NBA
The first-round playoffs have been great entertainment but haven't materially altered the outlook.
As I write, there are two teams poised on the edge of major upsets, leading 3-2 with a home game coming up: Utah and Milwaukee, each of which I considered to be seriously overmatched, largely due to the expectation I had that they could not overcome major late-season injuries. Although I have to give them credit for their overcoming, even if they can't complete their upsets, neither should pose a problem to their opponent in the next round (nor their current opponents, Denver or Atlanta, if they should somehow get through. I've had to give up my dreams of Denver's chances: they really haven't come together, and it's getting too late.)
There's one other first-round series still going, as Oklahoma City has performed up to my highest expectations in their longshot bid for what would be probably the greatest NBA playoff upset (in terms of huge surprise, and massive impact) ever, against the Lakers. Down 3-2 but with the next game at home, they couldn't have better than a 10% chance, but the Thunder--which resembles an expansion franchise, though of course they are the ex-Supersonics--have marked themselves as a major contender for future years.
My conference semifinal predictions: Cleveland 4-2 over Boston; Orlando 4-2 over either Milwaukee or Atlanta; San Antonio 4-3 over Phoenix; Lakers (or Thunder) 4-3 over Utah (or Denver)--the Lakers winning in typical Hollywood, fake-drama-tease fashion.
MLB
We're about one-seventh of the way through the regular season, and I would categorize two divisions as having already resolved themselves (NL and AL Central), two as being still in early-season upheaval mode (AL East, NL West), and two as having shown no trend whatsoever (NL East, AL West).
The big story that has emerged is coming from the Tampa Bay Rays, who I was perfectly happy to see outperform my preseason expectations, and who are doing that in a big way. I am a bit surprised at how bad the BoTox' pitching has been, not too surprised at the Dodgers' woes, slightly surprised at the Mets' recent resurgence, not at all surprised by the Twins' or Cardinals' quality, not at all convinced by the Padres, and still expecting more from the Giants.
Soccer
I am extremely worried for my team Chelsea going into this Sunday's Premier League game. They are playing away at our perennial nemesis, Liverpool. Now, Liverpool has had its worst season in my memory--they're in seventh place, eliminated from all cup competition (the last failure was yesterday, in the semifinals of the Europa--formerly UEFA--second-tier European competition). Their roster is looking very thin, their top scorer (Fernando Torres) is out, their coach is dissatisfied with the owners (and no doubt, vice versa), their fans near to rebellion, and they have no incentive, nothing to gain by winning (or almost as bad, gaining a draw).
Chelsea played a near-flawless game last weekend at home against a good team from Stoke, winning 7-0 (yes, I meant good--Stoke's defense has been very good all season). The Blues are almost completely healthy (Essian and Carvalho are the only significant injuries, I believe), with Ashley Cole, Joe Cole, Petr Cech, Didier Drogba all healthy, and Michael Ballack and Florent Malouda in very good form.
No matter. Chelsea always has trouble scoring in Liverpool. I'll be happy if they get any kind of win; then they'll only need one more, at home vs. Wigan, to win the title--probably by one standings point. Manchester United is very unlikely to make things any easier for Chelsea by failing to win either of its last two games, thus the pressure.
After that, the FA Cup final vs. Portsmouth will be fairly relaxed. I won't even mind if they lose to their financially-harassed, relegated opponents, as long as they can pull out the League championship. That's despite the fact--I've read-- that victory in the Premier League and the FA Cup would get Chelsea its first-ever cup double (is that possible? I seem to remember them winning the old Cup Winners' Cup, though their qualification for that related to a cup won the previous year).
Speaking of relaxed (in contrast with this week's nail-biter), I'll be very comfortable watching the Champions' League final, Bayern Munich vs. Inter Milan. Former Chelsea goal-scorer Arjen Robben stars for Bayern, and of course Chelsea's former coach Mourinho is at the center of Inter's successful run. Either way, I'm OK.
Next month: My World Cup preview. I can't wait (even if you can).
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Truly Slow Grist--Pt. II
What Now, Me Lovelies?
The likelihood that the Senate will come to a conclusion on the financial reform bill within a reasonable period suggests the possibility that they may actually take up other major legislation in this session (at least before the elections). The time window of opportunity is fairly narrow, though. By mid-summer, the Senate adjourns, for all practical purposes, then definitively, to allow those running for re-election to campaign (a third are potentially up for renewal, but many of those have chosen not to run this year).
So. There are two areas (besides financial reform) for which major legislation is needed most urgently: immigration reform and energy policy.
In the past week or so, as the banking reform impasse has resolved itself, there has been a hard, partisan collision on which of these two would move forward into the legislative gauntlet first. Why the battle? The presumption is that there is only time, energy, and political capital for one to get done. This is a widespread, but generally unspoken belief that should be challenged immediately by Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama Administration. We should be able to do both.
Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina abruptly pulled out of what had been bipartisan negotiations to bring an energy policy bill to the Senate floor (the House already has already passed a bill, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill). He claime that Reid had failed to uphold a deal to let this bill go before immigration, and he'd heard that was changing.
It's not that he felt snubbed because his issue was deemed secondary in importance; Graham, historically, has been right in the center of bipartisan efforts to bring immigration reform legislation forward in recent years (efforts that have come to absolutely nothing so far). Rather, to do him justice, he felt that the Senate leadership and the administration were giving up on substantive progress in energy policy in order for Democrats to chase political brownie points (and I apologize for the phrase, no racial connotation intended) going into a very difficult election.
That's easy for Graham to say: he doesn't have to run this year. Immigration reform, though, is a core campaign promise upon which President Obama has to deliver--at least an effort. Further, it has been pushed to the forefront by the ill-advised Arizona bill which requires local authorities to investigate suspected illegal immigrants, demand their papers, arrest those without them, and fine those found to be illegals. If it were to be implemented (and I think it won't, which will keep things from flaming too much out of control), it would be immediately challenged, and should be ultimately defeated, in the courts. Enforcing border controls and visa restrictions are reasonable objectives, but the manner of this bill is an affront to civil liberties of all (and inevitably to Hispanics, again if it is ever truly enforced).
Then On the Other Hand I Would...
I am no expert on energy policy (I choose this name for it, because the Senate bill is apparently no longer cap-and-trade, and "climate change" is both vague and misleading about what this bill is all about), but I think an energy bill which aims at greater energy independence from foreign oil imports through offering money for domestic oil and gas drilling, developing "clean coal" and nuclear, renewables, and imposing caps on greenhouse gases from energy plants is a winner--a bill which should be able to get the votes from both parties to pass.
The first real problem is that the price for a bill will be some kind of clause which revokes the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of the '70's, authority recently upheld by the courts and preliminarily being put into place by Obama's revived EPA in recent months. This aspect threatens to split Democratic support; without strong Democratic backing the resulting bill will end up even worse than it appears now.
President Obama's position that he wants greenhouse gas legislation rather than relying on the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act is reasonable. Thinking of the future, and the likelihood that a future Republican administration would, Bushite-like, refuse to enforce standards, he needs more positive, current, relevant authorization to take effective action such as he has promised the world.
Another problem with the current proposal is the huge oil spill off Louisiana's coast caused by the explosion and sinking of an offshore, deepwater oil rig. This spill could go on for years, and it could end up having a Three Mile Island-type effect on this avenue of domestic production which has seemed promising.
My expectations (read: fears) are: a "climate change" bill will eventually come to the Senate. It will prove hugely controversial and split the environmentalists, and without their support, it will not pass. An immigration bill will be proposed in committee, but be gutted of all "amnesty"-type provisions, so it will be yet another ineffective enforcement bill which--whether it passes or not--will not satisfy Hispanics. These two outcomes--both of which I hope will be averted somehow--will not bode well for the elections, particularly for House Democrats (who are largely innocent, having already passed superior bills in both issue areas).
