(apologies to The Who)
Had to put this one out tonight: Today the Scots vote on the referendum for independence from Great Britain. I have gone into a couple or three chats on the subject and have a pretty good idea about what the Scottish electorate are thinking about this. The question that they and time may answer is this: Is this proposal, and are the people behind it, crazy like a fox, or just plain crazy?
It is definitely a leap into the unknown in many areas. A whole lot of the discussion is on the topic of what currency a sovereign Scottish nation would choose, and whether they would be able to keep using the "British" pound sterling, which they all seem very attached to. I think this is a misdirection, personally; the Scots can always make their own currency, which clearly should be called the "kilt" (somewhat like the New Zealand kiwi) and tie its value to the pound, whether 1:1 or some other ratio. That is, if they can find the reserves in their central bank (there already is a Bank of Scotland) to defend it from the certain challenge that will come in due course (when the speculators think the timing is right). Then there is the question of Europe, and the Euro, and all that, but frankly, it isn't even so certain that Britain, as we know it, is going to stay around in the European Community much longer--that may be particularly true if Scotland splits off. They can take London's seat at the table--and be quiet, or take on the Euro if they can arrange the terms of admission.
Then there is the fact that the proposed terms of the referendum would keep for Scotland the current Queen and monarchy, and that Britain would still provide for their defense (which necessarily means Whitehall would conduct diplomacy with other nations on their behalf). To me, that reduces their proposed sovereignty to something less than that.
There is a lot of talk about liberty and freedom, but not much of a convincing case that theirs is unduly restricted by remaining in the Union. (I wrote United Kingdom but then realized that apparently isn't at stake.) Take away all the fine-sounding talk, and it comes down to money and subsidy: who is subsidizing whom, and who will be better off if they separate?
My answer--and I am surprised it has not come out more clearly in the "no" campaign (also known, not very favorably as the "Better Together" campaign)--is that no one will be better off. Yes, surely there is money going into London, money that never comes out, and compared to the rest of the U.K., Scotland probably has a bit more going for it in terms of natural resources. The Scottish will have to start all over, in a number of ways, and they will have a hostile neighbor close by.
In terms of Britain, the Conservatives will be forever branded by the insensate blunder Cameron made to promise the referendum (what did it get him in the elections? nothing!), while Labour's lack of leadership at this critical moment should exclude them in the future, though losing most of the Parliamentary seats they have if Scotland goes will be a hefty punishment. The British Government's promise to provide substantial, additional autonomy to Scotland if it remains within is the right kind of answer because it is a valid argument to vote against independence, but it is late, and too vague. The Liberal Democrats might be the only ones who come out of this looking less than ridiculous.
The committed Scottish nationalists will vote yes, the conflicted nationalists (ones with British sympathies) will vote no, so who are those few undecided who will decide it? I would say they are those who have no idea what will happen if the referendum succeeds. Common sense should tell them to vote no rather than plunge off the cliff into the unknown, and that is why I think the referendum will fail, narrowly.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Vice, Growing Up, and Death
I would name these (the first two in no particular order, though surely Death must come last) to be the three main general topics of today's life in America, replacing the "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" of some recent, but bygone, decades. Sex is too ubiquitous and easy to be controversial these days, drugs are certainly still present but too embarrassing for most to discuss, while rock & roll, so I am told, is "Dad music".*
Vice
The point to start with is that, as misbehavior goes, these describe relatively minor crimes, not at the level of the mega-drug dealer/killer criminals of the '80's "Miami Vice". Crime, and punishment, is still as big a topic as ever in American life, it's just not as interesting (it's played to death). As a class, perhaps unfortunately, vice makes up the interesting parts of many people's lives, the stuff that folks just can't stop texting, Facebook-ing, gossiping, blogging, putting on "reality" shows and CNN, and tweeting their little bird brains off about.
Vice is basically the hot thing in news media, if anything is: there is Vice News, vice.com, Vice the TV show on HBO (connected with vice.com), Vice the youtube channel, and about two-thirds of everything else on TV that isn't crime-scene forensics and sports is about vice. Let's take for example the two biggest stories of the last two weeks. No, not Ukraine and ISIS, but the leaked nude photo story and the Ray Rice story. There is vice in each; "sexting" is what I would call "a minor bad habit", while the practice of bullying, in general, is certainly reflective of "a moral flaw or weakness", and you could add a couple other associated behaviors from the incident, such as being drunk in public, arguing and spitting on your spouse in a hotel elevator.
Both cases have in common what I would call a new kind of vice: the absence of awareness that things we do on the Internet (in its various forms) or in public places are no longer private behaviors. This "vice of naivete" is a sin of a new kind, one that will be relentlessly attacked by the World As We Are Coming To Know It. There is only one definitive way to eliminate this vice: go completely off-grid and live outside the closed-circuit TV zone. Any other behavior in this electronically hyperconnected society will be more akin to the way that we nowadays pursue "health" in a futile effort to prevent eventual aging and death, beacuse all the security hygiene, pretty-good-privacy, and cookie deletion in the world won't protect us from determined hackers. We must either live publicly without vice (or even wardrobe malfunction), or be prepared for the world to see it (if it is interesting enough to somebody with the means and inclination to uncover and disclose it, that being the random, unfair part of the law of the Internet jungle).
Hacking, though, I would argue is something different, and not merely one of these vices of minor gravity (such as voyeurism, or lust, both of which certainly enter into this discussion)--regardless of the law in force, it is something heavier, and not a game, though most hackers themselves seem to view it as such. It is basically the illegitimate pursuit of unauthorized access to information, regardless of motivation or the use that is made. In this case, it was gross violation of privacy, which should be a criminal offense in itself, but at least there are other significant legal violations pending for the unknown hacker. As for Rice, I always thought that the spousal assault cases didn't proceed without the spouse pressing charges, but apparently the video evidence is enough to make a case without his wife's cooperation. "Stupid bully in public"--guilty as charged, but we will let you off easy because you're a football player--if the video doesn't surface, in which case will take away your livelihood.
Changing the subject but not the reference, Vice News is trying to stand out with its coverage of ISIS (which, I would submit based on the argument here, is not about vice but something else--a medieval form of Nazism, maybe, but anyway...) It had a long video report from inside ISIS-controlled areas (the search of which cost the lives of Stephen Sotloff and James Foley, so you better believe they were careful, and careful not to offend), and, speaking of ISIS, here is a praiseworthy article I suggest reading, a subject which I will take up in the near future (after I think about it some more).
Finally, I should put in another plug for "Inherent Vice", the movie based on the Pynchon book, which is coming out later this year. The meaning of the words is important to the story, as I remember, and the meaning of the phrase (in both its original sense and in Pynchon's subversive use of it) may be a little surprising--it's not just referring to "a bad guy" (though maybe partially so).
Growing Up
There is some diversity of opinion as to whether it's the "wrath" or the "warmth" of the clouded crowd (wha?), and it's not the most artistic of songs, but the theme of both quotes is the same: "they" want us to grow up, we reject it. Growing up= Coming down. (There is a nice play on words in the Springsteen song that suggests something about drinking too much and throwing up.)
There's no doubt that maturation in our society is both long and that children are increasingly exposed to more, and sooner, than they once were. The result, I would submit, is a lot of ambiguity about when this process is supposed to be complete. A lot of societies have their official "coming out" events; we have a whole lot of them, none definitive.
A point of reference for this section is an entertaining, but serious piece by A.O. Scott, the Times' senior film critic, who announced "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture" in the Sunday Times Magazine edition of September 14. He's become convinced that there's an epidemic of people of adult age in our society who cling to the ways of childhood, that there's no stopping it, and that we may as well accept it.
I found his argument a bit confusing, and much stronger on the argument of the end of patriarchy than of any and all "adult" behavior. With respect to men, in particular, much of what he describes fits into the category that has for decades been identified as "mid-life crisis". Further, he goes into detail to explain how this refusal to grow up has been part of American culture (by which he means particularly popular novels, music, TV, and film), basically forever (he brought Benjamin Franklin into the argument). So, what is so new? Mostly the end of the exclusivity of this kind of entitlement behavior ("I behave in this childish way because I can") to men.
I could go on, but I think it's best that you come back to me after you've read Scott's arguments and comment here (anonymous or not, I don't care). As for myself, I hold tenaciously to my right to pursue entertainments I enjoyed when I was younger and beliefs that I held when I was younger; becoming older doesn't mean I have to give up everything that was fun or that was liberating in my own philosophy (though I have chosen to give up a few things, particularly my naivete and, somewhat related, my tendency toward sarcasm).
One thing that I will insist upon, though, is that there is room for, and a necessity for, giving more serious considerations their place in life. As long as we live in a world with war, a world in which it is difficult for a person of normal intelligence and training without special privilege to make a living suitable for his/her family by working an appropriate portion of his/her life, we can not afford to be at play at all times. And I don't quite buy the concept that "work should be the thing we do for fun"--not for most of the people, most of the time.
Obit Dept.
It has been awhile, and the recently departed have piled up--not literally so, but the list has become long. The predominance of names from the entertainment world suggests that I might have put this at the end of the Film preview, but that was already too long (not that this post isn't). I will mention some names with brief commentary.
Richard Attenborough - (Aug. 24) - I lead with the longtime character actor and leading Chelsea football backer. He is most known, justifiably, for being the director of Gandhi, one of the all-time great English-language movies.
Robin Williams - (Aug. 11 ) - A man of immense talent, which was always on display, and a darker side which was not evident, but was perhaps predictable, based on his manic on-stage behavior as a comic. Certainly he demonstrated the capability of being serious, as he did in his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting. His depression may have been partly from the diagnosis of early-stage Parkinson's, something disclosed only after his death, or partly from the persistent pain felt by a recovered user of addictive substances, something about which he was somewhat open. His career was certainly fulfilled, but the loss is ours, as we will not have his incisive commentary on many more years of events and social change which we might otherwise have gained.#
James Garner - (July 19) - One of the most popular movie/TV personalities of the past 50 years. I don't know that much about him beyond his performances (the original Maverick and Rockford Files being the most memorable), but he seemed to bring his great, wisecracking personality to every role. So maybe his range wasn't that great; he delivered good value.
James Brady - (Aug. 4) - A public servant who performed his greatest service to the public after he couldn't work in government anymore. The most seriously injured of those attacked by Hinckley in 1981 (Ronald Reagan was the most seriously lucky, in a way, though I read now that the bullet that reached his heart was actually off a ricochet, so maybe his luck was mixed.), Brady had brain damage which affected his motor functions for the rest of his life. He was retained as honorary press secretary for years after, then became the most prominent spokesman willing to challenge the gun lobby for sensible gun reform (at least until Gabby Giffords). His organization had considerable success and lives on--it is very active in this year's campaign, as it tries to fend off the accusation that advocating gun control equals political death.
Lauren Bacall - ( Aug. 12) - Her best years were mostly before my time, but the charisma of the Bogie-Bacall relationship has an eternal glow. An early role model for what is now sometimes called a "new feminist"--confident, powerful, sexy.
Don Pardo - ( Aug. 18) - One of the true kings of the small circle of professional voice-over artists. I remember him from Art Fleming's Jeopardy and the original "Price is Right" even before he began his 30+ year run doing the intro for Saturday Night Live. With today's voice communication, he literally was able to phone it in, the past few years. And I mean that in the best way, that he was still able to do it, even age 96. I am surprised to read that that was his real name.
Joan Rivers - ( Sept. 4) - Her humor was not my favorite kind: too much dishing on others, though she had self-deprecating humor as well, and showed love at times. I actually think she was well appreciated in Hollywood, and certainly had more longevity than most. Except for:
Betty White - (not dead yet!) - Wow, think of all the stuff she has done. My earliest memory of her was on Password (the black and white version)--she was married to the host, Alan Luden, as I recall. I mention her only because there was a somewhat justified rumor that circulated a week or so ago that she had died; actually she had only "dyed", and a press release--probably intentionally misleading--had been misunderstood.
Marvin Barnes - ( Sept. 7) - A great basketball player and one of the truly unusual characters in NBA history (there are many, but he was one of the more unusual ones). Also known as "Bad News Barnes", which gives a suggestion of the reputation that he had (and earned). Read more fully about Barnes in this obituary in the local paper of Providence, R.I., where he first earned fame as one of the stars on the basketball team of Providence College. Pretty much earned the college's fame then, too, he and guard Ernie Di Gregorio.
Wolfgang Leonhard - (Aug. 17) - This man had a significant effect on several different historical eras, though few ever heard of him. He was born into Communism in Vienna in 1921, then lived in Germany and Sweden with his mother as long as it was safe to be a Communist there. When it wasn't they went to the Soviet Union. He became, through first-hand experience, an expert on the Comintern (Stalin's group to advance his brand of Communism internationally), then he was dropped into East Germany after the war as a political organizer to drive the country into the Soviet camp. Obviously, he and his colleagues were successful, and the leader of his group, Walter Ulbricht, became dictator there. Still, he was dissatisfied with the outcome (perhaps philosophically, perhaps personally disappointed) and escaped, through Yugoslavia, into the West. He became a lecturer and writer specializing in chronicling the misdeeds of the Soviets, particularly in other countries' affairs. I saw him teaching a lecture course on Eurocommunism, when it was a hot topic (mid'70's); his point of view was (simplifying excessively): "these may be nice guys (the Communists in Italy, Spain, and France), but a Communist is a Communist. I know their tricks, and the Soviets are backing them, both openly and secretly." Yes, but we were doing the same on the other side, weren't we? Anyway, Eurocommunism never quite got its day in the sun in any Western European government, and the movement died--with Aldo Moro, some would say, or possibly with Enrico Berlinguer. It's certainly pretty much a dead issue now.
*I am a dad, and therefore accordingly interested, but I have to acknowledge that there are many who do not have that privilege, and my bias may have prevented me from recognizing just how much musical times have changed. This is part of my effort to do that.
+ It says there that the etymology of the other meaning of vice, as in Joe Biden, V--- President, is completely separate from that of the bad behavior one; both come from Latin, but naughty is from "vitium", while the VP one comes from the ablative of "vicis", change or alternation.
#I notice that Robin was one of eight Williams dying in August who made the Wikipedia list for that month. One was Tim Williams, age 30, of a band called Suicidal Tendencies. Not funny.
Vice
What is it, exactly? Merriam-Webster online has the summarized definition as:
bad or immoral behavior or habits
: a moral flaw or weakness: a minor bad habit
which I think hits all the main points I want to discuss.+The point to start with is that, as misbehavior goes, these describe relatively minor crimes, not at the level of the mega-drug dealer/killer criminals of the '80's "Miami Vice". Crime, and punishment, is still as big a topic as ever in American life, it's just not as interesting (it's played to death). As a class, perhaps unfortunately, vice makes up the interesting parts of many people's lives, the stuff that folks just can't stop texting, Facebook-ing, gossiping, blogging, putting on "reality" shows and CNN, and tweeting their little bird brains off about.
