voiding his contract would be too favorable to the Yankees, who protest their innocence but were probably not too averse to ARod's making "special efforts" to try to recover sooner from his injuries, in this year and past years. His 647 homers make him fifth all-time, behind Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Willie Mays. At one time he seemed a cinch to pass all of them; now, I'd bet, it's only Mays that he will catch, and the Hall of Fame--also at one time a certainty--seems now an impossibility.
I think the tide has gone out on the question of whether PED's can or will be tolerated in baseball, by the leagues, the teams, the players. The next step will be at the next players' contract negotiation, or even sooner, to make all guaranteed contracts forfeitable for second offenses on them (probably not first offenses, as there is too much chance for a false positive or accidental or incidental offense). There will be more chapters in the saga of human sports drama and the attempt to achieve superhuman results, but, baseball hopes, it will come with other sports from now on.
After listening to the old farts in the health club talk about how they can't stand baseball anymore, I just have one question: what about football? Don't tell me that the sport is clean--the evidence is apparent, and to the contrary. It just doesn't have the clean reputation that baseball seems to have lost, but for some reason people hold it to a different standard.
Tomorrow, the news reports promise, will be the long-awaited announcement of suspensions for baseball players implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. Thirteen players, including three whose names have not yet been circulated, are expected to receive suspensions. Several of them are minor leaguers. One, maybe two, maybe more, will decide to appeal their suspensions--which will allow them to continue playing until the appeals are decided--while the others will accept what is expected to be 50-game suspensions, the current standard for first-time offenses. With one exception....
The advantage of accepting the suspension now is that the majors' regular season has almost exactly 50 games left, so if their teams are not in the running, it's a good time to take a hike. That was the thinking of the 14th man, Ryan Braun, when he accepted a sixty-some-odd game suspension for getting caught the first time, but with some aggravating circumstances, one would assume. (There was no disclosure of the evidence.) Braun bailed on a bad season, personally and for his team, and avoided the harsher penalty which is believed to be coming down on The Big Name. Two other major leaguers of note who may be suspended are Jhonny Peralta (spelling correct) of the Tigers, whose imminent loss led their pennant-contending team to trade with their hated rivals in Boston and Chicago to get a shortstop; and Nelson Cruz of Texas (a division and wild-card contender), who the rumors made his team, the Texas Rangers, desperate to find a hitter--so desperate, perhaps, that the price went beyond what they would pay.
Some of those accused, who have had regular testing and never failed, may be tempted to challenge the word of the Biogenesis snitch, who is the main source of the evidence against the players. (One asks: if this guy is so knowledgeable and trustworthy, is he telling Major League Baseball the chemical composition of their secret sauce and how to detect it?)
Alex Rodriguez is the big fish that MLB is trying to bring in. There were ominous threats of a lifetime suspension for him, and there is still some possibility that MLB could announce his suspension for other than mere drug abuse, for conduct damaging to the game, which would prevent him from going on the field. He could, and surely would, appeal that, too. He has admitted previous steroid use, and the Biogenesis snitch has reportedly deposed himself to the effect that he personally administered performance-enhancing drugs (PED's) to ARod. By that measure, it could qualify has a second offense (100 games, I think), plus he is accused of recruiting others (some of those lesser names may have fingered him), and generally of not cooperating with MLB's drug investigations.
Coincidentally, or not, Rodriguez is scheduled to come off an injury to his hip that has sidelined him from the beginning of the season. Monday, his Yankees come to Chicago to play the White Sox. On the one hand, the team could use him: After a strong start despite numerous injuries, they have faded and are, at best, a longshot to make the playoffs now. Derek Jeter came back at short after a similarly long injury and immediately got hurt again. Similar stories for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, though Granderson is now back in action. It would be a great turnaround for ARod if he were able to come back, play well, and help rally the Yanks, but that would be hoping for a lot. There are too many problems, and his presence potentially only creates more.
I would expect the White Sox fans to be hostile to Rodriguez, all the way up to throwing things on the field at him. On the other hand, the White Sox come home after a disastrous road trip in which they lost their last seven games. Even weakened, the Yanks are more likely than not to win tomorrow, ARod or no.
Supposedly, ARod, while maintaining his innocence or whatever, was also indicating through his people that he would accept a deal if it were not too severe. The story now is that he will be suspended through the end of the 2014 season, a total of 214 regular-season games, and if he does not accept the suspension, it will be imposed in full once his appeals are denied. Rodriguez is 37 years old, with five years and a lot of money still guaranteed on his contract (though he would not be paid during his suspension), so there is a lot at stake for him and for the Yankees. Voiding his contract would be too favorable to the Yankees, who protest their innocence but were probably not too averse to ARod's making "special efforts" to try to recover sooner from his injuries, in this year and past years. His 647 homers make him fifth all-time, behind Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Willie Mays. At one time he seemed a cinch to pass all of them; now, I'd bet, it's only Mays that he will catch, and the Hall of Fame--also at one time a certainty--seems now an impossibility.
I think the tide has gone out on the question of whether PED's can or will be tolerated in baseball, by the leagues, the teams, the players. The next step will be at the next players' contract negotiation, or even sooner, to make all guaranteed contracts forfeitable for second offenses on them (probably not first offenses, as there is too much chance for a false positive or accidental or incidental offense). There will be more chapters in the saga of human sports drama and the attempt to achieve superhuman results, but, baseball hopes, it will come with other sports from now on.
After listening to the old farts in the health club talk about how they can't stand baseball anymore, I just have one question: what about football? Don't tell me that the sport is clean--the evidence is apparent, and to the contrary. It just doesn't have the clean reputation that baseball seems to have lost, but for some reason people hold it to a different standard.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Nothing Done; Nothing Doing
I'm reluctant to post such a downer, but it needs to be said: the domestic agenda is a shambles, and there is only the prospect of it getting worse.
There were a couple of uncharacteristic moments of bipartisan agreement in the Senate this week, on student loan governance and on some pending political nominees, but they don't amount to all that much. With regard to student loans, it was an easy political agreement to keep interest rates low--the program makes money for the government now, and allowing rates to double now, while market rates are so low, would have been ruinously, broadly unpopular. The real problem may come in a couple of years when rates rise, as the loan program's rates will now be tied to the marketplace, and there may be tough days ahead for students and their families.
As for the nominees, Republicans were in a losing position and made an agreement along the lines that I recently predicted (see the section titled "Nuke 'em. Harry?!" They didn't give in on judicial nominations--a numerically more sizable issue--and Democrats backed off their threats to throw the filibuster rules overboard (at least some of them did so). It just means that Republicans in the Senate will continue to be able to frustrate Obama Administration initiatives with a minority.
As for the Republican House, they seem to have firmed up their principles of obstruction; it as though they are determined to prove the Federal government's inefficacy by sabotaging it. John Boehner, on Face the Nation this morning, made it pretty clear that the Senate's immigration bill will not reach the House floor in a recognizable shape. We can also look forward to more House obstruction on the budget (after all the wailing about how the Administration has produced no budgets, the Republicans from both houses of Congress seem intent to block one being produced), madness on the debt ceiling coming up this fall (the House is talking about non-starters to prevent full funding of the Administration's prime legislative accomplishment, the healthcare insurance reform referred to as "Obamacare")--what really burns them is that the "crisis" of deficits seems to be curing itself much faster than expected--and don't even talk about doing something to rein in the insanity of our gun laws.
