Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Day After
The Senate Democrats successfully squeaked through their key vote on the healthcare bill at about 1:15 a.m. Eastern time Monday, the 21st. Needing 60 votes to set a fixed end to debate, they got exactly 60 votes: 58 Democrats and two independents--all 40 Republicans voted against cloture.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Now that the Senate bill will gain approval (final passage expected Thursday) the bill's backers are reluctant to allow any tinkering with the delicate formula which got it through. Thus, there will be very touchy negotiations with the House backers of the bill, who will not give up the differing provisions of their bill easily. From the Senate's point of view, this means no public option, and most particularly, leaving in the deal that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (of Nebraska, allegedly a Democrat). Nelson's vote came in line in the last stages of negotiation when he got a change that suited him better regarding the wall blocking any public funds for insurance policies which could pay for abortions in "the exchange" (a change which likely stand up through final passage in both Houses), and a special dispensation on increased Medicaid costs for Nebraska (which probably will not).
Other differences can be worked out, like the source of funding for subsidies--whether taxes on the wealthy, increase in Medicare payroll taxes, or on "Cadillac" insurance policies, or, most likely, a combination of all three. The question of whether there should be one national exchange (in the Senate bill--less costly to operate) or fifty state exchanges is a tricky one. I lean toward the decentralized version, as the national exchange will be dominated by the insurance conglomerates, who have already gotten way too much.
The bill is largely a bowl of mush, but it has one essential, important characteristic: it makes access to health care a right--and an obligation--for all Americans. Progressive supporters in both Houses of Congress have reluctantly come aboard because of that virtue.
Needed: A Trigger with Teeth...
OK, it's a mix of metaphors (unless we're talking about equine dentures), but the English teachers wouldn't have approved of "Change You Can Believe In", either. Anyway, at this point, I'd accept a public option with a trigger clause. It would require only a minor outlay to prepare a public option offering or two, such as the House bill includes. The program would not be offered if coverage reached certain benchmarks and costs were contained.
For me, such a provision would be tantamount to ordering implementation of the public option, because I don't believe in the effectiveness of the mandate in the Senate bill that all must obtain insurance. There are too many people who have been mistreated by the private insurers and will never go back. Some of them will take insurance because the law says so, some will pay the fine, but more will find a way to do neither.
The trigger would also depend on the ability of the private insurers to develop low-cost catastrophic health policies for the young and low-income, a task they have not performed so far, though having decades to develop. If the coverage level neared completeness, they would have a better chance of offering it profitably, but the question is whether they will want to do it, particularly without a public option lurking over their collective shoulder.
Such a public option trigger with teeth (potwt, pronounced "Po-tweet", or, in honor of Kurt Vonnegut, "Poo-tee-weet") would be germane and consistent with a compromise between the House's public option and the Senate's absence of it. It might even get the support of a couple of Senators from the other side, if it were put to a vote. It won't be, though: too risky. It will probably be brought forward--to groans from many--in the next session of Congress.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Avatar: 8 out of 10 (light spoilage)
This review will be posted also on IMDb under the name 'j1stoner"; my ratings of movies and a few other reviews can be found at this address: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4662915.
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
James Cameron's Avatar is a landmark film, a fully-realized and brilliantly-executed vision of complexity and passion. It promises to be a runaway hit, a strong contender for the Best Picture Oscar, and a point of reference for movies of its genre--special effects-driven sci-fi epic thrillers--for decades to come.
Avatar is a story set in the future (the date shown is 2154, a point to which I'll return). At any rate, it's close enough to the present that people are more or less the same in their motivations and ways of thinking and acting, but they have greater technological capability, including suspended hibernation and interstellar travel. Our hero is a Marine veteran named Jake Sully who's lost use of his legs, but is recruited nevertheless to accompany a "scientific" expedition on an alien planet, populated by 10-foot tall blue humanoids, who live in a forest world (called "Pandora") which the human invaders covet. Human society's imminent collapse due to overpopulation and environmental degradation has sent our descendants on a mission of colonization and exploitation.