Vice is basically the hot thing in news media, if anything is: there is Vice News, vice.com, Vice the TV show on HBO (connected with vice.com), Vice the youtube channel, and about two-thirds of everything else on TV that isn't crime-scene forensics and sports is about vice. Let's take for example the two biggest stories of the last two weeks. No, not Ukraine and ISIS, but the leaked nude photo story and the Ray Rice story. There is vice in each; "sexting" is what I would call "a minor bad habit", while the practice of bullying, in general, is certainly reflective of "a moral flaw or weakness", and you could add a couple other associated behaviors from the incident, such as being drunk in public, arguing and spitting on your spouse in a hotel elevator.
Both cases have in common what I would call a new kind of vice: the absence of awareness that things we do on the Internet (in its various forms) or in public places are no longer private behaviors. This "vice of naivete" is a sin of a new kind, one that will be relentlessly attacked by the World As We Are Coming To Know It. There is only one definitive way to eliminate this vice: go completely off-grid and live outside the closed-circuit TV zone. Any other behavior in this electronically hyperconnected society will be more akin to the way that we nowadays pursue "health" in a futile effort to prevent eventual aging and death, beacuse all the security hygiene, pretty-good-privacy, and cookie deletion in the world won't protect us from determined hackers. We must either live publicly without vice (or even wardrobe malfunction), or be prepared for the world to see it (if it is interesting enough to somebody with the means and inclination to uncover and disclose it, that being the random, unfair part of the law of the Internet jungle).
Hacking, though, I would argue is something different, and not merely one of these vices of minor gravity (such as voyeurism, or lust, both of which certainly enter into this discussion)--regardless of the law in force, it is something heavier, and not a game, though most hackers themselves seem to view it as such. It is basically the illegitimate pursuit of unauthorized access to information, regardless of motivation or the use that is made. In this case, it was gross violation of privacy, which should be a criminal offense in itself, but at least there are other significant legal violations pending for the unknown hacker. As for Rice, I always thought that the spousal assault cases didn't proceed without the spouse pressing charges, but apparently the video evidence is enough to make a case without his wife's cooperation. "Stupid bully in public"--guilty as charged, but we will let you off easy because you're a football player--if the video doesn't surface, in which case will take away your livelihood.
Changing the subject but not the reference, Vice News is trying to stand out with its coverage of ISIS (which, I would submit based on the argument here, is not about vice but something else--a medieval form of Nazism, maybe, but anyway...) It had a long video report from inside ISIS-controlled areas (the search of which cost the lives of Stephen Sotloff and James Foley, so you better believe they were careful, and careful not to offend), and, speaking of ISIS, here is a praiseworthy article I suggest reading, a subject which I will take up in the near future (after I think about it some more).
Finally, I should put in another plug for "Inherent Vice", the movie based on the Pynchon book, which is coming out later this year. The meaning of the words is important to the story, as I remember, and the meaning of the phrase (in both its original sense and in Pynchon's subversive use of it) may be a little surprising--it's not just referring to "a bad guy" (though maybe partially so).
Growing Up
They will see us waving from such great heights
Come down now, they'll say
But everything looks perfect from far away
Come down now but we'll stay
--"Such Great Heights", The Postal Service (and then by Iron and Wine), written by Benjamin Gibbard and, Jimmy Tamborello (of The Postal Service).
I hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd, but when they said, "Come down", I threw up. Oooh...growing up.
--Bruce Springsteen (of course)There is some diversity of opinion as to whether it's the "wrath" or the "warmth" of the clouded crowd (wha?), and it's not the most artistic of songs, but the theme of both quotes is the same: "they" want us to grow up, we reject it. Growing up= Coming down. (There is a nice play on words in the Springsteen song that suggests something about drinking too much and throwing up.)
There's no doubt that maturation in our society is both long and that children are increasingly exposed to more, and sooner, than they once were. The result, I would submit, is a lot of ambiguity about when this process is supposed to be complete. A lot of societies have their official "coming out" events; we have a whole lot of them, none definitive.
A point of reference for this section is an entertaining, but serious piece by A.O. Scott, the Times' senior film critic, who announced "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture" in the Sunday Times Magazine edition of September 14. He's become convinced that there's an epidemic of people of adult age in our society who cling to the ways of childhood, that there's no stopping it, and that we may as well accept it.
I found his argument a bit confusing, and much stronger on the argument of the end of patriarchy than of any and all "adult" behavior. With respect to men, in particular, much of what he describes fits into the category that has for decades been identified as "mid-life crisis". Further, he goes into detail to explain how this refusal to grow up has been part of American culture (by which he means particularly popular novels, music, TV, and film), basically forever (he brought Benjamin Franklin into the argument). So, what is so new? Mostly the end of the exclusivity of this kind of entitlement behavior ("I behave in this childish way because I can") to men.
I could go on, but I think it's best that you come back to me after you've read Scott's arguments and comment here (anonymous or not, I don't care). As for myself, I hold tenaciously to my right to pursue entertainments I enjoyed when I was younger and beliefs that I held when I was younger; becoming older doesn't mean I have to give up everything that was fun or that was liberating in my own philosophy (though I have chosen to give up a few things, particularly my naivete and, somewhat related, my tendency toward sarcasm).
One thing that I will insist upon, though, is that there is room for, and a necessity for, giving more serious considerations their place in life. As long as we live in a world with war, a world in which it is difficult for a person of normal intelligence and training without special privilege to make a living suitable for his/her family by working an appropriate portion of his/her life, we can not afford to be at play at all times. And I don't quite buy the concept that "work should be the thing we do for fun"--not for most of the people, most of the time.
Obit Dept.
It has been awhile, and the recently departed have piled up--not literally so, but the list has become long. The predominance of names from the entertainment world suggests that I might have put this at the end of the Film preview, but that was already too long (not that this post isn't). I will mention some names with brief commentary.
Richard Attenborough - (Aug. 24) - I lead with the longtime character actor and leading Chelsea football backer. He is most known, justifiably, for being the director of Gandhi, one of the all-time great English-language movies.
Robin Williams - (Aug. 11 ) - A man of immense talent, which was always on display, and a darker side which was not evident, but was perhaps predictable, based on his manic on-stage behavior as a comic. Certainly he demonstrated the capability of being serious, as he did in his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting. His depression may have been partly from the diagnosis of early-stage Parkinson's, something disclosed only after his death, or partly from the persistent pain felt by a recovered user of addictive substances, something about which he was somewhat open. His career was certainly fulfilled, but the loss is ours, as we will not have his incisive commentary on many more years of events and social change which we might otherwise have gained.#
James Garner - (July 19) - One of the most popular movie/TV personalities of the past 50 years. I don't know that much about him beyond his performances (the original Maverick and Rockford Files being the most memorable), but he seemed to bring his great, wisecracking personality to every role. So maybe his range wasn't that great; he delivered good value.
James Brady - (Aug. 4) - A public servant who performed his greatest service to the public after he couldn't work in government anymore. The most seriously injured of those attacked by Hinckley in 1981 (Ronald Reagan was the most seriously lucky, in a way, though I read now that the bullet that reached his heart was actually off a ricochet, so maybe his luck was mixed.), Brady had brain damage which affected his motor functions for the rest of his life. He was retained as honorary press secretary for years after, then became the most prominent spokesman willing to challenge the gun lobby for sensible gun reform (at least until Gabby Giffords). His organization had considerable success and lives on--it is very active in this year's campaign, as it tries to fend off the accusation that advocating gun control equals political death.
Lauren Bacall - ( Aug. 12) - Her best years were mostly before my time, but the charisma of the Bogie-Bacall relationship has an eternal glow. An early role model for what is now sometimes called a "new feminist"--confident, powerful, sexy.
Don Pardo - ( Aug. 18) - One of the true kings of the small circle of professional voice-over artists. I remember him from Art Fleming's Jeopardy and the original "Price is Right" even before he began his 30+ year run doing the intro for Saturday Night Live. With today's voice communication, he literally was able to phone it in, the past few years. And I mean that in the best way, that he was still able to do it, even age 96. I am surprised to read that that was his real name.
Joan Rivers - ( Sept. 4) - Her humor was not my favorite kind: too much dishing on others, though she had self-deprecating humor as well, and showed love at times. I actually think she was well appreciated in Hollywood, and certainly had more longevity than most. Except for:
Betty White - (not dead yet!) - Wow, think of all the stuff she has done. My earliest memory of her was on Password (the black and white version)--she was married to the host, Alan Luden, as I recall. I mention her only because there was a somewhat justified rumor that circulated a week or so ago that she had died; actually she had only "dyed", and a press release--probably intentionally misleading--had been misunderstood.
Marvin Barnes - ( Sept. 7) - A great basketball player and one of the truly unusual characters in NBA history (there are many, but he was one of the more unusual ones). Also known as "Bad News Barnes", which gives a suggestion of the reputation that he had (and earned). Read more fully about Barnes in this obituary in the local paper of Providence, R.I., where he first earned fame as one of the stars on the basketball team of Providence College. Pretty much earned the college's fame then, too, he and guard Ernie Di Gregorio.
Wolfgang Leonhard - (Aug. 17) - This man had a significant effect on several different historical eras, though few ever heard of him. He was born into Communism in Vienna in 1921, then lived in Germany and Sweden with his mother as long as it was safe to be a Communist there. When it wasn't they went to the Soviet Union. He became, through first-hand experience, an expert on the Comintern (Stalin's group to advance his brand of Communism internationally), then he was dropped into East Germany after the war as a political organizer to drive the country into the Soviet camp. Obviously, he and his colleagues were successful, and the leader of his group, Walter Ulbricht, became dictator there. Still, he was dissatisfied with the outcome (perhaps philosophically, perhaps personally disappointed) and escaped, through Yugoslavia, into the West. He became a lecturer and writer specializing in chronicling the misdeeds of the Soviets, particularly in other countries' affairs. I saw him teaching a lecture course on Eurocommunism, when it was a hot topic (mid'70's); his point of view was (simplifying excessively): "these may be nice guys (the Communists in Italy, Spain, and France), but a Communist is a Communist. I know their tricks, and the Soviets are backing them, both openly and secretly." Yes, but we were doing the same on the other side, weren't we? Anyway, Eurocommunism never quite got its day in the sun in any Western European government, and the movement died--with Aldo Moro, some would say, or possibly with Enrico Berlinguer. It's certainly pretty much a dead issue now.
*I am a dad, and therefore accordingly interested, but I have to acknowledge that there are many who do not have that privilege, and my bias may have prevented me from recognizing just how much musical times have changed. This is part of my effort to do that.
+ It says there that the etymology of the other meaning of vice, as in Joe Biden, V--- President, is completely separate from that of the bad behavior one; both come from Latin, but naughty is from "vitium", while the VP one comes from the ablative of "vicis", change or alternation.
#I notice that Robin was one of eight Williams dying in August who made the Wikipedia list for that month. One was Tim Williams, age 30, of a band called Suicidal Tendencies. Not funny.
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Progress Report - Pt. 2 - Politics
I was on Yahoo! today* and saw a teaser for an article by Matt Bai, a reporter they have signed up in an effort to be a more serious, complete website. It was called, "The Coming Foreign Policy Election." I didn't read it at the time, but I thought to myself, "Matt Bai, if that's what you think, you're a dope." To be fair to Bai, when I read the article later I saw that he's not talking about this election, but the one in 2016--so he's not a dope, just jumping the shark by about two years: Any honest analyst would have to say he/she has no clue at this time what the 2016 election will be about.
He was also, if my memory serves, one of the shark-jumpers who jumped all over President Obama a couple of weeks ago when Obama honestly stated that his administration didn't have a strategy for ISIS yet. Of course, after that gaffe the strategy gap was filled quickly. The strategy is an obvious one, it just took a little while to get all the key allies in line. And, they are: Western Europe of course, but then Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the two ones that will cooperate fully on an unacknowledged basis: Iran and Russia.
This could be a bit of a turning point in our relationship with Iran, if both countries allow it to be, as there is no country, outside Iraq and Syria, which has a greater desire to suppress ISIS and its throwback transnational ambitions than Iran. The need for the others in the alliance arises because ISIS has shown some quality as a movement: they have not collapsed from too-rapid expansion, the majority populace under their control has found life actually improved (from the chaos they were experiencing, in Syria, and from the religious discrimination in Iraq), and, from a global Islamist/jihadi status aspect, they have scored points for audacity and for coming out in the open, which will help their recruiting (poor fools, heading off to ignominy, death, and no virgins!). ISIS' weakness, which will allow the containment/rollback/destruction scenario to work, is the one that all fanatical movements with global ambitions eventually face: their neighbors despise them.
Anyway, back to Bai and foreign policy: even two days ago it seemed as though Obama's foreign policy was circling the toilet drain, with each day bringing new abomination, without any effective response from our part. Bai will have learned in the last 48 hours how quickly that can all change, though: Ukraine and Russia have settled, the alliance against ISIS is forming up rapidly, and the events which led him to write the editorial were essentially disproved in two days, not two years (though I doubt he will be admitting as much in his appearance this week on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"!) 2016 could still be an election year in which foreign policy issues predominate; however, I disagree with him that 1980 and 2004 were such+.
In 2014, though, foreign policy will be near the bottom of issues voters cite to pollsters--if they can think of any at all to cite. The playing field for both sides is remarkably devoid of any issues, and both sides seem to want it that way. The whole Boehner lawsuit/possible impeachment thing is a red herring that both sides seem to be able to throw out effectively to the more predatory fish in their respective e-mail ponds: the lawsuit is a joke, one based on the hypocritical argument that Obama has not implemented Obamacare sufficiently rigorously; it has no chance of succeeding, and impeachment would blow up in the Republicans' faces if it were tried on Obama. Immigration?--action is off the table now: Democratic Senatorial candidates in red-leaning states were worried it would hurt them. Keystone XL? - not a powerful issue, and Obama can put it off, too. Minimum wage? - it helps Democrats with turnout of its base, but not convincing the (few) true fence-sitters, while possibly persuadable Republican voters of all economic classes remain attached to their trickle-down ideology. Citizens United? - Unfortunately, it's just become a partisan club for Democratic candidates and office-holders to use against Republicans, who therefore respond defensively and instinctively to oppose any change, and thereby preserve the (unacceptable, even for them, if truth be known) status quo. Then, of course, there is the #1 issue, especially in a midterm election--the Economy? It is likely to stay on the same, sluggish course, and there is little the President could do, with or without Congress, and much less that Congress can do on its own.
What this election is about, for both sides, is simply the aggregation of a few bits more of power through skillful fund-raising and the exploitation of those funds. For the Democrats, this means replicating the Obama campaign methods in 1000 local points of turnout activity, combined with some carefully prepared local tactical advertising based on issue-related focus groups and polling. The Republicans don't need polls, organizing money, or advisers: they can lead from their gut (Establishment conservative or Tea Party), throw red meat to their base, spend copiously from secret PAC money in the hundreds of millions, and do their best to suppress overall turnout levels.
