5X5: #2 - Retirement vs. Physical Distancing

Over the past months some have asked me about how I find retirement. Those of us who are in the new employment category called "Stay at Home" (different from "Working from Home") are experiencing some changes in their lives--some of those are like my frequent retirement-based life, but some are radically different.

What's more-or-less the same: 
You wake up, realize you have minimal obligations, smile and roll over in bed.
Good morning, good morning!

Nobody bugs you, except on your landline if you bother to answer.  There's no business worth using the cellphone.

Still don't really need Linkedin.

Nobody writes to you in the mail, except a few who still have some lingering hope of getting money out of you. That number is steadily decreasing--is the Post office leaving junk mail to "season"?  I guess that's OK, but like many things now, not sustainable.

You have texts, email maybe (depending on the recipient), other forms of communication through compromised internet channels.

What's very different: 

Live TV:

We have gone...From National Pastime

To National Facepalm

I actually just watched the 1996 National Spelling Bee finals on ESPN, and was grateful for the chance to do so.  That's how bad it is for sports.

No money coming in to us ordinary folks--(everyone is hoarding cash, and all that Federal stuff is going to someone else ).  For example, I am owed a decent tax refund from Illinois from 2018, and I'm quite certain no one will look at my amended return anytime soon.

Every bill you pay seems like a major concession now.  Cash is king doesn't even begin to cover it adequately.

The famous "Taos hug" we all know and love has been extirpated.  Will it re-emerge in The New Life, once this change process has run its course?

Fall Forward, Spring Back (Pt. 2)

The number one question which will be answered by the midterms is our political system's 2018 response to its catastrophic fall forward on its face in 2016.  Will it be to lie prostrate and pathetic, or to spring back ? There is a third option,  for it to rise groggily to its feet and ready itself for the real conflict which lies ahead.

Not for nothing, I have decided to spend the one hour given back by this day--and what an exceptionally lovely fall day it was here today--and post some of my current thoughts within a strict, one-hour limit. I am five minutes into it now as I write. Of course, this has nothing to do with the time zone change here, for which the mnemonic is the inverse. 

My predictions for the election, defined as of the first day of the new Congress' session:
 229 for Dems in the House  (vs. 205), and
 48 Dem. senators (including Independents).

With senators, the prediction comes from looking at the individual races and how they are likely to turn out.  Right now, there is one very likely D-to-R (Heitkamp in ND) and five that are basically toss-ups  (AZ and NV that the Republicans are defending, and IN, MO, and FL that the Democrats are defending).  Viewed as a product of the function of the number of seats changing party hands, 1, 3, and 5 are very likely results for that; each of those is most likely to result in the Republican Senator number being 52.  Considering only those, if the Democrats lose ND they cannot win the Senate, looking only at those states.

The main wild card is if the Democrats can win one of North Dakota (Heitkamp defending), Tennessee (open seat with Corker's retirement) or Texas (the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon).  Any of those outcomes is a game-changer and suddenly makes the Senate contest both relevant and a top story.  There are going to be a whole lot of states we can expect the Democats to win and hold their Senate seats, in spite of 2016 Trump wins (OH, PA, MI, WI, MT, WV, and the special case of Bob Menendez defending in the Clinton state of NJ ).  These will not be news--though Ohio should be--unless the Democrat is defeated.

Otherwise, the top story will be the governors' races.  Leading the coverage will be those of Florida and Georgia, where history can be made in 2018.  First African-American governor(s) in the Deep South (i.e., excluding Virginia) since Reconstruction?   Gillum seems very likely in FL, while Stacey Abrams' bid to become Governor of Georgia (!!) is highly plausible but very possibly will be wrecked on the (il)logic of the state's political system.  It looks to me as though she may have a plurality on Tuesday, but having less than 50% of the votes it would go to a runoff, which may be harder for her to win.  (It may take quite a while to determine if that's so; if there needs to be a runoff)

There are a whole lot of other close governors' races through the night, allowing national coverage to fill with plenty of content.  Iowa is a particularly important one; so is Kansas, where a total Trumpite voter suppression creep (Kris Kobach) has the opportunity to continue a Kansan tradition of failed Republican governors.  New Mexico should return a Democrat to office; real control of the state government remains just beyond reach, but the win takes out of the statewide picture a prominent right-wing elected official (Steve Pearce, no relation to the World Series MVP).