\
On immigration, I found that we are almost exactly in the same position as in my 2006 post on the subject, the last time there was a serious attempt made at comprehensive reform (with the support of President Bush): a Senate bill that is barely adequate (basically a humiliating slap at the undocumented, and a boondoggle of wasteful spending on the border), and a House that won't consider anything that would allow the undocumented to become legal, under any circumstances. A majority of the Republicans in the House are in districts where their greatest threat is from their own party, if they allowed the immigrants to stay, while the additional voters who would gain citizenship are not going to be forthcoming to their party anyway. The main question is whether the Republican House can muster a majority within its caucus to support an expansion of the H-1B visas (which go to highly-skilled foreigners, under the condition that the jobs they take can't be filled domestically), something that business supports but doesn't sit well with the anti-immigrant nativists, and whether the Senate and the President will agree to such a limited reform when it becomes clear that is the best that can be achieved. My advice would be to accept it if, and only if, they drop all that nonsense about adding $X billion more for unnecessary border agents and more wall-building.
It's clear that President Obama will be forced to make the 2014 midterm elections into a referendum on the do-nothing Congress. It will be a wasteful, hugely expensive and counter-productive exercise; there are too many Republicans in safe House districts, and, to make it worse, plenty of danger that they could even take over control of the Senate (early prediction is that it will be within 1-2 votes either way, and independent Angus King will fulfill my prediction, two years later, to become the most important Senate vote).* Then, after the depressing, low-turnout debacle, the new Congress will feel vindicated in their inert ways and President Obama will have to find other ways to complete his Presidential legacy than domestic legislative achievement.
There are such agenda items, and Obama had one of his finest moments this week when he spoke from the heart about racial profiling and the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. It wasn't part of either his campaign agenda or mine, but one of his greatest accomplishments could be advancing the national conversation on race, with a renewed push for changes that can make this multi-racial society more just. Another possibility arose, somewhat unexpectedly, when Secretary of State Kerry announced that there was agreement from Israel and the Palestinians to resume final status negotiations. After 2014, Obama could begin to get some perverse enjoyment from vetoing bills passed by a Congress with both houses controlled by Republicans.
Finally, to end the post on a most optimistic note: my fondest hope is that one of the hardcore three Supreme Court justices--Alito, Thomas, or Scalia--kicks the bucket before the 2014 elections, and we have the knock-down drag-out battle over replacing him with a more moderate or liberal justice, potentially upsetting the right-wing slant of the Roberts Court. It may be a low probability event, but the thought of it lightens my heart.
* I still think it is too early to give more than nominal contributions to the various candidates and party organizations for the 2014 elections: it only encourages them, and their opponents, to ask for more.
No Second Chance at a Preseason Prediction
Baseball's All-Star break (for the record, my view is that a little break is good from the grind, though four days long is one too many, and it should be earlier in the season by about three weeks) prompts a whole round of self-second-guessing: Sports Illustrated's "Baseball 2013 (Re) Preview" being just the most egregious.
I can see the point of a mid-year review of the differences of how things have played out so far vs. what the preseason expectations were, but allowing the so-called prognosticators to revise their predictions (which SI and my current local paper, the Chicago Tribune, did) is weak and unfair to those of us who are willing to be judged on their preseason forecasts (mine were recorded here on 4/19 in a comment following on to a pre-season post, so a little after the season started, and I'll get to those in a moment). There is a world of difference between trying to predict before the season has started, or at least established any patterns, and doing so 60% of the way through the regular season. This is a time for self-praise, or mea culpas, not revisionism.
I will, however, stipulate the "right" of self-proclaimed pundits (like me) to put down new predictions for the postseason in that narrow window between the end of the regular season and the beginning of the wild card playoffs: There is often a knife-edge of difference between teams in the homestretch getting in or not, full-fledged playoff entries or one-game play-ins, and home-field advantage (whatever that's worth), and it's hard enough trying to anticipate those short-series outcomes when the matchups are clearly in view.
So. Of the six ML divisions, I have the All-Star break leaders in just two (Atlanta and Detroit), but I like my chances in three more (Dodgers, Cincinnati, and Tampa Bay); only the pick of the Angels seems improbable or impossible. The Reds are in third but seem likely to make the playoffs, at least, and a lot of the experts look at the dynamics and the schedules and conclude they still have a real good shot at first. My picks for the WC's are less prescient: the picks of the Giants and Nats both look unlikely at this point--I will give myself some credit for not picking these popular favorites for division titles, but didn't fully (dis)credit them for the weaknesses that have been exposed. As for the AL, I picked the A's and Rangers for the spots, which wasn't too bad: one will win the division and the other is likely to get a Wild Card spot.
The teams that seem--by popular revisionist thought and their current position in the standings-- to be playoff-bound that I didn't identify are (first, two that few if any spotted) the Red Sox (not certain, but likely) the Pirates (I'm still skeptical), and the Cardinals, a decision which is less forgivable. I saw a pattern of early injuries with St. Louis and the Yankees and discounted their chances. The Yanks started strong but have been fading as their overpriced, overrated stars (and also Curtis Granderson) have failed to return successfully, but the Cards overcame their issues early and their depth has allowed them to bring forward a host of new rising stars (Matt Carpenter, Matt Adams, Trevor Rosenthal, Edward Mujica) who have filled the gaps nicely. They have the best record in the majors and are clearly a threat to go all the way, in spite of my hostile, jealous, emotion-driven forecasting blind spot.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Bringing It All Back Home
I return from visiting Europe and find the Homeland close to the breaking point, socially.
Trayvon v. Zimmerman: My Side of the Story
I don't feel the case everyone has been watching is really all that compelling, or important--at best, it's significant, as representative of a common problem--but everyone in the news business does seem to have been watching it, like all the time. It's basically a case of "his word against mine" except that he's dead, and the other didn't testify.
So, here's my take. The wannabe policeman neighborhood warrior, on his self-appointed, self-armed rounds, sees a suspicious case of someone Walking While Black--in his neighborhood, no less! He follows, approaches said young black man, asks, "Let me see some ID", and Mr. Martin instead shows him his fist in Mr. Zimmerman's face, following up with a grapple. Fight ensues, the person of self-appointed authority not feeling so authoritative, reaches for his gun. End of story.
The case came down to two things: comparative sophistication of jury selection methods (the better-funded side usually wins, which means a well-funded defense, as with the O.J. Simpson case), and the question of whether Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows someone to use deadly force when threatened, was applicable in this case and, upon a possible appeal, constitutionally sound.
What's to learn from this highly unfortunate episode? Clearly, "Stand Your Ground" is bad public law--if carried to its extreme, in an insecure world, everyone would be packing and shooting others the first time they felt threatened. The verdict doesn't really establish the viability of the law properly--it was more like the jury felt there was sufficient reason to credit a claim of self-defense--so I think it is appropriate for a civil case--one that I think the Martin family might well win--to test that defense. I don't think there will be a case for a Federal hate crime case and don't think that will happen.