Ten Most Important State Elections (to Me)
You may have seen a few other Top Ten lists--most vulnerable incumbent Senators or Representatives (they run out of ideas before they get to 10)--closest races, Howard Dean's Dozen, maybe the Mayday.us selections (I may comment on those when they are complete, as I want to give that group every possible promotion, and their choices are quite interesting). What I find is that there are a bunch of states with very little going on, while some have multiple races that are closely contested while also presenting significant differences between their political positions. Giving for Democrats at a statewide level can help at all levels, or conversely, giving locally could help tight statewide contests. So here are my Top Ten state races, from the bottom up:
Honorable Mention - Texas, where I expect nothing very interesting in terms of results, but Wendy Davis' run at Typical Texan Tool Greg Abbott (latest product of the 3-T Ranch) is at least honorable; New Hampshire, which I think will be OK for Jeanne Sheehan as Senator and for both Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter in contested House races; and New Mexico, where I am registered to vote: Tom Udall should win easily over a self-funded opponent, while Susana Martinez should be able to hold onto her job and position herself as a desperation VP candidate for the Republicans in 2016 if they really Need A Woman (and being Hispanic is a bonus chip) to counter You-Know-Who.
10) Arkansas - I've got no horse in the tight Senate race (Pryor gets nothing from me because of his vote on gun background checks), but the fact that Democrats are competitive in the Senate and Governor races is interesting, anyway
9) Georgia - I'm not really a believer, but the Democrats have fielded probably their best possible Senatorial candidate (daughter of longtime moderate Dem. Senator Sam Nunn) to compete for a vacant seat, and the polls are all over the place.
8) Colorado - Sen. Mark Udall in a do-or-die race vs. a Tea Partier. Udall should win but there is risk, and no room for error given the close count for control of the Senate. Gov. Hickenlooper is favored to hold on against reaction (this is now a Legal Marijuana state, and some are dismayed he let that happen) and hold off his opponent.
7) Illinois - The state of my current primary residence is a mess, and this is counting against Pat Quinn, even though he seems like a decent guy and he didn't make the mess. I'm sure electing a big-money trickle-down guy like his opponent will not make it better, but he'll be more willing to approach the legislature for hand-outs to big companies threatening to move jobs out--at least I think that is the marginally-prevailing voter wisdom. There are several very closely contested House races, in particular those of (I will name the Democrats--the Republicans don't send me constant emails to remind me who they are!) Brad Schneider in the northern suburbs, and Ann Callis (a strong race against an incumbent), Cheri Bustos and Bill Enyart (who has not asked me for money!) downstate. Dick Durbin should have no problem winning re-election, and despite all the emails asking for money, I don't think Tammy Duckworth should, either.
6) Wisconsin - The one race I am following here is one of the big headliners this year: the much-hated Scott Walker (many Republi-con pundits' "interesting" choice for the 2016 Presidential nomination) is fighting, once again, for his political life. He may lose this one; it seems the promised trickle-down flow of his union-busting was not so much. No Senate race (that hasn't stopped Tammy Baldwin from deluging my Inbox, though).
5) Michigan - There is a chance that Michigan's Republican governor may lose, but the truly critical race is for the open Senate race. Rep. Gary Peters is trying to prevent a Republican pick-up and the money is flowing. Peters is a very slight favorite.
4) North Carolina - Riding somewhat on President Obama's success in that state in 2008, Kay Hagan defeated Elizabeth Dole to take a Senate seat to which she is trying desperately to hold--this time without the Obama machine's support (her choice). She is clinging to that elusive middle-of-the-road positioning, which puts her a long distance from her opponent, whose positions suggest a nostalgia for the Bad Ol' Days of Jesse Helms. Based on incumbency and the advantages of a centrist position, one would think this is winnable, and it is, but the outcome is greatly in doubt.
3) Iowa - This is a battleground state on all levels, thoroughly purple. The Republican Governor Terry Branstad is likely to break all existing records and win yet another term, though his opponent Jack Hatch is pushing hard, trying to exploit Branstad Fatigue. There are close races in several Congressional districts, particularly for the re-election of Dave Loebsack, and for open seats sought by Staci Appel and Pat Murphy, while all people of goodwill are hoping Jim Mowrer has some chance to defeat that racist blowhard Steve King (probably not). The big one, though, is the Senate race to fill the seat of retiring longtime Democratic Senator Tom Harkin: Congressman Bruce Braley is the candidate, his party credentials are strong, but his campaign has left the door open for a Tea Party woman candidate. Yet another do-or-die race for national Democrats.
2) Florida - Floridians have a chance this year to send Governor Rick Scott back to wherever he came from (or, preferably, to jail, where he belongs). The alternative to him is former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost a Senate race (as an independent) to Marco Rubio, but now has become a Democrat. He governed as a moderate before, so it's fair for him to say he does not feel at home in his former party anymore (though that may not dispel his political opponents' charges of opportunism). There are some competitive House races in Florida (I have been getting many emails from Patrick Murphy--not the one in Iowa above, which has been confusing--who is in a close race to hold his seat, as well as many enjoyable ones from Alan Grayson, who apparently has a fairly easy race this time). No Senate race here (or in New York or California; Texas has a near-walkover for John Cornyn. It is almost certain this election will break records for low turnout, but these circumstances will have something to do with it, along with the political stalemate, the flood of negative ads we can expect....)
1) Kentucky - There are two routes toward the desired outcome that Mitch McConnell will not be the Senate Majority Leader in 2015-16. The complicated one involves keeping net Democratic seat losses to less than six (with West Virginia, South Dakota, and now Montana near certain, and a variety of states that are possible losses, some but not all of which are discussed above). The more direct route is voting him out of office completely, and I am thrilled to report that is still a possibility this year. I should not get my hopes up, but his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is a strong candidate, a determined campaigner careful to hold to moderate positions appropriate for her state, while Mitch is....one of the least likable politicians ever. They tried a campaign ad in which he smiled, and I think they had to pull it, as he was scaring little children. The good news is that Kentucky is always one of the first to produce its voting results on Election Night, so I will know early on whether to place my hopes elsewhere.
2014 Elections - Special Cases:
a) Louisiana - Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is running against both a Tea Party candidate and an Establishment Republican candidate. The conventional wisdom is that she will finish first but fall short of 50%, which by Louisiana rules would necessitate a runoff election a few weeks later against the second-place finisher, then that wisdom suggests she might lose that race, which may at that time be determinant of control of the Senate. Landrieu is a pureblood politician who picks her spots and avoids votes which will condemn her with her conservative state's electorate. I'm rooting for her to win it in regulation time and think she can do it. If it goes into overtime, though, with the Senate at 50-49 Republican, it will be an insane mini-campaign, no matter who she has as opponent (New Orleans TV stations are holding time slots open for the windfall revenue, I'm sure).
b) Alaska - My view of the toss-up Senate race in Alaska is like that of the Arkansas race above: there's an endangered, incumbent Democrat who will have to win without my support. My disappointment is greater with Alaska's Begich (I never had any expectations for Pryor), though I suppose I should be more understanding of his position: he represents a state full of gun nuts who celebrate the idea that shooting moose from a helicopter is sport, and in fact I was reading that the Gun Owners of America give him a failing grade, despite his effort to appease them by opposing universal background checks for purchases, because of anti-gun crimes like supporting an advocate of gun restrictions for the judiciary and (horrors!) voting in favor of implementing the well-known anti-gun legislation Obamacare (?). OK, Mark, I know you're not one of them, but have you shown you're one of us?
c) Hawaii - This is the state which has had the most dysfunctional Democratic party this year, but it will probably turn out OK for them in the end. The story goes like this: When longtime Senator Daniel Inouye was dying, he spoke with Gov. Abercrombie and suggested Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat until the special election. When Inouye died, Abercrombie named instead Brian Schatz. This "betrayal" opened up a rift between Whites and Asians in the state's Democratic party leadership, with the result that Abercrombie was punished with a massive primary defeat. Meanwhile, Schatz squeaked out a victory over Hanabusa in the Senate primary. I received tons of requests for money from both Schatz and Hanabusa (I refused to get any of my money involved in the spat). The likelihood is that both Schatz and the Democratic nominee for Governor will win. Despite the intraparty feud, the Democrats are still too powerful in Hawaii.
d) Kansas, as in "What's Wrong with....?" - Could Kansas become the new Iowa (only without the showoff Presidential caucus drama)? My reading is that the revival of Democrats there is mostly connected with severe disenchantment with former Senator (and onetime Presidential candidate), now Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback rammed through income tax cuts, and is suffering the usual consequences: ingratitude (it's never enough!), budget deficit, downgraded credit, lack of trickle down flow. He is running for re-election and is likely to lose. Poor old Pat Roberts, the longtime Senator, seems to be feeling the downdraft, and with the developments this week he suddenly finds he may be in a fight. The Democratic candidate withdrew from the race and threw his support to independent candidate Greg Orman. All of a sudden Orman appears to be a threat to defeat Roberts (though a ruling that the Democrat was too late to take his name off the ballot will help him defend his seat).
Orman is regarded as a "true" independent, and in the style of Angus King (elected Senator from Maine in 2012) has not committed to joining the Democratic caucus if he wins. So, we may have a scenario such as I described back then (though it didn't come to pass, as the Democratic control of the Senate didn't depend on King's joining them). What I find interesting is the idea that we could have three Independents in the Senate next year--could this be the beginning of a "swing caucus" that could help break the partisan deadlock?
Other States--Ones in which Democrats should expect mostly Good statewide outcomes: Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania. Ones that they should expect Bad ones: Mississippi, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana. Those last three states are ones that had Democratic Senators that almost surely will go Republican. After the loss of those three, Democrats can afford a net result of no worse than -2 out of the many close ones they are defending (including Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire) and the 2-3 they have a chance to gain (Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas).
*Maybe a topic for another day. Yahoo!'s website is a real frustration, but I have not yet learned how to live without it.
He was also, if my memory serves, one of the shark-jumpers who jumped all over President Obama a couple of weeks ago when Obama honestly stated that his administration didn't have a strategy for ISIS yet. Of course, after that gaffe the strategy gap was filled quickly. The strategy is an obvious one, it just took a little while to get all the key allies in line. And, they are: Western Europe of course, but then Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the two ones that will cooperate fully on an unacknowledged basis: Iran and Russia.
This could be a bit of a turning point in our relationship with Iran, if both countries allow it to be, as there is no country, outside Iraq and Syria, which has a greater desire to suppress ISIS and its throwback transnational ambitions than Iran. The need for the others in the alliance arises because ISIS has shown some quality as a movement: they have not collapsed from too-rapid expansion, the majority populace under their control has found life actually improved (from the chaos they were experiencing, in Syria, and from the religious discrimination in Iraq), and, from a global Islamist/jihadi status aspect, they have scored points for audacity and for coming out in the open, which will help their recruiting (poor fools, heading off to ignominy, death, and no virgins!). ISIS' weakness, which will allow the containment/rollback/destruction scenario to work, is the one that all fanatical movements with global ambitions eventually face: their neighbors despise them.
Anyway, back to Bai and foreign policy: even two days ago it seemed as though Obama's foreign policy was circling the toilet drain, with each day bringing new abomination, without any effective response from our part. Bai will have learned in the last 48 hours how quickly that can all change, though: Ukraine and Russia have settled, the alliance against ISIS is forming up rapidly, and the events which led him to write the editorial were essentially disproved in two days, not two years (though I doubt he will be admitting as much in his appearance this week on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"!) 2016 could still be an election year in which foreign policy issues predominate; however, I disagree with him that 1980 and 2004 were such+.
In 2014, though, foreign policy will be near the bottom of issues voters cite to pollsters--if they can think of any at all to cite. The playing field for both sides is remarkably devoid of any issues, and both sides seem to want it that way. The whole Boehner lawsuit/possible impeachment thing is a red herring that both sides seem to be able to throw out effectively to the more predatory fish in their respective e-mail ponds: the lawsuit is a joke, one based on the hypocritical argument that Obama has not implemented Obamacare sufficiently rigorously; it has no chance of succeeding, and impeachment would blow up in the Republicans' faces if it were tried on Obama. Immigration?--action is off the table now: Democratic Senatorial candidates in red-leaning states were worried it would hurt them. Keystone XL? - not a powerful issue, and Obama can put it off, too. Minimum wage? - it helps Democrats with turnout of its base, but not convincing the (few) true fence-sitters, while possibly persuadable Republican voters of all economic classes remain attached to their trickle-down ideology. Citizens United? - Unfortunately, it's just become a partisan club for Democratic candidates and office-holders to use against Republicans, who therefore respond defensively and instinctively to oppose any change, and thereby preserve the (unacceptable, even for them, if truth be known) status quo. Then, of course, there is the #1 issue, especially in a midterm election--the Economy? It is likely to stay on the same, sluggish course, and there is little the President could do, with or without Congress, and much less that Congress can do on its own.
What this election is about, for both sides, is simply the aggregation of a few bits more of power through skillful fund-raising and the exploitation of those funds. For the Democrats, this means replicating the Obama campaign methods in 1000 local points of turnout activity, combined with some carefully prepared local tactical advertising based on issue-related focus groups and polling. The Republicans don't need polls, organizing money, or advisers: they can lead from their gut (Establishment conservative or Tea Party), throw red meat to their base, spend copiously from secret PAC money in the hundreds of millions, and do their best to suppress overall turnout levels.
Ten Most Important State Elections (to Me)
You may have seen a few other Top Ten lists--most vulnerable incumbent Senators or Representatives (they run out of ideas before they get to 10)--closest races, Howard Dean's Dozen, maybe the Mayday.us selections (I may comment on those when they are complete, as I want to give that group every possible promotion, and their choices are quite interesting). What I find is that there are a bunch of states with very little going on, while some have multiple races that are closely contested while also presenting significant differences between their political positions. Giving for Democrats at a statewide level can help at all levels, or conversely, giving locally could help tight statewide contests. So here are my Top Ten state races, from the bottom up:
Honorable Mention - Texas, where I expect nothing very interesting in terms of results, but Wendy Davis' run at Typical Texan Tool Greg Abbott (latest product of the 3-T Ranch) is at least honorable; New Hampshire, which I think will be OK for Jeanne Sheehan as Senator and for both Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter in contested House races; and New Mexico, where I am registered to vote: Tom Udall should win easily over a self-funded opponent, while Susana Martinez should be able to hold onto her job and position herself as a desperation VP candidate for the Republicans in 2016 if they really Need A Woman (and being Hispanic is a bonus chip) to counter You-Know-Who.
10) Arkansas - I've got no horse in the tight Senate race (Pryor gets nothing from me because of his vote on gun background checks), but the fact that Democrats are competitive in the Senate and Governor races is interesting, anyway
9) Georgia - I'm not really a believer, but the Democrats have fielded probably their best possible Senatorial candidate (daughter of longtime moderate Dem. Senator Sam Nunn) to compete for a vacant seat, and the polls are all over the place.
8) Colorado - Sen. Mark Udall in a do-or-die race vs. a Tea Partier. Udall should win but there is risk, and no room for error given the close count for control of the Senate. Gov. Hickenlooper is favored to hold on against reaction (this is now a Legal Marijuana state, and some are dismayed he let that happen) and hold off his opponent.
7) Illinois - The state of my current primary residence is a mess, and this is counting against Pat Quinn, even though he seems like a decent guy and he didn't make the mess. I'm sure electing a big-money trickle-down guy like his opponent will not make it better, but he'll be more willing to approach the legislature for hand-outs to big companies threatening to move jobs out--at least I think that is the marginally-prevailing voter wisdom. There are several very closely contested House races, in particular those of (I will name the Democrats--the Republicans don't send me constant emails to remind me who they are!) Brad Schneider in the northern suburbs, and Ann Callis (a strong race against an incumbent), Cheri Bustos and Bill Enyart (who has not asked me for money!) downstate. Dick Durbin should have no problem winning re-election, and despite all the emails asking for money, I don't think Tammy Duckworth should, either.