The Upper Midwest will be a good story for the Democrats.  Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania will all go Democratic or remain comfortably Democratic.  Wisconsin has an exciting race to see if Scott Walker can be displaced.  Ohio is a nail-biter, and a win for Richard Cordray would have implications for the 2020 voter issues in that critical state.

My House estimate is based on one statistic:  the average, between realclearpolitics' number and fivethirtyeight's one, for the difference between parties in the generic Congressional preference poll.  Those are themselves averages of various poll results, weighted according to their judgment.

From the results of studies, there is a definite mathematical relationship between that gap and the expected pick-up of Congressional seats for the Democrats.  Five38 has a 5.8% gap being the estimate of what is required for the Dems to have 218 seats (pickup of 23), while a 12% gap is estimated for the Democrats to reach 250 (pickup of 55).  The relationship is largely linear, but with non-linearities at the top and bottom of the distribution, and around the 8-10% range, this last one when the numerical net advantages the Republicans achieved through redistricting fall apart and accelerate the increase.  My fit of that, and the data showing about 7.8% average, gives me an estimate of a 34-seat pickup for the Democrats, to 229.

Enough about that.  I am moved to write by the beauty of the fall day here.  It is to protect the quality of life, for my kids, theirs, my neighbors kids, etc.  The sense of the meaning of quality of life that these kinds of days bring allows me to make my choices.

Start Thinking About Tomorrow--It'll Soon Be Here:  I can not choose between electoral reforms and climate change defenses that I should make as my top issue for 2020  (and polls have asked me that question, though about the 2018 elections, several times; I switch between the two, and typically I'd have to write-in either one, as they don't include those among the suggested answers.  If they don't let me write in, I put "Education".)

Next I would put, but don't even mention it, "it's not a priority" in choosing a President, foreign policy: Withdrawing for the Paris Climate Change accords is one of the great scars on the record of the Trump Administration, an unthinkable act of stubborn ignorance which brings shame upon the country.  I give Trump credit for avoiding getting us in a stupid war--so far, but no credit at all for unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear accord and sabotaging his European trading partners.  When Mattis leaves, and Kelly, and it is just Stephen Miller and John Bolton, I fear the worst.

It's not on the horizon in the pre-race discussion but watch out, as it could easily overshadow any other issue (and could save Trump's bippy if the economy stalls).

For the Democratic platform, I recommend a plank for Electoral College representation for Puerto Rico.  A constitutional amendment if that's what it takes.  DC Statehood, also (a plank); whether legislatively or the same amendment.  It should help focus Republican attention on the fact that they are going to lose Florida real quick, and Texas maybe, also, in the next few years.  You take away those two states' votes and the Republicans will no longer look on the Electoral College as their friend.  If you make Puerto Rico and D.C. more viable, in several ways, this being one of them, you strengthen the nation.

In terms of tactics for all these, these should be bipartisan in scope and an attempt made to negotiate with the Republicans and Trump.  In return, they can agree to whatever middle-class tax cut the 3-D President would sign, an infrastructure agreement, and a gradual change in some of the legal immigration trajectories, bringing some sense and thought into that effort.



I saw the bold CBS 60 Minutes' piece on the AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass killers throughout the country.  That's #3 for me:  If you can't advocate changes to help our environment,  support some meaningful changes to the electoral system, or propose something positive on reducing gun violence (even through mental illness treatment), I got no use for you, and I don't care what party you're in, or how you feel about "welfare" or "entitlement programs" or even women's liberation or affirmative action.   Those things come later, after you've passed the initial intelligence test.


P.S. 3-D President was originatlly (Dumb Duck Dubya).  The King Duck title has now been passed on  (around Obama) to Trump, making him Dickhead Duck Drumpf.

K-Armistice Day; a Ripple in Time

I congratulate the South and North Korean Presidents for agreeing to meet each other, and then announcing the end of hostilities between them during that meeting. 

