"Having an interesting record collection" was the forerunner to today's Playlist Worship. This is an intermediate stage, the selection of favorite CD's. I admit it's an outdated concept; I'm a Late Twentieth Century Man.
I've taken the Divide to Conquer approach to storing, and displaying, the home CD collection. For example, I have one rather small CD rack, with carved wood surfaces, made in Africa and resembling a stretched-out townhouse: that one houses my jazz, blues, and soul (rather modest collections of each). I've got a rack for Recent Acquisitions (not currently in our cars or in the Active Play rack); I've got a revolving one that houses Greatest Hits and Soundtrack CD's; a pile for those who don't want anything but European or Classical. My largest rack has second-level choices, still loved, arranged by artist's name in a peculiar alphbetical sequence (more on that, perhaps, some other time). My second-largest rack is the Salvage pile, ones available for barter, sale, or spontaneous donation.
The subject of this post is the current contents of my prime rock CD holder. Somewhat fortress-like in shape, it's the one I bring out first each time I move. It's got two rows of slots--the walls between two slots are missing to allow for double jewelboxes on one end in each of the rows, but all of the slots are deep enough to safely hold the CD completely within.
In The Top-Shelf Rock Rack, the rows divide into "Early Days" and "More Recent" (the current DMZ between the time zones looks to be approximately 1979).
The rules for this prestigious Rack are: no more than one release for an artist in a row; my choice; no plan on order within the row.
Row of the More Recent Rock Selections
Big End Slot: U2 - "Achtung Baby" and Los Lobos - "Colossal Head"-- these two fit nicely together, and collectively fill up, a unique set of 4-slots-within-a-slot for CD's without jewelboxes. I don't store them in that way, though--the sleeves get lost and the disc is unprotected. I find an empty, nameless one to put it in, if I don't have the original jacket, or I slot those singles/giveaways in out-of-the-way crevices if I do.
The Edge- "Captive"- something else entirely from U2. This one's a soundtrack to a movie that I don't believe was ever released in the US in any form. Among other things, it's got a great vocal performance from Sinead O'Connor on a song called "Heroine" (sc--spelling correct!)
Alanis Morissette--"Jagged Little Pill"--I will vehemently defend this album, though I admit I don't listen to it these days. In a few more years it will ripen, and I will open it.
Pet Shop Boys--"Disco-The Remix Album"--catchy versions of their best early songs.
Pixies--"Doolittle"--I still like it when I check it again every couple of years, and it's not overly familiar. Still, it could be just holding a spot for that final, best Sonic Youth album.
Coldplay--"A Rush of Blood to the Head"--I certainly have no qualms about its selection among Coldplay albums (though I think it's the only one I've actually bought in CD). See also comment for Alanis Morissette: I expect to start listening to this one again in 18 months.
Soul Asylum--"Grave Dancers Union"
Indigo Girls--(eponymous)--Both Soul Asylum and Indigo Girls have been churning them out since these exemplars, but really haven't ever come close to matching them.
Green Day--"American Idiot"--has only been removed from active car/living room CD rotation in the past few weeks after a couple years' rule.
Gomez--"In Our Gun"--most of the critics would gainsay our choice, but let them. The only other possibility for me would've been "Abandoned Shopping Trolley Hotline", on the strength of its unusual (X-Ray?) version of their classic hit, "We Haven't Turned Around". But this one's more consistent, for once with a dollop of (antiwar) message.
Elvis Costello and the Attractions-- "The Very Best Of" --This selection was made by Declan himself; it's got good ones all the way through "Imperial Bedroom". Any original acquisitions of Elvis were in vinyl.
Prince and the New Power Generation--"Diamonds and Pearls" --This was the first Prince album I bought on CD. I'd gladly yield this slot to something new and better from Prince, but I'm despairing of that ever happening. I am a "Purple Rain" fan, but that one's vinyl for me.
Bjork--"The Times (London) Sunday free insert"--I happen to like this short set of selections; 'twould've come with the paper sometime around the end of 2001, I think. Playlist on demand only.
Modest Mouse--"Good News for People Who Love Bad News"--the first time I heard it, I thought it was unlistenable. I was more than wrong. Still, there's some possibility their (his) new album could eventually take its spot in The Rack.
Pete Townshend--"Scoop"--This is not really a cheat (unlike the ones I made for the Beatles and Dylan); this was released safely in the "More Recent" years, though the original recording dates are all over the 70's and 80's.
Nirvana--"MTV Unplugged in New York"-- I think I've mentioned that I like some musicality in my rock, and this is the best example of what Cobain could do. Don't get me wrong, I like Foo Fighters, too, but not for top-shelf. Pearl Jam "10" would make it if my CD weren't unplayably scratched up.
Bush--"Sixteen Stone"--Every male rock critic--and are there any female ones?--won't cut Gavin a break because they're jealous of him (and his success with Gwen Stefani, among other things). This album is a jewel.
PM Dawn--"Jesus Wept"--What happened to this guy? I thought we had a LA cross between Stevie Wonder and Prince here. The arrangements are too good to be hip-hop.
Olive--"Extra Virgin"--An obscure one, here. This one was actually purchased in the U.K. because my wife liked the album cover art (about an olive oil bottle). It's smooth, crystalline, trance, funky. I did find one more album from this org. before it infused itself in the scenery. I'm not sure whether it was inspired by Moorcheba, the reverse, or whether they developed independently.
Bob Dylan--"Blood on the Tracks"--we've got a problem here. This one dates from 1974, and it can't go back to the Oldies row: Dylan's already represented there (and I want representation in both rows). I also think Dylan deserves one from the current period, from "Oh Mercy" forward (I'd probably go for "Time Out of Mind"), but that's for a future edition. The only way to maintain the status quo is to state that "Blood..." is (at least 5-7 years) ahead of its time. But that's not correct: it's timeless.
Santana--"Supernatural"--I loved this comeback album. Either of the first two Santana albums deserve a spot in the Oldies; maybe I even have II on CD.
Don Henley--"Inside Job"--I have to admit that I like almost all his songwriting that sees the light of day. This album has a mix of styles.
Tears for Fears--"The Hurting"--I settled on this choice about ten years ago; there may be better individual cuts on other albums, but the overall level of this one is the highest.
Beck--"Mutations"--I have more of a feel for what I think Beck was trying to do on this album. I even have an unpublished (as far as I know) theory about what that was--for another time.
Simple Minds--"Sons and Fascination"-- I choose this album from the period before their big sellers. Pre-trance polyphonics, great vocal stylings--just don't ask me what the lyrics are about; I can barely understand any of them.
Beatles --"Anthology Part 2" --OK, it was released in 1986. That's the cheat. This one has some great bits from the middle times, and it covers several releases. The thing that was great about the Anthology was to hear that there are different ways for the Beatles themselves to have recorded these incredible songs. It shuffled up our "phonographic memory". This one takes up the double jewelbox slot at the right side.
OLDIES ROW
Sex Pistols--"Never Mind the Bollocks"--It is supposed to close out the old row, from a previous round of organizing. A little too obvious, maybe: we'll have to look closer now to see whether it can hold down the position of Latest Legitimate Oldie in The Rack.
The Clash--"Combat Rock"--Wait, isn't this one AFTER Sex Pistols, chronologically? Problems here....I take this one narrowly over "Sandinista".
Bruce Springsteen--"The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle"--Good early Boss.
Steely Dan--"Pretzel Logic"--Consistent high quality. Slight edge over "Katy Lied" and "Aja".
Steve Winwood--"Arc of a Diver"--This one is moving to More Recent right now. We've got Traffic later in the row, anyway. Always liked Stevie--even now.
(2 Open Slots)
Jimi Hendrix--"Woodstock"--My choice for the best, and definitive, Hendrix release for all times. Just the Woodstock concert, straight through, with all the talking, too.
Aretha Franklin--"Chain of Fools"--It's crossover, and thus escapes the African rack; one of my few later acquisitions of old Motown (and therefore on CD) .
Robbie Robertson-- (eponymous)--Little-known first solo album from The Band frontman; I recommend it. Some good collaborations. Proves definitively that Robbie can't sing.
(2 open slots)
Simon and Garfunkel--"Bookends"--A dozen good songs. This is the place to get "Mrs. Robinson", if you're looking for that: stay away from the "Graduate" soundtrack album.
Cream--"Disraeli Gears"--This won the title in our dorm rooms 30 years ago for most tasteful Clapton album (in all incarnations); I don't think it could be challenged any more. "From the Cradle" was great (actually bought that one on prerecorded cassette, not CD), but it belongs on the blues shelf, not rock. Creme de la creme de Cream.
Yes--"Close to the Edge"--Not the most chic choice, I know. I find it a fascinating musical performance.
Allman Brothers Band--"Eat a Peach"--They were the best band in the world for a few months, then the rest of their career has been the transition to AWB Playing Without Duane. This double album captures that.
Police--"Regatta de Blanc"--Released 1978. Again, I find it maintains the highest consistent level of the Police albums.
Patti Smith--"Horses"--I do love a good rock 'n roll rant, and this one has a couple great ones.
Al Stewart--"Past, Present and Future"--Talk about timeless! What could be moreso than "Nostradamus"? and the song itself reflects that with its trance-inducing instrumentals. "Roads to Moscow" is the best, and probably the only, rock take on perhaps the most important event in modern history, the Nazi-Soviet war.
King Crimson--"Starless and Bible Black"--This one definitely would qualify for More Recent in every way but its release date (and it probably will remain avant garde for another 20 years). I could've chosen other Frippery (The Rack used to have a Fripp/Eno, for example), but I'm happy with this one.
Elton John--(eponymous)--When it comes to Elton, I'm a fan of this one album.
Hot Tuna--(eponymous)--We always called this one "Acoustic Live", though the CD box doesn't say that on the spine. When the record wore out, I bought the CD.
Bob Dylan--"Highway 61 Revisited"--From the Old Ones, it would be this, "Bringing It All Back Home", or "Greatest Hits Vol. 1". As I've mentioned, I've got a Dylan problem that could lead to a rethinking of the whole concept here.
Rolling Stones--"Sticky Fingers"--Actually, I'm more of a Brian Jones-era Stones fan. The Octagonal album was my choice for my very first 8-Track! I'll take "Sticky" for tops in anything they've done since 1970.