6) Wisconsin - The one race I am following here is one of the big headliners this year: the much-hated Scott Walker (many Republi-con pundits' "interesting" choice for the 2016 Presidential nomination) is fighting, once again, for his political life. He may lose this one; it seems the promised trickle-down flow of his union-busting was not so much. No Senate race (that hasn't stopped Tammy Baldwin from deluging my Inbox, though).
5) Michigan - There is a chance that Michigan's Republican governor may lose, but the truly critical race is for the open Senate race. Rep. Gary Peters is trying to prevent a Republican pick-up and the money is flowing. Peters is a very slight favorite.
4) North Carolina - Riding somewhat on President Obama's success in that state in 2008, Kay Hagan defeated Elizabeth Dole to take a Senate seat to which she is trying desperately to hold--this time without the Obama machine's support (her choice). She is clinging to that elusive middle-of-the-road positioning, which puts her a long distance from her opponent, whose positions suggest a nostalgia for the Bad Ol' Days of Jesse Helms. Based on incumbency and the advantages of a centrist position, one would think this is winnable, and it is, but the outcome is greatly in doubt.
3) Iowa - This is a battleground state on all levels, thoroughly purple. The Republican Governor Terry Branstad is likely to break all existing records and win yet another term, though his opponent Jack Hatch is pushing hard, trying to exploit Branstad Fatigue. There are close races in several Congressional districts, particularly for the re-election of Dave Loebsack, and for open seats sought by Staci Appel and Pat Murphy, while all people of goodwill are hoping Jim Mowrer has some chance to defeat that racist blowhard Steve King (probably not). The big one, though, is the Senate race to fill the seat of retiring longtime Democratic Senator Tom Harkin: Congressman Bruce Braley is the candidate, his party credentials are strong, but his campaign has left the door open for a Tea Party woman candidate. Yet another do-or-die race for national Democrats.
2) Florida - Floridians have a chance this year to send Governor Rick Scott back to wherever he came from (or, preferably, to jail, where he belongs). The alternative to him is former Gov. Charlie Crist, who lost a Senate race (as an independent) to Marco Rubio, but now has become a Democrat. He governed as a moderate before, so it's fair for him to say he does not feel at home in his former party anymore (though that may not dispel his political opponents' charges of opportunism). There are some competitive House races in Florida (I have been getting many emails from Patrick Murphy--not the one in Iowa above, which has been confusing--who is in a close race to hold his seat, as well as many enjoyable ones from Alan Grayson, who apparently has a fairly easy race this time). No Senate race here (or in New York or California; Texas has a near-walkover for John Cornyn. It is almost certain this election will break records for low turnout, but these circumstances will have something to do with it, along with the political stalemate, the flood of negative ads we can expect....)
1) Kentucky - There are two routes toward the desired outcome that Mitch McConnell will not be the Senate Majority Leader in 2015-16. The complicated one involves keeping net Democratic seat losses to less than six (with West Virginia, South Dakota, and now Montana near certain, and a variety of states that are possible losses, some but not all of which are discussed above). The more direct route is voting him out of office completely, and I am thrilled to report that is still a possibility this year. I should not get my hopes up, but his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, is a strong candidate, a determined campaigner careful to hold to moderate positions appropriate for her state, while Mitch is....one of the least likable politicians ever. They tried a campaign ad in which he smiled, and I think they had to pull it, as he was scaring little children. The good news is that Kentucky is always one of the first to produce its voting results on Election Night, so I will know early on whether to place my hopes elsewhere.
2014 Elections - Special Cases:
a) Louisiana - Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is running against both a Tea Party candidate and an Establishment Republican candidate. The conventional wisdom is that she will finish first but fall short of 50%, which by Louisiana rules would necessitate a runoff election a few weeks later against the second-place finisher, then that wisdom suggests she might lose that race, which may at that time be determinant of control of the Senate. Landrieu is a pureblood politician who picks her spots and avoids votes which will condemn her with her conservative state's electorate. I'm rooting for her to win it in regulation time and think she can do it. If it goes into overtime, though, with the Senate at 50-49 Republican, it will be an insane mini-campaign, no matter who she has as opponent (New Orleans TV stations are holding time slots open for the windfall revenue, I'm sure).
b) Alaska - My view of the toss-up Senate race in Alaska is like that of the Arkansas race above: there's an endangered, incumbent Democrat who will have to win without my support. My disappointment is greater with Alaska's Begich (I never had any expectations for Pryor), though I suppose I should be more understanding of his position: he represents a state full of gun nuts who celebrate the idea that shooting moose from a helicopter is sport, and in fact I was reading that the Gun Owners of America give him a failing grade, despite his effort to appease them by opposing universal background checks for purchases, because of anti-gun crimes like supporting an advocate of gun restrictions for the judiciary and (horrors!) voting in favor of implementing the well-known anti-gun legislation Obamacare (?). OK, Mark, I know you're not one of them, but have you shown you're one of us?
c) Hawaii - This is the state which has had the most dysfunctional Democratic party this year, but it will probably turn out OK for them in the end. The story goes like this: When longtime Senator Daniel Inouye was dying, he spoke with Gov. Abercrombie and suggested Abercrombie appoint Rep. Colleen Hanabusa to his seat until the special election. When Inouye died, Abercrombie named instead Brian Schatz. This "betrayal" opened up a rift between Whites and Asians in the state's Democratic party leadership, with the result that Abercrombie was punished with a massive primary defeat. Meanwhile, Schatz squeaked out a victory over Hanabusa in the Senate primary. I received tons of requests for money from both Schatz and Hanabusa (I refused to get any of my money involved in the spat). The likelihood is that both Schatz and the Democratic nominee for Governor will win. Despite the intraparty feud, the Democrats are still too powerful in Hawaii.
d) Kansas, as in "What's Wrong with....?" - Could Kansas become the new Iowa (only without the showoff Presidential caucus drama)? My reading is that the revival of Democrats there is mostly connected with severe disenchantment with former Senator (and onetime Presidential candidate), now Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback rammed through income tax cuts, and is suffering the usual consequences: ingratitude (it's never enough!), budget deficit, downgraded credit, lack of trickle down flow. He is running for re-election and is likely to lose. Poor old Pat Roberts, the longtime Senator, seems to be feeling the downdraft, and with the developments this week he suddenly finds he may be in a fight. The Democratic candidate withdrew from the race and threw his support to independent candidate Greg Orman. All of a sudden Orman appears to be a threat to defeat Roberts (though a ruling that the Democrat was too late to take his name off the ballot will help him defend his seat).
Orman is regarded as a "true" independent, and in the style of Angus King (elected Senator from Maine in 2012) has not committed to joining the Democratic caucus if he wins. So, we may have a scenario such as I described back then (though it didn't come to pass, as the Democratic control of the Senate didn't depend on King's joining them). What I find interesting is the idea that we could have three Independents in the Senate next year--could this be the beginning of a "swing caucus" that could help break the partisan deadlock?
Other States--Ones in which Democrats should expect mostly Good statewide outcomes: Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Pennsylvania. Ones that they should expect Bad ones: Mississippi, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana. Those last three states are ones that had Democratic Senators that almost surely will go Republican. After the loss of those three, Democrats can afford a net result of no worse than -2 out of the many close ones they are defending (including Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, North Carolina, and New Hampshire) and the 2-3 they have a chance to gain (Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas).
*Maybe a topic for another day. Yahoo!'s website is a real frustration, but I have not yet learned how to live without it.
+--maybe 2002 was, uniquely so for a postwar midterm election, but the Bush victory in 2004 was much more about John Kerry's perceived weakness as a Presidential candidate than any demonstrated Bushite foreign success--the Iraq "victory" line had already worn thin for most--while 1980 was only partly about Jimmy Carter's foreign policy miscues, but also about a really bad economic environment, just the same--with the shoe on the other foot--as 2008.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Fall Movie Preview
This is a guide to help plan the fall viewing season--it sets the scene (as it were), and is the basis for my Official Predictions at the end of the year. I will organize it a little differently this year: a few numbered themes for the season, then I will reference the theme numbers, with expected 'official' release date (if I can find it), along with my captions for the movies--my impression of what these movies portend to provide us, and how the season should play out.
I was able to catch a couple of movies while in the US—early fall releases, which means their producers don’t really consider them Oscar material--The Giver and The Hundred Foot Journey—. * One thing that going to a serious film provided was an extensive set of trailers for some of the major releases coming this fall.
I repeat that I have no inside information, just whatever buzz I pick up, plus imdb.com and, yes, a little credit to Entertainment Weekly for legwork. That rag justifies itself once or twice a year, this is one of them.
Themes:
1) Amazing True-Life Stories: I am not against action films as such, but I am so tired of the action film depicting the most amazing thing that ever happened to the human race (if it were true). This summer was particularly vapid, it seemed to me. So, kudos to Zero Dark Thirty, which depicted something true and pretty amazing, and there are a few of those stories coming this fall. A subset present this fall:
1a) Tortured Geniuses (it worked for Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly).
2) The Next Big Thing among actors and actresses-- There are a couple of them each year--somehow the casting trends and vagaries of release times get them to pop up all over the place. Remember when Jude Law was in everything? Julia Ormond? Vera Farmiga? Matt Damon?
3) Movies marked for one or two nominations -- There are more than a few that—because of the subject matter, director/producer, and cast-- indicate a desire to be a “big Oscar contender”, but I don’t feel it’s likely for there will be a single movie making a big sweep. Instead, there appear some strong contenders for specific awards and a lively competition for those coveted Best Picture nominations (up to 10 of them).
4) Hollywood's Liberal Attitudes Front and Center--always a theme, but maybe moreso this year?
5) Women, or Even Men, Breaking out of Type (or trying to) -- For an example, see Scarlett Johansson (also an example of theme 2 above) in her roles this year, and somehow having a baby, too.
6) Big-Ass Casts, Big Hype--now, more than ever. See comment on theme 3.
Which leads me to--
Contenders, the Long List:
Interstellar –(3, 6, Nov. 7)-- McConaughey, Hathaway, Christopher Nolan,
others. Wormholes. Gravity meets those meteor movies of 10
years ago and Carl Sagan's Contact (remember that one, with Jodie Foster?) The opposite of 1). Saving the world, with barely
plausible science, and superior special effects. A contender, but not a winner, for other nominations (what exactly did Gravity win, in the end? Answer: 7 Oscars, so what do I know? But this year is different, somehow.)
The
Theory of Everything -- (1a, 3, 11/7)-- Eddie
Redmayne, as the young (pre-and early-disease) Stephen Hawking. Looks like great timing, with the viral ALS Ice Bucket thing (though I heard his disease called something else in the preview). Seems an
obvious Best Actor nomination.
The Imitation Game-- (1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11/21) – The earnest Benedict Cumberbatch makes his bid, in the role of
Alan Turing, one of the most significant and unusual characters of the 20th
century (Marathoner, Decoder of the German secret code--project Enigma, outed as homosexual, suicide). Cumberbatch is due; he's earned his stripes with his TV Sherlock (and don't think the AMPAS doesn't notice TV nowadays!)
Selma – (4, 6, 12/25)-- David Oyelowo (...The Butler, his son) as MLK. Late release is supposedly timed for King's holiday (if you buy that!), with the 50th anniversary of the Selma events next year. Watch for Tim Roth as George Wallace, Tom Wilkinson as LBJ. And, it has Oprah Winfrey!
Unbroken-- (1-in a big way, 5, 12/25) - The truly amazing story of Louis Zamperini – Olympic
athlete, Japanese POW (died
7/2 aged 97). Directed by Angelina
Jolie, script by the Coen brothers (breaking molds). Will rise or fall on the performance of relative unknown Jack O'Connell in the lead role.
Exodus: Gods and Kings-- (3, 12/12)-- Ridley Scott director. Christian Bale, Sigourney Weaver. The story of Moses; the test will be whether the parting of the Red Sea, now vs. in the day of
Charlton Heston, can still amaze as it once did, and this will determine whether this can qualify at least in special effects. I don't expect much more.
Tracks-- (1, 2, now--was released earlier elsewhere) --based on a true-life adventure memoir of a lone woman, with camels, crossing Australia. Mia Wasikowska is the centerpiece; you may remember her from the offbeat Alice in Wonderland (and she will be in its sequel); she's also starring in a new release of Madame Bovary (which I would say is very unlikely to go over big in the US).
The Good Lie --(1,2, 3,4, 5, 10/3)--. Based on a true-life story (moved to the US, though?) of Sudanese who escape conflict, and the small-town woman (played by Reese Witherspoon) who gives them a home and a chance for a new life.
Gone Girl --(5,6, 10/3)– The kind of story that I hate when true, but this is fictional (very successful novel by Gillian Flynn, who has a screenwriting credit ). Ben Affleck as the suspected murdering husband, Rosamunde Pike as the disappeared wife, Tyler Perry as the Johnnie Cochran-type defense lawyer. A David Fincher movie, with Reese W. as Producer. I like the casting, could be a nomination for Best screenplay, adapted. Don't see nominations for Affleck, Fincher or Best Picture here, though.
Wild-- (2,3,5,12/5)-- Reese W. in the adaptation of an original memoir. A hike on the Pacific Crest Trail by a burnt-out person. True-life but doesn't sound too amazing; however, could this be Reese's nomination, of all the possible ones for her this year?
Inherent Vice – (6, 12/12)-- Directed and screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – (The Master, There Will be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights) with Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Reese W, and others you would recognize. As far as I know, the first attempt ever to make a movie of a Thomas Pynchon novel (I would presume he had approval on the script? I would presume P.T. Anderson is sworn to secrecy?) And what a choice--his most lurid novel. It's probably this year’s Cloud Atlas—won’t be a hit, but I’m backing it, regardless.
Annie --(3, 12/19) -- The musical based on the stupid comic strip--the song "Tomorrow", and all that. Quvenzhane’ Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Jamie Foxx, Cameron Diaz. Sia has new songs in it, which should get it a nomination. Interesting casting, for sure.
Into the Woods-- (3, 6-and then some!, 12/25) – Meryl Streep (singing again), Johnny Depp, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine...Directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago). The 1987 Broadway musical with the fairy tales mixed together, but the movie has no original songs (clearly a lost nomination opportunity!) Stephen Sondheim is credited on music and lyrics, though, which should get a nomination for him of some kind, as they simply must get him to the event.
Foxcatcher-- (5, 6, 11/14) – Like Gone Girl but a true story; interesting maybe, but not so amazing. Appeals mostly to our morbid curiosity. Steven Carell plays the creepy, rich sponsor of an Olympic wrestler, also features Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, others. Major buzz, but I'm not buying it.
The Judge --(3,5,6, 10/10) – Robert Downey Jr. (co-produced with his wife), Robert Duvall in the title character role. Courtroom drama in which Bob Jr. defends the senior Bob. Seems like a mess, but Duvall is always an Oscar threat (in this case, it could be Supporting Actor, which would facilitate a nomination).