We all know that young black men (or large young black boys) are objects of suspicion in white culture, and to some extent among law enforcement types, as well. Zimmerman is somewhat in that milieu and seemed to feel empowered to approach and demand obedience to a stranger who wasn't doing anything too unusual. I have seen the kind of hostile response I described above to this kind of self-righteous demand for credentials from unofficial self-empowered types (and not just from black folks).
We know that there is a presumption of innocence in our courts. I'd like to suggest that there be such a presumption in civil society, particularly when there is no knowledge of any crime having been committed. On the other foot, I have to suggest a couple of other things: don't dress like a thug, or you'll be seen as one; don't dress like a prostitute, or expect to be propositioned by johns; don't dress like a hippie, or expect to be searched for drugs. Don't dress like a swell, or expect thieves to think you've got money.
Nuke 'em, Harry!?
Echoing the hypothetical advisers to former President Truman, various partisan groups have been advising Senator Reid to select "the nuclear option" to break the filibustered nominations of several Obama appointees subject to Senate confirmation. The parliamentary stratagem would propose the rules be changed to allow those nominations' debate to be closed by a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote supermajority. The presumed majority supporting the motion (more than 50, less than 60 votes) would then be upheld by the presiding officer of the Senate (presumably Vice President Biden).
Majority Leader Reid is threatening the maneuver to force the Republicans to allow a vote on the nominees, which no one disputes would actually be approved if they were allowed to come to a vote. With one or two exceptions among these, the Republicans' objections are not to the nominees themselves but to the agencies they would head up, so their filibuster has an illegitimate aspect, the obstruction of the executive branch and its administration of law. Nevertheless, Minority Leader McConnell is threatening all sorts of dire consequences if the Democrats and Reid choose to pick the fight over Senate rules.
In particular, there is a real danger that the Republicans could gain control of the Senate, as soon as the next Congress, and turn this precedent against the Democrats' (minority) interest. I would point out that this debate has been going on, and commented on in this blog, for several years under control of both parties. It's become a perennial problem.
The probable outcome is that the Republicans would agree to let some of those nominees be voted upon immediately, and others within a limited period of time. The Democrats will be tempted to take that offer and avoid the constitutional crisis. Though I think the Republicans will be permanently marginalized as a potential majority party within ten years at the rate they are going, I would suggest a little bit of patience with the Senators, who are at least attempting to keep their body from degenerating to the level of the infamous House of Representatives.
Trayvon v. Zimmerman: My Side of the Story
I don't feel the case everyone has been watching is really all that compelling, or important--at best, it's significant, as representative of a common problem--but everyone in the news business does seem to have been watching it, like all the time. It's basically a case of "his word against mine" except that he's dead, and the other didn't testify.
So, here's my take. The wannabe policeman neighborhood warrior, on his self-appointed, self-armed rounds, sees a suspicious case of someone Walking While Black--in his neighborhood, no less! He follows, approaches said young black man, asks, "Let me see some ID", and Mr. Martin instead shows him his fist in Mr. Zimmerman's face, following up with a grapple. Fight ensues, the person of self-appointed authority not feeling so authoritative, reaches for his gun. End of story.
The case came down to two things: comparative sophistication of jury selection methods (the better-funded side usually wins, which means a well-funded defense, as with the O.J. Simpson case), and the question of whether Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows someone to use deadly force when threatened, was applicable in this case and, upon a possible appeal, constitutionally sound.
What's to learn from this highly unfortunate episode? Clearly, "Stand Your Ground" is bad public law--if carried to its extreme, in an insecure world, everyone would be packing and shooting others the first time they felt threatened. The verdict doesn't really establish the viability of the law properly--it was more like the jury felt there was sufficient reason to credit a claim of self-defense--so I think it is appropriate for a civil case--one that I think the Martin family might well win--to test that defense. I don't think there will be a case for a Federal hate crime case and don't think that will happen.
We all know that young black men (or large young black boys) are objects of suspicion in white culture, and to some extent among law enforcement types, as well. Zimmerman is somewhat in that milieu and seemed to feel empowered to approach and demand obedience to a stranger who wasn't doing anything too unusual. I have seen the kind of hostile response I described above to this kind of self-righteous demand for credentials from unofficial self-empowered types (and not just from black folks).
We know that there is a presumption of innocence in our courts. I'd like to suggest that there be such a presumption in civil society, particularly when there is no knowledge of any crime having been committed. On the other foot, I have to suggest a couple of other things: don't dress like a thug, or you'll be seen as one; don't dress like a prostitute, or expect to be propositioned by johns; don't dress like a hippie, or expect to be searched for drugs. Don't dress like a swell, or expect thieves to think you've got money.
Nuke 'em, Harry!?
Echoing the hypothetical advisers to former President Truman, various partisan groups have been advising Senator Reid to select "the nuclear option" to break the filibustered nominations of several Obama appointees subject to Senate confirmation. The parliamentary stratagem would propose the rules be changed to allow those nominations' debate to be closed by a simple majority, rather than the 60-vote supermajority. The presumed majority supporting the motion (more than 50, less than 60 votes) would then be upheld by the presiding officer of the Senate (presumably Vice President Biden).
Majority Leader Reid is threatening the maneuver to force the Republicans to allow a vote on the nominees, which no one disputes would actually be approved if they were allowed to come to a vote. With one or two exceptions among these, the Republicans' objections are not to the nominees themselves but to the agencies they would head up, so their filibuster has an illegitimate aspect, the obstruction of the executive branch and its administration of law. Nevertheless, Minority Leader McConnell is threatening all sorts of dire consequences if the Democrats and Reid choose to pick the fight over Senate rules.
In particular, there is a real danger that the Republicans could gain control of the Senate, as soon as the next Congress, and turn this precedent against the Democrats' (minority) interest. I would point out that this debate has been going on, and commented on in this blog, for several years under control of both parties. It's become a perennial problem.
The probable outcome is that the Republicans would agree to let some of those nominees be voted upon immediately, and others within a limited period of time. The Democrats will be tempted to take that offer and avoid the constitutional crisis. Though I think the Republicans will be permanently marginalized as a potential majority party within ten years at the rate they are going, I would suggest a little bit of patience with the Senators, who are at least attempting to keep their body from degenerating to the level of the infamous House of Representatives.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Positive Signs Abroad
Although the domestic political stalemate continues, political developments in other countries could open some avenues for successes for President Obama. These successes may not mean so much for his popularity at home, which is slipping despite the improving economy due to political setbacks like the IRS scandal and the reports of the NSA's invasion of our privacy, but they could mean more than the results of all the Beltway bickering.
Iranian Election
Iran elected a new President Sunday, and the result may bring an improvement in that country's relations with the (non-Shiite) rest of the world. Hassan Rouhani is a cleric and friend of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but he is still considered a relative moderate. His name is familiar to the US as the negotiator we encountered during the Presidency of Mohammed Khatami, the other moderate cleric President in the history of post-revolutionary Iran. During Khatami's presidency, there was a noticeable warming of relations with the US and there was some increased tolerance of civil liberties. Expectations during that period for more dramatic change, in the form of government away from the theocracy, or for major agreements with other countries, were not fulfilled then and are unlikely now, as well--for example, his Presidency will not lead to some sudden end in the nuclear program Iran has maintained, as it is a policy of state and has considerable popular support. I do think his election will allow for a lessening of tensions and should reduce the likelihood of actual hostilities.