Frank Zappa --"Apostrophe/Overnight Sensation"--This release combined two great albums for the price of one. With this one selection, one has a pretty firm hold on the Zappa oeuvre.
The Who--"Tommy"--At one time, when I operated under different rules, we had "Quadrophenia" in The Rack, too. The release I have of this one is on a single disc, which probably means it's dicey to maintain quality of the CD's play over the long run.
The Beatles--"White Album"--Takes up the two-jewelbox slot at the end. "Abbey Road" might take the Oldies slot from time to time, but we've got room for The White right now. It fits with the "eponymous" theme, actually.
Pink Floyd--"Wish You Were Here"--To be honest, I can't find the CD--yet again. I believe my sister-in-law has pilfered it twice from me (she loves it), and my ex-brother-in-law might have one to his discredit. There's no question about it being the masterpiece of the Floyd oeuvre. So, consider it's ghost (or Syd's?) to be occupying one of the open slots.
The above review raised some critical questions about composition of The Rack. The open slots should be filled by The Shins (album TBD), Bright Eyes ("I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning"--in the car now), a David Bowie album from the early '80's, and Fatboy Slim ("You've Come a Long Way, Baby")--except that the open slots are all in the Oldies, now. This means a realignment is due.
P.S. 6/19/07--On re-reading this, I realize I omitted "John Barleycorn Must Die," Traffic. It suggests to me that I may have omitted others. We will review and post through comments or other links.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Yearning for Ronnie?
Certainly not me, but I see a major political party that has managed to forget that its most successful candidate to try to claim the mighty Reaganaut mantle since his Administration has been George W. Bush (rejecting the shingle his own father hung out there!)
Now comes Fred Thompson, who is daily "being convinced" that Republican establishment moneymen have been holding back, waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan and he is it.
All the others claiming to be such Reaganites in this go-round are pretenders (and that's probably all of the declared Republican candidates, though I haven't done the wordchecking from the debates); I can't deny it. That's why there's still need for Fred in certain quarters.
Is Fred the Real (Fake) Thing? I shudder to think it could be true. I find Thompson's positions on many issues to be close to what Reagan might espouse were he here today. He's still feeling his way into the role of Being Presidential, but he's got all the acting chops Ronnie had (i.e., not so many, but enough to gull audiences consistently). At this point, I'm not convinced Fred believes his own shit to the degree Reagan did; Thompson--simply because he's the Imitation Authentic Phony--might never slay in his performances quite the way one would never doubt Reagan's sincerity, no matter how ludicrous the things he was saying or who was paying him to say it.
Reaganism is nice nostalgia, but the more urgent task for Thompson in the real world of today is to avoid being seen as Bushite. Failure to do that would cancel any of the potential swing voter-drawing appeal successful Reaganist performance art could bring him. In that regard, Thompson has made an adroit move by separating himself from Bush's position on immigration. He may have to moderate that one in the general election if he gets the nomination, but there are many new facets of his policy he can bring out once he's convinced everyone he's against "that damned Bushite amnesty bill", as it may come to be called. (I'm against amnesty for Bushites, if that's any help, Fred.)
Thompson will also create distance from Bushite fiscal sloppiness, as do many of the Republican candidates. This one is legitimate, but they are almost all tied to the same anchor of the Iraq War, so that if Bush doesn't pull an "about face...rearward march" this fall they will be pulled down together.
I've heard a lot of discussion of the various candidates, and who will gain and lose from Thompson's imminent entry. The only one I can see gaining is Giuliani: his bid for Reaganism is based on similar governmental policies, rather than alleged philosophical alignment, so Thompson's not treading so much on Giuliani's space. (And, as for public administration, Thompson would appear to be a total cipher, whereas Reagan had at least a record as California governor before running.) The other candidates would all appear to have failed the audition, except John McCain, who is still on the short list for the role but isn't favored by the studio.
Fred Thompson's entry is a rebuke rudest to McCain, his formerly close friend. If McCain's efforts to woo former Bushite party stalwarts had been more successful, Thompson wouldn't have put his toe in. Chuck Todd says he is certain that Fred was making calls for $$ for McCain even into 2007.
I see Thompson as the intended VP candidate to McCain bucking his conditional subordinate position. Thompson would've been a great choice: telegenic, on message, likely to die soon, or split after a term (which provides a political opportunity, as FDR demonstrated), helps in Tennessee, etc. Unfortunately for McCain, many of the same traits apply to him as second fiddle to Thompson ("helps in Arizona"), and the other guy's got the advantages of high recognition, low negatives, and less entrenched positioning. Thus, a shared ticket between the two could go either way, depending on delegate counts from the Unofficial NP.
Thompson has to separate himself from McCain, and the smartest place to do it, somehow, would be on Iraq policy. Let's say Thompson waits to see which way McCain goes, post-September, as the Scurry for Cover begins, then plots a course veering slightly off McCain's. Knowing McCain so well, Fred should be able to rely on McCain to react quickly; he may even be able to anticipate McCain's escape vector and plot evasive action. (Is it possible Thompson never appeared in the Star Trek series? I can see him right now in one of those Roddenberry alien suits with some sort of antennae on top.)
I have to wrap this up by assessing the damage to Newt Gingrich, which looks pretty severe. A reasonably-successful Thompson candidacy launch closes out the ideological space on the right Newt was still looking to exploit. What about Newt making Fred a pitch for a role as a Cheney-esque evil professor-type VP?
Now comes Fred Thompson, who is daily "being convinced" that Republican establishment moneymen have been holding back, waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan and he is it.
All the others claiming to be such Reaganites in this go-round are pretenders (and that's probably all of the declared Republican candidates, though I haven't done the wordchecking from the debates); I can't deny it. That's why there's still need for Fred in certain quarters.
Is Fred the Real (Fake) Thing? I shudder to think it could be true. I find Thompson's positions on many issues to be close to what Reagan might espouse were he here today. He's still feeling his way into the role of Being Presidential, but he's got all the acting chops Ronnie had (i.e., not so many, but enough to gull audiences consistently). At this point, I'm not convinced Fred believes his own shit to the degree Reagan did; Thompson--simply because he's the Imitation Authentic Phony--might never slay in his performances quite the way one would never doubt Reagan's sincerity, no matter how ludicrous the things he was saying or who was paying him to say it.
Reaganism is nice nostalgia, but the more urgent task for Thompson in the real world of today is to avoid being seen as Bushite. Failure to do that would cancel any of the potential swing voter-drawing appeal successful Reaganist performance art could bring him. In that regard, Thompson has made an adroit move by separating himself from Bush's position on immigration. He may have to moderate that one in the general election if he gets the nomination, but there are many new facets of his policy he can bring out once he's convinced everyone he's against "that damned Bushite amnesty bill", as it may come to be called. (I'm against amnesty for Bushites, if that's any help, Fred.)
Thompson will also create distance from Bushite fiscal sloppiness, as do many of the Republican candidates. This one is legitimate, but they are almost all tied to the same anchor of the Iraq War, so that if Bush doesn't pull an "about face...rearward march" this fall they will be pulled down together.
I've heard a lot of discussion of the various candidates, and who will gain and lose from Thompson's imminent entry. The only one I can see gaining is Giuliani: his bid for Reaganism is based on similar governmental policies, rather than alleged philosophical alignment, so Thompson's not treading so much on Giuliani's space. (And, as for public administration, Thompson would appear to be a total cipher, whereas Reagan had at least a record as California governor before running.) The other candidates would all appear to have failed the audition, except John McCain, who is still on the short list for the role but isn't favored by the studio.
Fred Thompson's entry is a rebuke rudest to McCain, his formerly close friend. If McCain's efforts to woo former Bushite party stalwarts had been more successful, Thompson wouldn't have put his toe in. Chuck Todd says he is certain that Fred was making calls for $$ for McCain even into 2007.
I see Thompson as the intended VP candidate to McCain bucking his conditional subordinate position. Thompson would've been a great choice: telegenic, on message, likely to die soon, or split after a term (which provides a political opportunity, as FDR demonstrated), helps in Tennessee, etc. Unfortunately for McCain, many of the same traits apply to him as second fiddle to Thompson ("helps in Arizona"), and the other guy's got the advantages of high recognition, low negatives, and less entrenched positioning. Thus, a shared ticket between the two could go either way, depending on delegate counts from the Unofficial NP.
Thompson has to separate himself from McCain, and the smartest place to do it, somehow, would be on Iraq policy. Let's say Thompson waits to see which way McCain goes, post-September, as the Scurry for Cover begins, then plots a course veering slightly off McCain's. Knowing McCain so well, Fred should be able to rely on McCain to react quickly; he may even be able to anticipate McCain's escape vector and plot evasive action. (Is it possible Thompson never appeared in the Star Trek series? I can see him right now in one of those Roddenberry alien suits with some sort of antennae on top.)
I have to wrap this up by assessing the damage to Newt Gingrich, which looks pretty severe. A reasonably-successful Thompson candidacy launch closes out the ideological space on the right Newt was still looking to exploit. What about Newt making Fred a pitch for a role as a Cheney-esque evil professor-type VP?
Bad Talking Heads
Some of these guys are starting to get on my nerves with their faulty snap judgements and their certain poses while making misstatements of fact.
On the Case of Robert Novak
I regularly read Robert Novak's report because I want to know what the evil people are saying to each other (and I read Newt Gingrich to see what they're saying to themselves). Novak irritated me with the following:
"A dreadful performance by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on NBC's "Meet the Press" deflates speculation that he could rise from the "second tier" of Democratic presidential candidates. "
The judgement of the "performance" is Novak's (though no doubt corroborated by a couple of his like-thinking buddies); the deflation of speculation may be factual but is by its speculative nature of limited, short-term interest. In other words, it may reflate again, even to breathe in and out on a regular basis. I agree that Richardson is not in the top tier, but he did not suffer a knockout blow running the Tim Russert gauntlet (unlike, say, Wesley Clark in '04--see below).
Russert got in several jabs on weaknesses and inconsistencies in Richardson's record, but nothing that seemed to surprise Richardson at all. Instead, he deflated the overeager Russert by conceding the point each time--what else could he do?--and showed he'd learned lessons from the experiences. To pundits focused on the tug of war and scoring gotcha! points, this was "dreadful": Richardson didn't fight back. He didn't look "presidential" and tower above the sniping reporter. To viewers, Richardson showed a skill something very few of his fellow politicians have mastered: the ability to admit a mistake. It's called "humility", Novak.