The Senate would thus, after the brief glimmer of hope from the healthcare bill passage and this recent period of progress, show once again what a dysfunctional institution it has become. Corporations' buying of elections--recently authorized by the Supreme Court, with remedies totally spured so far--may yet shock us into doing somthing. And then the EPA will begin to enforce the Clean Air Act, something which is going to be hugely controversial and opposed by massive corporate advertising campaigns.
The likelihood that the Senate will come to a conclusion on the financial reform bill within a reasonable period suggests the possibility that they may actually take up other major legislation in this session (at least before the elections). The time window of opportunity is fairly narrow, though. By mid-summer, the Senate adjourns, for all practical purposes, then definitively, to allow those running for re-election to campaign (a third are potentially up for renewal, but many of those have chosen not to run this year).
So. There are two areas (besides financial reform) for which major legislation is needed most urgently: immigration reform and energy policy.
In the past week or so, as the banking reform impasse has resolved itself, there has been a hard, partisan collision on which of these two would move forward into the legislative gauntlet first. Why the battle? The presumption is that there is only time, energy, and political capital for one to get done. This is a widespread, but generally unspoken belief that should be challenged immediately by Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama Administration. We should be able to do both.
Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina abruptly pulled out of what had been bipartisan negotiations to bring an energy policy bill to the Senate floor (the House already has already passed a bill, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill). He claime that Reid had failed to uphold a deal to let this bill go before immigration, and he'd heard that was changing.
It's not that he felt snubbed because his issue was deemed secondary in importance; Graham, historically, has been right in the center of bipartisan efforts to bring immigration reform legislation forward in recent years (efforts that have come to absolutely nothing so far). Rather, to do him justice, he felt that the Senate leadership and the administration were giving up on substantive progress in energy policy in order for Democrats to chase political brownie points (and I apologize for the phrase, no racial connotation intended) going into a very difficult election.
That's easy for Graham to say: he doesn't have to run this year. Immigration reform, though, is a core campaign promise upon which President Obama has to deliver--at least an effort. Further, it has been pushed to the forefront by the ill-advised Arizona bill which requires local authorities to investigate suspected illegal immigrants, demand their papers, arrest those without them, and fine those found to be illegals. If it were to be implemented (and I think it won't, which will keep things from flaming too much out of control), it would be immediately challenged, and should be ultimately defeated, in the courts. Enforcing border controls and visa restrictions are reasonable objectives, but the manner of this bill is an affront to civil liberties of all (and inevitably to Hispanics, again if it is ever truly enforced).
Then On the Other Hand I Would...
I am no expert on energy policy (I choose this name for it, because the Senate bill is apparently no longer cap-and-trade, and "climate change" is both vague and misleading about what this bill is all about), but I think an energy bill which aims at greater energy independence from foreign oil imports through offering money for domestic oil and gas drilling, developing "clean coal" and nuclear, renewables, and imposing caps on greenhouse gases from energy plants is a winner--a bill which should be able to get the votes from both parties to pass.
The first real problem is that the price for a bill will be some kind of clause which revokes the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of the '70's, authority recently upheld by the courts and preliminarily being put into place by Obama's revived EPA in recent months. This aspect threatens to split Democratic support; without strong Democratic backing the resulting bill will end up even worse than it appears now.
President Obama's position that he wants greenhouse gas legislation rather than relying on the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act is reasonable. Thinking of the future, and the likelihood that a future Republican administration would, Bushite-like, refuse to enforce standards, he needs more positive, current, relevant authorization to take effective action such as he has promised the world.
Another problem with the current proposal is the huge oil spill off Louisiana's coast caused by the explosion and sinking of an offshore, deepwater oil rig. This spill could go on for years, and it could end up having a Three Mile Island-type effect on this avenue of domestic production which has seemed promising.
My expectations (read: fears) are: a "climate change" bill will eventually come to the Senate. It will prove hugely controversial and split the environmentalists, and without their support, it will not pass. An immigration bill will be proposed in committee, but be gutted of all "amnesty"-type provisions, so it will be yet another ineffective enforcement bill which--whether it passes or not--will not satisfy Hispanics. These two outcomes--both of which I hope will be averted somehow--will not bode well for the elections, particularly for House Democrats (who are largely innocent, having already passed superior bills in both issue areas).
The Senate would thus, after the brief glimmer of hope from the healthcare bill passage and this recent period of progress, show once again what a dysfunctional institution it has become. Corporations' buying of elections--recently authorized by the Supreme Court, with remedies totally spured so far--may yet shock us into doing somthing. And then the EPA will begin to enforce the Clean Air Act, something which is going to be hugely controversial and opposed by massive corporate advertising campaigns.
Crist Rises from the Dead?
Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced today he would escape from a doomed Republican campaign against Tea-bagger favorite Marco Rubio and run as an independent.
His decision raises marginally the chances of something other than a Republican victory (maybe from 5% to 20%), but, more significantly, it will absorb the media focus as the highlighted race of the year. This should allow Majority Leader Harry Reid to consolidate his chances against a ditzy Republican challenger and hold onto his seat in Nevada.
My forecast--not really changed from my prior analysis, but starting to firm up a bit--is for the Democrats to hold 54-55 seats (with Sanders, not counting Lieberman) coming out of the 2010 elections.
(For those who want specifics, of the most closely contested races, I'm looking for Dems to win in Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and one or two of these three: New Hampshire, Colorado, and Ohio.)
His decision raises marginally the chances of something other than a Republican victory (maybe from 5% to 20%), but, more significantly, it will absorb the media focus as the highlighted race of the year. This should allow Majority Leader Harry Reid to consolidate his chances against a ditzy Republican challenger and hold onto his seat in Nevada.
My forecast--not really changed from my prior analysis, but starting to firm up a bit--is for the Democrats to hold 54-55 seats (with Sanders, not counting Lieberman) coming out of the 2010 elections.
(For those who want specifics, of the most closely contested races, I'm looking for Dems to win in Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and one or two of these three: New Hampshire, Colorado, and Ohio.)
The Grist Grinds Slowly--Pt. I
The cracks in the Republican Senate filibuster against the financial reform bill are timely and welcome. The legislation has been carefully considered and mostly does what it needs to do. The Republicans found themselves in an impossible position politically, because they did not have popular support for their obstructionist program on this issue, and furthermore their objections were incoherent. They recognized the need for the reforms and accepted most of the bill, arguing around the edges, but that couldn't hold together long a united front against even considering the bill on the floor.
Refloating the Titanic
A couple of notes on critical pieces of the craft of putting our unwieldy boatload of bucks back above water: the biggest hole yet unpatched is the lack of any reform of the credit rating agencies. Their business model was thoroughly exposed in the last crisis, and their ratings (at least for complex financial packages) lack credibility. Buyers today must do their own homework, which in the cases of these synthetic, derivative-based products is hugely difficult--by design. I see an opportunity to make a private business supporting the evaluation of mortgage-backed securities, and the logical place for it to develop would be either in the credit bureaus themselves, or in Fair Isaac, the credit score developer. These are organizations that are competent to deal with the mass of data (and mortgage data in credit bureaus has been improving steadily).
The $50 billion bogey--a fund built to "pay for the funeral expenses" of big financial institutions which must be closed down, sometime in the future--is negotiable, certainly in the amount, but the concept makes sense. The FDIC has shown it can close down the smaller banks, but the scale of the large institutions would overwhelm its budget (and threaten to drag down the support for all the banks). That scale can't be provided through normal appropriations, either, because they are too slow, when what would be needed must be quick, firm, and even confidential (to avoid panic). It makes no sense to pretend that there are not significant expenses involved, and it is important to emphasize that the funds may not be used to repay creditors and shareholders (which was done in the bailout).