The Iranian voters gave Rouhani just over 50% of the vote in the contest with five other approved candidates. By gaining an absolute majority, he avoided the need for a runoff, and that was probably the most impressive aspect. The Iranian voters are looking principally for an improvement in the economic situation, which has been abysmal, with the end of the Ahmadinejad Presidency leaving a very bad taste. In order to make much difference, though, he will need to gain some relaxation in the economic sanctions, and that will mean some well-chosen concessions on the nuclear program.
A New Chapter in Italy
When I last posted on Italian politics, the parliamentary elections had proven inconclusive and the shape of the agreement to form a new government was unclear. Since then, local elections (which succeeded in marginalizing the rising influence of the iconoclastic Five Stars insurgency of comedian/politician Beppe Grillo) clarified the political reality, and a center-left agreement was formed at the end of April.
The new Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, is from the moderate-left Democratic Party, which finished (narrowly) first in the national elections, but he also traces his political development to the Partito Popolare, the successor to the Cold War Christian Democratic party which gathered its more progressive elements. Though only 46, he boasts a long career in the Italian and European Parliaments and experience in several cabinet roles. He is known as a deal-maker and a moderate. Letta needed support from members of Silvio Berlusconi's center-right party, but not from Berlusconi himself. The aging clown appears to be near the end of his string; his sentence for tax fraud was recently upheld and, though he can still appeal, I suspect his party is going to learn to go on without him.
Letta has signaled a change in course from the technocratic, non-partisan government in place before the elections. He has apologized to the youth of the country for his economy's failure to produce jobs for them, and has promised to reverse the austerity policy which has been largely imposed on Italy as the price to fund its debts. The challenge for Letta will be to make good on those promises, though he seems to have the international political momentum on his side. Though his government could fall (if he loses the support of the center-right), his party could gain ground.
Arms to Syria
It's hardly a positive development that the US is providing arms to the Syrian rebels; more guns would not seem to be the prescription for a nation in the middle of a bloody civil war. Further, the reasons for the US' change in policy are all bad news: after extensive study, the administration made a determination that chemical weapons had been used against rebel areas by the Bashar government, and the purpose of the change is to prevent the rebels' complete destruction. The entry into the fighting of the Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite faction, has reinvigorated the Syrian government's military, and it has been retaking hard-won rebel territory.
Still, the direct entry of US involvement could be a game-changer; we will give the rebels anti-tank weapons, a key request they have made (anti-aircraft weapons, though, would be too risky to give to the rebels, with their Islamic fundamentalist allies). The objective is to force the Syrian regime to the negotiating table, something it has not been willing to do as long as it felt it would ultimately win the war. So, the paradoxical aim of providing more arms is to bring the blood-letting to an end.
From the US' perspective, the perils of getting involved in another middle Eastern mess should be readily apparent: Syria is a little like Iraq in reverse, with the tyrannical minority regime in this case being Shiite and the disenfranchised majority being Sunni, and like Iraq, there is little chance that the bitterness and widespread violence will cease anytime soon, regardless of the chances of a political settlement to end the raging conflict (and I wouldn't rate those too highly, either). The key for the Americans is drawing a clear line for our involvement and sticking to it. If President Obama fails to do that, he will be reviled by his own party for failure to keep to his principles.
Uppance Coming for Erdogan?
I am a strong supporter of the idea of the nation of Turkey as an emerging positive force in the world, a country that has risen in economic and political status in recent decades, is now a player in both Europe and the Middle East, and has been breaking new ground when it comes to the democratic process in the world of Islam. Prime Minister Erdogan has broken ground, as well, being the first democratically-elected Prime Minister to have successfully challenged the traditionalist and military elite which has exercised a virtual veto on politics since World War II. Erdogan's achievements have been decisive enough that I think it is unlikely that the country can revert to the Cold War status in which unsatisfactory civilian governments were frequently overturned by military coups.
Nevertheless, Erdogan now finds himself the object of a popular rebellion in its largest city, Istanbul (not to be confused with the country's capital, Ankara). The government had announced a deal to develop the one park in the most developed part in the city, and there was an outcry against it. The protests drew a variety of supporters and the crowds grew. Then the Erdogan government decided to take action against the protesters. Many were arrested, many were injured, and a couple were even killed in the violent repression of the protests by the Turkish riot police.
Some of the worst repressions occurred while Erdogan was visiting abroad on affairs of state, but he spoke out against the protesters, essentially calling them the equivalent of the Sixties' "unwashed bums". Then, when he came back, he did not retract his negative comments about them, though other leaders of his party were more conciliatory. His tactics were to agree to meet with the leaders of the protest movement (I'm not sure who they were, really; there was an "Occupy Wall Street" improvisational character to the protests), and then to send in the troops to clear the park.
A lot of the protest was about restrictions on individual freedoms--some proposed limits on buying alcohol, for example--and a general feeling among various parties that Erdogan, who has been elected by progressively larger majorities, was becoming hubristically overpowerful. The danger here is the classic "tyranny of the majority", as Erdogan can demonstrate huge assemblies of supporters anytime he wants to do it.
This may not lead to the political downfall of Erdogan--he has proposed a referendum on the park development, and he can probably win it, whatever side he backs; or if he doesn't choose sides on that, he can probably still win national elections--but his government will never again bear the sheen of one that protects the people's liberties. He will be a partisan of the Islamist faction of Turkey.
Iranian Election
Iran elected a new President Sunday, and the result may bring an improvement in that country's relations with the (non-Shiite) rest of the world. Hassan Rouhani is a cleric and friend of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but he is still considered a relative moderate. His name is familiar to the US as the negotiator we encountered during the Presidency of Mohammed Khatami, the other moderate cleric President in the history of post-revolutionary Iran. During Khatami's presidency, there was a noticeable warming of relations with the US and there was some increased tolerance of civil liberties. Expectations during that period for more dramatic change, in the form of government away from the theocracy, or for major agreements with other countries, were not fulfilled then and are unlikely now, as well--for example, his Presidency will not lead to some sudden end in the nuclear program Iran has maintained, as it is a policy of state and has considerable popular support. I do think his election will allow for a lessening of tensions and should reduce the likelihood of actual hostilities.
The Iranian voters gave Rouhani just over 50% of the vote in the contest with five other approved candidates. By gaining an absolute majority, he avoided the need for a runoff, and that was probably the most impressive aspect. The Iranian voters are looking principally for an improvement in the economic situation, which has been abysmal, with the end of the Ahmadinejad Presidency leaving a very bad taste. In order to make much difference, though, he will need to gain some relaxation in the economic sanctions, and that will mean some well-chosen concessions on the nuclear program.
A New Chapter in Italy
When I last posted on Italian politics, the parliamentary elections had proven inconclusive and the shape of the agreement to form a new government was unclear. Since then, local elections (which succeeded in marginalizing the rising influence of the iconoclastic Five Stars insurgency of comedian/politician Beppe Grillo) clarified the political reality, and a center-left agreement was formed at the end of April.