Richardson plays a very critical functional role in the race, even if he has little chance (due to low recognition) to win the nomination. Until the middle of January, he should be able to hold down the role of principal centrist challenger to Hillary: he has a large potential constituency to which he can make a unique appeal (i.e., Hispanics and others in Western states), he has backers (though not the super-elite), and he has a resume that beats everyone else's currently in the race from either party.
Unless something new drops on him (and Russert seems to be the most likely source of aerial attack he'll face), I say he stays and has a significant effect. His delegates will be truly swing votes in the HRC vs. anti-Hillary showdown we can all expect after the Unofficial National Primary. Sen. Clinton would no doubt consider him a hole card in the showdown, but I don't consider him throwing her support to be automatic (without the offer of the major Cabinet job/VP slot).
Of course, his unique role in the race will have no significance if someone can get a majority blowout result. If he can stay in and stay competitive, that will become less likely.
On the Case of Chuck Todd
Unlike Novak, I have nothing against the NBC political director. I have to comment on his performance today on the Saturday MSNBC Tim Russert show (the one that tries to reach for entertainment through exploring ideas, whereas "Meet the Press" is the formal fulfillment of network TV's "role in the constitutional process").
Todd was on a "dream panel" (Russert's) with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory (who recently found out he did have enough balls to take on the President in a press conference, after all). On Russert, Mitchell scored well, Gregory looked good and said some bright things. Todd seemed much too jaded as he spouted a couple of howlers:
1) He claimed the Fred Thompson story so far looked a lot like another one "that turned out badly--Wesley Clark". Late entry, tapping substantial reserves of hidden financial strength, "but then he couldn't answer the fundamental question on Iraq" and went down quickly. Clark did fall, but it had nothing to do with weakness of his Iraq policy--Wesley Clark has been able to dance around all others in terms of his knowledge of the country, the military scenario, alternatives that make sense and achieve more of our objectives.
I may not believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, though I would "hope" it's so. But I'm absolutely certain that Wesley Clark wouldn't have done as bad a job in strategizing the Iraq war over the 2005-2007 period than what we got. For one thing, he wouldn't have allowed the force capabilities of the Army and Reserve to be ground up the way they have been.
What actually happened--I was paying very close attention to this one, as I was indeed a Clark backer--was that Clark got sandbagged by the Washington journalists for refusing to disavow the support of Michael Moore after Moore called Bush a "deserter". The crucial appearance was on "Meet the Press", his last chance to denounce Moore's something-or-other (let's call it "an exaggeration") and refuse his support.
This appearance "deflated speculation" that he would be accepted by the opinion-makers as the defender of establishment values. He also made a serious error by skipping Iowa entirely (he was too late to field a strong organization), which allowed tactical advantage to slip to Johns Kerry and Edwards. The rapidity of the sequence of events following--to New Hampshire the next week, then soon to Super Tuesday--didn't give him the chance to reverse Big Mo--besides, the pundits weren't having it. A la Howard Dean, for that matter.
2) Todd has apparently taken credit for coining "Tsunami Tuesday" for the Feb. 5, 2008 wave of primaries (too cute for me), but then one-upped himself (fighting the last war again) by suggesting the preliminaries will decide the main event in 2008, as they did in 2004. It could happen, but I'm still thinking that California will be the critical battleground, and that's squarely in the Unofficial National Primary. Oddly, I've heard little in the past few days about Florida--either too little polling data is available, or the party functionaries haven't yet let on how badly candidates may be penalized. I'm looking for that one to end up being a "beauty contest"; still significant--because Florida's so important in the general election--but not decisive. It will be more like a final, accurate indicator of what's going to happen a week later.
3) Todd's assessment of Fred Thompson's resume (the subject of my next post, I think; he's just becoming unavoidable, plus it's a major new development) is that the only thing he's known for is his acting career. I agree, his Senate career wasn't so great, but the original source of his fame was as Minority Counsel in the Watergate hearings. He had good training to play a lawyer on national TV, by being a real lawyer on national TV. Todd is no doubt too young to remember when that happened, but it is part of the shared consciousness of half the electorate or so.
4) Todd seemed to think that Al Gore was going to run for President on a 3rd-party ticket--must be this week's talking heads flavor (see below). This because Al told him there were still "500 days until the election". This meant to Todd that Gore would run if Hillary clinched the nomination in the primaries and then lost momentum. I've got a different thought: Gore is laying back in case Obama can't rally the anti-Hillary forces after Feb. 5 and there's still something to be done (i.e., HRC hasn't locked up a majority of delegates). He could then try to sweep in and get a draft movement behind him. Obama would gravitate naturally to the VP slot, and we'd have the true "dream team of 2008": Gore-Obama. Contrary to Todd, I see absolutely no way Al Gore would desert the Democratic party and run against it.
On the Case of John McLaughlin
McLaughlin devoted his whole show this week to building a case for his "dream team" 3rd-party candidacy of Bloomberg-Hagel. McLaughlin seems to have been seduced; he wanted to show that this crew could actually win the election! It's his show, so he kept coming back to this theme, even though every other panelist shot him down from every angle.
The panelists granted him two points: one is that this ticket is a real possibility under certain circumstances; second, that it could wreak a lot of havoc, particularly since the impact on the race of a man who could spend $1 billion of his own is hard to put boundaries around. Someone even ventured that Bloomberg could put the state of New York into play for the Republican candidate by splitting the votes of moderates and liberals with HRC.
I'm used to McLaughlin's craziness and his trying unsuccessfully to impose it on his colleagues, but this last suggestion was a bridge too far for me. First, I can't see any reason Bloomberg would still run if Hillary got the nomination: what, is one liberal New Yorker in the race not enough? To me, it's much more likely Bloomberg would enter if the Democrats selected someone more to the left, such as Obama or Edwards.
Second, in any significantly triangular race with Bloomberg at one vertex, the only possible winners of the state of New York would be Bloomberg and the Democrat. Conservative Republicans are no more than 20% of the statewide vote. Depending on the matchup, Bloomberg could indeed deny the state to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean he can fix it or somehow throw his electoral votes to the Republican.
On the Case of Robert Novak
I regularly read Robert Novak's report because I want to know what the evil people are saying to each other (and I read Newt Gingrich to see what they're saying to themselves). Novak irritated me with the following:
"A dreadful performance by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on NBC's "Meet the Press" deflates speculation that he could rise from the "second tier" of Democratic presidential candidates. "
The judgement of the "performance" is Novak's (though no doubt corroborated by a couple of his like-thinking buddies); the deflation of speculation may be factual but is by its speculative nature of limited, short-term interest. In other words, it may reflate again, even to breathe in and out on a regular basis. I agree that Richardson is not in the top tier, but he did not suffer a knockout blow running the Tim Russert gauntlet (unlike, say, Wesley Clark in '04--see below).
Russert got in several jabs on weaknesses and inconsistencies in Richardson's record, but nothing that seemed to surprise Richardson at all. Instead, he deflated the overeager Russert by conceding the point each time--what else could he do?--and showed he'd learned lessons from the experiences. To pundits focused on the tug of war and scoring gotcha! points, this was "dreadful": Richardson didn't fight back. He didn't look "presidential" and tower above the sniping reporter. To viewers, Richardson showed a skill something very few of his fellow politicians have mastered: the ability to admit a mistake. It's called "humility", Novak.
Richardson plays a very critical functional role in the race, even if he has little chance (due to low recognition) to win the nomination. Until the middle of January, he should be able to hold down the role of principal centrist challenger to Hillary: he has a large potential constituency to which he can make a unique appeal (i.e., Hispanics and others in Western states), he has backers (though not the super-elite), and he has a resume that beats everyone else's currently in the race from either party.
Unless something new drops on him (and Russert seems to be the most likely source of aerial attack he'll face), I say he stays and has a significant effect. His delegates will be truly swing votes in the HRC vs. anti-Hillary showdown we can all expect after the Unofficial National Primary. Sen. Clinton would no doubt consider him a hole card in the showdown, but I don't consider him throwing her support to be automatic (without the offer of the major Cabinet job/VP slot).
Of course, his unique role in the race will have no significance if someone can get a majority blowout result. If he can stay in and stay competitive, that will become less likely.
On the Case of Chuck Todd
Unlike Novak, I have nothing against the NBC political director. I have to comment on his performance today on the Saturday MSNBC Tim Russert show (the one that tries to reach for entertainment through exploring ideas, whereas "Meet the Press" is the formal fulfillment of network TV's "role in the constitutional process").
Todd was on a "dream panel" (Russert's) with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory (who recently found out he did have enough balls to take on the President in a press conference, after all). On Russert, Mitchell scored well, Gregory looked good and said some bright things. Todd seemed much too jaded as he spouted a couple of howlers:
1) He claimed the Fred Thompson story so far looked a lot like another one "that turned out badly--Wesley Clark". Late entry, tapping substantial reserves of hidden financial strength, "but then he couldn't answer the fundamental question on Iraq" and went down quickly. Clark did fall, but it had nothing to do with weakness of his Iraq policy--Wesley Clark has been able to dance around all others in terms of his knowledge of the country, the military scenario, alternatives that make sense and achieve more of our objectives.
I may not believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, though I would "hope" it's so. But I'm absolutely certain that Wesley Clark wouldn't have done as bad a job in strategizing the Iraq war over the 2005-2007 period than what we got. For one thing, he wouldn't have allowed the force capabilities of the Army and Reserve to be ground up the way they have been.
What actually happened--I was paying very close attention to this one, as I was indeed a Clark backer--was that Clark got sandbagged by the Washington journalists for refusing to disavow the support of Michael Moore after Moore called Bush a "deserter". The crucial appearance was on "Meet the Press", his last chance to denounce Moore's something-or-other (let's call it "an exaggeration") and refuse his support.
This appearance "deflated speculation" that he would be accepted by the opinion-makers as the defender of establishment values. He also made a serious error by skipping Iowa entirely (he was too late to field a strong organization), which allowed tactical advantage to slip to Johns Kerry and Edwards. The rapidity of the sequence of events following--to New Hampshire the next week, then soon to Super Tuesday--didn't give him the chance to reverse Big Mo--besides, the pundits weren't having it. A la Howard Dean, for that matter.