I am no technical expert and am certainly not qualified to explain how the movie was filmed. Certainly computer-generated imagery is central to the many scenes set in Pandora, but that doesn't begin to describe the various effects, or how it affects us. I will say that the use of 3D is better, and more meaningful, than I have ever seen.
The key leap of faith for our story is the development of a hybrid of human and "Ni'va" (the Pandorans), which the human can mentally inhabit through some sort of sleep in a chamber. Our hero, in his "avatar" hybrid form, accidentally ends up with the locals, becomes accepted by them, and ultimately is brought into their society as a full member--just in time for the onslaught by the human invaders who want their land. Between sessions, Jake Sully comes out of his dream state and reports on what he is learning.
The beauty of the film is in the sequences in which Jake, in his "avatar" persona among the Ni'va, experiences their world and learns their customs. Their world is unsettling and dangerous to us, but once Jake gets used to his new, blue body and its powers, we get used to the idea that he isn't going to fall to his death. He comes to love his adopted Pandorans (and one in particular), to the point that when the crunch comes, he finds a way to stand with them and help rally them in their defense.
This movie is unique in its execution (the best effect is probably the 3D computer screens used for Jake's latter-day YouTube video logs), but the story has several identifiable antecedents. In the depiction of human aggression and ruthlessness, of course one thinks of the history with Native Americans, our extermination of many species, and even perhaps our involvement with exotic earthbound populations like the Vietnamese or Afghans. There are definite parallels with Cameron's own "Aliens", like the immoral businessman who sells his soul for a buck--and the casting coup of Sigourney Weaver in the role of a linguist/scientist who tried to understand and help the Ni'va. I saw elements of "Dune" in the transformation of our hero into a near-deity, and the strong culture of the natives (and saw at the film's end that the production company is called "Dune Entertainment"). A bit more obscure, but even closer parallel, is to a classic sci-fi novella from the '70's by Ursula LeGuin called "The Word for World is Forest", which I suggest for some closer study. I wonder whether Cameron himself knows the story and acknowledges the many similarities...
So why do I rate this movie an 8 out of 10, if I acknowledge its extraordinary quality for a movie of its type? My objections are three:
1) There is a fundamental flaw around the date of the story; it is necessary to make it soon, in order to make the existential dilemma of this human society believable, but it is impossible to believe that we can achieve interstellar travel and some of the other technological marvels so soon. One could suggest that people could travel in suspended animation for hundreds of years to get to another solar system, and that they could have continuity in their way of thought until arrival, but not that the social dilemma could be so protracted that the voyage would have immediate value (nor would they have the short-term profit motives that are cited).
2) The love story between Jake/Avatar and the Ni'va woman is not really necessary for the plot, nor is it totally believable. I see it as being a way to make the movie more palatable for women, a very successful device he used in "Titanic" to great commercial effect.
3) The view of humanity is so unredeemably negative that it leaves a bad taste. Another reference one cannot avoid is to "The Lord of the Rings" (large-scale special effect fantasy epic), but here we are the Dark Lord, the agents of Mordor. Let's hope that dystopian messages of this sort inform humanity when we finally go a-calling into the galaxy.
The ending, I'll just say, is satisfying--if we buy into the story--and "eye-opening".
Iranian Provocations
The news that an Iranian military force (the infamous Revolutionary Guards, under a thin camouflage) seized an oil well in Iraq has provided the latest incredibly foolish provocation by a government that is out of bounds and headed for disaster.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The previous ones were reneging on an agreement to peacefully process some of Iran's enhanced uranium, which would have gone a long way toward defusing the building crisis over the country's nuclear program, testing a new long-range missile, and announcing they would build 10 (!) new, secret enhancement facilities in response for being condemned for their lack of cooperation with international nuclear regulatory authorities.
The 10 new sites bit was pure bluster--they wouldn't need anything like that to build a bomb, and they will never be built--but the knee-jerk nationalism was targeted to try to rally domestic public support for their regime's aggressive behavior. There is deep anger with Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad in the country, and demagoguery is about all they have left.