The new Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, is from the moderate-left Democratic Party, which finished (narrowly) first in the national elections, but he also traces his political development to the Partito Popolare, the successor to the Cold War Christian Democratic party which gathered its more progressive elements. Though only 46, he boasts a long career in the Italian and European Parliaments and experience in several cabinet roles. He is known as a deal-maker and a moderate. Letta needed support from members of Silvio Berlusconi's center-right party, but not from Berlusconi himself. The aging clown appears to be near the end of his string; his sentence for tax fraud was recently upheld and, though he can still appeal, I suspect his party is going to learn to go on without him.
Letta has signaled a change in course from the technocratic, non-partisan government in place before the elections. He has apologized to the youth of the country for his economy's failure to produce jobs for them, and has promised to reverse the austerity policy which has been largely imposed on Italy as the price to fund its debts. The challenge for Letta will be to make good on those promises, though he seems to have the international political momentum on his side. Though his government could fall (if he loses the support of the center-right), his party could gain ground.
Arms to Syria
It's hardly a positive development that the US is providing arms to the Syrian rebels; more guns would not seem to be the prescription for a nation in the middle of a bloody civil war. Further, the reasons for the US' change in policy are all bad news: after extensive study, the administration made a determination that chemical weapons had been used against rebel areas by the Bashar government, and the purpose of the change is to prevent the rebels' complete destruction. The entry into the fighting of the Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite faction, has reinvigorated the Syrian government's military, and it has been retaking hard-won rebel territory.
Still, the direct entry of US involvement could be a game-changer; we will give the rebels anti-tank weapons, a key request they have made (anti-aircraft weapons, though, would be too risky to give to the rebels, with their Islamic fundamentalist allies). The objective is to force the Syrian regime to the negotiating table, something it has not been willing to do as long as it felt it would ultimately win the war. So, the paradoxical aim of providing more arms is to bring the blood-letting to an end.
From the US' perspective, the perils of getting involved in another middle Eastern mess should be readily apparent: Syria is a little like Iraq in reverse, with the tyrannical minority regime in this case being Shiite and the disenfranchised majority being Sunni, and like Iraq, there is little chance that the bitterness and widespread violence will cease anytime soon, regardless of the chances of a political settlement to end the raging conflict (and I wouldn't rate those too highly, either). The key for the Americans is drawing a clear line for our involvement and sticking to it. If President Obama fails to do that, he will be reviled by his own party for failure to keep to his principles.
Uppance Coming for Erdogan?
I am a strong supporter of the idea of the nation of Turkey as an emerging positive force in the world, a country that has risen in economic and political status in recent decades, is now a player in both Europe and the Middle East, and has been breaking new ground when it comes to the democratic process in the world of Islam. Prime Minister Erdogan has broken ground, as well, being the first democratically-elected Prime Minister to have successfully challenged the traditionalist and military elite which has exercised a virtual veto on politics since World War II. Erdogan's achievements have been decisive enough that I think it is unlikely that the country can revert to the Cold War status in which unsatisfactory civilian governments were frequently overturned by military coups.
Nevertheless, Erdogan now finds himself the object of a popular rebellion in its largest city, Istanbul (not to be confused with the country's capital, Ankara). The government had announced a deal to develop the one park in the most developed part in the city, and there was an outcry against it. The protests drew a variety of supporters and the crowds grew. Then the Erdogan government decided to take action against the protesters. Many were arrested, many were injured, and a couple were even killed in the violent repression of the protests by the Turkish riot police.
Some of the worst repressions occurred while Erdogan was visiting abroad on affairs of state, but he spoke out against the protesters, essentially calling them the equivalent of the Sixties' "unwashed bums". Then, when he came back, he did not retract his negative comments about them, though other leaders of his party were more conciliatory. His tactics were to agree to meet with the leaders of the protest movement (I'm not sure who they were, really; there was an "Occupy Wall Street" improvisational character to the protests), and then to send in the troops to clear the park.
A lot of the protest was about restrictions on individual freedoms--some proposed limits on buying alcohol, for example--and a general feeling among various parties that Erdogan, who has been elected by progressively larger majorities, was becoming hubristically overpowerful. The danger here is the classic "tyranny of the majority", as Erdogan can demonstrate huge assemblies of supporters anytime he wants to do it.
This may not lead to the political downfall of Erdogan--he has proposed a referendum on the park development, and he can probably win it, whatever side he backs; or if he doesn't choose sides on that, he can probably still win national elections--but his government will never again bear the sheen of one that protects the people's liberties. He will be a partisan of the Islamist faction of Turkey.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
With regard to the government surveillance stories that have breaking, the above is the main question I have: Who is watching the people who watch us? Or, to take it just a bit further, Who is watching the people who watch the people who watch us? The titled question is age-old, as suggested by the Latin quote coming from the satirist Juvenal a couple millennia ago.
First, a few stipulations:
1) The Patriot Act has legally authorized these intrusions on privacy, and the courts have supported them, as well;
2) Anything out on the Internet is available, basically to any snoop, whether the providers share the information or not;
3) Ultimately, the government will do whatever it needs to do to fight terrorism, putting up some sort of flimsy legal shield or plausible deniability when it goes beyond what is legally authorized;
4) No self-respecting organized terrorist outfit is going to put any information on commercial cellphones or the Internet which will point to themselves--the only folks this stuff is going to implicate are the newbies who are going to get themselves stung by double agents before they get anything done. *
Somewhere, some snoop cringes when he/she hears the President say, "We are not listening to your phone calls; we are not reading your emails." President Obama probably doesn't think so, but I am willing to bet that someone is doing it, somewhere, for some group of Americans, and they are doing it with some set of officials' knowledge. One of these spooks probably is the individual who, aware of all the stipulations and cringing about what had been said and not said about the program recently revealed, decided that this was one that could be let go, considering the interests of truth, the protection of the endangered right of privacy, and because the program is not really all that valuable.
That being said, the leak is illegal, and it's the sort of thing that will be used as justification for more secret subpoenas of reporters' records (as was disclosed recently to have happened) and more pressure upon freedom of press.
With the exception of this last qualm, I would say that it's all good: People should now know better what is, and what is not, private and protected by law. We can have a more public discussion about what we want the spooks to be seeing (whether they will obey the rules or not is another question); and the total ineffectiveness of our Congressional committees and the FISA courts tasked with balancing privacy against the war on terror has been exposed.
In my preliminary endorsement of President Obama's candidacy way back in 2006, I proposed a 10-point program for his administration, one of which was "7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it." (This was actually before the phone/Internet programs were established in 2007 during the Bushite Administration.) To be honest, Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have not been willing to challenge the Bushite norms of full attack on any limitations to government expansion of the security-intelligence regime. Perhaps, before Holder takes his leave, as reports have suggested he will do shortly, he will do a big favor for the American people and for President Obama's legacy and push the envelope inward a little bit.
*Here's a good test of these programs' effectiveness:: Let's look at what information was available about Tamerlane and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's contacts, whether the data would have helped if we were paying attention, and what could we learn from it. I suspect that, even in retrospect with the benefit of hindsight, it wouldn't have been all that much except a couple of possible leads about who helped put them up to it.