The key aspect of the reform is the requirement to make derivatives trading public, and because that is included in the Dodd bill (at Obama's insistence), the whole thing is worth passing. My most fundamental criticism, though, is that the legislation is fighting the last war. Questioning of the bill's designers and economists always seems to focus on the question, "Would this bill have prevented the last crisis?" and, after some struggle, it seems that they can now confidently say that it would.
Unfortunately, though, that is not likely to be good enough to deal with the next financial crisis, which will come from a new, currently exotic direction. It is still too early to see the dimensions of that future iceberg, which we can only hope means it's not yet on the horizon. That doesn't mean though, that there shouldn't be some thought on the question--something also not apparent; perhaps a new, more forward-looking bill could be developed in the next year or two, along with something putting ratings agencies on the hook for their ratings and with requiring mortgage lenders to hold onto some of their bookings from here forward.
Refloating the Titanic
A couple of notes on critical pieces of the craft of putting our unwieldy boatload of bucks back above water: the biggest hole yet unpatched is the lack of any reform of the credit rating agencies. Their business model was thoroughly exposed in the last crisis, and their ratings (at least for complex financial packages) lack credibility. Buyers today must do their own homework, which in the cases of these synthetic, derivative-based products is hugely difficult--by design. I see an opportunity to make a private business supporting the evaluation of mortgage-backed securities, and the logical place for it to develop would be either in the credit bureaus themselves, or in Fair Isaac, the credit score developer. These are organizations that are competent to deal with the mass of data (and mortgage data in credit bureaus has been improving steadily).
The $50 billion bogey--a fund built to "pay for the funeral expenses" of big financial institutions which must be closed down, sometime in the future--is negotiable, certainly in the amount, but the concept makes sense. The FDIC has shown it can close down the smaller banks, but the scale of the large institutions would overwhelm its budget (and threaten to drag down the support for all the banks). That scale can't be provided through normal appropriations, either, because they are too slow, when what would be needed must be quick, firm, and even confidential (to avoid panic). It makes no sense to pretend that there are not significant expenses involved, and it is important to emphasize that the funds may not be used to repay creditors and shareholders (which was done in the bailout).
The key aspect of the reform is the requirement to make derivatives trading public, and because that is included in the Dodd bill (at Obama's insistence), the whole thing is worth passing. My most fundamental criticism, though, is that the legislation is fighting the last war. Questioning of the bill's designers and economists always seems to focus on the question, "Would this bill have prevented the last crisis?" and, after some struggle, it seems that they can now confidently say that it would.
Unfortunately, though, that is not likely to be good enough to deal with the next financial crisis, which will come from a new, currently exotic direction. It is still too early to see the dimensions of that future iceberg, which we can only hope means it's not yet on the horizon. That doesn't mean though, that there shouldn't be some thought on the question--something also not apparent; perhaps a new, more forward-looking bill could be developed in the next year or two, along with something putting ratings agencies on the hook for their ratings and with requiring mortgage lenders to hold onto some of their bookings from here forward.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Happy 62, Israel!
I am sometimes a bit tough on Israel, so on this occasion of the 62nd anniversary of its formation as a nation, I am going to praise her, not try to bury her.
When we talk about exceptional accomplishments in this age, Israel has got to be up there. Its economy is innovative and productive, its military power self-generated and proven, and its politics are vigorous, democratic, and complex.
Israel'a strong bond with the US goes back to its inception as a modern nation; we were there with Israel at its beginning, and Israel proved itself a reliable ally during the Cold War, helping to repel Soviet influence in the critical Middle East region on many occasions. We have fraternal ties, too: Americans and Israelis have links of immigration in both directions that are ongoing.
I have no objection to the Israelis and Palestinians coming together to announce a long-term cessation of hostilities, to agree on a division of territory according to the interests of each people and international law, to allowing more free flow of people and trade between their respective territories. How could I object to any of that?--I could not.
I believe that if Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Abu Mazen of the Palestinian Authority made clear their serious intent and confidence that a deal could be concluded, those nay-sayers in their respective camps would give way. Further, a deal between Israel and Palestinians could readily be followed by additional agreements with Syria and Lebanon, which could bring the area, for once, under a more comprehensive peace.
So, yeah, I support the @two-states gig" as a way to move forward.
When we talk about exceptional accomplishments in this age, Israel has got to be up there. Its economy is innovative and productive, its military power self-generated and proven, and its politics are vigorous, democratic, and complex.
Israel'a strong bond with the US goes back to its inception as a modern nation; we were there with Israel at its beginning, and Israel proved itself a reliable ally during the Cold War, helping to repel Soviet influence in the critical Middle East region on many occasions. We have fraternal ties, too: Americans and Israelis have links of immigration in both directions that are ongoing.
I have no objection to the Israelis and Palestinians coming together to announce a long-term cessation of hostilities, to agree on a division of territory according to the interests of each people and international law, to allowing more free flow of people and trade between their respective territories. How could I object to any of that?--I could not.
I believe that if Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Abu Mazen of the Palestinian Authority made clear their serious intent and confidence that a deal could be concluded, those nay-sayers in their respective camps would give way. Further, a deal between Israel and Palestinians could readily be followed by additional agreements with Syria and Lebanon, which could bring the area, for once, under a more comprehensive peace.
So, yeah, I support the @two-states gig" as a way to move forward.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin
When it comes to art appreciation, I'm about 70 years behind the times. I claim some comprehension of works from Impressionism, Futurism, and Cubism; I get Surrealism to some extent; with Abstract Expressionism, I can see that something's being said, but can't quite follow the message. After that, not so much. I don't get Modernism, let alone anything that might be post- that.
So, for me it was a great pleasure to get a meaningful, understandable definition of post-modernism. This came in the form of a proposed post-modernist approach to history, in the collection of essays called "Re-Thinking History" by Keith Jenkins (Routledge, 1993). Jenkins' discussion of post-modernist history draws from a 1984 definition by Jean-Francois Lyotard in The Post-Modern Condition. Lyotard describes this existential state as characterized by the "death of centers" and behavior showing "incredulity to metanarratives".
This might seem just more gobbledygook, but it means something to me. When I went to college, history was a battleground between the standard interpretations--the DWEM (dead white European male) version of history, Euro-centric, or Amero-centric, and also the alternative centers of interpretation: the revisionist line, the Marxist line, Afro-centric, femino-centric, even homo-centric and pharmo-centric (history of drug use). Each was driven by an ideology--a "metanarrative"--which conditioned the interpretation, and the selection, of historical evidence.
So, the post-modernist throws off the metanarrative of religious dogma, the Communist ideology, even, perhaps, these nouveau ways of looking at our history. This parallels the political point of view which arose after the end of the Cold War, that nothing is left standing but the liberal democratic ideal, the one that allows all other points of view, the one that is supposed to remain.
Now, though, even this last ideology falls. I think of CNBC's Larry Kudlow as a represntative exponent of this last metanarrative, the one that goes something like this: "all we have to do is let the markets, in their wisdom, solve the problem. Let the bad companies fail, and the good ones will survive, and prosperity will return,,," and we will all surely get rich, like Larry. Well, I'm sorry, Larry, but it doesn't work that way, and it didn't work that way, and we don't believe in your world view anymore.
We are truly ready for that post-modern condition now. No party, no ideology, no belief in government, or capitalism, or anything except what works for us subjectively. Cut taxes--anyway the ones I pay--and give me the benefits--the ones I want. That seems to be where the post-modern mind is at.
There is something to be said for throwing off the burdens of inherited patterns of thought which limit us; further, for fighting against the belief structures which seek to hold us down, or even against narcissistic self-regard as an overriding philosophy of life, too. But what is left?
When everything has been de-bunked, what should be left should not be bunk. But what I see is fragmentation of society, collapse of civil norms, and a whole bunch of folks burrowing in and pursuing just those necessities to provide for themselves and (maybe) their immediate families. Culture is just the sum of your club memberships, in most of which you can participate without leaving your study.