It's high time for severe sanctions on Iran, particularly the sleazy front groups for the Revolutionary Guards' business deals--Khamenei's main source of support these days. Constructive engagement has not worked--it should not be permanently abandoned, but it should be shelved. Support for Iraq's sovereignty--backed by implicit threat of force, if necessary--should end this current mini-crisis, but if the current thread of Iranian government provocations continues, they will give the US or Israel plenty of opportunity to punish their regime with full international support. The Iranians are always claiming that what they want is respect for their theocratic regime in the world community, but their recent actions undermine their own aims, and they need to be convinced clearly that developing a nuclear weapon will similarly defeat their purposes.
The BCS Disaster: This Year's Version
College football will have a reasonably good championship game this year, between unbeatens (and major conference champions) Alabama and Texas. I will be backing Alabama, for the first time in any game since the 1965 Cotton Bowl, when young Joe Namath led the Crimson Tide against Texas. Alabama earned its spot with an impressive win in the SEC championship game against Florida, knocking down Gator Tim Tebow's bid for a second Heisman.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Texas QB Colt McCoy ruined his bid for the Heisman with a bonehead play in the final minute of the Big 12 championship game with Nebraska (Alabama running back Mark Ingram finally survived, in the closest voting for many years; a good result for this year's popularity contest). With 15 seconds left and the ball deep in Nebraska territory, the Longhorns down by two, McCoy failed to call a timeout, then ran a rollout play that went too long, followed by a long downfield dump pass out of bounds. The clock read :00 and everyone started going on the field. For a few seconds, the BCS plans for the championship game were in total turmoil, but the referees restored order, gave Texas one second (replays showed the decision was right), and planned order was restored when Texas' winning field goal was converted.
If Texas had lost, it would've been another typical BCS disaster. There were two other unbeaten teams that won their minor conferences--TCU and Boise State. One would have been chosen to play in the championship (a certain ratings disaster, and probable football quality mismatch), and the other would have a major beef. Now, both do, but they can be discounted rather easily for the disparity in schedule difficulty vs. the two teams who will actually be matched.
The narrow escape does not in any way vindicate the improper way NCAA Division I determines its football champion every year. The U.S. House has passed a bill abolishing the BCS system, and I expect the Senate will do the same, or at least threaten to do so, once they emerge from the health care labyrinth. A little light on this insane system should press the college presidents to change to an eight-team playoff system--the first round during this pre-Christmas dead season, semifinals on New Year's, and a proper championship game around Jan. 15. A little coordination with the major league (the NFL) should ensure there would be no counterprogramming mishaps, and the game will benefit greatly as a result.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Obama's Grade
President Obama went on Oprah recently, and in a scene heavily replayed, graded his administration, so far, as "a solid B+".
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
I have to differ: although I would grade what has been done so far very highly--maybe higher than a B+--if I were grading him at this point, I could not report any mark at all: It has to be an Incomplete. Those who have been through this process know that an Incomplete implies no prejudice on the final mark; it's just that the work required to complete assessment is not finished. As a former professor at University of Chicago, Obama should know about the prevalent Incomplete grade, and he should have taken that as a diplomatic dodge to Oprah's question.
Until we see the final healthcare legislation, until something is done to commit to limitations on the US' greenhouse gas contributions, until the stimulus program is further along, until we know how the surge is going in Afghanistan, we cannot give a passing mark, though "we fully expect that Mr. Obama will do very well." Nominally, the grading period for the first year will end January 20, but I will be glad to report the Incomplete and leave it open for a few more months until he completes these tasks.