First, a few stipulations:
1) The Patriot Act has legally authorized these intrusions on privacy, and the courts have supported them, as well;
2) Anything out on the Internet is available, basically to any snoop, whether the providers share the information or not;
3) Ultimately, the government will do whatever it needs to do to fight terrorism, putting up some sort of flimsy legal shield or plausible deniability when it goes beyond what is legally authorized;
4) No self-respecting organized terrorist outfit is going to put any information on commercial cellphones or the Internet which will point to themselves--the only folks this stuff is going to implicate are the newbies who are going to get themselves stung by double agents before they get anything done. *
Somewhere, some snoop cringes when he/she hears the President say, "We are not listening to your phone calls; we are not reading your emails." President Obama probably doesn't think so, but I am willing to bet that someone is doing it, somewhere, for some group of Americans, and they are doing it with some set of officials' knowledge. One of these spooks probably is the individual who, aware of all the stipulations and cringing about what had been said and not said about the program recently revealed, decided that this was one that could be let go, considering the interests of truth, the protection of the endangered right of privacy, and because the program is not really all that valuable.
That being said, the leak is illegal, and it's the sort of thing that will be used as justification for more secret subpoenas of reporters' records (as was disclosed recently to have happened) and more pressure upon freedom of press.
With the exception of this last qualm, I would say that it's all good: People should now know better what is, and what is not, private and protected by law. We can have a more public discussion about what we want the spooks to be seeing (whether they will obey the rules or not is another question); and the total ineffectiveness of our Congressional committees and the FISA courts tasked with balancing privacy against the war on terror has been exposed.
In my preliminary endorsement of President Obama's candidacy way back in 2006, I proposed a 10-point program for his administration, one of which was "7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it." (This was actually before the phone/Internet programs were established in 2007 during the Bushite Administration.) To be honest, Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have not been willing to challenge the Bushite norms of full attack on any limitations to government expansion of the security-intelligence regime. Perhaps, before Holder takes his leave, as reports have suggested he will do shortly, he will do a big favor for the American people and for President Obama's legacy and push the envelope inward a little bit.
*Here's a good test of these programs' effectiveness:: Let's look at what information was available about Tamerlane and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's contacts, whether the data would have helped if we were paying attention, and what could we learn from it. I suspect that, even in retrospect with the benefit of hindsight, it wouldn't have been all that much except a couple of possible leads about who helped put them up to it.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
Sports Update
Today (Sunday, June 8, 2013) is a big day in sports. A lot of the day's events have already been completed as of this time (8:30 p.m. Central), so I'll trade forecasting for some recap and commentary.
Return of the King (and Queen)
The French Open women's final was held this morning, with Serena Williams firmly establishing her dominance in the field, defeating the defending champion and #2 seed Maria Sharapova. Serena's return to a level of play as good as she has ever shown is a great accomplishment that has taken years, since a critical injury followed by a blood clot in her lung three years ago threatened her very life. Her sister Venus' difficulties, due at least in part to an auto-immune condition, make the moment somewhat bittersweet for the Williams clan, but Serena's win of the Grand Slam event on clay (her least favorite surface) for the first time in a decade sets her up for a superb 2013, as she looks to be a huge favorite in both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open should she stay healthy.
The Men's final is tomorrow, but one would suppose that Rafael Nadal's win and eighth French title is all but assured. His finals opponent, fellow Spaniard David Ferrer, is a good friend of Nadal (at least I think so) but that doesn't prevent him from beating him consistently. Ferrer is persistent, so it takes a lot of work to beat him, but Nadal has the better game, and, I think, the psychological edge as well. I will say that Ferrer has never played better, with more dominant results, than he has in this tournament: I don't think he's lost a set, while Nadal lost a couple in the early rounds before he really got into world-beating form.
He needed that for his epic semifinal showdown with world #1 Novak Djokovic. Djokovic took him to five sets and had winning chances, but Nadal got key breaks and won the last set, 9-7 (in the French, the last set does not go to a tiebreaker). Djokovic is still #1 in the world, and should be, but Nadal has reclaimed his position as King of Clay, especially the clay in Paris.
More Royal Intrigue
As a native-born Kentuckian, I have great regard for the Derby. It's the Democratization of the Big Break for horses, a cavalry charge of 20 3-year-olds, many of them relatively unproven, and the results are generally unpredictable. The atmosphere is intoxicating, a mix of purebred horsey folks and the unwashed masses, lubricated with mint juleps.
Still, from the point of view of pure horse racing excitement, I like the Belmont Stakes best. The field has been winnowed down a bit (or a lot), the racing challenge is extreme, there's that endless homestretch run. Today's edition was a great one--it pretty much always is. The winners of the Derby and the Preakness, Orb and Oxbow, were there at the top of the stretch, along with a third horse, Palace Malice, that had matched strides with the front-running Oxbow through most of the race. The big surprise was that Palace Malice was the one that outlasted the other two champions--a good payoff for the bettors who picked up on the notion that removing the blinders (a eye-sized screen to prevent horses from looking around) would let loose P.M.'s full capability.
They Say This Be "Hawkeytown"
The term reflects just a little too much leeway for the headline writer, but the hockey Blackhawks do have sports fans' attention here in Chicago now. The Rose-less Bulls fell out bravely but early, neither major league baseball team has done anything to deserve attention so far this year, and the Chicago Fire--despite a good team name--plays soccer. The Blackhawks are a serious threat to win the Stanley Cup this year, and their performance in the shortened regular season (40% of it lost to lockout) was spectacularly good. Expectations are very high; nothing less than winning the Cup will satisfy the local fans.
A great regular season means next to nothing in the S.C. playoffs--it's about getting on a hot streak, and particularly about the performance of your goalie. The Blackhawks have gotten through two rounds, though, Corey Crawford has been consistently excellent anchoring a solid defense, and they are on the verge of winning the third round and making it to the finals, in which they would play the Boston Bruins. They are currently up three games to one against the L.A. Kings, so one more win will put them through. In tonight's game five, at home, Chicago had a 2-0 lead after the first of the three periods, but the Kings have recovered and tied it up. An interesting overtime seems likely at this point, but even if the Hawks lose tonight, one would think they should be able to win out. On the other hand, though, Chicago trailed 3-1 to Detroit in the last round and battled back to win.
Note: While typing this last paragraph, Chicago scored a controversial goal which may end up winning the series. While typing the next one, L.A. scored to tie it up again and force sudden-death overtime.
Pressure's on the Heat*
I didn't do such a great job predicting the NBA playoffs in my last sports post. Memphis could have made it a good series vs. the Spurs, but blew big leads in both Games 2 and 3, losing them in overtime, and went down 4-0. As for the Heat, it's basically been a one-man show for LeBron James, who has been enough to carry them through three rounds of the playoffs. It was a tough 7-game series against the Indiana Pacers, though, in the Eastern Conference finals, and the pattern remained much the same in Game 1 of the Championships. The difference is that the Spurs have shown the capability of keeping LBJ in check, and their 1-2 punch of Tony Parker and Tim Duncan has been very effective in the playoffs.