What does this post-modernism lead to, though? Devotees would say, I think, to nothing. There's nowhere left to go. I see it differently, though: this throwing off is just a transitory phase, until something really big comes along, something which will find us coming together, not with one voice, but in shared perception of a meaning worth appreciating and an objective worth pursuing.
For me, that would be something about preserving civilization, the survival of the species, and the survival of life on the planet. It will take an awesome threat to make us all aware of the urgency and moved to act (OK, maybe not all of us; there will be those who are just waiting for the Second Coming, the 11th Imam, nuclear devastation, or other nihilistic forms of total destruction). I do feel that it's coming; it's just a matter of time, and maybe of the right events.
The title of this post, "mene, mene, tekel upharsin" is the proverbial "writing on the wall"--that which God is said to have mysteriously scrawled on the walls of Babylon shortly before its destruction (from the Bible's book of Daniel). It's said to mean "you have been measured and found wanting", though the literal translation of those Aramaic words is "counted, counted, weighed and divided". My post-modern translation of that would be: We know the value of everything, and it's nothing much.
So, for me it was a great pleasure to get a meaningful, understandable definition of post-modernism. This came in the form of a proposed post-modernist approach to history, in the collection of essays called "Re-Thinking History" by Keith Jenkins (Routledge, 1993). Jenkins' discussion of post-modernist history draws from a 1984 definition by Jean-Francois Lyotard in The Post-Modern Condition. Lyotard describes this existential state as characterized by the "death of centers" and behavior showing "incredulity to metanarratives".
This might seem just more gobbledygook, but it means something to me. When I went to college, history was a battleground between the standard interpretations--the DWEM (dead white European male) version of history, Euro-centric, or Amero-centric, and also the alternative centers of interpretation: the revisionist line, the Marxist line, Afro-centric, femino-centric, even homo-centric and pharmo-centric (history of drug use). Each was driven by an ideology--a "metanarrative"--which conditioned the interpretation, and the selection, of historical evidence.
So, the post-modernist throws off the metanarrative of religious dogma, the Communist ideology, even, perhaps, these nouveau ways of looking at our history. This parallels the political point of view which arose after the end of the Cold War, that nothing is left standing but the liberal democratic ideal, the one that allows all other points of view, the one that is supposed to remain.
Now, though, even this last ideology falls. I think of CNBC's Larry Kudlow as a represntative exponent of this last metanarrative, the one that goes something like this: "all we have to do is let the markets, in their wisdom, solve the problem. Let the bad companies fail, and the good ones will survive, and prosperity will return,,," and we will all surely get rich, like Larry. Well, I'm sorry, Larry, but it doesn't work that way, and it didn't work that way, and we don't believe in your world view anymore.
We are truly ready for that post-modern condition now. No party, no ideology, no belief in government, or capitalism, or anything except what works for us subjectively. Cut taxes--anyway the ones I pay--and give me the benefits--the ones I want. That seems to be where the post-modern mind is at.
There is something to be said for throwing off the burdens of inherited patterns of thought which limit us; further, for fighting against the belief structures which seek to hold us down, or even against narcissistic self-regard as an overriding philosophy of life, too. But what is left?
When everything has been de-bunked, what should be left should not be bunk. But what I see is fragmentation of society, collapse of civil norms, and a whole bunch of folks burrowing in and pursuing just those necessities to provide for themselves and (maybe) their immediate families. Culture is just the sum of your club memberships, in most of which you can participate without leaving your study.
What does this post-modernism lead to, though? Devotees would say, I think, to nothing. There's nowhere left to go. I see it differently, though: this throwing off is just a transitory phase, until something really big comes along, something which will find us coming together, not with one voice, but in shared perception of a meaning worth appreciating and an objective worth pursuing.
For me, that would be something about preserving civilization, the survival of the species, and the survival of life on the planet. It will take an awesome threat to make us all aware of the urgency and moved to act (OK, maybe not all of us; there will be those who are just waiting for the Second Coming, the 11th Imam, nuclear devastation, or other nihilistic forms of total destruction). I do feel that it's coming; it's just a matter of time, and maybe of the right events.
The title of this post, "mene, mene, tekel upharsin" is the proverbial "writing on the wall"--that which God is said to have mysteriously scrawled on the walls of Babylon shortly before its destruction (from the Bible's book of Daniel). It's said to mean "you have been measured and found wanting", though the literal translation of those Aramaic words is "counted, counted, weighed and divided". My post-modern translation of that would be: We know the value of everything, and it's nothing much.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
NBA Playoff Preview
The NBA regular season showed greater parity than usual. There were about 6 teams that were just plain bad, about six more that really weren't in playoff contention, and the rest were very similar in their full-season performances (the West being a couple of notches better than the lower-rated Eastern teams in contention).
We're still basically looking at the same two questions I asked at the season preview: 1) Can anyone stop the Lakers in the West? and 2) Will the revamped Cleveland Cavaliers give LeBron James enough reason in this year's playoffs to stay around after this year? My guesses would be 1) no; and 2) no, unless getting to the Finals is enough, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.
The West was so close among all the teams 2) through 8) that there's no reason based on seeding or regular-season performance to call any team (except #8 Oklahoma City vs. #1 LA) a serious underdog. Here are my one-sentence first-round previews:
Mismatches: #1 Cleveland vs. #8 Chicago--the Bulls were, by several games, the weakest team in the playoffs, and the Cavs had the best record by a similar margin.
#3 Atlanta vs. #6 Milwaukee--This one would've had Milwaukee (first time in the playoffs in a decade or more) as just a serious underdog (see below) except for center Andrew Bogut's serious injury in the last week.
#3 Phoenix vs. #6 Portland--Ditto this one for Portland in this matchup of overachievers; it would be a reasonable matchup except for the late injury to Brandon Roy.
Serious Underdogs:#7 Charlotte vs. #2 Orlando
The Bobcats (playoff first-timers) have shown some signs of coming together recently, which makes me think they may come up with a couple wins.
#8 Oklahoma City vs. #1 Los Angeles--Phil Jackson's playing mind games with Kevin Durant, which tells me he takes their challenge seriously, but I think LA is just too big for the up-and-coming Thunder.
#5 Utah vs. #4 Denver--Kirilenko went down in practice this week for Utah, which makes the Jazz serious underdogs; I'm looking for the Nuggets--who now have key forward Kenyon Martin back--to make a serious run at the Lakers in the second round, as they did (in the Western Conference finals) last year.
Essentially Even: #7 San Antonio and #2 Dallas--Partly because they are the Spurs and the Mavs, and partly because their records are not all that different despite the difference in the seedings. Dallas overachieved a little in the regular season, San Antonio underachieved (until Manu Ginobili got hot late in the season), but we can expect the Spurs to be a tough out in the playoffs, as always.
#4 Boston and #5 Miami--Boston should be a lot better than the Dewayne's, but the Celtics have been less-than-convincing. This series could even be the last roundup for the aging Celtics' core which won the title two years ago.
We're still basically looking at the same two questions I asked at the season preview: 1) Can anyone stop the Lakers in the West? and 2) Will the revamped Cleveland Cavaliers give LeBron James enough reason in this year's playoffs to stay around after this year? My guesses would be 1) no; and 2) no, unless getting to the Finals is enough, but I'm hoping I'm wrong.
The West was so close among all the teams 2) through 8) that there's no reason based on seeding or regular-season performance to call any team (except #8 Oklahoma City vs. #1 LA) a serious underdog. Here are my one-sentence first-round previews:
Mismatches: #1 Cleveland vs. #8 Chicago--the Bulls were, by several games, the weakest team in the playoffs, and the Cavs had the best record by a similar margin.
#3 Atlanta vs. #6 Milwaukee--This one would've had Milwaukee (first time in the playoffs in a decade or more) as just a serious underdog (see below) except for center Andrew Bogut's serious injury in the last week.