I would only criticize him for making the scope of his first-year project a bit too large with the tactical error of demanding the healthcare legislation in this first year, during the Great Crater. What has become clear through this process is that healthcare is not just 18% of domestic spending, but it also provides something like 18% of domestic jobs,and nothing can be done in the name of healthcare reform which will affect the huge growth in healthcare workers of various kinds (so many paper pushers!) during this recession.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Health Care Update
The latest outrage is the report this evening that the Senate Democratic leaders are abandoning the hard-won agreement made by the Group of 10 (five Blue Dogs, five liberals) in order to get the bill's debate ended.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
The particulars are as follows: Sen. Lieberman, who was dropped from the group's deliberations after he failed to attend its meetings consistently, informed the leadership that he would not vote for cloture on the bill if it included the provision to expand Medicare to (some) people between the ages of 55 and 64, nor if it had a public option. This was a serious betrayal by Lieberman, actually of a position (the expansion of Medicare) that he has supported consistently in the past. He deserves richly all the condemnation he is going to receive for this backstabbing flip-flop.
It's not that there couldn't be doubt about the wisdom of expanding Medicare, although the proposed expansion may have been relatively modest in terms of people who would actually have been able to take advantage of it (it's hard to be sure about that, as the details of the agreement were never revealed). Medicare is a good health program, but it is chronically underfunded and unpopular with some health care providers because of the lower rates of payment for services.
What Lieberman's phonily principled stance provides, though, is a blatant sellout to the private insurers, who want the expansion of coverage to be given them--through mandates for all to have health insurance--with the least strings attached and the least competition possible from outfits not working off the profit motive. The reason why Medicare expansion is not acceptable to certain Senators is the reason why the public option can not be tolerated by them.
It is clear now that the Senate bill will have the form of whatever can get all 60 votes of the 58 Democrats, plus Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, whose vote might now need some serious coaxing, as well, on the other side. It is possible, though, that this latest set of retreats may be enough to gain one big Republican vote, that of Sen. Olympia Snowe.
It almost doesn't matter what the Senate bill has in it, because the bill will need some serious reconciliation in the conference committee with the House's bill. The House will have just as much say in the product to be returned to both houses for final approval as the Senate, and we should expect the House conferees to be tough about letting go of the public option. One thing that won't be in the conference committee's report now, though, is this expansion of Medicare.
I'm hoping Sen. Harry Reid has a parliamentary trick up his sleeve to get a conference committee report approved that will be quite different from what the Senate is going to approve. This Senate bill will not achieve what it aims to do, because the uninsured are not going to be signing up for the bad deal offered privately outside of group employer insurance, mandate or no.
I repeat my statement to the DSCC (the fundraising committee for the Democratic Senate campaign) that accompanied my final contribution to it earlier this year:
1) If there is no vote in the Senate on the public option, I will give no money for the 2010 campaign to Democrats;
2) If the public option is included in a bill the Senate approves, I will give as usual;
3) If it is voted upon, and not approved, I will not give to general funds for Senate Democrats, but will give selectively.
Anyway, I see no urgency to contribute to Senate Democrats, in general: there is no way Democrats can "lose control" of the Senate (if you call this having control). The Republicans have just as many tough races as the Democrats in 2010: I would say, even with a poor economic environment, that the range of results goes from -3 to +3 for the Democrats and their current 59 votes (after Lieberman is booted from the caucus and his committee chairmanship, which should happen quietly early next year).
I'm ready to declare war on Lieberman, who has clearly been bought and paid for by the private insurers (who are, of course, big employers in Connecticut). It's too bad he will probably never run again for public office after this betrayal.
Baby, You Can Drive My Car
From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that this healthcare bill has nothing to do with providing choice for the public. I am not so sure, even in its most malevolent, ill-considered form, such as with the House's "Stupak" Amendment, that it will do much directly to affect the right of women to choose an abortion (to the extent they already have it).
First of all, Stupak (a Democratic Representative from Michigan) himself denies it. He has gone on record that his objective is merely to maintain the status quo, which since the so-called "Hyde amendment" for some 20 years has been that no Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions. The danger foreseen by abortion opponents is that subsidies helping to pay for poorer people's health insurance in this legislation will include coverage for abortions.