Birdman -- (6, 10/17)– Michael Keaton (as ex-superhero actor), Ed Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, directed by Inarritu (21 Grams, Amores Perros). Yet another movie about a washed- up Keaton playing a super-hero? Super star power, and as with Foxcatcher, major buzz. Seems bathetic.
Whiplash – (2, 3, 5, 10/10) Indie hit with Miles Teller (The Spectacular Now, the Divergent series, the upcoming romcom Two Night Stand (9/26), and a future Fantastic Four series remake), as a jazz drummer. He's supposed to be good in this one (as opposed to the others).
Leviathan (3, 4, 12/31) Russian production, small-town drama with some allegorical implications; its late release suggests its distributor thinks it's a serious contender, for Best Foreign Language. Tricky situation, politically, but could be promising.
Rosewater – (1, 4, 5, 11/7)-- Directed by Jon Stewart – memoir of Maziar Bahari, an Iranian journalist imprisoned and tortured. The political dynamics are positive: sure, everyone hates Iran (snark), but this one strikes a blow for reform there. I'm thinking nominations for Stewart/Bahari (Screenplay, adapted), Gael Garcia Bernal as the lead character, Shohreh Agdashloo for Supporting Actress (as his wife).
And the Rest:
Big Eyes – (3, 12/25) Another weird, true story, starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz. Paintings of girls with big eyes; she turns out to be the painter, he the fraud. Seems a little too quirky, but I will root for Amy for anything, while Christoph got two Oscars already (prematurely, I’d say).
The Homesman - (6, 11/7) - Tommy Lee Jones, Hilary Swank, Grace Gummer (Meryl's daughter, and Streep in a small role), others. I quote imdb.com for the description: "A claim jumper and a pioneer woman team up to escort three insane women from Nebraska to Iowa." Swank is also in You're Not You, described as "a drama centered on a terminally ill woman and the aimless young woman who becomes her caregiver" (Swank is the terminally ill one.) She sure can pick 'em, eh? (sarcasm)
Jimi: All is by my Side --(3, 9/26) -- This is a highly controversial one; Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000 of Outkast) as Jimi Hendrix. The world is waiting for the definitive Jimi story, but the buzz is that this is not it--and they couldn't get permission to use his original music in the film. Longshot nomination bid maybe, but Best Actor is a tough category to get a nomination in any year.
While I'm on the topic of controversial movies focusing on blacks:
Dear White People – (4, 10/17, it has made the film festival circuit already) I saw the preview; it's about how black people see whites, set at a college. Black people may or may not buy in, but whites certainly will not, not in this polarized climate.
Left Behind – (5?, 10/3) Nic Cage in a Rapture drama, he was a pilot and missed it somehow. There is some dramatic poignance inherent to these stories of transcendental doom, but who really wants to see them? Not me-
This is Where I Leave You --(2, 6, 9/19)-- Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, Jane Fonda, Adam Driver. Semi-comedic family drama. Gets the 2) because of Driver (of "Girls"), who is all over and is building a reputation as an actor of Brando-ish intensity.
Foxcatcher-- (5, 6, 11/14) – Like Gone Girl but a true story; interesting maybe, but not so amazing. Appeals mostly to our morbid curiosity. Steven Carell plays the creepy, rich sponsor of an Olympic wrestler, also features Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, others. Major buzz, but I'm not buying it.
The Judge --(3,5,6, 10/10) – Robert Downey Jr. (co-produced with his wife), Robert Duvall in the title character role. Courtroom drama in which Bob Jr. defends the senior Bob. Seems like a mess, but Duvall is always an Oscar threat (in this case, it could be Supporting Actor, which would facilitate a nomination).
Birdman -- (6, 10/17)– Michael Keaton (as ex-superhero actor), Ed Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, directed by Inarritu (21 Grams, Amores Perros). Yet another movie about a washed- up Keaton playing a super-hero? Super star power, and as with Foxcatcher, major buzz. Seems bathetic.
Whiplash – (2, 3, 5, 10/10) Indie hit with Miles Teller (The Spectacular Now, the Divergent series, the upcoming romcom Two Night Stand (9/26), and a future Fantastic Four series remake), as a jazz drummer. He's supposed to be good in this one (as opposed to the others).
Leviathan (3, 4, 12/31) Russian production, small-town drama with some allegorical implications; its late release suggests its distributor thinks it's a serious contender, for Best Foreign Language. Tricky situation, politically, but could be promising.
Rosewater – (1, 4, 5, 11/7)-- Directed by Jon Stewart – memoir of Maziar Bahari, an Iranian journalist imprisoned and tortured. The political dynamics are positive: sure, everyone hates Iran (snark), but this one strikes a blow for reform there. I'm thinking nominations for Stewart/Bahari (Screenplay, adapted), Gael Garcia Bernal as the lead character, Shohreh Agdashloo for Supporting Actress (as his wife).
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies - (3, 6, 12/17) -- Both Hobbit 1 and Hobbit 2 got three nominations each (none won). Lord of the Rings finally cashed in big on the final installment, so I think Bot5A will get one actual award. It would be fair if it had Peter Jackson's name attached to it, an award for perseverance (and commercial acuity). He has won three previously, one being for Screenplay, Adapted: I think there is some tough competition there, so maybe he should get it for Screenplay, Original, as this is basically all made up, hardly the original story at all. (snark) Seriously, I think it will be between this one and Interstellar for Visual Effects.
God Help the Girl-- (3, 9/5) - Only thing that caught my eye about this was that the music is from Belle & Sebastian, who are a fave with some critics. So it might get a nomination for the music.
The Book of Life (3, 10/17) – animated film produced by Guillermo del Toro. So maybe it's the favorite for that award.
And the Rest:
Big Eyes – (3, 12/25) Another weird, true story, starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz. Paintings of girls with big eyes; she turns out to be the painter, he the fraud. Seems a little too quirky, but I will root for Amy for anything, while Christoph got two Oscars already (prematurely, I’d say).
The Homesman - (6, 11/7) - Tommy Lee Jones, Hilary Swank, Grace Gummer (Meryl's daughter, and Streep in a small role), others. I quote imdb.com for the description: "A claim jumper and a pioneer woman team up to escort three insane women from Nebraska to Iowa." Swank is also in You're Not You, described as "a drama centered on a terminally ill woman and the aimless young woman who becomes her caregiver" (Swank is the terminally ill one.) She sure can pick 'em, eh? (sarcasm)
Jimi: All is by my Side --(3, 9/26) -- This is a highly controversial one; Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000 of Outkast) as Jimi Hendrix. The world is waiting for the definitive Jimi story, but the buzz is that this is not it--and they couldn't get permission to use his original music in the film. Longshot nomination bid maybe, but Best Actor is a tough category to get a nomination in any year.
While I'm on the topic of controversial movies focusing on blacks:
Dear White People – (4, 10/17, it has made the film festival circuit already) I saw the preview; it's about how black people see whites, set at a college. Black people may or may not buy in, but whites certainly will not, not in this polarized climate.
Left Behind – (5?, 10/3) Nic Cage in a Rapture drama, he was a pilot and missed it somehow. There is some dramatic poignance inherent to these stories of transcendental doom, but who really wants to see them? Not me-
This is Where I Leave You --(2, 6, 9/19)-- Tina Fey, Jason Bateman, Jane Fonda, Adam Driver. Semi-comedic family drama. Gets the 2) because of Driver (of "Girls"), who is all over and is building a reputation as an actor of Brando-ish intensity.
Last Days in Vietnam (4, 9/5) - A documentary on the helicopter drama in Saigon. Could be powerful.
The Zero Theorem (1a, 8/14, or is it 9/19?) Terry Gilliam directing Christoph Waltz, and others. Quirky story of a genius trying to solve the mystery of human existence. Sounds like Brazil, but less likely to be successful in the cult way that one ended up being. I'll want to see it, if I can find it.
Men, Women and Children - (2,4,5, 10/17) Directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Juno, Thank you for Smoking). It seems to be about modern day young people; Reitman has an ear and a nose for current trends that cannot be denied. Cast includes Ansel Elgort (the young guy in Fault in Our Stars), Adam Sandler (serious role, that earns it the 5) mention; he has done it before, but still seems to look for the breakout). Although the release has been chaotic (EW didn't even have a release date), I'd say, don't write this one off.
Rudderless --(3, 10/17) - The feature-length movie directorial debut of the superb character actor William H. Macy. Starring Anton Yelchin and Billy Crudup, it's the story of a grieving father who forms a band to play the music of his deceased son. A sleeper for two or three nominations.
St. Vincent – (6?, 10/24) - Bill Murray as an unlikely daycare guardian for a young kid. With Naomi Watts, Melissa McCarthy. I saw the preview, and it looks hilarious (as long as they didn't put all the good bits in the trailer), but hilarious doesn't usually win any awards. Go see it, would be my advice.
Love is Strange –(3, 4, 11/5) -- John Lithgow and Alfred Molina as gay marrieds who suffer for their choice. Great actors, maybe one will hit it big, but I would see it/them more successful as a comedy, frankly.
Mr. Turner (10/31) The story of JMW Turner, the 19th century English naturalist painter. Written and directed by veteran Mike Leigh, great character actor Timothy Spall (you'd recognize him) in the title role. Could be a BAFTA winner, but probably a longshot for any Oscar recognition; I feel certain that American audiences will be indifferent.
Pride --(1, 3, 4, 9/19)--Historical drama based on gays who helped British union movement in '80's. Could sneak in for a couple of US nominations, despite a predictable lack of commercial success.
Maze Runner –(9/19)-- sci-fi action flick. Looks very improbable (Divergent type); should rake in the dough.
As always, look for the late December releases, and those around Thanksgiving, to be the leading candidates for the big awards (my categorization, unconsciously, reflected that expectation). The many September/October ones have a tough task to stay in cinemas through to the end of the year, unless they become runaway hits. The ones where my interest level and likely commercial/Academy success coincide are Unbroken, Selma, and The Imitation Game; possibly also Rosewater, Leviathan, Whiplash, and Men/Women/Children. I will insist, contrary to all other opinions, on Inherent Vice, St. Vincent, Rudderless, The Zero Theorem, and Last Days in Vietnam--at least until I see them! I will see, and be amazed by, Interstellar, but I will not believe it. Not for one second.
Love is Strange –(3, 4, 11/5) -- John Lithgow and Alfred Molina as gay marrieds who suffer for their choice. Great actors, maybe one will hit it big, but I would see it/them more successful as a comedy, frankly.
Mr. Turner (10/31) The story of JMW Turner, the 19th century English naturalist painter. Written and directed by veteran Mike Leigh, great character actor Timothy Spall (you'd recognize him) in the title role. Could be a BAFTA winner, but probably a longshot for any Oscar recognition; I feel certain that American audiences will be indifferent.
Pride --(1, 3, 4, 9/19)--Historical drama based on gays who helped British union movement in '80's. Could sneak in for a couple of US nominations, despite a predictable lack of commercial success.
Maze Runner –(9/19)-- sci-fi action flick. Looks very improbable (Divergent type); should rake in the dough.
A Merry Friggin Christmas – (now imdb says "sometime in November"!, was scheduled for 11/7 according to imdb.com) With Robin Williams--will it come off the schedule? It might not be in good taste, considering. Actually, I have to note that the Christmas movie seems to be disappearing--and this seems at best a post-modern, or an anti-Christmas version of it.
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb --(6, 12/19) – Robin Williams reprised his role as Teddy Roosevelt in this second sequel of the Scooby Doo variety; he is now given top billing over the main character, Ben Stiller. The Academy does not need to give Williams a posthumous Oscar (or even a nomination) for this turkey; he won an award (deservedly) for Good Will Hunting, and was nominated three other times.
Mockingjay Pt. 1 - (6, 11/21) I don't really think this one will be up for any Academy awards, either. It does have the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (see above comment regarding Williams; Hoffman won his award for Capote). Hoffman's character had been set up perfectly to get bumped off in this episode (I haven't read the books, so I don't know for certain). Hoffman is also in another movie, one out in some locations but with a re-release 10/30, called A Most Wanted Man, a John LeCarre spy thriller, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got a flyer nomination for Supporting Actor for that (out of homage). Again, no obligation to give him an award at this point; he deserved more, but not necessarily for that one.
Mockingjay Pt. 1 - (6, 11/21) I don't really think this one will be up for any Academy awards, either. It does have the late Philip Seymour Hoffman (see above comment regarding Williams; Hoffman won his award for Capote). Hoffman's character had been set up perfectly to get bumped off in this episode (I haven't read the books, so I don't know for certain). Hoffman is also in another movie, one out in some locations but with a re-release 10/30, called A Most Wanted Man, a John LeCarre spy thriller, and I wouldn't be surprised if he got a flyer nomination for Supporting Actor for that (out of homage). Again, no obligation to give him an award at this point; he deserved more, but not necessarily for that one.
As always, look for the late December releases, and those around Thanksgiving, to be the leading candidates for the big awards (my categorization, unconsciously, reflected that expectation). The many September/October ones have a tough task to stay in cinemas through to the end of the year, unless they become runaway hits. The ones where my interest level and likely commercial/Academy success coincide are Unbroken, Selma, and The Imitation Game; possibly also Rosewater, Leviathan, Whiplash, and Men/Women/Children. I will insist, contrary to all other opinions, on Inherent Vice, St. Vincent, Rudderless, The Zero Theorem, and Last Days in Vietnam--at least until I see them! I will see, and be amazed by, Interstellar, but I will not believe it. Not for one second.
*The Giver was a noble, failed effort--talking with my children (who read the book), the big problem was the movie kept the book's confused ending. 100' Journey (title is a good one, if you see it) was sweet, predictable. My sympathies for “The Grand Budapest Hotel and Boyhood (Richard Linklater's inventive, longitudinal study of childhood), which were ambitious efforts, well-received by critics, but have to be considered longshots for the major awards, given their early release dates. Actually, it will be interesting to see if Ralph Fiennes gets a nomination for Best Actor for Grand Budapest, which he certainly deserved. What is Wes Anderson thinking, releasing the movie in the spring? Doesn't he have any self-respect? (snark)
Arcade Fire -- All In
@
United Center - Chicago, IL - Tue, August 26
Arcade Fire's show--and I do mean "show"--was very impressive. They brought it all--Confetti, balloons, lights, mirrors, costumes (with big-head masks), a revolving second stage, even a disco ball for a song or two (This latter, and its frame, intruded on my line of sight.) The only thing missing was Fireworks (they were not needed).
Here's a brief video of the Reflektor Guy, who emerged on the second stage and spun slowly with intense light beams shone on him. Unfortunately, my miserable camera couldn't contain the glare:
They brought passion and great musicianship, with an expanded group: I counted 12 people. Besides the three principals (Win Butler, brother Will, wife Regine), and the familiar members on bass, drums, violin, and guitar, they added two extra percussionists and horns.
It reminded me of the classic expanded Talking Heads band of the early '80's in many ways--crossing multiple genres, the sense of joy. They have accentuated the Caribbean music influence and brought forward Regine's role. I would say that the current release shows a surprising turn toward a "nouveau disco"--leave it to the Francophones for that-- (or at least rave/house/electronic sound), but definitely toward higher production value--no garage/grunge here, though there were a couple of songs with full-bore, chaotic noise.