#3 Phoenix vs. #6 Portland--Ditto this one for Portland in this matchup of overachievers; it would be a reasonable matchup except for the late injury to Brandon Roy.
Serious Underdogs:#7 Charlotte vs. #2 Orlando
The Bobcats (playoff first-timers) have shown some signs of coming together recently, which makes me think they may come up with a couple wins.
#8 Oklahoma City vs. #1 Los Angeles--Phil Jackson's playing mind games with Kevin Durant, which tells me he takes their challenge seriously, but I think LA is just too big for the up-and-coming Thunder.
#5 Utah vs. #4 Denver--Kirilenko went down in practice this week for Utah, which makes the Jazz serious underdogs; I'm looking for the Nuggets--who now have key forward Kenyon Martin back--to make a serious run at the Lakers in the second round, as they did (in the Western Conference finals) last year.
Essentially Even: #7 San Antonio and #2 Dallas--Partly because they are the Spurs and the Mavs, and partly because their records are not all that different despite the difference in the seedings. Dallas overachieved a little in the regular season, San Antonio underachieved (until Manu Ginobili got hot late in the season), but we can expect the Spurs to be a tough out in the playoffs, as always.
#4 Boston and #5 Miami--Boston should be a lot better than the Dewayne's, but the Celtics have been less-than-convincing. This series could even be the last roundup for the aging Celtics' core which won the title two years ago.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Pod of Sharks
The announcement of the SEC's case against Goldman Sachs has to be the smartest use to date of the Administration's prosecutorial authority. GS is clearly the entity which has had the most hay made for it from the crisis and from the bailout, and it's time they pay the piper.
The specific charge is that one of the doomed Collateralized Debt Obligations they pushed out on the market was specifically engineered to fail, and they knew it, and they were shorting (betting against) the investment package from the start, and that their behavior constituted fraud. It's probably not the only POS-CDO they produced about which all that could be said, but around this one the SEC's investigation turned up some damning emails (in French) from the responsible SVP. They wouldn't be usable in a criminal trial, but the standard of evidence required for a civil case (as well as the weight of evidence for a verdict) made this a workable charge to press.
The Men of Gold can't afford to lose this case, which would brand them as slimy traitors to their clients and cause permanent reputational damage. The huge drop in their stock price Friday may have been partially due to technical (options-related) reasons, but if the charge is made to stick, worse could yet be coming.
The specific charge is that one of the doomed Collateralized Debt Obligations they pushed out on the market was specifically engineered to fail, and they knew it, and they were shorting (betting against) the investment package from the start, and that their behavior constituted fraud. It's probably not the only POS-CDO they produced about which all that could be said, but around this one the SEC's investigation turned up some damning emails (in French) from the responsible SVP. They wouldn't be usable in a criminal trial, but the standard of evidence required for a civil case (as well as the weight of evidence for a verdict) made this a workable charge to press.
The Men of Gold can't afford to lose this case, which would brand them as slimy traitors to their clients and cause permanent reputational damage. The huge drop in their stock price Friday may have been partially due to technical (options-related) reasons, but if the charge is made to stick, worse could yet be coming.
Monday, April 12, 2010
U.K. Election Preview I
I don't believe I've ever posted before on an election in the United Kingdom (the one of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but that's just because there hasn't been an interesting national election there in over 15 years.
I would make an analogy between Britain's electoral politics and ours, on the one hand, and cricket and baseball, on the other: the common pattern is that our games, both the political one and the ball-and-bat one, come from the same roots as the Brits' but have evolved differently over the centuries.
To push it a bit too far, cricket made the connection with me one day laid up in a hotel room in Delhi with "the belly"; it was a test match, and the hitter was parrying the thrown offerings, just like a batter fouling off pitches. Similarly, we can use our understanding of American politics to try to get some perspective on the British elections.
Like in the US, the British are struggling to recover from the economic crisis; also there, credit markets froze and business activity tumbled. Like the US in '08,
there is widespread fatigue with the governing party and longing for a change. And, like our political environment in this year, neither of the two major parties has inspired much confidence; as I believe we will see here this year, neither can seal the deal, so there will be much uncertainty as the polls open.
That's about as far as I can take it, though. The British election campaign lasts exactly one month (how I envy them!); unlike this year's US midterm elections, in which the game will be to get interest and turnout, the May 6 balloting in the U.K. will be a general election with everything at stake, and previews of the campaign agree that the key will be televised debates with the party leaders. Another difference is that over there it's the "left" party which has overstayed its welcome.
The largest difference--apart from minor things like traditions, parliamentary government and a monarchical head of state--is that there is a major third party in the U.K., a viable alternative for those dissatisfied with both of the major contenders for governance, Labour and Conservative. The Liberal Democrats are a party with a long tradition themselves (as the Liberal party), they have plenty of talent on offer, and they may well find themselves in a decisive role after the elections. To some extent, while their policies are similar to Labour's on many issues, and not necessarily closer to the Conservatives' than Labour's, they find themselves occupying a position attractive to moderates turned off by the partisan divide.
The Conservatives, under their most effective leadership in decades with David Cameron, held large leads in national polls until recently. Now, though, it seems the electorate is having second thoughts about going back to the party of Margaret Thatcher and to the agents of big capital (even if Cameron has done a great job of giving 19th-century political thought a 21st-century brand). Since Tony Blair left the leadership to Gordon Brown, though, New Labour's New Clothes have looked very flimsy, too authoritarian, controlling everything but not necessarily so effectively. While voters choose among candidates seeking pluralities in local elections, all voters will be aware that behind their choice is the question of the next leader of the national government.
Labour's victories in the last three general elections have been so decisive that they could form majorities in Parliament and governments just from their own membership. The outgoing House of Commons has 349 Labour members (of 650 total), 210 Conservatives, and 62 Liberal Democrats (the other 29 are from minor parties, primarily regAional-based ones in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, or independents). Labour is expected to lose seats; the question is how many (once again, like the US). While it is possible that Labour could retain a majority, or even that the Conservatives could defeat them so decisively that they would be able to gain a majority and form a government, the more likely outcomes are ones in which neither party can get 325 members elected in Commons.
In the event of a hung Parliament, some form of coalition or alliance will be required. Traditionally, the party which gets the most seats in Commons will get first shot at forming a government. If the Conservatives are leading and close to a majority they might be able to put together a shaky government with a few odds and ends, but a combination with the Liberal Democrats appears unlikely (and one with Labour, impossible).
An interactive tool which I found fun and instructive was included in the Guardian's coverage. This "swingometer" allows you to shift voters from the last election (uniformly) in any direction--towards one party from both the others, or towards two from the third, any amount of swing up to 10%. As you do so, some of the 650 boxes--one for each Commons seat--shift color, indicating a change in the party winning the seat.
Most of them don't change, though. One can shift the view to looking just at the seats which had narrower margins last time, the swing seats. One thing that is interesting is that there appear to be few seats that are closely contested among all three parties, but there are ones close between each of the two-way matchups. It's impossible, though, to get the LibDems past 100 seats, though it is possible to get very dramatic swings toward either Labour or Conservative majorities.
After some play, I came up with the outcome that looks like my prediction: a 4% shift from Labour, split about evenly toward the Conservatives and LibDems. The result in seats won favors the Conservatives a lot more--Conservatives +40 and Liberal Democrats +7--but the resulting totals would still favor a Labour/LibDem government: Labour 300, Conservatives 250, Liberal Democrats 69.
I'll attempt another post before the May 6 elections, attempting to distinguish between the policies, and the flavor, of the three major parties. The key thing we should try to understand is why there is a stable three-party system there, how its dynamics play out in this critical environment of a close contest, and, yes, why that can't happen here. Or can it?
I would make an analogy between Britain's electoral politics and ours, on the one hand, and cricket and baseball, on the other: the common pattern is that our games, both the political one and the ball-and-bat one, come from the same roots as the Brits' but have evolved differently over the centuries.