I will say very clearly that this amendment is very bad design for public policy: poor people are exactly the ones who need to have contraception--and abortions, if necessary--in their health insurance. Taking this feature out of their policies will be one more reason they will not take up the ripoff policies that would be foisted coercively upon them in upcoming years by this legislation.
Nevertheless, I feel confident that private health insurers can come up with a practical and profitable solution to this problem. The answer is an inexpensive, optional rider to basic health insurance plans which I would call "contraception insurance".
The way it should work is as follows: sexually active women of childbearing age should have access to a plan, which should cost about the same monthly as the retail price of birth control pills. The coverage would provide the insured with birth control (which was purchased for their clients' use wholesale), any necessary consultation with a doctor for them to choose the appropriate method, and coverage against "accidents"--which all methods of birth control are subject to--as well as any medical side-effects. Now that the "morning after pill" has finally been approved by the FDA, that would be the normal (covered) recourse for failures of contraception, but abortions would be covered, as well, for those who couldn't "nip it in the bud".
I don't see a big problem here--it's almost comparable to auto insurance, which is competitively priced and provides the necessary coverage. Yes, those who have repeated "accidents", or refuse to avoid unsafe behavior, might eventually have to be dropped from coverage.
The real threat to accessibility to abortions in America is the scarcity of those who perform them in large sections of our country, and this bill isn't going to do anything about that in any case.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Analysis of a News Week
By now, we have a good idea what to expect from Jon Meacham's Newsweek. The young and dynamic editor, surely a rising star who we can expect will have a long, productive career--in journalism, and as an author--has led a reformatting of the weekly book that seems to work, and Newsweek's issues mix serious news pieces, both domestic and international, with trend-watching of popular culture, religion (way too much, for my taste), science, and the arts.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Political Provocations
Meacham is not above stooping to conquer a few extra newsstand sales (with the differential between the per issue costs and the subscription rates, it only makes sense) with overwrought cover headlines and photos. He ran a cheesecake photo of Sarah Palin in athletic garb with bare legs (her fault for posing, if you ask me), then when some Palinists complained, dipped again with a photo of Obama in swimming garb to demonstrate his willingness to offend the other side, as well.
In this week's model(Dec.7 issue), the headliner is a scare piece by respected economic historian Niall Ferguson of Harvard. His argument is that the US will fall as other great empires have done, with the sequence being uncontrolled deficit spending, leading to excessive debt, followed by reduced military spending. This sounds right except the part about the military cutback being a problem: our long-term goal should not be eternal dominance and empire (hint: not going to happen) but to preserve and enhance our legacy to humanity, which includes self-governance, innovation, and liberty. If we can bequeath our successors a secure, prosperous, free world, why do we have to rule it with coercive military force? Just asking.
Meacham's editorial note is more provocation: he plugs Dick Cheney to make a bid for the Republican nomination in 2012. He actually seems serious: it's true that Cheney could present a powerful challenge on national security issues, though proposing the least popular major politician would seem an unlikely direction for the party to choose. If he did run, he would face big issues of Bushite favoritism (no-bid contracts for Halliburton, for example, or his engineering of environmental degradation as policy), disastrous decisions (in Iraq, which he'd defend, unconvincingly), authorization of torture (same), and, most of all, his heavy missing hand and lying testimony in the case of the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. If the choice were Palin or Cheney, his candidacy would be a better service to the country but an equal electoral disaster. I think Meacham's being disingenuous--"What, me sly?" he might ask, slyly.
Along a similar line is Jonathan Alter's column on "faux populists" Palin, Dobbs, and Beck, and their expected future bids to run for high-profile public office. I have to acknowledge that the double pun in the phrase (on "vox populi"--Latin for "voice of the people" and "Fox" Tv populism) would have been irresistible to me, too. His argument that these guys are somehow not real populists ("faux", or false) didn't really convince me, though. The line between populism and demagoguery (what he's accusing the "faux" guys of, though he doesn't use the word) is fuzzy: both are about giving the public what they think they want, the difference being whether the manipulation is sincere or merely self-serving. I just think that the "real" populists of the past that he cites (William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, Father Coghlan) were better able to hide their insincerity from others and maybe themselves than the new ones in today's spotlight. He cites one other, America's first (and last) populist President, Andrew Jackson (Meacham's biographical subject, probably a sop to his editor), a wholly different animal from a completely different political era.