So,  how does the US relate to this?  We keep our distance and see how it plays out. Mostly the US has contributed by being less relevant:  Once the Koreans got the US out of the picture, a moderate South Korean and an ambitious young North Korean dictator found they could agree on next steps very quickly.  What will come next is far from certain, as it is unclear how far the South would go to accommodate the North (would they ask the US military to leave the peninsula?), or how much Un can be trusted to keep the peace, but it is at least a signal accomplishment to end the state of war that has existed between the two countries for three generations.  

Will Trump claim credit for it?  No surprise; he is already saying he did it all by himself.  Does he deserve credit for it?  Not that much, but, to give him some his due, he "stirred the pot", and this is what was able to be brewed up afterwards. 

Civilizing Waves

I suggest an analogy as a way to think about the history of the world.  Civilization is like a broad, deep, low-lying plain rising gradually out of the sea.  We can then think of various perturbations--movements of various kinds, like nations, tribes, religions, mass migrations, military forces of conquest--as waves rising out of the sea and washing over the land surface.  Most of them have a relatively short duration before they reach their "high-water mark", and then roll back into the sea, but they often leave something behind, their contributions to the collective human experience and knowledge.

Some of those waves are very tall, but not so deep (front to back); they hit hard and go far but recede quickly.  Examples would be the surge of Napoleon in Europe, or the Mongols in Asia.  Most of the dynasties of Chinese history would be more like tidal surges which rise, swamp everything, and slowly sink in.  Then there a few monster waves:  the rise of the major religions, the double-crested wave of the classical Greek and Roman expansions, and then there's This One. 

There was a massive Earthquake, which we sometimes call Modernity, other times the Enlightenment, and the red-hot magma fueling this tsunami is the power of reason to interpret facts, the philosophy known as empiricism.  The rumblings go back farther, to the Renaissance, which accompanied also the Age of Exploration for the Western European nations, which certainly made a big splash.  The big wave, though, has been the surge in science and technology, which has been breaking for some 200 years now.  The chaos of the Twentieth Century has been an outcropping upon which this flood has broken and been diverted in unexpected ways (Communism, Fascism, the Cold War), possibly less forceful now, but still leaving behind incredible quantity of detritus (like the Internet, smartphones, robots).

The Korean War has certainly been a central fact in Northeast Asia; equally so the long postwar tensions and the separate paths North and South  Korea have taken since then.  I would put it in the context of 'stuff' left behind by that major flow called the Cold War which resulted from the modernizing monster wave being powerfully broken by the rock of World War II.   It is high time for it to settle into the landscape. 

The First Armistice: A  Centennial 

2018 is the 100th anniversary year of the original Armistice Day--November 11--which ended World War I (in the US, Armistice Day has since been renamed as Veterans Day).  1918 marked the US' emergence as the undoubted pre-eminent power, due to the exhaustion of the European powers in the Great War (Germany, Russia, France, Britain) and the catastrophic, colonialized condition of the East and South Asian societies.  The fifty years that followed, 1918 - 1968, 50 and 100 years ago, were defining in terms of America's relation to world history  Cultural game-changers like mass electricity, radio, television, and film created a global culture that was centered on the US as the critical market, cementing the fame of both home-grown talent (such as Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, Gary Cooper, Marilyn Monroe) and foreigners who could crack through (the Beatles and other English Wave bands, Elizabeth Taylor, Sofia Loren).  This was capped by incredible accomplishments in aerospace engineering, nuclear weapons and power, and the rise of the space program.

The developments in the US' forms of participation in global affairs were dramatic and confounding, as the pendulum swung violently. During the period after 1928, the US went from providing the security for the war settlement terms to refusing to ratify participation in the international organization it had proposed.  A desperate effort by traditional America to keep the country from fulfilling its leadership role prevailed through much of the avoid its leadership, as the unstable international system it had birthed toddled, wobbled, then fell over the window ledge.  US'-sponsored democracy in Europe seemed headed for military defeat, until the extremist societies turned against each other in self-destructive frenzy  (in 1941, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, and with the attack on Pearl Harbor) .  

  We seemed to have learned a lesson, as the efforts after WWII to set the tone, containing totalitarian advances by championing decolonization and  development.  But, by the end of the 50th year of the period, it became apparent that the limits of American willingness to extend itself and its allies in foreign affairs were being reached with the seemingly unwinnable Vietnam War. 