2) Todd has apparently taken credit for coining "Tsunami Tuesday" for the Feb. 5, 2008 wave of primaries (too cute for me), but then one-upped himself (fighting the last war again) by suggesting the preliminaries will decide the main event in 2008, as they did in 2004. It could happen, but I'm still thinking that California will be the critical battleground, and that's squarely in the Unofficial National Primary. Oddly, I've heard little in the past few days about Florida--either too little polling data is available, or the party functionaries haven't yet let on how badly candidates may be penalized. I'm looking for that one to end up being a "beauty contest"; still significant--because Florida's so important in the general election--but not decisive. It will be more like a final, accurate indicator of what's going to happen a week later.
3) Todd's assessment of Fred Thompson's resume (the subject of my next post, I think; he's just becoming unavoidable, plus it's a major new development) is that the only thing he's known for is his acting career. I agree, his Senate career wasn't so great, but the original source of his fame was as Minority Counsel in the Watergate hearings. He had good training to play a lawyer on national TV, by being a real lawyer on national TV. Todd is no doubt too young to remember when that happened, but it is part of the shared consciousness of half the electorate or so.
4) Todd seemed to think that Al Gore was going to run for President on a 3rd-party ticket--must be this week's talking heads flavor (see below). This because Al told him there were still "500 days until the election". This meant to Todd that Gore would run if Hillary clinched the nomination in the primaries and then lost momentum. I've got a different thought: Gore is laying back in case Obama can't rally the anti-Hillary forces after Feb. 5 and there's still something to be done (i.e., HRC hasn't locked up a majority of delegates). He could then try to sweep in and get a draft movement behind him. Obama would gravitate naturally to the VP slot, and we'd have the true "dream team of 2008": Gore-Obama. Contrary to Todd, I see absolutely no way Al Gore would desert the Democratic party and run against it.
On the Case of John McLaughlin
McLaughlin devoted his whole show this week to building a case for his "dream team" 3rd-party candidacy of Bloomberg-Hagel. McLaughlin seems to have been seduced; he wanted to show that this crew could actually win the election! It's his show, so he kept coming back to this theme, even though every other panelist shot him down from every angle.
The panelists granted him two points: one is that this ticket is a real possibility under certain circumstances; second, that it could wreak a lot of havoc, particularly since the impact on the race of a man who could spend $1 billion of his own is hard to put boundaries around. Someone even ventured that Bloomberg could put the state of New York into play for the Republican candidate by splitting the votes of moderates and liberals with HRC.
I'm used to McLaughlin's craziness and his trying unsuccessfully to impose it on his colleagues, but this last suggestion was a bridge too far for me. First, I can't see any reason Bloomberg would still run if Hillary got the nomination: what, is one liberal New Yorker in the race not enough? To me, it's much more likely Bloomberg would enter if the Democrats selected someone more to the left, such as Obama or Edwards.
Second, in any significantly triangular race with Bloomberg at one vertex, the only possible winners of the state of New York would be Bloomberg and the Democrat. Conservative Republicans are no more than 20% of the statewide vote. Depending on the matchup, Bloomberg could indeed deny the state to the Democrats, but that doesn't mean he can fix it or somehow throw his electoral votes to the Republican.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Let's Hear it for the Senators!
The Ottawa Senators, that is. I don't know the first thing about the post-lockout NHL, or want to, but I know the Stanley Cup will be appreciated more in Eastern Ontario than it will in Anaheim (of Los Angeles).
As for the august body on Capitol Hill, I'm not going to join the chorus of denunciation. Charges of cowardice, betrayal, and trasformismo have been raining down upon the Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the emergency appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. As best as I can tell, this is because these villains actually wanted to approve the funds, which most of the denouncers didn't want to happen in any form. The big issue seemed to have been around putting conditions in the appropriation which would prevent Bush from signing it. Which would seem to be a strange approach to providing funds if one actually intended the funds to be spent.
I think the Democratic leadership saw that they had milked this contingent angle about as far as they could, and there was not going to be any other exit. This was--sort of like going into Iraq was--choosing to pick a battle on the enemy's choice of turf. The constitutional deck was stacked for the President on this one, short of the Democrats actually finding the will to deny Bush the funds altogether.
Even next year that will be unlikely; I won't say it would've been premature to cut off funds this year, but it was a stance that would have provoked an even bigger constitutional crisis, once again with the Executive holding the trumps.
In other words, I'm not going to condemn Joe Biden for voting for the funding resolution. I'm not going to praise, or to blame, Obama or Clinton much for their votes, either; it was symbolic either way--we knew Bush would get his surge. The Iraq Scourge Policy bites for the Democrats, as well. Tactically, this was a showdown they should have seen coming and done better to avoid. I will blame any Democrat who tries to use this vote to disparage any fellow Democrat (or anyone at all who tries to disparage Ron Paul, one of the two Republican votes against the resolution in the House).
It's fine for Obama to say that we were within "only 16 votes from ending the war"; that's about a country mile. The real harm of this may be that those who thought everything had changed after 2006 may be disillusioned for the battles yet to come. There will be another showdown, and a better one, if Bush doesn't make the surge a temporary one. Beyond that, though, in spite of a narrow majority in the Senate and a slightly wider one in the House, control of power still remains with the Republicans. And the war is still theirs--whether Bush plays ball with them in '08 (by commencing troop withdrawals) or not, it's theirs. And the GOP's '08 candidates must not be permitted to blame the Bushites for this mess--they've got the stink all over them.
As for the august body on Capitol Hill, I'm not going to join the chorus of denunciation. Charges of cowardice, betrayal, and trasformismo have been raining down upon the Democratic Senators who voted in favor of the emergency appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. As best as I can tell, this is because these villains actually wanted to approve the funds, which most of the denouncers didn't want to happen in any form. The big issue seemed to have been around putting conditions in the appropriation which would prevent Bush from signing it. Which would seem to be a strange approach to providing funds if one actually intended the funds to be spent.
I think the Democratic leadership saw that they had milked this contingent angle about as far as they could, and there was not going to be any other exit. This was--sort of like going into Iraq was--choosing to pick a battle on the enemy's choice of turf. The constitutional deck was stacked for the President on this one, short of the Democrats actually finding the will to deny Bush the funds altogether.
Even next year that will be unlikely; I won't say it would've been premature to cut off funds this year, but it was a stance that would have provoked an even bigger constitutional crisis, once again with the Executive holding the trumps.
In other words, I'm not going to condemn Joe Biden for voting for the funding resolution. I'm not going to praise, or to blame, Obama or Clinton much for their votes, either; it was symbolic either way--we knew Bush would get his surge. The Iraq Scourge Policy bites for the Democrats, as well. Tactically, this was a showdown they should have seen coming and done better to avoid. I will blame any Democrat who tries to use this vote to disparage any fellow Democrat (or anyone at all who tries to disparage Ron Paul, one of the two Republican votes against the resolution in the House).
It's fine for Obama to say that we were within "only 16 votes from ending the war"; that's about a country mile. The real harm of this may be that those who thought everything had changed after 2006 may be disillusioned for the battles yet to come. There will be another showdown, and a better one, if Bush doesn't make the surge a temporary one. Beyond that, though, in spite of a narrow majority in the Senate and a slightly wider one in the House, control of power still remains with the Republicans. And the war is still theirs--whether Bush plays ball with them in '08 (by commencing troop withdrawals) or not, it's theirs. And the GOP's '08 candidates must not be permitted to blame the Bushites for this mess--they've got the stink all over them.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Obama: Must we Now?
I am buying into the logic of conventional punditry that the Democratic nomination campaign will end up boiling down to an attempt to Stop Hillary. Barack Obama may be stuck with the reductionist role of leadership of anti-HRC forces whether he likes it or not, his only other choice being to withdraw.
Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that we need to Stop Hillary, certainly not in the sense that we as a nation desperately needed someone to Stop Dubya. The main fear I have of a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that it may encourage Jeb Bush to think that US isn't as tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty as it is, and that he'd then run in 2012. At a minimum, that would be terribly demoralizing to those Americans who believe that we still have a republic and not a monarchy or imperium.
Perhaps you can see from that last paragraph that I do not believe that 2008 will necessarily be the last word or even the climactic battle in the political struggle for control. If 2004 was the last, necessary version of the 1968 election, and 2006 was progress all the way to 1974, then it follows that, like 1976, 2008 could be perceived as the critical election throughout the whole campaign, and then be superseded four years later by the true crux of the period (which, if you're following, was the 1980 election between Carter, Reagan, and John Anderson). The fact that the President inaugurated in 2009 is likely to have a combination of lousy circumstances (bad Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine situations abroad; a faltering economy at home) when he/she takes the oath of office could mean the post is poisoned, short-term. So, missing out in 2008 might end up being good strategy, totally by accident.
Back to '08, I'm pretty sure that Leader of Anti-HRC Forces is not the role Obama would prefer, but we will see if it is one he can portray effectively. If he can combine with John Edwards at some point, the two of them would make a strong blocking force, one that would attract most of the left wing (even the 1% of hardcore Kucinich backers, if he chose to go that way). I would think that endorsement from Al Gore would come at some point and provide an additional boost. I'm still not sure it would be nearly enough, even to get through the "Five Points" early primary/caucuses (with the addition of naughty Florida), let alone the Unofficial National Primary. (please, not "Super-Duper Tuesday"!), and being leader of the Opposing Forces would pretty much exclude the possibility Hillary would pick Obama as her VP (she should go for an experienced, moderate White Guy also-ran candidate, like Biden, Dodd, or Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson).
Obama did choose to get into this one, after all; to me, it would have made more sense to let this one go by. I say this from a firm belief that Barack Obama is the real thing, someone who can make a historic contribution of progress for the country and the world if he gets the chance. I just don't think 2008 is really all that good of a chance for him. But if it comes down to Obama Now! or Obama Never! I guess I'd have to get behind him.
Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that we need to Stop Hillary, certainly not in the sense that we as a nation desperately needed someone to Stop Dubya. The main fear I have of a Hillary Clinton Presidency is that it may encourage Jeb Bush to think that US isn't as tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty as it is, and that he'd then run in 2012. At a minimum, that would be terribly demoralizing to those Americans who believe that we still have a republic and not a monarchy or imperium.