Cleveland Rocks Health Care
I recommend reading the piece on the Cleveland Clinic ("The Hospital that Could Cure Health Care") for several valuable lessons the vaunted facility provides for us when considering health care reform (better record-keeping, salaries for physicians, strong advocacy for healthy behaviors). My strongest take from it, though, is that health care reform can not succeed in its task of reducing expenditures, beacuse it can not--at this time--take on the greatest source of waste: armies of paper-pushers on the private insurers' side (which must be matched by similar forces from the health care providers' side). At the bottom of this economy's Great Crater, we can't give up the jobs. Maybe we can take another whack at health care reform's cost in a few years, if the economy recovers sufficiently.
Turkish Triumph
For this reader, the Fareed Zakaria pieces are worth the price of the subscription, and the rest is bonus (or not). This week, hard-working Zakaria, the magazine's international editor, has nothing, but to compensate there is an outstanding piece of analysis called "The Triumph of the Turks". The argument is that Turkey has taken advantage of its unique role--NATO member in good standing, democratic, secular, but led by a popular Islamic party--to score several major successes in the international arena. Turkey is positioned to have great success in this century, and it was astute of Newsweek's Owen Matthews and Christopher Dickey to capture it.
Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan is meeting with President Obama this week--look for some progress with regard to Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, as well as coordination of policies toward Russia and the European Union (particularly on Turkey's aspiration for membership in the EU). On the other hand, don't look to Erdogan to take on the Palestinian impasse: he has given up in disgust on Israel, with which there was once a detente, since Netanyahu's election and the incursion into Gaza.
The final piece from that issue I wished to discuss was Ruth Marcus' one on the abortion issue and how it's entered into the healthcare legislation debate. Her position is that, despite the Stupak amendment's being passed in the House bill, the final legislation will not unduly hamper women's access to abortions, nor will pro-choice people bring the health care bill down because of the amendment. This topic, and the new developments on the health care front, deserve a separate posting of their own.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 1
Before I give my list, some reasoning, and honorable mentions,I have a bone to pick: It's about the competition to withhold the best movies of the year until the end of the year, when they are all released in a rush that makes it impossible to follow, let alone view them all.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Take a look at this report of the awards of the National Board of Review for 2009's best. These are very much the thinking persons' Oscars, and there is a high level of predictability from these awards to the Academy Awards--as long as some blockbuster doesn't come along and blow away all critical reason.
Anyway, of 14 major awards in standard Oscar categories, 11 went to eight different movies not yet released (though three, including Best Film, were for "Up in the Air", being released tomorrow). The exceptions were Woody Harrelson for best supporting actor ("The Messenger"), best documentary ("The Cove"), and best foreign film ("A Prophet"--actually I'm just assuming that one is already out, somewhere anyway). Further to my point, "The Messenger" was just released, the other two categories are specifically non-Hollywood ones, and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", which made the mistake of releasing before Thanksgiving, received a special award for its creator, Wes Anderson, but nothing else.
The rest of the year, and all the movies released through it, are simply chopped liver from the point of view of consideration for awards. This is partly a commentary on those movies, partly either the short memory spans or preference for the new of the voters, but mostly a critical failing of the pros in the industry who hold back their good stuff for the end of the year.
If I were a voter in the Academy, I'd give preference in any award category to movies released before Thanksgiving (to counter the others' bias) and would withhold voting for anything given a fake opening after Christmas so as to qualify for awards. I guess that's one good reason why I'm not.
So, I guess I can't consider any 2009 movies for Best Of, because the year's best haven't come out yet. Actually, yes.