I would say that The Decline ("The Long Way Down") began there.  Fifty years ago this time of year was the time when Bobby Kennedy's campaign was on the verge of a breakthrough, until he was cut down  (like his brother's, an assassination we have never quite come to understand). In the chaos that followed,  a new form of reaction arose, one that was never fully defeated and has arisen, once again, in these times.  1968 ended with an election in which a moderate Democrat (Hubert Humphrey)--viewed as too accommodating by many of his party--fell substantially short in the Electoral College despite a near-draw in popular vote. (Sound familiar?)

Yes, we dominated the next 50 years.  We had little choice but to protect our global empire, established even more clearly after the collapse of the Communist one, though the will was often lacking (think of the Senate authorization of the first Gulf War, clearly justified by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but which barely passed).  Now, we are clearly in a retreat mode with regard to our leadership in the world; while our objective has always been to execute policies which ultimately benefit ourselves, the philosophy in the past has often been that helping the world--to settle conflicts, help development, promote freedom and  international trade--would be the best way to accomplish these.  Now, the willingness to look for those mutual benefits is either gone or greatly reduced. 

The result is that the current American hydraulic force on that great plain of civilization is one of an undertow, pulling some of our great contributions back out to sea.  We are still a force to be reckoned with, but the admiration the Obama Administration engendered in the global community is gone--or worse.

From Bill Maher's New Rules this week:  Trump always says he's 'looking out for the little guy'.  Turns out he was talking about his dick. 

He definitely read him the Riot Act'. But not exactly:  I looked up the original Riot Act and found this: 
Riot Act of 1715 (repealed 1967) .authorized local authorities to declare any group of twelve or more people to be unlawfully assembled, and thus have to disperse or face punitive action.--Wikipedia. 

That's more like a Trumpian thing.  

Thoughts on Independence Day

Well, they went and did it.  The voters of England (except London) and Wales rejected common sense, the leaders of their political parties (except the once-shunned UK Independence Party), all the "so-called experts", and their own conationals from Scotland and Norther Ireland in the surprising referendum vote against remaining in the European Union.

I believe in the maxim that the markets overreact to every new piece of news, and in fact the downturns experienced all over the world, but particularly in the British markets and in the value of the British currency,  have already largely reversed, but I think they actually may have gotten it right the first time.  I have no doubt that Britain will move rapidly into a well-deserved recession, as trade will fall, with trading partners deterred by increased uncertainty. I don't feel that this--alone--will lead to a global recession, but, despite the denials by most of the Leave advocates, this result will contribute to a trend already underway, reciprocal raising of barriers to trade, which may do so. 

I still have some notion that the result of the referendum is not definitive and irreversible; the constitution of the European Union requires legislation by Great Britain (an act of Parliament) in order to invoke Article 50, which would commence the process of separation.  The Conservative party alone has a majority of seats in Commons, so they could do it without any support from the other parties, and I would hope none of the members of other parties (with the exception of the single UKIP member, and the possible exception of the Wales nationalist party, but I doubt that as well) are foolhardy enough to support this act.  So, the party would need to hold firmly together to this policy that many, but not all, of its members wanted despite the opposing position of its leadership.  This seems to include the probable new leader, Theresa May, who supported Remain but looks likely to inherit the party's burden due to the spectacular failure of the party's Leave advocates to have a plan to move ahead after it won the vote.  

A strong British Labour party leader--and one doubts that the current leader is such--could make the Brexit gamble so politically risky that some Tories might desert, or, more likely, when things go bad, could win a major electoral victory in 2020 and reverse the disastrous decision.  It might not be too late by then, particularly if the contrast emerges soon enough, to salvage the integrity of the nation and delineate some reasonable terms for re-entry. 

If not, then we are looking at a probable decision by Scotland's voters to separate itself from Britain, renewed trouble between Northern Ireland's Protestant majority and Catholic minority, and, regardless, continued centrifugal forces within the EU:  in the words of the Irish poet Yeats, "the center cannot hold".   

Britain's loss--of prestige, of business, of the strength of its currency and its debts--may translate into some gains for the US, but we should not cheer the English show of its independence.  In the long run, its weakness, and that of the EU, will do us no good.  I would hope that the EU will respond to this challenge by strengthening its legitimacy and capability to act in a unified way.   I would also urge all to show patience and avoid further hasty action:  I remind all that the US needed some 13 years to go from its own Declaration of Independence to the establishment of its Constitution, with the failed attempt of governing through the Articles of Confederation in the intervening years.