The selection of songs--both from the new album an from the old ones--was pretty much impeccable. They didn't insist on playing all the songs from "Reflektor", and that pleased the crowd, which knew all the words, particularly from the oldest albums.
I have to admit my familiarity pretty much ends with "Neon Bible" and "The Suburbs", but the crowd (all ages, I should say) seemed to be AF loyalists from the beginning. The invite suggested cool formal wear or costume; it was optional, really, but all part of getting people engaged in the show in a way comparable with the artists' own evident commitment.
The show started on time with '80's punk/electronic ironists Devo and had a great middle session with DJ Dan Deacon, who did a good job getting the crowd involved and using the large space left open at the back of the floor area.
Great program, great performance.
Favorite moment: Win forgot what day it was (did he really forget?), and used that "memory lapse" to launch a song he wrote 20 years ago.
Setlist: 1. Here Comes the Night Time
2. Neighborhood #3 (Power Out)
3. Joan of Arc/My Body is a Cage
4. Month of May
5. The Suburbs
6. Ready to Start
7. Neighborhood #1 (Tunnels)
8. We Exist
9. Reflektor
10. Keep the Car Running
11. No Cars Go
12. Haiti
13. Afterlife
14. It’s Never Over (Oh Orpheus)
15. Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)
Encore:
16. Who Do You Love (Bo Diddley)
17. Normal Person
18. Rebellion (Lies)
19. Wake Up
(from Greg Kot's review in Chicago Tribune)
2. Neighborhood #3 (Power Out)
3. Joan of Arc/My Body is a Cage
4. Month of May
5. The Suburbs
6. Ready to Start
7. Neighborhood #1 (Tunnels)
8. We Exist
9. Reflektor
10. Keep the Car Running
11. No Cars Go
12. Haiti
13. Afterlife
14. It’s Never Over (Oh Orpheus)
15. Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains)
Encore:
16. Who Do You Love (Bo Diddley)
17. Normal Person
18. Rebellion (Lies)
19. Wake Up
(from Greg Kot's review in Chicago Tribune)
Friday, August 29, 2014
Progress Report Pt. 1--Sports
It's been awhile--I apologize for my summer break, which involved a lot of travel. We will cover a lot of ground as I comment on progress (or lack thereof) in a number of my favorite topical areas.
Baseball: There's about 20% left of the regular season, and the races for the postseason spots are fairly clear. There have been about five or six good teams, seven or eight terrible ones, and the rest have been thoroughly mediocre (or inconsistent).
It is shaping up as a good season for the California teams: three of the five are sure to make the postseason (Dodgers, A's, and Angels), with the Giants a likely contender for one of the contested wildcard spots. (Only the Padres are out of it.) The two teams with the best records in the majors (I hate the expression "in baseball", when referring to the North American MLB , as it disrespects the Japanese league) are Los Angeles de Anaheim and the Oakland A's in the same division, the AL West. One of them will be cruelly set into a one-game playoff against the survivor of a close three-way race (the Yankees, Mariners, and the AL Central runner-up); that survivor will probably be on something of a hot streak, so that Angels-A's contest (they have a big series this weekend) shapes up as perhaps the most important down the stretch..
In the National League, barring a collapse, four teams we should expect to advance are Washington in the East, Milwaukee and St. Louis in the Central, and the Dodgers. The Central should end up being close, while the other wild card looks to be a three-way contest between Atlanta, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh. (My Reds had a golden opportunity to make the postseason, but lack of depth has led to a recent, definitive collapse.)
In the AL, Baltimore emerged as the best team in a shockingly bad Eastern division (faded glory), while Detroit failed to evidence its expected quality and is now in a tight race with the Royals in the Central. Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Kansas City have been the teams showing significantly more than expected, with the Washington Nationals re-emerging to the form of two years ago, while the list of disappointing teams (or ones handicapped by injury) is long.
My preliminary picks for the World Series would be the Dodgers against the AL West division winner; most of the contending teams have stocked their rotations enough to be threatening in a short series, but I think the Dodgers are the only NL team strong enough to put up a good battle in the Fall Classic.
A final comment, regarding the AL's apparent superiority: It is somewhat real (hard for me, an NL fan, to admit), as it has a 147-126 edge in interleague play (with 27 games left to go), but five of the six divisions have an aggregate won-lost better than .500. It is only the NL West, despite the presence of the Dodgers (along with Washington, the best team in the league) and the respectable Giants, which has absorbed all the other divisions' positive records: With three bad teams (the Padres, and the awful Rockies and Diamondbacks) the NL West is at -31. .
NBA: A lively offseason sets up a season of change. The big move was LeBron James moving from Miami back to Cleveland (yes, they forgave him, and quickly), and Cleveland then shored up their lineup with rebounding/scoring big forward Kevin Love. The return of Derrick Rose to active duty in Chicago (I should mention also the addition of Paul Gasol) makes the Bulls and the Cavaliers the early favorites in the Eastern Conference, which overall at least should be more competitive with the West this year. (Besides those two, Miami remains a playoff team, the Knicks signed strategic superstar Phil Jackson to build around re-signed Carmelo Anthony, and the Nets and Pacers remain potent, if weakened, squads.)
Crunch time is coming for teams such as defending champion San Antonio (basically unchanged, except its aging core a year older, which could be offset by continued development of their emerging star Kawhi Leonard), the LBJ-less Heat, the Bulls, and, most emphatically, the Oklahoma City Thunder, which has two years left to show Kevin Durant that the combo with him, Russell Westbrook, and Serge Ibaka (but without James Harden) can win in the postseason.
I will hold off on predictions for the season until the summer ends, hoping that the USA basketball team will not suffer any more injuries such as the one which knocked Paul George (and probably his team, the Pacers) out of this season.
Soccer: Personally, my soccer mind is still trying to recover from those two shocking blowouts at the World Cup: Germany 7-1 over Brazil, and Holland 5-1 over Spain. I think the latter one may have more impact on the 2014-15 club season: I can't imagine the teams from La Liga dominating Europe the way Spain's teams did last season.
To my view, it was a busy--no, chaotic--summer transfer season, and I'm not sure it's over even yet. The prevailing move was the sale of one big-money player to have the funds to buy another. It reminds me of those puzzles where you can only move one piece at a time, shifting them constantly until you (hopefully) end up with the right picture--in this case, the combination of on-field chemistry and economic viability.
It's hard to make a complete picture of what it all means, but I will say I don't like the changes to the Champions League finalists, Real and Atletico Madrid, and I (mostly) like the changes to my team, Chelsea. They are stocked at midfield (I love the addition of Fabregas), defense, and even goaltender, now that they brought back Courtois from Atletico. Just as I don't like the single striker up front, I really don't like the fact that Chelsea has only three strikers (and now the big one, Diego Costa, is injured). You can put me down as one who disagrees with letting Lukaku go definitively to Everton.
Still, I have to give credit to Mourinho: he doesn't play it safe, he is a great judge of soccer talent, his outspoken opinions draw attention to himself and take the pressure off his players, and his teams show up ready for the big games. He is under the guillotine, no doubt: either the Champions Cup, the Premier League, or he will be fired. My predictions: Chelsea loses vs. Bayern Munich in the Champions League final (a rematch of 2012), and Manchester City, narrowly, over Chelsea in the Premier League. Mourinho departs after coming so close to a super season.
Football: I don't plan to watch any games until sometime in November. I really don't understand the appeal of preseason NFL games--it is laughable, or pitiable; however, it did provide most of the opportunity fans will have to see Johnny Manziel play in live action this season. Here are the five important questions for the year:
1) Can the Supersonics repeat? No--Russell Wilson is bound to get hurt.
2) Can the Broncos win it for Peyton Manning, in what surely must be his last season? No, and it may not be (his last).
3) Will any big-market teams do well, besides New England? No, but it might help if there were one in LA.
4) How many times will broadcasters/commentators slip up and say "Redskins"? How many of those slip-ups will be intentional malfunctions (identifiable, because they say "sorry" before or after)? Hundreds; about 80% of them.
5) Who will be more studly in the Super Bowl, Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers? Take your pick.
And, no, Weird Al will not be playing at halftime--the NFL isn't cool enough, in that nerdy way that would be required.
And, in terms of the NFL's minor league, Alabama will dominate, as usual, in the regular season, but the four-team playoff (finally, progress!) will give the Tide two chances to go out, and I think they will do it. Not to a Big 10 team, though; that is unthinkable.
Baseball: There's about 20% left of the regular season, and the races for the postseason spots are fairly clear. There have been about five or six good teams, seven or eight terrible ones, and the rest have been thoroughly mediocre (or inconsistent).
It is shaping up as a good season for the California teams: three of the five are sure to make the postseason (Dodgers, A's, and Angels), with the Giants a likely contender for one of the contested wildcard spots. (Only the Padres are out of it.) The two teams with the best records in the majors (I hate the expression "in baseball", when referring to the North American MLB , as it disrespects the Japanese league) are Los Angeles de Anaheim and the Oakland A's in the same division, the AL West. One of them will be cruelly set into a one-game playoff against the survivor of a close three-way race (the Yankees, Mariners, and the AL Central runner-up); that survivor will probably be on something of a hot streak, so that Angels-A's contest (they have a big series this weekend) shapes up as perhaps the most important down the stretch..
In the National League, barring a collapse, four teams we should expect to advance are Washington in the East, Milwaukee and St. Louis in the Central, and the Dodgers. The Central should end up being close, while the other wild card looks to be a three-way contest between Atlanta, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh. (My Reds had a golden opportunity to make the postseason, but lack of depth has led to a recent, definitive collapse.)
In the AL, Baltimore emerged as the best team in a shockingly bad Eastern division (faded glory), while Detroit failed to evidence its expected quality and is now in a tight race with the Royals in the Central. Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Kansas City have been the teams showing significantly more than expected, with the Washington Nationals re-emerging to the form of two years ago, while the list of disappointing teams (or ones handicapped by injury) is long.
My preliminary picks for the World Series would be the Dodgers against the AL West division winner; most of the contending teams have stocked their rotations enough to be threatening in a short series, but I think the Dodgers are the only NL team strong enough to put up a good battle in the Fall Classic.
A final comment, regarding the AL's apparent superiority: It is somewhat real (hard for me, an NL fan, to admit), as it has a 147-126 edge in interleague play (with 27 games left to go), but five of the six divisions have an aggregate won-lost better than .500. It is only the NL West, despite the presence of the Dodgers (along with Washington, the best team in the league) and the respectable Giants, which has absorbed all the other divisions' positive records: With three bad teams (the Padres, and the awful Rockies and Diamondbacks) the NL West is at -31. .
NBA: A lively offseason sets up a season of change. The big move was LeBron James moving from Miami back to Cleveland (yes, they forgave him, and quickly), and Cleveland then shored up their lineup with rebounding/scoring big forward Kevin Love. The return of Derrick Rose to active duty in Chicago (I should mention also the addition of Paul Gasol) makes the Bulls and the Cavaliers the early favorites in the Eastern Conference, which overall at least should be more competitive with the West this year. (Besides those two, Miami remains a playoff team, the Knicks signed strategic superstar Phil Jackson to build around re-signed Carmelo Anthony, and the Nets and Pacers remain potent, if weakened, squads.)
Crunch time is coming for teams such as defending champion San Antonio (basically unchanged, except its aging core a year older, which could be offset by continued development of their emerging star Kawhi Leonard), the LBJ-less Heat, the Bulls, and, most emphatically, the Oklahoma City Thunder, which has two years left to show Kevin Durant that the combo with him, Russell Westbrook, and Serge Ibaka (but without James Harden) can win in the postseason.
I will hold off on predictions for the season until the summer ends, hoping that the USA basketball team will not suffer any more injuries such as the one which knocked Paul George (and probably his team, the Pacers) out of this season.
Soccer: Personally, my soccer mind is still trying to recover from those two shocking blowouts at the World Cup: Germany 7-1 over Brazil, and Holland 5-1 over Spain. I think the latter one may have more impact on the 2014-15 club season: I can't imagine the teams from La Liga dominating Europe the way Spain's teams did last season.
To my view, it was a busy--no, chaotic--summer transfer season, and I'm not sure it's over even yet. The prevailing move was the sale of one big-money player to have the funds to buy another. It reminds me of those puzzles where you can only move one piece at a time, shifting them constantly until you (hopefully) end up with the right picture--in this case, the combination of on-field chemistry and economic viability.
It's hard to make a complete picture of what it all means, but I will say I don't like the changes to the Champions League finalists, Real and Atletico Madrid, and I (mostly) like the changes to my team, Chelsea. They are stocked at midfield (I love the addition of Fabregas), defense, and even goaltender, now that they brought back Courtois from Atletico. Just as I don't like the single striker up front, I really don't like the fact that Chelsea has only three strikers (and now the big one, Diego Costa, is injured). You can put me down as one who disagrees with letting Lukaku go definitively to Everton.
Still, I have to give credit to Mourinho: he doesn't play it safe, he is a great judge of soccer talent, his outspoken opinions draw attention to himself and take the pressure off his players, and his teams show up ready for the big games. He is under the guillotine, no doubt: either the Champions Cup, the Premier League, or he will be fired. My predictions: Chelsea loses vs. Bayern Munich in the Champions League final (a rematch of 2012), and Manchester City, narrowly, over Chelsea in the Premier League. Mourinho departs after coming so close to a super season.
Football: I don't plan to watch any games until sometime in November. I really don't understand the appeal of preseason NFL games--it is laughable, or pitiable; however, it did provide most of the opportunity fans will have to see Johnny Manziel play in live action this season. Here are the five important questions for the year:
1) Can the Supersonics repeat? No--Russell Wilson is bound to get hurt.
2) Can the Broncos win it for Peyton Manning, in what surely must be his last season? No, and it may not be (his last).
3) Will any big-market teams do well, besides New England? No, but it might help if there were one in LA.
4) How many times will broadcasters/commentators slip up and say "Redskins"? How many of those slip-ups will be intentional malfunctions (identifiable, because they say "sorry" before or after)? Hundreds; about 80% of them.
5) Who will be more studly in the Super Bowl, Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers? Take your pick.
And, no, Weird Al will not be playing at halftime--the NFL isn't cool enough, in that nerdy way that would be required.
And, in terms of the NFL's minor league, Alabama will dominate, as usual, in the regular season, but the four-team playoff (finally, progress!) will give the Tide two chances to go out, and I think they will do it. Not to a Big 10 team, though; that is unthinkable.
Is It About Titanium?
I had an interesting conversation with a Russian emigre the other day. He was a military engineer in the Soviet Union, before he defected--now he drives a taxicab. He told me that, apart from the posturing and national prestige stuff going on with Putin and "New Russia", there is an important military-economic rationale for the aggression in Ukraine.
The world's largest supplier of titanium--which is an essential mineral in the bodies of military (and commercial) aircraft, as well as submarines--is a company called VSMPO, which is controlled by Rostec, the Russian-government owned technology company. All the titanium VSMPO uses comes from the Ukraine. These are all facts.