The Decade in Movies
The last decade ended with some movies that threatened to turn narrative structure on its head, and sequential storytelling inside out. For the most part, this trend wasn't continued. Though there were exceptions, such as "Memento", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and some time-travel movies, these were ones that were basically about tangled narrative structure, rather than ones using it as a tool of storytelling.
The big theme for this decade was technique, and how it has opened up the range of stories beyond all limits. The combination of serious resources behind animation and improvements in combining computer graphics with live-action filming are making just about anything possible. This winter's release "Avatar" should be another case in point.
I take issue with those who argue that TV has now replaced the movies as the chief artistic driver of the day. There are a handful of series on TV with good writing and acting, but they are overwhelmed by the quantity of unrealistic cops-and-robber dreck, staged "reality" time-filler, and amateur hour performance shows. But if you're talking about real thrills and chills, or social or emotional impact, movies are still where it's at.
Movies of the Decade: Pt. 2
Enough preamble.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Return of the King--We have to start with Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson's achievement with the trilogy is unprecedented and historic. Of the trilogy, "Fellowship" proved the concept, "Towers" was great action, but the climax was the best movie. And, yes, that's despite the longest anticlimax in the history of great movies since "Gone with the Wind".
The Departed-Yes, it is cops and robbers, of which I've had more than enough to last my lifetime. I found the acting and scripting to be superlative, though: the tension involved in being undercover was captured beautifully, and Jack Nicholson's mob chieftain provided a welcome corrective to decades of trying to make them too human, too good, too powerful (not that I didn't enjoy The Godfather, Pt. II).
The PianistWorld War II was never done bigger or better. The Eastern Front was the critical one of the War, and we have rarely seen it, certainly not like this. The history of Warsaw is one of the most poignant in the entire saga; the choice of the protagonist and his story emphasizes nicely the culture that was consumed in the chaos.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind What a brilliant idea, and so well executed! There are few among us who wouldn't like to wipe out memory of a relationship or two. And then, somehow, do it again, right this time.
The Man Who Wasn't There My vote for the best Coen Brothers movie of the decade (pending "A Serious Man", coming out soon) goes for this underrated noir about the death penalty. Billy Bob gives his best performance, easily better than "Monster's Ball".
Angels in America (TV miniseries)--Best drama of the decade. Miracles visit AIDS patients in New York (retrovirals being one, though not emphasized as such). Incredible performances too numerous to list, though I have to mention Jeffrey Wright and Meryl Streep (even better than "Julie and Julia", which for my vote has to be the Best Actress performance of '09, with the caveats that I won't consider anything yet to come out, as discussed in Pt. 1). I wish I'd seen the original theater production, which I've heard was shattering and life-changing.
The New World Gets my vote as the most successfully ambitious movie of the decade. Not as technically difficult as some; the challenge is creating the strange feeling of the arrival in Virginia of the first colonists. Of course, we can't know if it's the true one, but I certainly got it.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly This one edges "A Mighty Heart" as my tear-jerker of the decade. The story is gut wrenching from start to finish.
Shrek Best pure amusement of the decade. Filled with classic comic dialogue, delivered by many of the best. It shows the power of moviemaking that no one questions that the ogre can truly be lovable.
Wall-E The biggest subject there is, the legacy of humanity, tackled with humor, which makes the didacticism go down easy.
Re-hash
There's no doubt I'm a sucker for the auteurs, as follows, respectively: Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Michel Gondry (with Charlie Kauffman at the pen), Joel and Ethan Coen, Mike Nichols, Terrence Malick, Julian Schnabel, DreamWorks, and Pixar.
Who's missing from this list? The answer is Clint Eastwood. I liked "Letters from Iwo Jima", a lot, but I'm waiting to see whether "Invictus" matches up with his greatest, "Unforgiven".
The first ten were unranked, but my next ten definitely starts with Children of Men--like this year's "2012", tackles the great fictional idea of what people would really be like if there were no hope. I felt "Children's" premise ludicrous until I started hearing about the chemicals in the plastic bottles which could make all men sterile. Still, I liked the execution better than the story. Clive Owen's performance gets my vote for best hero of the decade.