For a clear, simple, humorous, but factual review prepared especially for Americans to understand the current status of Brexit, I recommend the post at this link. 

  

Res Publica

Some Bloodied Brits
I have to start by putting in my tuppence on the recent Parliamentary elections in Great Britain.

First, I have to congratulate myself on not putting forward any late predictions on the outcome, thus avoiding the general punditic fiasco.  My last words in this space on the subject were back in late February, in which I made the following guesses:

 Conservatives will have about 40-45% of seats, Labour 30-35%,  SNP and LD 15% combined, and Others (UKIP, Green, Irish parties) 5-10%

In the event, the results, with those groupings, were as follows:  Conservatives 51% of seats, Labour 36%, SNP (Scottish National Party) and LD 10%, and Others 4%.   The relatively large misses were on the Conservatives' and Liberal Democrats' percentage of seats (SNP and Labour were about as expected).

Clearly, the Conservatives were the big winners on the night:  the gains by the SNP were on target with near-term expectations, and with the Conservatives having an outright majority, SNP's leverage on the new Parliament will not be as strong as otherwise it may have been.

Now to list the losers, in order of the magnitude of their setbacks:

1) Liberal Democrats - This was a near-death experience for them, as they lost more than half their popular vote and over 80% of seats.  Participating as a junior member in the last Cabinet was, officially, a complete disaster for their political prospects. They wouldn't do it again, but then again, now they won't be asked.
2) The British polling industry - They suffered massive embarrassment for their pre-election polls (though the exit polls on Election Day were accurate).  Their polls converged on a set of numbers for overall nationwide party percentages, and this set was erroneous, near to the edge of their (95% confidence interval) margin of error.  They had it at 33-33% for Conservative/Labour, and it ended up about 37-30%   There will be some soul-searching about methods--I would expect there to be much greater effort to poll within individual districts ("constituencies") in the next elections, assuming the current election processes continue, and some renewed attention to composition of the polling (between land and mobile phone lines, and methods to get responses); however, I don't think we should all be so hard on them: 1 out of 20 elections, by definition, would be outside the margin of error, and I think there was a shift of opinion in the last days (which they did fail to pick up).
3) Labour - Labour's tactics failed, leading to a defeat of strategic significance (and inversely, Conservatives' tactical success led to strategic victory).  Nationally, Labour actually gained 1.5% in its vote, but lost about 10% of its seats:  the large losses in Scotland to the SNP exceeded some marginal gains elsewhere.  The party and its leader, Ed Millibrand, failed to provide a convincing reason to change, relying too much on the unpopularity of the Conservatives and their leader, David Cameron, both of whom are widely perceived as upper-class elitists.  Cameron had a strong case for maintaining the status quo, in terms of reasonably good economics, and creating fear of change.  Perhaps believing too much in the polls, Labour played for the tie (the hung Parliament most expected may have led to their leading the new government), when they had the chance for a win.
4)  Legitimacy of the British "first past the post" electoral system in a multiparty environment.  The other national third/fourth parties (U.K Independence Party--UKIP--and the Greens) suffered, as the UKIP increased its share of vote dramatically vs. the previous Parliamentary elections (from 3% to 13%) and the Greens went from 1.4% to 3.8%, yet each emerged from the election with only one MP. They have inherited the Liberal Democrats' old problem, which is that the national system is rigged in favor of a two-party system--nationally, and regionally.  In England, and nationally, it is Labour vs. Conservative with the others squeezed out; in Scotland, it's the SNP and Labour (though this year, that favored the SNP), in Northern Ireland, it's the Unionist parties vs. the primarily Catholic parties  (Wales is a bit of a four-party free-for-all, with areas that favor the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and the Welsh Cyru Plaid party). Overall, "national third parties" (UKIP, Greens, and the LibDems) had 24% of the votes and 1.5% of the seats, while the regional parties (other than Labour/Conservative) had 7.2% of the votes and 12% of the seats. And, of course, Conservative/Labour had 67% of votes and 87% of seats.   