To push it a bit too far, cricket made the connection with me one day laid up in a hotel room in Delhi with "the belly"; it was a test match, and the hitter was parrying the thrown offerings, just like a batter fouling off pitches. Similarly, we can use our understanding of American politics to try to get some perspective on the British elections.
Like in the US, the British are struggling to recover from the economic crisis; also there, credit markets froze and business activity tumbled. Like the US in '08,
there is widespread fatigue with the governing party and longing for a change. And, like our political environment in this year, neither of the two major parties has inspired much confidence; as I believe we will see here this year, neither can seal the deal, so there will be much uncertainty as the polls open.
That's about as far as I can take it, though. The British election campaign lasts exactly one month (how I envy them!); unlike this year's US midterm elections, in which the game will be to get interest and turnout, the May 6 balloting in the U.K. will be a general election with everything at stake, and previews of the campaign agree that the key will be televised debates with the party leaders. Another difference is that over there it's the "left" party which has overstayed its welcome.
The largest difference--apart from minor things like traditions, parliamentary government and a monarchical head of state--is that there is a major third party in the U.K., a viable alternative for those dissatisfied with both of the major contenders for governance, Labour and Conservative. The Liberal Democrats are a party with a long tradition themselves (as the Liberal party), they have plenty of talent on offer, and they may well find themselves in a decisive role after the elections. To some extent, while their policies are similar to Labour's on many issues, and not necessarily closer to the Conservatives' than Labour's, they find themselves occupying a position attractive to moderates turned off by the partisan divide.
The Conservatives, under their most effective leadership in decades with David Cameron, held large leads in national polls until recently. Now, though, it seems the electorate is having second thoughts about going back to the party of Margaret Thatcher and to the agents of big capital (even if Cameron has done a great job of giving 19th-century political thought a 21st-century brand). Since Tony Blair left the leadership to Gordon Brown, though, New Labour's New Clothes have looked very flimsy, too authoritarian, controlling everything but not necessarily so effectively. While voters choose among candidates seeking pluralities in local elections, all voters will be aware that behind their choice is the question of the next leader of the national government.
Labour's victories in the last three general elections have been so decisive that they could form majorities in Parliament and governments just from their own membership. The outgoing House of Commons has 349 Labour members (of 650 total), 210 Conservatives, and 62 Liberal Democrats (the other 29 are from minor parties, primarily regAional-based ones in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, or independents). Labour is expected to lose seats; the question is how many (once again, like the US). While it is possible that Labour could retain a majority, or even that the Conservatives could defeat them so decisively that they would be able to gain a majority and form a government, the more likely outcomes are ones in which neither party can get 325 members elected in Commons.
In the event of a hung Parliament, some form of coalition or alliance will be required. Traditionally, the party which gets the most seats in Commons will get first shot at forming a government. If the Conservatives are leading and close to a majority they might be able to put together a shaky government with a few odds and ends, but a combination with the Liberal Democrats appears unlikely (and one with Labour, impossible).
An interactive tool which I found fun and instructive was included in the Guardian's coverage. This "swingometer" allows you to shift voters from the last election (uniformly) in any direction--towards one party from both the others, or towards two from the third, any amount of swing up to 10%. As you do so, some of the 650 boxes--one for each Commons seat--shift color, indicating a change in the party winning the seat.
Most of them don't change, though. One can shift the view to looking just at the seats which had narrower margins last time, the swing seats. One thing that is interesting is that there appear to be few seats that are closely contested among all three parties, but there are ones close between each of the two-way matchups. It's impossible, though, to get the LibDems past 100 seats, though it is possible to get very dramatic swings toward either Labour or Conservative majorities.
After some play, I came up with the outcome that looks like my prediction: a 4% shift from Labour, split about evenly toward the Conservatives and LibDems. The result in seats won favors the Conservatives a lot more--Conservatives +40 and Liberal Democrats +7--but the resulting totals would still favor a Labour/LibDem government: Labour 300, Conservatives 250, Liberal Democrats 69.
I'll attempt another post before the May 6 elections, attempting to distinguish between the policies, and the flavor, of the three major parties. The key thing we should try to understand is why there is a stable three-party system there, how its dynamics play out in this critical environment of a close contest, and, yes, why that can't happen here. Or can it?
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
From Three to Zero
Last year in the Champions' League semifinals there were three English teams out of the final four. Now, with Manchester United's defeat by Bayern Munich, and after Arsenal's defeat by Barcelona yesterday and Chelsea's by Inter some weeks ago, there are none. The four semifinalists will be Inter Milan, Bayern Munich, Barcelona, and some French team (Lyon and Bordeaux play in the quarterfinal whose result, though over by now, I haven't seen).
Arsenal had showed some character in their first game of the match with Barcelona at home, coming back from 2-0 with two goals for a draw. They nosed ahead after 18 minutes at Barcelona with a goal, but from there on it was, let's say, "messy". Leonel Messi scored three minutes later, then again, and again, and again, for a 4-1 victory and 6-3 aggregate result.
Manchester's departure was a shock. They did lose, 2-1 at Munich, but immediately canceled out the deficit in the home rematch with two early goals. They scored again, and I thought it was over--but for some reason I stayed around. Then, Ulic, the hero of the first game for Bayern, came up with a goal shortly before halftime that was part his characteristic hustle, part slack defense.
After that, I couldn't leave. The 3-1 score meant Manchester United was ahead 4-3, but one more Bayern goal, if it were possible, would give them the match (because Munich would have two away goals to Manchester United's one, the tiebreaker if combined goals are equal). The shocking goal to win it for Bayern Munich was set up by a cheap foul, a second yellow (=red) card to Man U's Rafael, which left them a man down. The defending got kind of frantic, and the match-winning goal came from our old friend, former PSV/Chelsea/Real Madrid left winger Arjen Robben, and it was a thing of beauty, a hugely difficult long volley behind goalie Van der Saar, directly off a sharp cross from in front of him.
All English fans should breathe, sigh, and then agree with the thought that this is the fairest result. Supremacy, this year, should be determined through the Premier League championship, for which all three leading English teams still have a real chance. Chelsea has the lead by two points over Man U. and three over Arsenal, but Arsenal arguably has the easiest schedule of the three. All three play would-be contender Tottenham; Chelsea has a tough away match at nemesis Liverpool, though the 'Pudlians may be somewhat demoralized by their poor record this year and lack of incentive (other than sticking the needle, once again, in our Blues).
Meanwhile, in the Champions' Cup semifinals, Barcelona will have a tough matchup against Jose Mourinho's Inter and may well lose. Barcelona is going for a repeat win of historic proportions; no team has repeated in the championship since the change to the current Champions League format some 15 years ago. Both teams are compelling and deserving. I'm so thrilled by Bayern Munich's win today, though, that I might have to root for them to win it all this year.
Arsenal had showed some character in their first game of the match with Barcelona at home, coming back from 2-0 with two goals for a draw. They nosed ahead after 18 minutes at Barcelona with a goal, but from there on it was, let's say, "messy". Leonel Messi scored three minutes later, then again, and again, and again, for a 4-1 victory and 6-3 aggregate result.
Manchester's departure was a shock. They did lose, 2-1 at Munich, but immediately canceled out the deficit in the home rematch with two early goals. They scored again, and I thought it was over--but for some reason I stayed around. Then, Ulic, the hero of the first game for Bayern, came up with a goal shortly before halftime that was part his characteristic hustle, part slack defense.
After that, I couldn't leave. The 3-1 score meant Manchester United was ahead 4-3, but one more Bayern goal, if it were possible, would give them the match (because Munich would have two away goals to Manchester United's one, the tiebreaker if combined goals are equal). The shocking goal to win it for Bayern Munich was set up by a cheap foul, a second yellow (=red) card to Man U's Rafael, which left them a man down. The defending got kind of frantic, and the match-winning goal came from our old friend, former PSV/Chelsea/Real Madrid left winger Arjen Robben, and it was a thing of beauty, a hugely difficult long volley behind goalie Van der Saar, directly off a sharp cross from in front of him.