Perhaps you can see from that last paragraph that I do not believe that 2008 will necessarily be the last word or even the climactic battle in the political struggle for control. If 2004 was the last, necessary version of the 1968 election, and 2006 was progress all the way to 1974, then it follows that, like 1976, 2008 could be perceived as the critical election throughout the whole campaign, and then be superseded four years later by the true crux of the period (which, if you're following, was the 1980 election between Carter, Reagan, and John Anderson). The fact that the President inaugurated in 2009 is likely to have a combination of lousy circumstances (bad Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine situations abroad; a faltering economy at home) when he/she takes the oath of office could mean the post is poisoned, short-term. So, missing out in 2008 might end up being good strategy, totally by accident.
Back to '08, I'm pretty sure that Leader of Anti-HRC Forces is not the role Obama would prefer, but we will see if it is one he can portray effectively. If he can combine with John Edwards at some point, the two of them would make a strong blocking force, one that would attract most of the left wing (even the 1% of hardcore Kucinich backers, if he chose to go that way). I would think that endorsement from Al Gore would come at some point and provide an additional boost. I'm still not sure it would be nearly enough, even to get through the "Five Points" early primary/caucuses (with the addition of naughty Florida), let alone the Unofficial National Primary. (please, not "Super-Duper Tuesday"!), and being leader of the Opposing Forces would pretty much exclude the possibility Hillary would pick Obama as her VP (she should go for an experienced, moderate White Guy also-ran candidate, like Biden, Dodd, or Stealth-Hispanic Bill Richardson).
Obama did choose to get into this one, after all; to me, it would have made more sense to let this one go by. I say this from a firm belief that Barack Obama is the real thing, someone who can make a historic contribution of progress for the country and the world if he gets the chance. I just don't think 2008 is really all that good of a chance for him. But if it comes down to Obama Now! or Obama Never! I guess I'd have to get behind him.
Blair's End
Sounds like part of a respectable neighborhood, and it is.
I'm with Fareed Zakaria (on This Week with George Stephanopoulos): Blair's legacy is much more than his doomed decision to dance with Dubya in Iraq. His significance in postwar Britain's political history is right at the top, alongside Margaret Thatcher's. Like Bill Clinton, the only tragedy is that such great talent could have accomplished more.
Blair is certainly right that the greatest opportunity for a British prime minister is to maximize alignment with the US president in critical decisions, though the panel's judgment is that he would have served US better to have agreed with US less. Unfortunately, he lacked Clinton's ability to triangulate, or he may have let his emotional impulse to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with US get the better of him.
I like the notion of Tony Blair going to head the World Bank. The US should not automatically get the post, particularly since we did such a bad job of exercising our prerogative last time in naming Wolfowitz. It may be way out of Blair's area of expertise, but it would continue his policy of annoying Gordon Brown by occupying jobs that Brown knows he can do better.
Speaking of This Week with George, though, I have to say I loved having Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation on the panel with Zakaria and George Will, even if she took a contrary position, lining up behind Jimmy Carter's unchivalrous assessment of Blair's bungle in Babylon.
I'm with Fareed Zakaria (on This Week with George Stephanopoulos): Blair's legacy is much more than his doomed decision to dance with Dubya in Iraq. His significance in postwar Britain's political history is right at the top, alongside Margaret Thatcher's. Like Bill Clinton, the only tragedy is that such great talent could have accomplished more.
Blair is certainly right that the greatest opportunity for a British prime minister is to maximize alignment with the US president in critical decisions, though the panel's judgment is that he would have served US better to have agreed with US less. Unfortunately, he lacked Clinton's ability to triangulate, or he may have let his emotional impulse to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with US get the better of him.
I like the notion of Tony Blair going to head the World Bank. The US should not automatically get the post, particularly since we did such a bad job of exercising our prerogative last time in naming Wolfowitz. It may be way out of Blair's area of expertise, but it would continue his policy of annoying Gordon Brown by occupying jobs that Brown knows he can do better.
Speaking of This Week with George, though, I have to say I loved having Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation on the panel with Zakaria and George Will, even if she took a contrary position, lining up behind Jimmy Carter's unchivalrous assessment of Blair's bungle in Babylon.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Immigration Deal I
I salute the efforts of Senators from both parties and President Bush (and his domestic advisers) in coming up with a compromise legislative proposal on immigration. The bipartisan good feelings about it lasted about two days, then the criticism began from both left and right. This should be a good sign, a true indication that there had indeed been a compromise by both sides, but it doesn't appear to be so. Pundits have already pronounced the new proposal to be dead.
I don't see it that way. The next step will be slight modification in the Senate. Then there will be radical changes to it in the House version, an extended conference, and two very difficult votes on the conference report. If a bill can get passed in both houses, though, I think the President will sign it, and that is why this issue still has potential for actual legislation, unlike most of the current topics of the day.
My principal take on the proposal is that, as it stands now, the provisions to put today's illegals on a track toward legitimacy and eventual citizenship lack sufficient incentives to get them to come out of the shadows. Disincentives, on the other hand, are plenty in the current proposal.
I see the Republicans' support for this proposal as soft, likely to disappear when the House Democratic majority will cut into the punitive provisions (or, more astutely, start to include some short-term rewards--eligibility for social services?-- for those who bite the bullet and register themselves). Only a few from the GOP will end up supporting the final legislation, but it will be enough. As long as Bush keeps to his position.
I don't see it that way. The next step will be slight modification in the Senate. Then there will be radical changes to it in the House version, an extended conference, and two very difficult votes on the conference report. If a bill can get passed in both houses, though, I think the President will sign it, and that is why this issue still has potential for actual legislation, unlike most of the current topics of the day.
My principal take on the proposal is that, as it stands now, the provisions to put today's illegals on a track toward legitimacy and eventual citizenship lack sufficient incentives to get them to come out of the shadows. Disincentives, on the other hand, are plenty in the current proposal.
I see the Republicans' support for this proposal as soft, likely to disappear when the House Democratic majority will cut into the punitive provisions (or, more astutely, start to include some short-term rewards--eligibility for social services?-- for those who bite the bullet and register themselves). Only a few from the GOP will end up supporting the final legislation, but it will be enough. As long as Bush keeps to his position.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Unexpected Evidence of Intelligent Life
Case 1. Swiss scientists discover a planet circling a sun which has the possibility of liquid water. The first such extraterrestrial discovery, the formulas suggest this planet is close enough to its red dwarf sun that surface water on it could melt, yet the planet is large enough to sustain atmospheric pressure. The great thing is that the planet is "only" 20 light-years away; with current technology we could get there in 500 years or so, I think.
While a nice hit to find a planet in the right zone for its sun, I have to think that the chances that this method of discovery will reveal all possible candidates for life are slim. Essentially, they are finding planets these days which are large enough, and close enough, to disrupt suns' position or block a portion of the light from them. The only reasons this one could be detected are that it is so close to us and so close to its sun. Still, it would only take one case to go from possible life to probable to change the way we look at a lot of things.
Case 2. A House panel has put up some opposition to beginning a missile defense system housed in Eastern Europe. This system would be to defend against a future missile emanating from Iran, if you can believe that. It would take five years to construct, so it would be just in time to prevent those Iranians sending nuke missiles raining down on the capitals of their friends in Western Europe. We better get started building those Star Wars!
Apart from the fact that Iran is far from its first nuclear test, let alone weaponizing the nuke or developing long-range missiles, there is one principal fact to consider: nuclear weapon defense systems don't work. I see the system would cost "only" $3.5 billion, so it's a lot cheaper than the ones we've put in which don't protect Alaska.
I'm sorry, I'm getting sarcastic. The folly! At least some of the House Democrats are showing some sense.
I also back their current doomed initiative with regard to the Iraq war. This one gives the Bushites a very short leash, requiring a second appropriation in September to continuing funding The Scourge Policy.
This measure really doesn't suit the Bushite game plan, which is to cause a distraction in the fall so Gen. Petraeus' lack of a report of progress then won't be too much noticeable. If, on the other hand, Congress actually had to consider whether to continue the policy in four months, the status there would be the critical consideration and not so subject to spin. So, a veto of the current proposal would be certain, and override impossible. The proper response would then be another measure, perhaps designed as a sincere compromise, but again with short-term funding: if Bush doesn't like getting funds a few months at a time, he can see how he likes not getting them.
This illustrates one of the most poignant lessons I learned in my childhood: don't be so quick to say no to something you really want and need, just because you don't like the way it's been offered to you.
While a nice hit to find a planet in the right zone for its sun, I have to think that the chances that this method of discovery will reveal all possible candidates for life are slim. Essentially, they are finding planets these days which are large enough, and close enough, to disrupt suns' position or block a portion of the light from them. The only reasons this one could be detected are that it is so close to us and so close to its sun. Still, it would only take one case to go from possible life to probable to change the way we look at a lot of things.
Case 2. A House panel has put up some opposition to beginning a missile defense system housed in Eastern Europe. This system would be to defend against a future missile emanating from Iran, if you can believe that. It would take five years to construct, so it would be just in time to prevent those Iranians sending nuke missiles raining down on the capitals of their friends in Western Europe. We better get started building those Star Wars!
Apart from the fact that Iran is far from its first nuclear test, let alone weaponizing the nuke or developing long-range missiles, there is one principal fact to consider: nuclear weapon defense systems don't work. I see the system would cost "only" $3.5 billion, so it's a lot cheaper than the ones we've put in which don't protect Alaska.
I'm sorry, I'm getting sarcastic. The folly! At least some of the House Democrats are showing some sense.
I also back their current doomed initiative with regard to the Iraq war. This one gives the Bushites a very short leash, requiring a second appropriation in September to continuing funding The Scourge Policy.
This measure really doesn't suit the Bushite game plan, which is to cause a distraction in the fall so Gen. Petraeus' lack of a report of progress then won't be too much noticeable. If, on the other hand, Congress actually had to consider whether to continue the policy in four months, the status there would be the critical consideration and not so subject to spin. So, a veto of the current proposal would be certain, and override impossible. The proper response would then be another measure, perhaps designed as a sincere compromise, but again with short-term funding: if Bush doesn't like getting funds a few months at a time, he can see how he likes not getting them.