Now, here's where the defector's speculation comes in, and some of this is less easily verified. He alleged that there is a major titanium ore mine (producing rare "blue titanium", he said) in the Donetsk region. He told me the name of the place--three times--but I could not find it. The metallurgical plant in Ukraine which processes the ore is in an area called Irshansk, which is far from the Russian border, but I imagine the plant is secondary, while access to the ore could be the primary objective. The smelting, he says, is in Crimea (which Russia annexed a few months ago). In the Soviet days, he told me, these areas could transport materials easily and produce without border restrictions; today, if Ukraine blocked titanium shipments (the critical material is apparently called "ilmenite"), it could disrupt production of Russian military planes and submarines, as well as critical arms trade it conducts with a number of other countries.
Here are a couple more facts: the sanctions have not yet targeted the flow of titanium--this is certainly no accident. Rostec (and the plane manufacturer Sukhoi) are both blocked from trading with the US government because of sanctions (relating, apparently, to previous trade with Iran), but Rostec has a major joint venture to supply titanium to--Boeing. According to the Wall Street Journal (an article about three weeks ago), Boeing has been stockpiling titanium to insure against adverse consequences if the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues or intensifies (which it seems to have done, just in the last couple of days, as Russia invaded a new front in Ukraine, closer to Crimea). Boeing claims to have about eight months' supply.
Just when Ukraine seemed to have a handle on the insurgents in the Donetsk area, Russia has chosen to provoke new disruption. I am waiting to see if this hidden story comes more to the forefront, but titanium is such an important strategic resource that it is not hard to believe that concerns about the metal may lie behind some of the outrageous acts of the past few weeks.
The world's largest supplier of titanium--which is an essential mineral in the bodies of military (and commercial) aircraft, as well as submarines--is a company called VSMPO, which is controlled by Rostec, the Russian-government owned technology company. All the titanium VSMPO uses comes from the Ukraine. These are all facts.
Now, here's where the defector's speculation comes in, and some of this is less easily verified. He alleged that there is a major titanium ore mine (producing rare "blue titanium", he said) in the Donetsk region. He told me the name of the place--three times--but I could not find it. The metallurgical plant in Ukraine which processes the ore is in an area called Irshansk, which is far from the Russian border, but I imagine the plant is secondary, while access to the ore could be the primary objective. The smelting, he says, is in Crimea (which Russia annexed a few months ago). In the Soviet days, he told me, these areas could transport materials easily and produce without border restrictions; today, if Ukraine blocked titanium shipments (the critical material is apparently called "ilmenite"), it could disrupt production of Russian military planes and submarines, as well as critical arms trade it conducts with a number of other countries.
Here are a couple more facts: the sanctions have not yet targeted the flow of titanium--this is certainly no accident. Rostec (and the plane manufacturer Sukhoi) are both blocked from trading with the US government because of sanctions (relating, apparently, to previous trade with Iran), but Rostec has a major joint venture to supply titanium to--Boeing. According to the Wall Street Journal (an article about three weeks ago), Boeing has been stockpiling titanium to insure against adverse consequences if the Russia-Ukraine crisis continues or intensifies (which it seems to have done, just in the last couple of days, as Russia invaded a new front in Ukraine, closer to Crimea). Boeing claims to have about eight months' supply.
Just when Ukraine seemed to have a handle on the insurgents in the Donetsk area, Russia has chosen to provoke new disruption. I am waiting to see if this hidden story comes more to the forefront, but titanium is such an important strategic resource that it is not hard to believe that concerns about the metal may lie behind some of the outrageous acts of the past few weeks.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Getting the Big Ones Right
Thursday I was getting planning to write an Andy Rooney-ish post about a variety of minor annoyances. Leaving work, though, I felt in a great mood and didn't feel the need; however. there was something bothering me. This news story about the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq put to flight by threats of imminent massacre; I got into a couple of chats about it, as I am wont to do, and suggested that the correct action would be a humanitarian relief effort with an armed escort, and I predicted, based on the dire reports, that it would be announced within hours. I went to bed uneasily that night, my cellphone set to CNN so I could easily check updates during the night.
I would say I had it about 40% right. The timing was spot on; when I woke up and checked at 4 a.m. (10 p.m. Eastern), the announcement from President Obama was there. Of course, that's usually the time when major Presidential announcements are made, late in prime time (East coast). With regard to the humanitarian effort to provide food and supplies to the Yazidis on the mountain, there was no announcement of an armed escort, which would be there to make sure the supplies did not fall into the wrong hands and to help with distribution. Of course, thinking about it, it would not make sense to say Americans were rappelling down to the mountaintop to help; it could bring up unwanted discussions of whether there were technically "combat forces' boots on the ground", as well as providing an extra incentive to the besiegers to attack: the trade value of a captured US military person would be enormous. Neither did the announcement say there was not an armed escort--what would have made most sense was to have a few brave, armed Iraqis go down and help, and word that there is an airlift of people from the mountaintop--very limited--suggests this is probably the case.
The big one that I didn't anticipate was the initiation of airstrikes against the forward elements of ISIS* forces approaching Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region (and new refuge for thousands from fleeing Iraqi minorities). There is a tactical military sense to it; by slowing their thrust at a reasonable distance from the city, the airstrikes can prevent panic in the justifiably nervous civilian populations there. There is also the fact, of which I was unaware or that I had forgotten, that US military advisers were in Irbil with the Kurdish forces--this is always a key factor in the equation determining future US military calculations. Still, this was a bit of a surprise and not entirely welcome. I agree with the statement from Keith Ellison, head of the Progressive Caucus in the US House, who supports Obama's initiatives but warns against "mission creep".
The US woke up yesterday to find we had started military action, and then today found out that our journalists have concluded for us that we are in a new war--as the Times said in one of their least fair headlines, that "Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says". Actually, he said no such thing, though it is possible to conclude that they could. In his televised speech Friday, which I recommend as a perfect example of the Obama Doctrine--the difference between no wars and stupid wars--he gave the reasons for the orders commencing the airstrikes, clearly and persuasively. In his hasty news appearance on Saturday (with a helicopter waiting in the background to take him on vacation), he was a little less careful. He said efforts to support the Kurdish forces (and Iraqi forces) would continue, and that the priority was on getting the different factions together into a new--and different--government. This is the "long-term project". He didn't say the airstrikes near Erbil wouldn't continue, of course--that would tend to reduce their effectiveness--but one can hope that blunting the assault would buy the time needed. As for the humanitarian effort, it should be over in a few days. Neither enterprise is assured of success.
Public reaction, I would say, puts Obama's position right in the center of the spectrum, from those who want more war now to those who are convinced this is Iraq War 3. It may be, but unlike the first two, there won't be American ground forces in Iraq: I'm pretty sure of that, at least as long as President Obama is around, but that's only 29 more months, and it would be optimistic to think that the country will get all straightened out and peaceful in that amount of time (29 years, maybe) Just a couple points about Iraq: we don't "own it", because we didn't "break it"; it's pretty much been broken for at least 50 years. And we are there under the terms the previous President and current Iraqi Prime Minister left us: if, as much as, and as long as, the government there wants us, and no more--maybe less, in the actual case.
Not Saying She's a Critic, but 'Helpful' Would Be Stretching It
Would-be President Clinton has popped up in recent days with an interview in Atlantic in which she does some careful distancing from Obama's positions, in particular the old debate--now more or less a dead issue--of arming anti-Assad moderates. She doesn't come out and say this would have prevented the emergence of ISIS, but she suggests it might have helped (and again the headline writers jump headlong to the misleading and provocative conclusion--"Hillary Clinton: 'failure' to help Syrian Rebels led to the Rise of ISIS." Well, she did use the word 'failure'.)
Headlines like those make it easy to see why there is some erosion in public support for Obama's foreign policy. Things are quite difficult right now, on a number of fronts, and the support of Obama's political allies is a bit ambivalent. Meanwhile, the partisanship has spilled over into the handling of foreign affairs. Debate over these is something I support--it's better than everyone falling in line once the flag is unfurled--but Obama is given little credit for the successes, and every one of them has a "yes, but..." attached: exiting Iraq and Afghanistan, deposing Qaddhafi, removing the chemical weapons from Syria, agreement on the enriched uranium with Iran, even punishing President Putin's Russia for Ukraine and containing China's naval ambitions.
Clinton says plenty of positive things about Obama in the interview, but does indicate a few points of divergence. The one about Syrian rebels is public knowledge; Obama has the view that it was never a real option to arm them. Her positions in general are a bit more hawkish, and significantly more completely in line with Israel's in the current confrontation in Gaza.
Israel-Palestine has been one singular lack of success so far in the Obama foreign policy. I am certain that he and Secretary Kerry will give it one more go in the last two years of his administration, but Clinton's comments (quite revealing on some of the specifics in the recent negotiations) suggest to me that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is a close observer of Washington, will conclude he can get a better deal in the next administration. And so it (always) goes: somebody there always seems to think there's reason to delay.
Avoiding Cold War II
With regard to the famous Russian Reset, what we got the second time around doesn't seem to run any better, and it's too late to re-boot again, for all concerned. That "increased flexibility" Obama was overheard to promise the Russian Foreign Minister after the 2012 elections (it was taken out of context and referred to strategic arms limitation negotiations only) is long since gone. We have to deal with the Putin we have, not the one we would like to have. I don't think it's impossible to deal with Putin; he's willing to help if it's in his interest (for example, with Syrian chemical weapons and with Iran). The difficulty, as seems always the case with Russian leaders, is fully appreciating their different point of view on the world.
Let me suggest a little counter-factual thought piece which might help. Let's propose that the full depth of the Great Crater of 2008-09 emerged a few months later than it did, and that John McCain won the election, immediately proceeded to irritate the Chinese, who pulled out their money and the recession became a depression. Let's further assume that the deficit became unmanageable, the government defaulted on its debts, and that the Constitution came crashing down. A few states--let's propose a Redneck Republic of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, along with outlying territories Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico--decided to go their own way. Now, how do you think those of the 45 remaining states, who managed to pull it back together somewhat, would feel toward those renegades a couple of decades later? And what if a faction emerged in Arkansas (headed by Chelsea Clinton) that suggested that Arkansans were sick of the Rednecks and might welcome it if the NUSA might take them back? What would President-for-life Marco Rubio's response be?
All quite ludicrous, I suppose, but we have to consider the roller coaster ride Russia has been on, and the unsatisfied nostalgic desire for what now seems to have once been that is present in a large portion of the Russian people. They want Putin to do the things he is doing: in Ukraine now, and before that in Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Caucasus. Like Cubans under our embargo there, the reaction of the world's punitive actions against Russians will only make it easier to bring them more tightly around to the nationalist line. Although there is no new Treaty of Versailles (and maybe there should be some peace terms developed even now, though not humiliating ones), it brings to mind the volatility of Germany between the Wars, which became an eagerness to settle the score.
We have to be careful--and I think President Obama is--to get the right mix between punishing the (clearly) bad behavior of Russia in Ukraine and driving Russia back toward the isolation that historically has been a strong impulse of that country. Worse still would be if we drove Russia into the arms of China and a formal alliance against the West--the Chinese might be receptive, if they felt our policy toward them was strictly one of containment, and given their ongoing energy resource issues for which Russia, if it gets frozen out of Europe, would be in a position to offer help.
My conclusion is that these are exceedingly "interesting" times for US foreign affairs, and I would really like Obama to get as many of them settled as possible before he leaves: I trust him--his careful, intelligent approach--more than any other alternative I can see on the horizon.
*ISIS: The movement has now taken the name (in English) "IS"--Islamic State, probably wanting to avoid association with the ancient Egyptian "devil-worshippers" god Isis, and reflective of their now-global ambitions (as opposed to just Iraq and Syria). The US is now officially referring to it as "ISIL", which is neither a concession to the Islamists' expressed will nor inflammatory. I prefer the inflammatory title, which also is the one in the Atlantic article.
I would say I had it about 40% right. The timing was spot on; when I woke up and checked at 4 a.m. (10 p.m. Eastern), the announcement from President Obama was there. Of course, that's usually the time when major Presidential announcements are made, late in prime time (East coast). With regard to the humanitarian effort to provide food and supplies to the Yazidis on the mountain, there was no announcement of an armed escort, which would be there to make sure the supplies did not fall into the wrong hands and to help with distribution. Of course, thinking about it, it would not make sense to say Americans were rappelling down to the mountaintop to help; it could bring up unwanted discussions of whether there were technically "combat forces' boots on the ground", as well as providing an extra incentive to the besiegers to attack: the trade value of a captured US military person would be enormous. Neither did the announcement say there was not an armed escort--what would have made most sense was to have a few brave, armed Iraqis go down and help, and word that there is an airlift of people from the mountaintop--very limited--suggests this is probably the case.
The big one that I didn't anticipate was the initiation of airstrikes against the forward elements of ISIS* forces approaching Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region (and new refuge for thousands from fleeing Iraqi minorities). There is a tactical military sense to it; by slowing their thrust at a reasonable distance from the city, the airstrikes can prevent panic in the justifiably nervous civilian populations there. There is also the fact, of which I was unaware or that I had forgotten, that US military advisers were in Irbil with the Kurdish forces--this is always a key factor in the equation determining future US military calculations. Still, this was a bit of a surprise and not entirely welcome. I agree with the statement from Keith Ellison, head of the Progressive Caucus in the US House, who supports Obama's initiatives but warns against "mission creep".
The US woke up yesterday to find we had started military action, and then today found out that our journalists have concluded for us that we are in a new war--as the Times said in one of their least fair headlines, that "Airstrikes May Continue for Months, Obama Says". Actually, he said no such thing, though it is possible to conclude that they could. In his televised speech Friday, which I recommend as a perfect example of the Obama Doctrine--the difference between no wars and stupid wars--he gave the reasons for the orders commencing the airstrikes, clearly and persuasively. In his hasty news appearance on Saturday (with a helicopter waiting in the background to take him on vacation), he was a little less careful. He said efforts to support the Kurdish forces (and Iraqi forces) would continue, and that the priority was on getting the different factions together into a new--and different--government. This is the "long-term project". He didn't say the airstrikes near Erbil wouldn't continue, of course--that would tend to reduce their effectiveness--but one can hope that blunting the assault would buy the time needed. As for the humanitarian effort, it should be over in a few days. Neither enterprise is assured of success.
Public reaction, I would say, puts Obama's position right in the center of the spectrum, from those who want more war now to those who are convinced this is Iraq War 3. It may be, but unlike the first two, there won't be American ground forces in Iraq: I'm pretty sure of that, at least as long as President Obama is around, but that's only 29 more months, and it would be optimistic to think that the country will get all straightened out and peaceful in that amount of time (29 years, maybe) Just a couple points about Iraq: we don't "own it", because we didn't "break it"; it's pretty much been broken for at least 50 years. And we are there under the terms the previous President and current Iraqi Prime Minister left us: if, as much as, and as long as, the government there wants us, and no more--maybe less, in the actual case.
Not Saying She's a Critic, but 'Helpful' Would Be Stretching It
Would-be President Clinton has popped up in recent days with an interview in Atlantic in which she does some careful distancing from Obama's positions, in particular the old debate--now more or less a dead issue--of arming anti-Assad moderates. She doesn't come out and say this would have prevented the emergence of ISIS, but she suggests it might have helped (and again the headline writers jump headlong to the misleading and provocative conclusion--"Hillary Clinton: 'failure' to help Syrian Rebels led to the Rise of ISIS." Well, she did use the word 'failure'.)