All English fans should breathe, sigh, and then agree with the thought that this is the fairest result. Supremacy, this year, should be determined through the Premier League championship, for which all three leading English teams still have a real chance. Chelsea has the lead by two points over Man U. and three over Arsenal, but Arsenal arguably has the easiest schedule of the three. All three play would-be contender Tottenham; Chelsea has a tough away match at nemesis Liverpool, though the 'Pudlians may be somewhat demoralized by their poor record this year and lack of incentive (other than sticking the needle, once again, in our Blues).
Meanwhile, in the Champions' Cup semifinals, Barcelona will have a tough matchup against Jose Mourinho's Inter and may well lose. Barcelona is going for a repeat win of historic proportions; no team has repeated in the championship since the change to the current Champions League format some 15 years ago. Both teams are compelling and deserving. I'm so thrilled by Bayern Munich's win today, though, that I might have to root for them to win it all this year.
Republicans: Steeled for Defeat?
One can only smile with amusement at the travails of the Republican National Committee chairman, M ichaelSteele. He seems to attract bad publicity, and both party stalwarts and the parties' enemies gleefully pile on.
The current gaffe has to do with a $2000 charge on a RNC company card expensed at a "lesbian bondage strip joint". I can't imagine who would have done it, unless it was a prank, a disaffected Republican lesbian, or a saboteur (saboteuse?) Steele had nothing to do with it, didn't go there, and may or may not have personally disallowed the charge, but the damage is, somehow, out there (again, one should ask who was responsible for that. I know the cover-up is usually worse, politically, than the crime, but this may be an exception. Better to be ruthless, conspiratorial, and secret than ridiculous--just ask Dick Cheney).
The previous gaffe involved the production of ugly, semi-racist talking points to create fear and attack Democrats for fund-raising purposes, a Power Point presentation of scandalous content and dubious authorization. Once again, Steele was limited to complete denial and dismissal--reasonably plausible, but insufficient.
So now a bunch of mainstream (read: Bushite) party leaders have gotten together to form a new, parallel organization to raise money for Republicans apart from the discredited national committee: Freedom something-or-other. Perhaps this represents the beginning of a definitive solution to the long-standing question of "the size of the tent" for the party. Rather than large or small, why not two tents?
This is an improvised approach, and surely it won't last longer than the current midterm elections or Steele's departure from the RNC, whichever happens first. But, I think that there is in this, in all sincerity, a glimmer of a solution to the current post-2008 problem the party has.
Essentially, there needs to be one party organization for the neo-Bushite elitist party group (the traditional party leaders, who almost always control national outcomes), and one for the new party of Tea. These two groups are at odds, politically, and they basically can't stand each other, either. Except for hating Democrats, they have nothing in common. They need each other, though: the former party of governance, disgraced as it may be, for gravitas and credibility; and the Tea Party, to provide some enthusiasm and a semblance of a coherent point of view (Reaganite anti-statist "freedom") to voters. There is a perennial, truly coherent thread behind the Bushite party's policies, a hypocritical coating of freedom talk over welfare for corporations and the wealthy, but it must never be presented or seriously discussed publicly.
After the 2010 party primaries, the two fronts can work as a coalition to elect the individual Republicans each group prefers. There will be a reckoning, but it will not be until 2012, when the party's nominee is chosen. Once again, they will be faced with the the choice of hanging together or hanging separately, and that will be interesting to watch as they decide. Typically, they come together, but if the elitists unite behind someone like "Obamacare" Mitt Romney or Eric Cantor, it will be hard to bring in the tea-baggers; meanwhile, the "elite corps of impudent snobs" (to use the late William Safire's great line, delivered by arrogant hypocrite Spiro Agnew in the '70's to describe New Left radicals) would never accept someone out of the traditional mainstream like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, or the new guy, ex-New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. The only likely hopes for unity would be someone marginally acceptable to both, like Huckabee or Pawlenty.
In the words of our President, "Go for it!" I would accept that Democrats should be expecting some losses of seats this year, due almost entirely to the lagging state of economic recovery, though not control of either House, and should try to dig in and limit losses of state houses. It seems preposterous that the party of financial crisis, bailout, and the Iraq invasion should be regaining ground so soon, but I see this as a second-order pendulum swing: the primary, long-term direction is still to their detriment.
The current gaffe has to do with a $2000 charge on a RNC company card expensed at a "lesbian bondage strip joint". I can't imagine who would have done it, unless it was a prank, a disaffected Republican lesbian, or a saboteur (saboteuse?) Steele had nothing to do with it, didn't go there, and may or may not have personally disallowed the charge, but the damage is, somehow, out there (again, one should ask who was responsible for that. I know the cover-up is usually worse, politically, than the crime, but this may be an exception. Better to be ruthless, conspiratorial, and secret than ridiculous--just ask Dick Cheney).
The previous gaffe involved the production of ugly, semi-racist talking points to create fear and attack Democrats for fund-raising purposes, a Power Point presentation of scandalous content and dubious authorization. Once again, Steele was limited to complete denial and dismissal--reasonably plausible, but insufficient.
So now a bunch of mainstream (read: Bushite) party leaders have gotten together to form a new, parallel organization to raise money for Republicans apart from the discredited national committee: Freedom something-or-other. Perhaps this represents the beginning of a definitive solution to the long-standing question of "the size of the tent" for the party. Rather than large or small, why not two tents?
This is an improvised approach, and surely it won't last longer than the current midterm elections or Steele's departure from the RNC, whichever happens first. But, I think that there is in this, in all sincerity, a glimmer of a solution to the current post-2008 problem the party has.
Essentially, there needs to be one party organization for the neo-Bushite elitist party group (the traditional party leaders, who almost always control national outcomes), and one for the new party of Tea. These two groups are at odds, politically, and they basically can't stand each other, either. Except for hating Democrats, they have nothing in common. They need each other, though: the former party of governance, disgraced as it may be, for gravitas and credibility; and the Tea Party, to provide some enthusiasm and a semblance of a coherent point of view (Reaganite anti-statist "freedom") to voters. There is a perennial, truly coherent thread behind the Bushite party's policies, a hypocritical coating of freedom talk over welfare for corporations and the wealthy, but it must never be presented or seriously discussed publicly.
After the 2010 party primaries, the two fronts can work as a coalition to elect the individual Republicans each group prefers. There will be a reckoning, but it will not be until 2012, when the party's nominee is chosen. Once again, they will be faced with the the choice of hanging together or hanging separately, and that will be interesting to watch as they decide. Typically, they come together, but if the elitists unite behind someone like "Obamacare" Mitt Romney or Eric Cantor, it will be hard to bring in the tea-baggers; meanwhile, the "elite corps of impudent snobs" (to use the late William Safire's great line, delivered by arrogant hypocrite Spiro Agnew in the '70's to describe New Left radicals) would never accept someone out of the traditional mainstream like Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, or the new guy, ex-New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. The only likely hopes for unity would be someone marginally acceptable to both, like Huckabee or Pawlenty.
In the words of our President, "Go for it!" I would accept that Democrats should be expecting some losses of seats this year, due almost entirely to the lagging state of economic recovery, though not control of either House, and should try to dig in and limit losses of state houses. It seems preposterous that the party of financial crisis, bailout, and the Iraq invasion should be regaining ground so soon, but I see this as a second-order pendulum swing: the primary, long-term direction is still to their detriment.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Baseball Picks 2010
AL East
Yanks--still making the right moves. Curtis Granderson is the new Bernie Williams.
BoTox--Offense is too weak for the top, but rotation will keep them in it. Adrian Gonzalez could do the trick in postseason, if they can get to it.
Rays--Good team, tough competition. I'd be glad to be wrong that third is the best they can do this year.