Will something give here, leading to a change in the electoral scheme?  I don't see any reason; until there is a situation in which a third party has true leverage, Labour and the Conservatives have no reason to support change, and those two parties still get 60-70% of popular votes.  The LibDems managed to get the Conservatives to agree to a referendum on second-preference voting, which was presented without the government's endorsement a couple years ago and fell badly in a snoozefest turnout.

Labour got played in Scotland by the Conservatives' kept promise of the Scottish secession referendum.  Labour had to support the No vote (against separation), as it needed Scotland to stay in Great Britain for all kinds of reasons, some of which were self-serving.  Some Scots saw the Conservative/Labour/LibDems alliance against separation as a betrayal of their interests by the English, and Labour was the party that was punished for it.

This time, the Conservatives have promised a referendum on continuing in the European Union--that will come first, before any reconsideration of the SNP's desire for a new Scottish referendum, The Conservatives are badly split on the issue; Cameron's strategy will be to do his best (or at least appear to do his best) to get improved terms for Britain to remain in the EU.  If he fails to get concessions, he can go with his party's more extreme Euroskeptic elements and support withdrawal (which may win his party back much of the UKIP's support next time); if he gets them--the EU would compromise, even as far as allowing a bad precedent, but not to the point that it would break up the whole deal--his support, even lukewarm, could be decisive.  Then he can reopen the Scottish question and the wounds it causes Labour. (Scotland's voters strongly prefer remaining in the EU, so will surely want out if Britain removes itself from the EU).

There is a path Labour can tread--strongly in favor of remaining in the EU and of keeping Scotland in the Union--that will distinguish itself from the Conservatives'.  As for Cameron, he has said he will not run for Prime Minister again in 2020--current law ensures his party can hold power until then. We shall see about that.

TPP:  Trade Perishes before Politicians? 
Yesterday's vote in the Senate provided a rare political defeat to President Obama at the hands of his own party. The complicated backdrop to the debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal being negotiated by Obama's administration with a number of nations on the Pacific Rim resulted in a test vote to end debate on a bill to give Obama the so-called "fast-track" authority.  If passed, this authority would ultimately lead to bringing the final negotiated agreement before Congress for a simple up-down vote, without amendments.

This kind of authority is always supported by the Executive Branch as being required in order to provide it the ability to negotiate terms with other countries for a trade deal, and President Obama is no exception.  The unusual aspect of this proposal is that Obama has the support of (most, but not all) Republicans in Congress for fast-track authority, and ultimately, would expect to have it for approval of the trade agreement.

The Democrats are split:  most would, in theory, support some sort of trade bill; however, what the majority of Democrats are doing is creating conditions which will ultimately make passage of the final bill difficult or impossible.  The most frequent objection from Democrats is that Obama is asking them to greenlight an agreement that most Americans have not yet seen.  This argument is appealing, but somewhat hypocritical:  those in Congress know what is likely to be in the final trade agreement (though details will remain to be settled).  Requiring public debate before giving fast-track approval negates the idea of fast-track approval:  if everything needs to be settled before the authority is given, then there is no authority. For the most part, those arguing against this measure will end up opposing whatever deal is finally proposed.

There is a group of Democrats who have leverage, though, and they applied it yesterday:  those who are in favor of the legislation, but want conditions on the fast-track authority.  They blocked the motion to end debate yesterday, and today they forced concessions from Obama's side:  there will be a separate vote on "enforcement provisions" within the authority for the draft agreement to penalize trading partners who break the rules.   This will be a very delicate issue for the US trade negotiators, a possible deal-breaker, but Obama has no choice but to agree to this now.

My view of the eventual outcome:  Obama will agree to what is necessary to get fast-track authority approved.  This will make the ensuing negotiations much more difficult; the trade deal that will result may not be finished during Obama's administration, which may make it easier for most Democrats to oppose it (it would either be picked up by a Republican administration or defended by a Clinton one which did not negotiate the agreement and may remain somewhat neutral on it, as she is at present). Even if it does come before this Congress for a vote, I think it will be unlikely to pass--the longer the debate and the longer the agreement is delayed, the less chance it will have, and this is the understanding which the "progressive" opponents of the trade deal have shown in this round of polemics.