Headlines like those make it easy to see why there is some erosion in public support for Obama's foreign policy. Things are quite difficult right now, on a number of fronts, and the support of Obama's political allies is a bit ambivalent. Meanwhile, the partisanship has spilled over into the handling of foreign affairs. Debate over these is something I support--it's better than everyone falling in line once the flag is unfurled--but Obama is given little credit for the successes, and every one of them has a "yes, but..." attached: exiting Iraq and Afghanistan, deposing Qaddhafi, removing the chemical weapons from Syria, agreement on the enriched uranium with Iran, even punishing President Putin's Russia for Ukraine and containing China's naval ambitions.
Clinton says plenty of positive things about Obama in the interview, but does indicate a few points of divergence. The one about Syrian rebels is public knowledge; Obama has the view that it was never a real option to arm them. Her positions in general are a bit more hawkish, and significantly more completely in line with Israel's in the current confrontation in Gaza.
Israel-Palestine has been one singular lack of success so far in the Obama foreign policy. I am certain that he and Secretary Kerry will give it one more go in the last two years of his administration, but Clinton's comments (quite revealing on some of the specifics in the recent negotiations) suggest to me that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is a close observer of Washington, will conclude he can get a better deal in the next administration. And so it (always) goes: somebody there always seems to think there's reason to delay.
Avoiding Cold War II
With regard to the famous Russian Reset, what we got the second time around doesn't seem to run any better, and it's too late to re-boot again, for all concerned. That "increased flexibility" Obama was overheard to promise the Russian Foreign Minister after the 2012 elections (it was taken out of context and referred to strategic arms limitation negotiations only) is long since gone. We have to deal with the Putin we have, not the one we would like to have. I don't think it's impossible to deal with Putin; he's willing to help if it's in his interest (for example, with Syrian chemical weapons and with Iran). The difficulty, as seems always the case with Russian leaders, is fully appreciating their different point of view on the world.
Let me suggest a little counter-factual thought piece which might help. Let's propose that the full depth of the Great Crater of 2008-09 emerged a few months later than it did, and that John McCain won the election, immediately proceeded to irritate the Chinese, who pulled out their money and the recession became a depression. Let's further assume that the deficit became unmanageable, the government defaulted on its debts, and that the Constitution came crashing down. A few states--let's propose a Redneck Republic of Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, along with outlying territories Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico--decided to go their own way. Now, how do you think those of the 45 remaining states, who managed to pull it back together somewhat, would feel toward those renegades a couple of decades later? And what if a faction emerged in Arkansas (headed by Chelsea Clinton) that suggested that Arkansans were sick of the Rednecks and might welcome it if the NUSA might take them back? What would President-for-life Marco Rubio's response be?
All quite ludicrous, I suppose, but we have to consider the roller coaster ride Russia has been on, and the unsatisfied nostalgic desire for what now seems to have once been that is present in a large portion of the Russian people. They want Putin to do the things he is doing: in Ukraine now, and before that in Georgia, Abkhazia, and the Caucasus. Like Cubans under our embargo there, the reaction of the world's punitive actions against Russians will only make it easier to bring them more tightly around to the nationalist line. Although there is no new Treaty of Versailles (and maybe there should be some peace terms developed even now, though not humiliating ones), it brings to mind the volatility of Germany between the Wars, which became an eagerness to settle the score.
We have to be careful--and I think President Obama is--to get the right mix between punishing the (clearly) bad behavior of Russia in Ukraine and driving Russia back toward the isolation that historically has been a strong impulse of that country. Worse still would be if we drove Russia into the arms of China and a formal alliance against the West--the Chinese might be receptive, if they felt our policy toward them was strictly one of containment, and given their ongoing energy resource issues for which Russia, if it gets frozen out of Europe, would be in a position to offer help.
My conclusion is that these are exceedingly "interesting" times for US foreign affairs, and I would really like Obama to get as many of them settled as possible before he leaves: I trust him--his careful, intelligent approach--more than any other alternative I can see on the horizon.
*ISIS: The movement has now taken the name (in English) "IS"--Islamic State, probably wanting to avoid association with the ancient Egyptian "devil-worshippers" god Isis, and reflective of their now-global ambitions (as opposed to just Iraq and Syria). The US is now officially referring to it as "ISIL", which is neither a concession to the Islamists' expressed will nor inflammatory. I prefer the inflammatory title, which also is the one in the Atlantic article.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Rumors of War
I have read a few articles this year which reflect on the outbreak of World War I a hundred years ago this August and wondering aloud whether the current circumstances have some parallels to that awful year (this link is to one of the more balanced pieces, by Walter Russell Mead in the Huffington Post). The analogy begins with the reasonable (the Middle East being the "powder keg" that the Balkans were back then), goes to the stretched (the US being like the British Empire of 1914), and then to the ridiculous (where is the Germany of 1914? the Tsarist Russia? revenge-seeking France?) The US does not have great rivals with powerful alliances; they are not to be found among the likes of China or Russia, or lesser powers like North Korea or Iran.
Still, one has to shudder at the news of the downing of the Malaysian Airlines passenger flight near the border area between Ukraine and Russia--could this be our century's Franz Ferdinand moment? I don't think so, but it is a very dangerous event. It is not clear what happened, definitely not clear who is responsible, and I doubt anyone will claim this: it is definitely criminal, whether intentional or accidental. One would hope that it would make President Putin of Russia think twice before sending any more toys over to pro-Russian separatists who may not know how to manage them properly. One would also suspect that President Putin would know that there will be footprints visible from the satellites in the sky and would never have authorized such a heinous deed. Nevertheless, there are going to be some very outraged parties--justifiably so, and apparently including American families--who are going to want answers, and then justice. The repercussions will not end soon, nor cleanly. I would still expect that if we are in a pre-war state, though, it is more likely a Cold War II (with both China and Russia, maybe?) and not a World War III.
Israel-Hamas: The nth Intifada
Sorry, but I find this round a bit boring and predictable. My take is the following: certain radical elements in the Hamas camp did not like the alliance with the Palestinian Authority to seek a peaceful deal with Israel. They chose to attract attention through a cowardly, heinous deed and kidnapped and killed three young Israeli guys. Israel's government, headed by a man who pretends to want a deal but does not really (Benyamin Netanyahu), had already denied any possibility of negotiating with a counterparty including Hamas; all this gave him a great excuse to ratchet up tensions, draw the usual Hamas rocket fire (a good test for both sides' weapon and anti-weapon systems), and the usual Gaza incursions.
Is it unfortunate that this new provocation in the Ukraine-Russia spat will supersede the Israel-Hamas one? Probably not for Abu Mazen, the harried Palestinian leader who will try once again to get everyone to the table. Obviously Hamas can not sit at the table, but they can and will provide a veto to any agreement, which allows the two sides to negotiate--if there is anything to talk about and any will to do so.
Iraq: It's Just a Hard Place
No "between", as the obvious pun--I admit to having used it myself--would suggest. Iraq is a place where the US has options ranging only from horrendous to unthinkable, while the current one, staying out of it, is leading to despair and feelings of helplessness before what could become a mass slaughterhouse, even worse than in the darkest days of the insurgency there in 2005-2007.
Every day brings new evidence that the regime we left behind, despite rising from reasonably fair Parliamentary elections, is incapable of dealing with the menace that has arisen from the lawless areas in the western part of the country bordering on anarchic Syria. The group known as ISIS, or ISIL, which has combined sharp military tactics with fanatical Islamist ideology and brutal repression, has gained control of large sections of the country, ones with Sunni majorities that never fully accepted the loss of power to the national Shiite majority after the US invasion of 2003. In the wake of its wave of conquest have come reliable reports (some from the movement itself) of mass executions and extreme application of its version of Islamist Sharia law.
The Iraqi army has lost control of its borders, of many towns and cities, large and small, the entire northern Kurdish area (which Kurdish militia have pre-emptively reclaimed to prevent ISIS invasion), and it seems the army is demoralized and unable to fight ISIS effectively. Its defensive front is falling back toward the outskirts of the capital, Baghdad, and the Shiite leaders, political and religious, have mobilized sectarian militias to fill the gaps, stop the onslaught, and protect Shiite shrines in those disputed areas..
It is critical that the disintegration of the Iraqi government forces stop before ISIS reaches the city: a battle for Baghdad would be catastrophic, street warfare with casualties in the hundreds of thousands, as the recognized, walled divisions within the city between Sunni and Shiite areas would disintegrate and provide for a chaotic scramble, a raging mess of all against all with no predictable outcome except bloodshed. I have no doubt that ISIS does aim to take Baghdad--it pledges allegiance to the al-Qaeda vision of a global caliphate which hearkens back to medieval Baghdad as the center of the Islamic world--though it may wait outside the urban center, foment rebellion within the city, and wait for resistance to crumble. I have to say that ISIS' military tactics, formed in the crucible of the brutal Syrian civil war, seem quite sound.
So, what does the US do? President Obama is criticized for his inaction, but he really does not have any good aggressive moves to make. The US forces are completely out of Iraq because former President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki could not agree on the basis for any continuation of US presence. Obama is obliged to follow that result, unless he cuts a new deal to re-enter the country (the last thing he would want to do, and the American people are with him on that, though they would certainly prefer a positive outcome to all this Middle Eastern chaos).
Secretary Kerry correctly presses Iraq to solve its political problems--any solution to which will probably cut out al-Maliki from holding onto his current role. His party gained the most votes in recent Parliamentary elections, but his support is basically confined to a portion of the Shiite population, no longer acceptable to the (mostly Sunni) Kurds or the Sunnis in the battleground areas. An emergency unity government of all the religious and geographic groups is a necessity, and al-Maliki is too divisive to be the leader of it. The new Parliament took a step forward recently and named its Speaker (by tradition, a Sunni), so there may yet be a political formula which will keep the Sunni leaders from simply handing over their areas to the Islamist force in their midst.
On the ongoing strife in the Middle East, I recommend this CNN article from last month on the 20th-century origins of the current fighting in Syria and Iraq.
Still, one has to shudder at the news of the downing of the Malaysian Airlines passenger flight near the border area between Ukraine and Russia--could this be our century's Franz Ferdinand moment? I don't think so, but it is a very dangerous event. It is not clear what happened, definitely not clear who is responsible, and I doubt anyone will claim this: it is definitely criminal, whether intentional or accidental. One would hope that it would make President Putin of Russia think twice before sending any more toys over to pro-Russian separatists who may not know how to manage them properly. One would also suspect that President Putin would know that there will be footprints visible from the satellites in the sky and would never have authorized such a heinous deed. Nevertheless, there are going to be some very outraged parties--justifiably so, and apparently including American families--who are going to want answers, and then justice. The repercussions will not end soon, nor cleanly. I would still expect that if we are in a pre-war state, though, it is more likely a Cold War II (with both China and Russia, maybe?) and not a World War III.
Israel-Hamas: The nth Intifada
Sorry, but I find this round a bit boring and predictable. My take is the following: certain radical elements in the Hamas camp did not like the alliance with the Palestinian Authority to seek a peaceful deal with Israel. They chose to attract attention through a cowardly, heinous deed and kidnapped and killed three young Israeli guys. Israel's government, headed by a man who pretends to want a deal but does not really (Benyamin Netanyahu), had already denied any possibility of negotiating with a counterparty including Hamas; all this gave him a great excuse to ratchet up tensions, draw the usual Hamas rocket fire (a good test for both sides' weapon and anti-weapon systems), and the usual Gaza incursions.
Is it unfortunate that this new provocation in the Ukraine-Russia spat will supersede the Israel-Hamas one? Probably not for Abu Mazen, the harried Palestinian leader who will try once again to get everyone to the table. Obviously Hamas can not sit at the table, but they can and will provide a veto to any agreement, which allows the two sides to negotiate--if there is anything to talk about and any will to do so.
Iraq: It's Just a Hard Place
No "between", as the obvious pun--I admit to having used it myself--would suggest. Iraq is a place where the US has options ranging only from horrendous to unthinkable, while the current one, staying out of it, is leading to despair and feelings of helplessness before what could become a mass slaughterhouse, even worse than in the darkest days of the insurgency there in 2005-2007.
Every day brings new evidence that the regime we left behind, despite rising from reasonably fair Parliamentary elections, is incapable of dealing with the menace that has arisen from the lawless areas in the western part of the country bordering on anarchic Syria. The group known as ISIS, or ISIL, which has combined sharp military tactics with fanatical Islamist ideology and brutal repression, has gained control of large sections of the country, ones with Sunni majorities that never fully accepted the loss of power to the national Shiite majority after the US invasion of 2003. In the wake of its wave of conquest have come reliable reports (some from the movement itself) of mass executions and extreme application of its version of Islamist Sharia law.
The Iraqi army has lost control of its borders, of many towns and cities, large and small, the entire northern Kurdish area (which Kurdish militia have pre-emptively reclaimed to prevent ISIS invasion), and it seems the army is demoralized and unable to fight ISIS effectively. Its defensive front is falling back toward the outskirts of the capital, Baghdad, and the Shiite leaders, political and religious, have mobilized sectarian militias to fill the gaps, stop the onslaught, and protect Shiite shrines in those disputed areas..
It is critical that the disintegration of the Iraqi government forces stop before ISIS reaches the city: a battle for Baghdad would be catastrophic, street warfare with casualties in the hundreds of thousands, as the recognized, walled divisions within the city between Sunni and Shiite areas would disintegrate and provide for a chaotic scramble, a raging mess of all against all with no predictable outcome except bloodshed. I have no doubt that ISIS does aim to take Baghdad--it pledges allegiance to the al-Qaeda vision of a global caliphate which hearkens back to medieval Baghdad as the center of the Islamic world--though it may wait outside the urban center, foment rebellion within the city, and wait for resistance to crumble. I have to say that ISIS' military tactics, formed in the crucible of the brutal Syrian civil war, seem quite sound.
So, what does the US do? President Obama is criticized for his inaction, but he really does not have any good aggressive moves to make. The US forces are completely out of Iraq because former President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki could not agree on the basis for any continuation of US presence. Obama is obliged to follow that result, unless he cuts a new deal to re-enter the country (the last thing he would want to do, and the American people are with him on that, though they would certainly prefer a positive outcome to all this Middle Eastern chaos).
Secretary Kerry correctly presses Iraq to solve its political problems--any solution to which will probably cut out al-Maliki from holding onto his current role. His party gained the most votes in recent Parliamentary elections, but his support is basically confined to a portion of the Shiite population, no longer acceptable to the (mostly Sunni) Kurds or the Sunnis in the battleground areas. An emergency unity government of all the religious and geographic groups is a necessity, and al-Maliki is too divisive to be the leader of it. The new Parliament took a step forward recently and named its Speaker (by tradition, a Sunni), so there may yet be a political formula which will keep the Sunni leaders from simply handing over their areas to the Islamist force in their midst.
On the ongoing strife in the Middle East, I recommend this CNN article from last month on the 20th-century origins of the current fighting in Syria and Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