This illustrates one of the most poignant lessons I learned in my childhood: don't be so quick to say no to something you really want and need, just because you don't like the way it's been offered to you.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The 10-Point Program Update
The Program
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
6. Get control of armaments.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
8. Provide health care to our people.
9. Electoral reform.
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
These are long-term goals, but it is worth seeing where progress is being made, where potential progress can be identified, and where there is no sign of progress whatsoever.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the effort should go where there is no progress, as perhaps the efficient way to go is to focus where there is potential progress or in the making. Nothing comes on the list, though, unless we take something off: we're pay as you go.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. This looks like the effort of a generation or more, once it gets started, and in terms of real action, it's started elsewhere but not here. On the other hand, bipartisan support is rapidly developing for the items that are most urgent, certain, and critical from the US. The key will be focusing their mobilization in the short run around these items. In the long run, we can make the difficult decisions, the ones that require more time and research, about types of biofuels, coal liquification, nuclear power, etc. Right now, it's establishing some sort of handle on total emissions and improving vehicle fuel standards, along with appropriating money for research intelligently.
2. Preserve our biosphere. This is one we better well hope will never be taken off the table. That would mean either the collapse of humanity (which would take it out of our hands), or something worse. This one can't be considered to be going well until we start reversing the decline in habitat for virtually every type of ecosystem (excluding living on the margins of human society).
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. This should be the easiest one. It will basically only require the replacement of George W. Bush--any Democrat would be an improvement, and even most of the stiffs currently under consideration for the Republican nomination (excepting Gingrich).
Britain, France, and Germany all have new, friendly leaders dying for us to show some reason. I'm not going to bother suggesting things for the Bushites, but I expect to refer to this objective frequently in evaluating 2008 candidates.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. Not much going on so far with this one. In the next few years, though, this will necessarily emerge as a key area which will allow quality candidates to emerge.
5. Reform the UN Charter. A long way off, it seems.
6. Get control of armaments. Not going well.
With regard to domestic gun control, I'm worried that many believe that closing a few legal loopholes in tracking gun registration, or improving instant background checks, will do the job. The barn door's already been left open too long. What we need is improved homeland security--the subject of a separate discussion.
Internationally, nuclear nonproliferation will see only unfavorable results for a while, I'm afraid. I suggest we start our efforts by fighting the development of new nuclear weapons in this country.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is clearly post-Bushite business. At this point, I want to hear Democratic candidates show how they can use this issue against the party of the Bushites.
8. Provide health care to our people. I expect this to be the #2 issue in the '08 election behind Iraq/GWOT, and a real strong issue for the Democrats. Let's see.
9. Electoral reform. Too late for actual improvements in this cycle, but I would like to hear some ideas from the candidates.
10. End the "War on Drugs". Little to no hope for progress in the short run. What I'm looking for in general from the society is some consideration of what the actual health risks look like--which drugs are causing the fatalities, the ruined families, the suicides? That way we can at least have the focus on the more harmful ones.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases.
2. Preserve our biosphere.
3. Rebuild our relations with the world.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision.
5. Reform the UN Charter.
6. Get control of armaments.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it.
8. Provide health care to our people.
9. Electoral reform.
10. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones).
These are long-term goals, but it is worth seeing where progress is being made, where potential progress can be identified, and where there is no sign of progress whatsoever.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the effort should go where there is no progress, as perhaps the efficient way to go is to focus where there is potential progress or in the making. Nothing comes on the list, though, unless we take something off: we're pay as you go.
1. Get control of climate-changing gases. This looks like the effort of a generation or more, once it gets started, and in terms of real action, it's started elsewhere but not here. On the other hand, bipartisan support is rapidly developing for the items that are most urgent, certain, and critical from the US. The key will be focusing their mobilization in the short run around these items. In the long run, we can make the difficult decisions, the ones that require more time and research, about types of biofuels, coal liquification, nuclear power, etc. Right now, it's establishing some sort of handle on total emissions and improving vehicle fuel standards, along with appropriating money for research intelligently.
2. Preserve our biosphere. This is one we better well hope will never be taken off the table. That would mean either the collapse of humanity (which would take it out of our hands), or something worse. This one can't be considered to be going well until we start reversing the decline in habitat for virtually every type of ecosystem (excluding living on the margins of human society).
3. Rebuild our relations with the world. This should be the easiest one. It will basically only require the replacement of George W. Bush--any Democrat would be an improvement, and even most of the stiffs currently under consideration for the Republican nomination (excepting Gingrich).
Britain, France, and Germany all have new, friendly leaders dying for us to show some reason. I'm not going to bother suggesting things for the Bushites, but I expect to refer to this objective frequently in evaluating 2008 candidates.
4. Visualize our children’s / grandchildren’s society, and the implications of that vision. Not much going on so far with this one. In the next few years, though, this will necessarily emerge as a key area which will allow quality candidates to emerge.
5. Reform the UN Charter. A long way off, it seems.
6. Get control of armaments. Not going well.
With regard to domestic gun control, I'm worried that many believe that closing a few legal loopholes in tracking gun registration, or improving instant background checks, will do the job. The barn door's already been left open too long. What we need is improved homeland security--the subject of a separate discussion.
Internationally, nuclear nonproliferation will see only unfavorable results for a while, I'm afraid. I suggest we start our efforts by fighting the development of new nuclear weapons in this country.
7. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is clearly post-Bushite business. At this point, I want to hear Democratic candidates show how they can use this issue against the party of the Bushites.
8. Provide health care to our people. I expect this to be the #2 issue in the '08 election behind Iraq/GWOT, and a real strong issue for the Democrats. Let's see.
9. Electoral reform. Too late for actual improvements in this cycle, but I would like to hear some ideas from the candidates.
10. End the "War on Drugs". Little to no hope for progress in the short run. What I'm looking for in general from the society is some consideration of what the actual health risks look like--which drugs are causing the fatalities, the ruined families, the suicides? That way we can at least have the focus on the more harmful ones.
By my count, we have short-term optimism around #1, 3, and 8; but pessimism on #2, 4, 5,6, 9 and 10. #7, like the ones where I'm optimistic, and #9, are the ones I'll be monitoring closely for ideas coming out of candidates this time around.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Bush's "Al," Bush on Bush, Al's Bush
Dubya's defence of "Al Gonzales" last night on Charlie Rose was totally expect(orat)ed. In fact, the "buck" for that scandal can easily be absorbed by the President as SOP for a White House with a laserlike focus on politics in all circumstances. Bush had every right to replace U.S. attorneys for any reason, or for none, and he doesn't really owe an explanation to anyone, so if he wants to keep Gonzales then he will, no matter what his Republican senate colleagues say.
It has been Alberto Gonzales' inability to properly defer to his boss that has been the surprising source of his near undoing. Surprising, in that sycophancy is his strongest area. Certainly he's not "articulate", in the Obamaian sense (for a person of color, it goes without saying. Of course, that he may be a person of color is stretching it, from his demeanor and yuppie styling).
Like Iraq, the end to this story requires Dubya changing his mind, something one shouldn't anticipate occurring. In Iraq, on Charlie Rose, Dubya wasn't really admitting any mistakes, nor even indicating a real change in strategy. "Accomplishing Plan A by other means" is my recollection of how he describes the Surge, when asked what is Plan B. Rose meant to ask for the backup to the current unlikely effort, but Bush quite properly responded that The Scourge is really itself Plan B, and yet nothing really different. Just a new PR package.
Back to Gonzales, it's been clear all along that he is a chump, a lackey, a weasel. He should have lost his job for his bad counsel regarding detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, though that predated this Attorney General gig. It doesn't really matter--wherever he is, Al is basically a yes man for Bushism, a risk manager rather than a lawyer, and full-time suck-up.
We've postulated him as the Jack of Hearts in the Bushite deck, an honorary family member. As such, he's one of the higher remaining cards, Cheney being in the discard pile (replacing that revived zombie, Ace of Spades Rove) and Bar is inactive. Just Condi (Queen Clubs) left up there on the solitaire tableau to keep company with Gonzales, and Aces of Hearts Duba. Or am I forgetting a major Bushite?
A: The other face card remaining is Jack of Diamonds Mitch McConnell, the senior remaining member of his suit.
It has been Alberto Gonzales' inability to properly defer to his boss that has been the surprising source of his near undoing. Surprising, in that sycophancy is his strongest area. Certainly he's not "articulate", in the Obamaian sense (for a person of color, it goes without saying. Of course, that he may be a person of color is stretching it, from his demeanor and yuppie styling).
Like Iraq, the end to this story requires Dubya changing his mind, something one shouldn't anticipate occurring. In Iraq, on Charlie Rose, Dubya wasn't really admitting any mistakes, nor even indicating a real change in strategy. "Accomplishing Plan A by other means" is my recollection of how he describes the Surge, when asked what is Plan B. Rose meant to ask for the backup to the current unlikely effort, but Bush quite properly responded that The Scourge is really itself Plan B, and yet nothing really different. Just a new PR package.
Back to Gonzales, it's been clear all along that he is a chump, a lackey, a weasel. He should have lost his job for his bad counsel regarding detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo, though that predated this Attorney General gig. It doesn't really matter--wherever he is, Al is basically a yes man for Bushism, a risk manager rather than a lawyer, and full-time suck-up.
We've postulated him as the Jack of Hearts in the Bushite deck, an honorary family member. As such, he's one of the higher remaining cards, Cheney being in the discard pile (replacing that revived zombie, Ace of Spades Rove) and Bar is inactive. Just Condi (Queen Clubs) left up there on the solitaire tableau to keep company with Gonzales, and Aces of Hearts Duba. Or am I forgetting a major Bushite?
A: The other face card remaining is Jack of Diamonds Mitch McConnell, the senior remaining member of his suit.
NBA predictions (tardy)
I'm late, but I'll still go on record with my picks:
Eastern Conf. : Det. over Orlando; NJ over Toronto; Cleveland over Wash.; Miami over Chicago.
Semis: Detroit over Miami; NJ over Cleveland.
Conf. finals: Detroit over NJ
Western Conf.: SA over Denver;* Dallas over GSW;* Houston over Utah; Phoenix over LAL.
Semis: SA over Phoenix; Dallas over Houston (each in 7 games--the highlights of the whole championships).
Final: Dallas over SA (decisively, this time).
Finals: Dallas over Detroit, 4-2. Mavericks break through.
Yes, it is the chalk for the finals. The upset pick is NJ to the Eastern Finals; SA and Phoenix I'd rate about a tossup.