Having won Game 1 in Miami, the Spurs have taken home-court advantage away; however, this is LeBron James, and Miami is far from cooked. I expect the Heat to win Game 2, and then they would have three chances to win one in San Antonio and take back the advantage. I hesitate to repeat my previous mistakes (the biggest one is to predict at all). I see this as a very close series, and I'll go with Miami in 7. With trepidation. If Miami doesn't win, look for James to throw his teammates under the bus and look for a more sure thing.
Baseball: 5/13 of the Season Done
Just over one-third of the regular season has been played--that point was reached a few days ago. Time for plenty of clear indications about this year, even time for some teams to make a shining move and flame out (see Cleveland).
The big disappointments so far this year are the two Los Angeles teams, both of which spent freely and had high expectations for this season. The Washington Nationals would be the other team falling far short of predicted levels, though they are young and their success last year was not fully convincing (to me). The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Boston Red Sox are the teams I least expected to be among the leaders; though the Pirates are clearly improving, they are the ones I most expect to fade from the leaders in the final 8/13 of the season. Two teams which have done better than most expectations are the Braves and Yankees, though really nobody should be surprised by that. The Yankees have plenty of excuses for poor early-season performance--something like $100MM worth of 2013 salary was on the bench due to injuries through most of it--but they need none.
With the fade of the Angels and of the Nationals, the Texas Rangers in the AL West and the Braves in the NL East would seem to be the likely beneficiaries and division winners. The Detroit Tigers, probably the most well-rounded team now that Jose Valverde appears to have solved their closer reliever problem, are clearly the favorites in the AL Central.
The other three divisions should have interesting pennant races. In the NL West, we should look for the defending champion San Francisco Giants to overcome the surprise leading team, the Diamondbacks. The NL Central has a surprising claim to being the best division in the majors so far, as it has the team with the best performance of all (St. Louis) and two of the next best (the Pirates and Reds). This weekend, the Reds host the Cards for yet another critical showdown in their rivalry, which is emerging as perhaps the hottest in the league (the Reds got a big win today!) Finally, the Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays will be chasing the Bosox in the AL East; Boston's strong start has surprised many because they were so bad last year, and I don't believe they can hold on to win the division, but they might be able to win one of the two wild-card spots.
From Bosox to Botox
The big news this week was the reporting that the Commissioner's office has convinced the sleazoid head of a Florida purveyor of performance-enhancing drugs to talk to investigators. Somehow, the notebooks of this guy got released to reporters earlier in the year--probably related to some failed shakedown attempt against some of the major baseball stars who might become implicated--so we have some idea whom he might be able to rat upon.
This is not to take the side of players who may have violated the rules and used performance-enhancing drugs--successfully so, as they have not failed any of the drug tests required. The key angle is that--as apparently was the case with Barry Bonds a few years ago--this Biogenesis outfit seems to have developed some kind of body juicing which the tests can't detect. And its capomafia seems willing to betray his clients if they don't continue to pay up.
The talk this week was of 100-game suspensions--coincidentally, or not, about the number of games remaining in the regular season--fifty for first drug offenses (almost all of the names mentioned would be first-time offenders) and fifty more for lying about it. I don't believe this rumor; if true, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen; however, if the allegations can be corroborated by something or someone other than the Biogenesis pusher, there will be consequences, with major performers like Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Braun, and Melky Cabrera supposedly on the firing line. I think this will take weeks, months, or even years to play out to its conclusion; until then, the players under threat, and the teams depending upon them, will be adversely affected.
*From the narrow viewpoint of blogging fun, I'm sort of hoping that Miami wins a couple of games so I could use as a subhead title the scientific fact "Heat Increases the Pressure".
Return of the King (and Queen)
The French Open women's final was held this morning, with Serena Williams firmly establishing her dominance in the field, defeating the defending champion and #2 seed Maria Sharapova. Serena's return to a level of play as good as she has ever shown is a great accomplishment that has taken years, since a critical injury followed by a blood clot in her lung three years ago threatened her very life. Her sister Venus' difficulties, due at least in part to an auto-immune condition, make the moment somewhat bittersweet for the Williams clan, but Serena's win of the Grand Slam event on clay (her least favorite surface) for the first time in a decade sets her up for a superb 2013, as she looks to be a huge favorite in both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open should she stay healthy.
The Men's final is tomorrow, but one would suppose that Rafael Nadal's win and eighth French title is all but assured. His finals opponent, fellow Spaniard David Ferrer, is a good friend of Nadal (at least I think so) but that doesn't prevent him from beating him consistently. Ferrer is persistent, so it takes a lot of work to beat him, but Nadal has the better game, and, I think, the psychological edge as well. I will say that Ferrer has never played better, with more dominant results, than he has in this tournament: I don't think he's lost a set, while Nadal lost a couple in the early rounds before he really got into world-beating form.
He needed that for his epic semifinal showdown with world #1 Novak Djokovic. Djokovic took him to five sets and had winning chances, but Nadal got key breaks and won the last set, 9-7 (in the French, the last set does not go to a tiebreaker). Djokovic is still #1 in the world, and should be, but Nadal has reclaimed his position as King of Clay, especially the clay in Paris.
More Royal Intrigue
As a native-born Kentuckian, I have great regard for the Derby. It's the Democratization of the Big Break for horses, a cavalry charge of 20 3-year-olds, many of them relatively unproven, and the results are generally unpredictable. The atmosphere is intoxicating, a mix of purebred horsey folks and the unwashed masses, lubricated with mint juleps.
Still, from the point of view of pure horse racing excitement, I like the Belmont Stakes best. The field has been winnowed down a bit (or a lot), the racing challenge is extreme, there's that endless homestretch run. Today's edition was a great one--it pretty much always is. The winners of the Derby and the Preakness, Orb and Oxbow, were there at the top of the stretch, along with a third horse, Palace Malice, that had matched strides with the front-running Oxbow through most of the race. The big surprise was that Palace Malice was the one that outlasted the other two champions--a good payoff for the bettors who picked up on the notion that removing the blinders (a eye-sized screen to prevent horses from looking around) would let loose P.M.'s full capability.
They Say This Be "Hawkeytown"
The term reflects just a little too much leeway for the headline writer, but the hockey Blackhawks do have sports fans' attention here in Chicago now. The Rose-less Bulls fell out bravely but early, neither major league baseball team has done anything to deserve attention so far this year, and the Chicago Fire--despite a good team name--plays soccer. The Blackhawks are a serious threat to win the Stanley Cup this year, and their performance in the shortened regular season (40% of it lost to lockout) was spectacularly good. Expectations are very high; nothing less than winning the Cup will satisfy the local fans.
A great regular season means next to nothing in the S.C. playoffs--it's about getting on a hot streak, and particularly about the performance of your goalie. The Blackhawks have gotten through two rounds, though, Corey Crawford has been consistently excellent anchoring a solid defense, and they are on the verge of winning the third round and making it to the finals, in which they would play the Boston Bruins. They are currently up three games to one against the L.A. Kings, so one more win will put them through. In tonight's game five, at home, Chicago had a 2-0 lead after the first of the three periods, but the Kings have recovered and tied it up. An interesting overtime seems likely at this point, but even if the Hawks lose tonight, one would think they should be able to win out. On the other hand, though, Chicago trailed 3-1 to Detroit in the last round and battled back to win.