Democrats can disagree, based on their priorities, whether the trade bill will ultimately favor the US (economically, probably so; labor interests, probably not), but they should avoid letting their political opponents use this as a wedge issue to divide the party--primarily by being decent to one another.  In that sense, I don't appreciate the tactics of the populist left, who are really opposed to any international trade agreement, and are using the tactic of attacking President Obama's credibility to get their way. Fast-track authority is a means to an end; any trade agreement would ultimately need to be approved in a public debate.

Clown-Car Tracking 
(I anticipate this will be a regular feature for the next 12 months.)
Although it is now clearly underway, nothing too dramatic is happening in the 2016 Presidential campaign lately:  various candidates announce (or semi-announce), get their bump of publicity and any possible bump of popularity, then the press bus and the spotlight move on.  (Excluding Hillary Clinton, of course; the spotlight never moves very far from her.) Recent polls of Republicans in the two states with the first contests, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, show no candidate above 20% support and a whole bunch in the 5-10% range.  And the list just keeps getting bigger, with many more (such as Governors Snyder of Michigan, Kasich of Ohio, even the highly doubtful Christie of New Jersey and the newly doubtful Pence of Indiana) still "on the fence" but not likely to see any obstacle that will dissuade them from entering.  Unless it's to avoid being on stage with candidate Donald Trump, an unpleasant but still unlikely prospect.

With the exception of a couple (Jeb Bush, maybe Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, or Rand Paul), they all seem to be hoping to benefit from an unresolved outcome and some kind of random brokering event. As it was for British Labour (and is usually in Sadistic Whist), playing for the tie is a losing strategy (unless, as might be the case with Kasich, Rubio, or Snyder, the real objective is the VP nomination). The path to nomination must be the following:  avoid embarrassment (below 2%) in Iowa (Feb. 1) and New Hampshire (Feb. 9), make a decent showing in South Carolina (Feb. 20) or Nevada (Feb. 23), then pick a state or two in early March to make a statement, and parlay that into "momentum" through having a strong multi-state organization.  The primary calendar is quite concentrated (in March/April/May) this time, so the organization will have to be built ahead of time, and not on the gains from the muddled early primary results.

To me, March 1 appears to be the key date on the Republican nomination calendar, with primaries in five southern states, plus Vermont, Massachusetts, and caucuses in Colorado.  If South Carolina hasn't already whittled it down to three or four legitimate contenders (eliminating several of the also-rans from the far right), that day will.  Then, after a few more tallies in the next 10 days (including three more southern states, plus Ohio, and Michigan) comes the Florida primary on March 15, and a possible Bush-Rubio showdown:  only one of them will walk out of there with nomination hopes still alive.

The Republicans can continue to not sort themselves out in a very public way for the next nine months or so; meanwhile. I continue to not see anyone tackle the various major third-party scenarios, so that will be the subject of my next post on the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Anniversaries
Because of having five digits on two hands, we are in love with multiples of five, ten, fifty, 100, etc. Coincidentally, a lot of major events seemed to happen in years(Christian calendar) ending in ...5. Therefore, our historical attention this year turns to anniversaries.  Recently, there was the 150th of Lincoln's Second Inaugural, the end of the Civil War, and his assassination (I hope you didn't miss the "...we are indebted..." gaffe on the subject from the Republican Senate caucus).   There is the 50th of the Selma march for voting rights in the South.  This month, it's the 70th of  V-E Day for the Second World War; in August, there will be V-J day.  In Turkey, there were the conflicting demands of observing the 100th of the Gallipoli invasion and of obscuring the 100th of the beginning of the Armenian "genocide".  Next month will be the 200th of the Battle of Waterloo.

The one I'd like to call a little extra attention toward is the 70th of WWII.  It's actually a little less "round" a number than the other ones I mentioned, but its importance comes because of the age of the participants in that uniquely-important world event: the youngest surviving soldiers are in their late eighties, and their recollections and insights in the last Great War, including the uncovering of the Holocaust in Europe, are important for us to note while we still can.  Compared to that consideration, I give little weight to Russia's desire to show off this year (a celebration of its military widely snubbed by Western countries); though the USSR's role in defeating the Axis was unparalleled in its historical importance, Russia is not the USSR, and, in this case, 70 is just another number.



  .