I think the Nets will get it together one last time before the star trio of Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, and Richard Jefferson is broken up. I see Carter and Kidd as likely to move on, unless of course if the Nets overachieve this year, while Jefferson needs to re-establish physical health. True overachievement, though, would be more like what Miami did last year, somehow defeating Detroit in the conference finals, then topping that against the Western champ.
*Ignoring the first game upset.
Eastern Conf. : Det. over Orlando; NJ over Toronto; Cleveland over Wash.; Miami over Chicago.
Semis: Detroit over Miami; NJ over Cleveland.
Conf. finals: Detroit over NJ
Western Conf.: SA over Denver;* Dallas over GSW;* Houston over Utah; Phoenix over LAL.
Semis: SA over Phoenix; Dallas over Houston (each in 7 games--the highlights of the whole championships).
Final: Dallas over SA (decisively, this time).
Finals: Dallas over Detroit, 4-2. Mavericks break through.
Yes, it is the chalk for the finals. The upset pick is NJ to the Eastern Finals; SA and Phoenix I'd rate about a tossup.
I think the Nets will get it together one last time before the star trio of Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, and Richard Jefferson is broken up. I see Carter and Kidd as likely to move on, unless of course if the Nets overachieve this year, while Jefferson needs to re-establish physical health. True overachievement, though, would be more like what Miami did last year, somehow defeating Detroit in the conference finals, then topping that against the Western champ.
*Ignoring the first game upset.
Chelsea Rule OK!
Champions Cup semi-final, first leg at Stamford Bridge: The Blues are lining up a first-quality win at home after a superior goal: Carvalho counterattack, to Drogba, who runs by his defender wide, then cuts back sharply, centers to Joe Cole, the only other Chelsea attacker forward, who lunges with his right leg and wins the goal cleanly (while having his shirt tugged).
Liverpool has been a serious thorn in the paw of the Chelsea Lion, particularly with regard to the Champions League. Last year they ousted us in the semifinals on a 1-0 aggregate, the lasting impression being Gudjohnssen by the right post with the potential winning goal in stoppage time, but missing.
Liverpool is turning up the pressure to try and get a goal here. That would change things dramatically. Right now, I'm thinking that, if the present score holds, Mourinho may roll the dice at Anfield and come out attacking. Chelsea going up 1-0 there early would force Liverpool to come up with three to beat us.
Chelsea getting by Liverpool, and ManU by Milano (they won the home tie, 3-2, which puts them in good stead for a low-scoring outcome on the road) are now practically the only things we need to set up a trio of showdowns with the Red Devils for the three remaining top-level cups Chelsea hasn't already snagged: F.A. (set), Premiership (if we can gain one other point on them before or after the rescheduled May 9 date), and the biggie, the Champions League.
I have to pick up my niece now (79:04), so I'll post and trust to the fates and our chances in the rematch.
Liverpool has been a serious thorn in the paw of the Chelsea Lion, particularly with regard to the Champions League. Last year they ousted us in the semifinals on a 1-0 aggregate, the lasting impression being Gudjohnssen by the right post with the potential winning goal in stoppage time, but missing.
Liverpool is turning up the pressure to try and get a goal here. That would change things dramatically. Right now, I'm thinking that, if the present score holds, Mourinho may roll the dice at Anfield and come out attacking. Chelsea going up 1-0 there early would force Liverpool to come up with three to beat us.
Chelsea getting by Liverpool, and ManU by Milano (they won the home tie, 3-2, which puts them in good stead for a low-scoring outcome on the road) are now practically the only things we need to set up a trio of showdowns with the Red Devils for the three remaining top-level cups Chelsea hasn't already snagged: F.A. (set), Premiership (if we can gain one other point on them before or after the rescheduled May 9 date), and the biggie, the Champions League.
I have to pick up my niece now (79:04), so I'll post and trust to the fates and our chances in the rematch.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Tragedy at Virginia Tech
Posted to Richmond Times-Dispatch in response to the piece by Bart Hinkle--you could try this unlikely-looking link:http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FPage%2FRTD_SectionFront&c=Page&cid=1058750353171. The title is, "The Massacre: Atrocity at Virginia Tech Renews the Search for Elusive Answers " by A. BARTON HINKLE
I think Bart’s was the best first-day reaction piece I’ve seen anywhere. He captured the whole sequence of dismaying reactions we share, and I find it a fit representative for the Virginia journalistic point of view.
What was unusual about the piece was the number and variety of references and quotes, and how appropriate they were. Also, though, I have to praise the elegant tones he struck stringing together those other folks’ words. You can read the article out loud, with the proper inflections, and you’d have a five-minute speech of high quality.
Inflections would make good the otherwise questionable use of sarcasm in the comment about “retribution...(being) such a peace-maker” in the Middle East. Apart from being a bit inconsistent in style, it tips the point of the next paragraph, that vengeance’s pleasure is brief. Perhaps he had to get in a good zing first before bringing in the healing words. It must start now, and must continue indefinitely.
Rather than lobbing a gun control projectile, I suggest that we start our learning process from the assumption that we have now and will have among us an excess of both armaments and evil madness.
The challenge is to protect our traditional sense of security, so critical to the American lifestyle, without sacrificing our liberties too greatly. Sure methods of identifying responsibility through gun ownership would help, but it would not solve the problem of trained lunacy. We would need the equivalent of 911 alarm boxes on every corner, with trained response units organized nationally, and even that would not be enough.
As the last poster suggested, domestic violence of this kind--even if it has no connection to what we think of as international terrorism--is central to the mission of “Homeland Security,” and it shares the paradox faced in our actions abroad in the name of the “global war on terror”, all of which come from a love of liberty.
I think Bart’s was the best first-day reaction piece I’ve seen anywhere. He captured the whole sequence of dismaying reactions we share, and I find it a fit representative for the Virginia journalistic point of view.
What was unusual about the piece was the number and variety of references and quotes, and how appropriate they were. Also, though, I have to praise the elegant tones he struck stringing together those other folks’ words. You can read the article out loud, with the proper inflections, and you’d have a five-minute speech of high quality.
Inflections would make good the otherwise questionable use of sarcasm in the comment about “retribution...(being) such a peace-maker” in the Middle East. Apart from being a bit inconsistent in style, it tips the point of the next paragraph, that vengeance’s pleasure is brief. Perhaps he had to get in a good zing first before bringing in the healing words. It must start now, and must continue indefinitely.
Rather than lobbing a gun control projectile, I suggest that we start our learning process from the assumption that we have now and will have among us an excess of both armaments and evil madness.
The challenge is to protect our traditional sense of security, so critical to the American lifestyle, without sacrificing our liberties too greatly. Sure methods of identifying responsibility through gun ownership would help, but it would not solve the problem of trained lunacy. We would need the equivalent of 911 alarm boxes on every corner, with trained response units organized nationally, and even that would not be enough.
As the last poster suggested, domestic violence of this kind--even if it has no connection to what we think of as international terrorism--is central to the mission of “Homeland Security,” and it shares the paradox faced in our actions abroad in the name of the “global war on terror”, all of which come from a love of liberty.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Old Modest Mouse Album Title Reconsidered
The rock band Modest Mouse's previous album title (just now they have a new one) was Good News for People Who Love Bad News. I never really gave it much thought: that's not me--who loves bad news? Like their music, this one, when you come back to it, is pretty profound.
Here's the way it reasons out, logically: There is no such thing as good news for people who love bad news; the only thing that would be good news for them would be, by definition, bad news. Therefore, they should expect bad news, and be pleased by what they get.
It's a sure way to happiness.
The only trick, then, is getting to love bad news.
It's a habit of thought, non-intuitive. Something like an ideological, cult-like stance, to be sure, but not unique: pre-revolutionary Communists were always that way. Millenarian Christian cults still are, though the millennium is, definitively, past. (There is little recognition--so I will point it out--of the fact that the debate about the historical beginning of this millennium ended up being resolved with a clear, but totally unpredicted, start date: September 11, 2001) .
Journalists make a living on bad news, so most of them can make a virtue of necessity one way or another. The conscience of it sometimes drives them to drink or other unhealthy habits, but others like the pleasure of seeing others go down: Schadenfreude.
There's another group that makes a habit out of liking bad news, or at least deriving pleasure from it. The skeptics, the whiners, the old-fashioned curmudgeons; Evidence Supporting the Inevitable Apocalypse fulfills their pessimistic world view. We're going to try and stay away from that stance, that mental habit, even if I share many of the same perceptions. We've got no choice but to be optimistic; we have children.
Like Al Sharpton and the N-word, I won't say we haven't done it in the past, but we're trying to cut down.
Here's the way it reasons out, logically: There is no such thing as good news for people who love bad news; the only thing that would be good news for them would be, by definition, bad news. Therefore, they should expect bad news, and be pleased by what they get.
It's a sure way to happiness.
The only trick, then, is getting to love bad news.
It's a habit of thought, non-intuitive. Something like an ideological, cult-like stance, to be sure, but not unique: pre-revolutionary Communists were always that way. Millenarian Christian cults still are, though the millennium is, definitively, past. (There is little recognition--so I will point it out--of the fact that the debate about the historical beginning of this millennium ended up being resolved with a clear, but totally unpredicted, start date: September 11, 2001) .
Journalists make a living on bad news, so most of them can make a virtue of necessity one way or another. The conscience of it sometimes drives them to drink or other unhealthy habits, but others like the pleasure of seeing others go down: Schadenfreude.
There's another group that makes a habit out of liking bad news, or at least deriving pleasure from it. The skeptics, the whiners, the old-fashioned curmudgeons; Evidence Supporting the Inevitable Apocalypse fulfills their pessimistic world view. We're going to try and stay away from that stance, that mental habit, even if I share many of the same perceptions. We've got no choice but to be optimistic; we have children.
Like Al Sharpton and the N-word, I won't say we haven't done it in the past, but we're trying to cut down.
Federalism for Iraq
Senator and Presidential candidate Joe Biden's Post op-ed puts out his plan and takes on John McCain's foolish Iraq position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102119_pf.html
I happen to agree 100% with Biden on the proposal of a federation--my suggestion would be four regions, with Baghdad itself being the fourth, federal entity.
It doesn't matter now, though; our ability to direct an outcome is gone, and the Shiites have locked onto power.