Note: While typing this last paragraph, Chicago scored a controversial goal which may end up winning the series. While typing the next one, L.A. scored to tie it up again and force sudden-death overtime.
Pressure's on the Heat*
I didn't do such a great job predicting the NBA playoffs in my last sports post. Memphis could have made it a good series vs. the Spurs, but blew big leads in both Games 2 and 3, losing them in overtime, and went down 4-0. As for the Heat, it's basically been a one-man show for LeBron James, who has been enough to carry them through three rounds of the playoffs. It was a tough 7-game series against the Indiana Pacers, though, in the Eastern Conference finals, and the pattern remained much the same in Game 1 of the Championships. The difference is that the Spurs have shown the capability of keeping LBJ in check, and their 1-2 punch of Tony Parker and Tim Duncan has been very effective in the playoffs.
Having won Game 1 in Miami, the Spurs have taken home-court advantage away; however, this is LeBron James, and Miami is far from cooked. I expect the Heat to win Game 2, and then they would have three chances to win one in San Antonio and take back the advantage. I hesitate to repeat my previous mistakes (the biggest one is to predict at all). I see this as a very close series, and I'll go with Miami in 7. With trepidation. If Miami doesn't win, look for James to throw his teammates under the bus and look for a more sure thing.
Baseball: 5/13 of the Season Done
Just over one-third of the regular season has been played--that point was reached a few days ago. Time for plenty of clear indications about this year, even time for some teams to make a shining move and flame out (see Cleveland).
The big disappointments so far this year are the two Los Angeles teams, both of which spent freely and had high expectations for this season. The Washington Nationals would be the other team falling far short of predicted levels, though they are young and their success last year was not fully convincing (to me). The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Boston Red Sox are the teams I least expected to be among the leaders; though the Pirates are clearly improving, they are the ones I most expect to fade from the leaders in the final 8/13 of the season. Two teams which have done better than most expectations are the Braves and Yankees, though really nobody should be surprised by that. The Yankees have plenty of excuses for poor early-season performance--something like $100MM worth of 2013 salary was on the bench due to injuries through most of it--but they need none.
With the fade of the Angels and of the Nationals, the Texas Rangers in the AL West and the Braves in the NL East would seem to be the likely beneficiaries and division winners. The Detroit Tigers, probably the most well-rounded team now that Jose Valverde appears to have solved their closer reliever problem, are clearly the favorites in the AL Central.
The other three divisions should have interesting pennant races. In the NL West, we should look for the defending champion San Francisco Giants to overcome the surprise leading team, the Diamondbacks. The NL Central has a surprising claim to being the best division in the majors so far, as it has the team with the best performance of all (St. Louis) and two of the next best (the Pirates and Reds). This weekend, the Reds host the Cards for yet another critical showdown in their rivalry, which is emerging as perhaps the hottest in the league (the Reds got a big win today!) Finally, the Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays will be chasing the Bosox in the AL East; Boston's strong start has surprised many because they were so bad last year, and I don't believe they can hold on to win the division, but they might be able to win one of the two wild-card spots.
From Bosox to Botox
The big news this week was the reporting that the Commissioner's office has convinced the sleazoid head of a Florida purveyor of performance-enhancing drugs to talk to investigators. Somehow, the notebooks of this guy got released to reporters earlier in the year--probably related to some failed shakedown attempt against some of the major baseball stars who might become implicated--so we have some idea whom he might be able to rat upon.
This is not to take the side of players who may have violated the rules and used performance-enhancing drugs--successfully so, as they have not failed any of the drug tests required. The key angle is that--as apparently was the case with Barry Bonds a few years ago--this Biogenesis outfit seems to have developed some kind of body juicing which the tests can't detect. And its capomafia seems willing to betray his clients if they don't continue to pay up.
The talk this week was of 100-game suspensions--coincidentally, or not, about the number of games remaining in the regular season--fifty for first drug offenses (almost all of the names mentioned would be first-time offenders) and fifty more for lying about it. I don't believe this rumor; if true, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen; however, if the allegations can be corroborated by something or someone other than the Biogenesis pusher, there will be consequences, with major performers like Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Braun, and Melky Cabrera supposedly on the firing line. I think this will take weeks, months, or even years to play out to its conclusion; until then, the players under threat, and the teams depending upon them, will be adversely affected.
*From the narrow viewpoint of blogging fun, I'm sort of hoping that Miami wins a couple of games so I could use as a subhead title the scientific fact "Heat Increases the Pressure".
Thursday, June 06, 2013
The Democratization of the Big Break
I basically hate the stuff that passes for "Reality TV" and further deny the genre's claim to its name. I will make an exception, though, and say that a few of the shows--here I'm thinking of "The Voice", "American Idol", "America's Got Talent", "So You Think You Can Dance"--serve a useful purpose. They give a chance to those many wannabees out there who have some talent and want to make their bid for fame, fortune, and celebrity. You can criticize the shows' entertainment value, or the sanity of the contestants' ambition, but you cannot deny the emotion is out there, among the wannabes, or among the public to see these amateurs put it all out there for us to see.
I call it the "Democratization of the Big Break", as it channels the ambition of those who, once upon a time, would hang around in drug stores in Hollywood waiting to be discovered. Now, they are funneled into tryouts, into review by professionals (I would suggest Nicki Minaj is a pro, even if she never would have made it through this sort of gauntlet), and then into the public judgment by the masses: do they get the break, or does some other worthy aspirant?
The only one of them that I've really given any time to watching, just because my wife and daughter follow it, is "The Voice". I hate a lot of things about the format, and in particular the overweighting of people's willingness to choose by buying iTunes (free plug for Apple), but I have to admit that the "coaches" do a good job of selecting talented contestants. As for the contestants themselves, though, the form of the competition is a cruel tease: one winner, lots of high-quality losers, and uncertain rewards even for the winner. Finally, though, I have to agree with Adam Levine's awkward aside: "I hate this country". The voters--taken as a whole--are an ass, with a pronounced preference for corny hick music. Take his comment any way you want--and he, of course, had to walk it back--he was right.
I call it the "Democratization of the Big Break", as it channels the ambition of those who, once upon a time, would hang around in drug stores in Hollywood waiting to be discovered. Now, they are funneled into tryouts, into review by professionals (I would suggest Nicki Minaj is a pro, even if she never would have made it through this sort of gauntlet), and then into the public judgment by the masses: do they get the break, or does some other worthy aspirant?
The only one of them that I've really given any time to watching, just because my wife and daughter follow it, is "The Voice". I hate a lot of things about the format, and in particular the overweighting of people's willingness to choose by buying iTunes (free plug for Apple), but I have to admit that the "coaches" do a good job of selecting talented contestants. As for the contestants themselves, though, the form of the competition is a cruel tease: one winner, lots of high-quality losers, and uncertain rewards even for the winner. Finally, though, I have to agree with Adam Levine's awkward aside: "I hate this country". The voters--taken as a whole--are an ass, with a pronounced preference for corny hick music. Take his comment any way you want--and he, of course, had to walk it back--he was right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