Eleven More Films Mentioned with High Honor
Monsoon Wedding, Into the Wild, Little Miss Sunshine, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, High Fidelity, Batman Begins (I prefer it strongly over The Dark Knight), A Mighty Heart, Julie and Julia, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Fountain.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Strategy
Obama's announcement of his escalation of US forces and the strategy he wants us to pursue contained few surprises and followed very much the necessary outline: reference 9/11, enlist our allies, warn the Afghan government, emphasize the importance of Pakistan. The speech was very well crafted and delivered and explained our objectives very clearly. I have written on the subject before, more than once, and I support him, and his strategy. For me, it's that simple.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
CNN's coverage of the speech was outstanding: they brought in all their top guns, including Christiane Amanpour, Nic Robertson, Michael Ware, and Peter Bergin, not to mention Fareed Zakaria (fresh from a lunch with the President). And, of course, all the political advisers for both parties. They covered the speech and interpreted the implications of the policy very well. One thing I noted from their "magic map" is that the Turkish forces are, indeed, in Afghanistan: I hope we can get more of them!
I found the criticism of the planned withdrawal beginning July 2011, coming from some Republicans, as being improperly driven by political motivations, to be hypocritical: don't tell me the Iraq war timing wasn't all centered around having a big anti-terrorist military victory for the 2004 re-election campaign (even if it didn't turn out that way). I give Obama credit for understanding the criticality of having the Afghan (and Iraq) troop commitments winding down for November, 2012--it's smart. He's just more honest about what he's doing.
I have one strong recommendation for our military: we should plan on a major military offensive in the fall of 2011. If the take from the Obama strategy is, just wait until July '011, when the US forces will be pulling out, the Taliban may well plan to attack just after that. They would then like that to be their equivalent of the Tet Offensive, a shocking blow to regain strategic maneuver and embarrass and demoralize us. If we think ahead and maximize our readiness for that time, we will still have plenty of forces to combat and defeat them if they rise up. And, if they don't, it will be one last chance to hunt down remaining fighters in "our" zones.
TAZ: Yes, Uruzcan
I owed it to all my many readers to follow up my previously-expressed idea for a possible zone (which I call the Taliban Autonomous Zone) that could be largely given over to Taliban who want to live their way but are willing to give up their war with the Afghan government. After some study, my suggestion would be the province of Uruzcan (spelling varies).
It fulfills the basic requirements I outlined: a valley, non-strategic, well-removed from the key Kandahar-Kabul highway (about 150 km north of Kandahar), surrounded by impassable areas. There's basically one major road through it. It's mostly Pashtun, and not particularly loyal to the Karzai government and its policies. Reports I read indicated that it's run by a warlord who's a former Taliban. It may be--the facts are in dispute--the boyhood home of none other than Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammed.
Uruzcan is close to the Dutch forces' headquarters, and their nonviolent ways have kept things relatively quiet (as compared to nearby Kandahar and Helmand). The Dutch have announced they are leaving next year, though, and I don't see Tarin Koit as being one of the population centers we're planning to defend. The province is about the size of Connecticut and has only about 300,000 people. In my research, I read an article in The Economist that lauds it as a place of success for NATO counterinsurgency efforts, but that's really OK: better to have the retiring Taliban go somewhere that isn't a hotbed of revolutionary fervor. Let them show that they are, as they claim, willing to educate their children of both sexes if the security is present. And, if they try to bust out, they can be systematically repelled from both directions.
The TAZ in Uruzcan is probably better as a plan for a little further down the road, once the Marines and additional Army brigades have gained the upper hand in Kandahar and Helmand. The approach right now seems to be to buy retiring Taliban off with jobs wherever they are, which makes sense for those who are close to their family clans. There will be those who need to be resettled, though, or reunited with their families away from the combat zone, and for this purpose we will need a TAZ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