Orioles--Progress!
BJ's--I can't see any reason to back them for anything but last.
AL Central
Twins--Best of a mediocre bunch
ChiSox--Medium-to-cool.
Tigers--Don't seem really to want it
Indians--Fading from contention
Royals--Almost forgot they were still in business.
AL West
Rangers--It's a bad bet, but I don't like this year's Angels much.
Angels--Falling short every year will eventually do this to you.
Mariners--Cliff Lee is not quite enough.
A's--Not terrible, but moneyball is only earning fourth place of four.
Wild Card--Boston.
NL East
Phillies--I don't like what they've done--precious little, except for losing Lee and getting Halladay, but their competition isn't there yet. Three straight NL pennants is a bridge too far for this crew: their luck will run out when their bullpen's does.
Braves--On the rise again.
Marlins--Could surprise.
Mets--On the fall again.
Nationals--Could beat out the Mets, if the injury bug stays with them through this year again.
NL Central
Cardinals--I hate to say it, but they look like the NL's best this year.
Reds--Hope springs eternal; a couple more young guys turning up, and they'll be ready to contend/self-destruct. Maybe next year when Dusty leaves and they get a real manager.
Cubs--I like them a little better than the...
Brewers--Their pitching rotation is a joke.
Pirates--At least they're not the...
Astros--I really don't like what they're doing.
NL West
Rockies--Best of a good bunch. Jeff Francis' relapse could be the beginning of a bad trend, though.
Giants--Their depth is impressive.
Dodgers--Joe Torre hits a wall.
Diamondbacks--Their record last year was a bad dream, but fourth place is for real.
Padres--No hope here.
Wild Card: Giants!
Both the Wild cards I've picked could be pennant threats with their excellent starters, but I'll go with Yanks and Cards in the World Series.
Cardinals in seven.
Yanks--still making the right moves. Curtis Granderson is the new Bernie Williams.
BoTox--Offense is too weak for the top, but rotation will keep them in it. Adrian Gonzalez could do the trick in postseason, if they can get to it.
Rays--Good team, tough competition. I'd be glad to be wrong that third is the best they can do this year.
Orioles--Progress!
BJ's--I can't see any reason to back them for anything but last.
AL Central
Twins--Best of a mediocre bunch
ChiSox--Medium-to-cool.
Tigers--Don't seem really to want it
Indians--Fading from contention
Royals--Almost forgot they were still in business.
AL West
Rangers--It's a bad bet, but I don't like this year's Angels much.
Angels--Falling short every year will eventually do this to you.
Mariners--Cliff Lee is not quite enough.
A's--Not terrible, but moneyball is only earning fourth place of four.
Wild Card--Boston.
NL East
Phillies--I don't like what they've done--precious little, except for losing Lee and getting Halladay, but their competition isn't there yet. Three straight NL pennants is a bridge too far for this crew: their luck will run out when their bullpen's does.
Braves--On the rise again.
Marlins--Could surprise.
Mets--On the fall again.
Nationals--Could beat out the Mets, if the injury bug stays with them through this year again.
NL Central
Cardinals--I hate to say it, but they look like the NL's best this year.
Reds--Hope springs eternal; a couple more young guys turning up, and they'll be ready to contend/self-destruct. Maybe next year when Dusty leaves and they get a real manager.
Cubs--I like them a little better than the...
Brewers--Their pitching rotation is a joke.
Pirates--At least they're not the...
Astros--I really don't like what they're doing.
NL West
Rockies--Best of a good bunch. Jeff Francis' relapse could be the beginning of a bad trend, though.
Giants--Their depth is impressive.
Dodgers--Joe Torre hits a wall.
Diamondbacks--Their record last year was a bad dream, but fourth place is for real.
Padres--No hope here.
Wild Card: Giants!
Both the Wild cards I've picked could be pennant threats with their excellent starters, but I'll go with Yanks and Cards in the World Series.
Cardinals in seven.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Chelsea: WOW
I made a mistake: I had highlighted the Manchester United-Chelsea game--for months---but I was thinking it was Sunday (tomorrow), and I was working on the preparations for my daughter's birthday party this morning. So I missed it--and I can't see anywhere when it's going to have a repeat telecast.
And I really want to see this one. There is nothing better than watching Man U. go down in a big game--and at home! Usually, watching them at home is a thing of dread, waiting for the inevitable late goal, or the home-crowd-pleasing penalty call.
Chelsea's 2-1 win, at Old Trafford, puts the Blues in the driver's seat, with a two point lead, a significant advantage in goal difference, and only a few games left to play. They're not all easy ones, but now Chelsea could survive a drawn game.
Apparently Manchester United's lacking a bit, too. I saw the finale of their 2-1 loss at Bayern Munich last week. It was golden, a late-game defense lapse: waiting for the whistle to blow, they didn't see the Munich attacker--the hard-working Croatian, Ulic--come from the blind side, take the ball from Rio Ferdinand, and turn and put it in the goal. On the same play sequence, ace striker Wayne Rooney went down with a foot injury (which left them critically short for today's showdown).
Final Four Standing
In a short while the NCAA men's basketball semifinal games will start. After West Virginia's win over Kentucky last weekend in the key game of the tournament (once Northern Iowa had upset Kansas), I am drained of passion, or even strong opinions, about the teams that are left.
On one side of the semifinals bracket, there are two #5 seeds, and the winner will be a huge underdog in the finals. Michigan State has once again overachieved to make a Final Four, with a decent team that barely won its first round game against 12-seeded New Mexico St., and has had a tough game every round since. Butler overachieved as well, the key game being their win over Syracuse in the third round.
The other side has two teams highly-rated teams that have made the most of their matchups, playing good defense and hitting the key shots. I will back West Virginia over Duke; it will probably come down to whether the Blue Devils can break down the Mountaineers' zone with outside shooting, something Kentucky was significantly unable to do.
Most of the rest of my family will be rooting for Butler, who'll be playing something like a home game crosstown in Indianapolis. I'll be happy for them if they can pull off two more big wins.
And I really want to see this one. There is nothing better than watching Man U. go down in a big game--and at home! Usually, watching them at home is a thing of dread, waiting for the inevitable late goal, or the home-crowd-pleasing penalty call.
Chelsea's 2-1 win, at Old Trafford, puts the Blues in the driver's seat, with a two point lead, a significant advantage in goal difference, and only a few games left to play. They're not all easy ones, but now Chelsea could survive a drawn game.
Apparently Manchester United's lacking a bit, too. I saw the finale of their 2-1 loss at Bayern Munich last week. It was golden, a late-game defense lapse: waiting for the whistle to blow, they didn't see the Munich attacker--the hard-working Croatian, Ulic--come from the blind side, take the ball from Rio Ferdinand, and turn and put it in the goal. On the same play sequence, ace striker Wayne Rooney went down with a foot injury (which left them critically short for today's showdown).
Final Four Standing
In a short while the NCAA men's basketball semifinal games will start. After West Virginia's win over Kentucky last weekend in the key game of the tournament (once Northern Iowa had upset Kansas), I am drained of passion, or even strong opinions, about the teams that are left.
On one side of the semifinals bracket, there are two #5 seeds, and the winner will be a huge underdog in the finals. Michigan State has once again overachieved to make a Final Four, with a decent team that barely won its first round game against 12-seeded New Mexico St., and has had a tough game every round since. Butler overachieved as well, the key game being their win over Syracuse in the third round.
The other side has two teams highly-rated teams that have made the most of their matchups, playing good defense and hitting the key shots. I will back West Virginia over Duke; it will probably come down to whether the Blue Devils can break down the Mountaineers' zone with outside shooting, something Kentucky was significantly unable to do.
Most of the rest of my family will be rooting for Butler, who'll be playing something like a home game crosstown in Indianapolis. I'll be happy for them if they can pull off two more big wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