The surge was a well-crafted piece of politico-military tactics; its greatest virtue was that it couldn't be stopped. And so it has not. The debate must inevitably resolve around the consensus position rapidly emerging:
1) end to combat operations before November, 2008;
2) general withdrawal in progress by January, 2009.
The Republican party will support this series of developments; almost any other would doom them in the elections.
The Democratic candidates can live with this outcome, in that it will leave them a relatively free hand. I trust Carl Levin & Co. to come up with the proper language through the appropriations process to sufficiently tie the Bushite hands down the road 12 months or so.
They can take advantage of this freedom both now, in terms of proposing policies unlikely to come to pass as per Sen. Biden (in this case, because of Bushite blockheadedness), and later, in having the ability to choose between four options: go back in (for some reason I can't imagine but would involve specific Al Qaeda cells), pull further back, remain at a low level, or get the hell outta Dalmiya.
America Coming Together
I posted the above response to Biden's editorial on TPM Cafe. The effort to change the mind of the President has now become the effort to change the mind of John McCain. This is much as it had to be: there is no chance of the former. McCain's conversion to agreement on an implicit date to end the surge and begin partial withdrawal, which could be embodied in the time restrictions placed upon expenditures, would be the political compromise which could resolve this slow motion train-wreck. Right now the Bush Administration, even in its new guise as pragmatists, would not agree to sign such strings on appropriations legislation; that is where the need for negotiated progress will be critical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102119_pf.html
I happen to agree 100% with Biden on the proposal of a federation--my suggestion would be four regions, with Baghdad itself being the fourth, federal entity.
It doesn't matter now, though; our ability to direct an outcome is gone, and the Shiites have locked onto power.
The surge was a well-crafted piece of politico-military tactics; its greatest virtue was that it couldn't be stopped. And so it has not. The debate must inevitably resolve around the consensus position rapidly emerging:
1) end to combat operations before November, 2008;
2) general withdrawal in progress by January, 2009.
The Republican party will support this series of developments; almost any other would doom them in the elections.
The Democratic candidates can live with this outcome, in that it will leave them a relatively free hand. I trust Carl Levin & Co. to come up with the proper language through the appropriations process to sufficiently tie the Bushite hands down the road 12 months or so.
They can take advantage of this freedom both now, in terms of proposing policies unlikely to come to pass as per Sen. Biden (in this case, because of Bushite blockheadedness), and later, in having the ability to choose between four options: go back in (for some reason I can't imagine but would involve specific Al Qaeda cells), pull further back, remain at a low level, or get the hell outta Dalmiya.
America Coming Together
I posted the above response to Biden's editorial on TPM Cafe. The effort to change the mind of the President has now become the effort to change the mind of John McCain. This is much as it had to be: there is no chance of the former. McCain's conversion to agreement on an implicit date to end the surge and begin partial withdrawal, which could be embodied in the time restrictions placed upon expenditures, would be the political compromise which could resolve this slow motion train-wreck. Right now the Bush Administration, even in its new guise as pragmatists, would not agree to sign such strings on appropriations legislation; that is where the need for negotiated progress will be critical.
Imus No Moaning
I don't like much the piranha culture by which we have it decided for us who will take the falls and who will fell.
That being said, I have little to no sympathy for Don Imus and his radio ilk. The advertisers ran from him like a school of scared fish, and that was it.
He's a fine example of a New Mexican rancher--with a little-more-than-average misanthropic weirdness--who offers some solace for kids with cancer. He can go back to that, and do his show on a smaller scale if anyone wants to go on it, or make a syndicated column. I could care less.
Frankly, I don't know where Al Sharpton gets the money for his expensive clothes, etc., and that might be his point of vulnerability. He long ago cleaned up his act, which makes him a suitable, if humorless, guest for any talk show, but you can't make a living on that, can you?
I have no use whatsoever for WFAN-type radio, though I do think it would be interesting to track how often people on the shows actually do anticipate things that happen in real life (compared to the percentage of time they get it totally wrong) and then, just who are the ones in the know as opposed to the posers? Maybe somebody is hitting the nail right on the head every time right before our eyes, and nobody notices because who takes it seriously, anyway?
That being said, I have little to no sympathy for Don Imus and his radio ilk. The advertisers ran from him like a school of scared fish, and that was it.
He's a fine example of a New Mexican rancher--with a little-more-than-average misanthropic weirdness--who offers some solace for kids with cancer. He can go back to that, and do his show on a smaller scale if anyone wants to go on it, or make a syndicated column. I could care less.
Frankly, I don't know where Al Sharpton gets the money for his expensive clothes, etc., and that might be his point of vulnerability. He long ago cleaned up his act, which makes him a suitable, if humorless, guest for any talk show, but you can't make a living on that, can you?
I have no use whatsoever for WFAN-type radio, though I do think it would be interesting to track how often people on the shows actually do anticipate things that happen in real life (compared to the percentage of time they get it totally wrong) and then, just who are the ones in the know as opposed to the posers? Maybe somebody is hitting the nail right on the head every time right before our eyes, and nobody notices because who takes it seriously, anyway?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
America Coming Together
I see some welcome evidence of an evolving consensus on some national issues.
Partisan as I am, I find this to be welcome, because not all issues deserve to be debated for generations without end. When the facts are sufficiently clear and broadly recognized, sometimes pragmatism wins out, and those who advocate a utilitarian approach have their moments of hard-won common sense.
Abortion is an example of what I'm talking about. Rudy Giuliani's popularity among Republicans (even if only temporary) suggests to me that the Republicans recognize how fast the "choice" and "life" camps are converging on a shared set of stipulations:
1. There are better ways to avoid unwanted and accidental pregnancies, particularly with the advent of the "morning after" pills.
2. Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.
3. The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to do anybody any good.
This consensus will build, as those who oppose it will be exposed as either wanting more unwanted babies or just being opposed to babies in general. Neither is a popular position.
The New Consensus is on Global Climate Change (the correct term). Arnold Schwarzenegger has led the way to sanity for the Republicans on this one, and most are going to step away from the side promising self-immolation. In Congress, this will be expressed in legislation raising CAFE standards (which will promise more trickery from Detroit, but will still be improvement), funding alternate energy sources, and beginning cap-and-trade on greenhouse gases with very large-scale manufacturers.
This will be real progress; my only hope is that they don't limit themselves to biofuels as the best alternative, but also go for R&D$$ for the nexus of nanotechnology and photovoltaics, where I think the chance for a breakthrough is best, and for the coal liquification and carbon sequestration combination in power plants. One day, this will be knowledge which the Chinese will come to love like life itself--we will not have to force them to adopt such advances, rather we will find it impossible to keep them from stealing the technology.
Even on Iraq, the consensus is there waiting to be articulated. I've been spouting it for about 18 months (see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html) though I always intended it as a partisan rallying point for Democrats. Now we find the Republicans buying into the major premises: combat operations ending in the months before November, 2008, taking much of the sting out of the war debate in the general election; a general withdrawal in progress January, 2009, allowing the new President the chance to operate with a relatively free hand.
Even the Bushites seem likely to accept this plan, though they don't want it to be dictated to them by the Congressional Democrats. If Pelosi and Reid can somehow avoid a showdown, they should get what they ostensibly want in terms of the result. Instead, the legislative efforts get the Bushites' back up, and they show less flexibility. Instead of getting the best result possible (timelines as guidelines, specific follow-up reviews scheduled before Congress, accelerated spending commitement requirements with date limitations driving spending down toward the end of 2007) , the Democrats may meekly back off and let Dubya have his blank check one last year, for fear of political disadvantage. Whatever they do, the interest of all parties, even the Bushites for a tolerable historical legacy, aligns behind a six-month surge followed by steady and rapid withdrawal.
Partisan as I am, I find this to be welcome, because not all issues deserve to be debated for generations without end. When the facts are sufficiently clear and broadly recognized, sometimes pragmatism wins out, and those who advocate a utilitarian approach have their moments of hard-won common sense.
Abortion is an example of what I'm talking about. Rudy Giuliani's popularity among Republicans (even if only temporary) suggests to me that the Republicans recognize how fast the "choice" and "life" camps are converging on a shared set of stipulations:
1. There are better ways to avoid unwanted and accidental pregnancies, particularly with the advent of the "morning after" pills.
2. Abortions should be legal, safe, and rare.
3. The Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade isn't going to do anybody any good.
This consensus will build, as those who oppose it will be exposed as either wanting more unwanted babies or just being opposed to babies in general. Neither is a popular position.
The New Consensus is on Global Climate Change (the correct term). Arnold Schwarzenegger has led the way to sanity for the Republicans on this one, and most are going to step away from the side promising self-immolation. In Congress, this will be expressed in legislation raising CAFE standards (which will promise more trickery from Detroit, but will still be improvement), funding alternate energy sources, and beginning cap-and-trade on greenhouse gases with very large-scale manufacturers.
This will be real progress; my only hope is that they don't limit themselves to biofuels as the best alternative, but also go for R&D$$ for the nexus of nanotechnology and photovoltaics, where I think the chance for a breakthrough is best, and for the coal liquification and carbon sequestration combination in power plants. One day, this will be knowledge which the Chinese will come to love like life itself--we will not have to force them to adopt such advances, rather we will find it impossible to keep them from stealing the technology.
Even on Iraq, the consensus is there waiting to be articulated. I've been spouting it for about 18 months (see http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html) though I always intended it as a partisan rallying point for Democrats. Now we find the Republicans buying into the major premises: combat operations ending in the months before November, 2008, taking much of the sting out of the war debate in the general election; a general withdrawal in progress January, 2009, allowing the new President the chance to operate with a relatively free hand.
Even the Bushites seem likely to accept this plan, though they don't want it to be dictated to them by the Congressional Democrats. If Pelosi and Reid can somehow avoid a showdown, they should get what they ostensibly want in terms of the result. Instead, the legislative efforts get the Bushites' back up, and they show less flexibility. Instead of getting the best result possible (timelines as guidelines, specific follow-up reviews scheduled before Congress, accelerated spending commitement requirements with date limitations driving spending down toward the end of 2007) , the Democrats may meekly back off and let Dubya have his blank check one last year, for fear of political disadvantage. Whatever they do, the interest of all parties, even the Bushites for a tolerable historical legacy, aligns behind a six-month surge followed by steady and rapid withdrawal.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Takeover in Taos
The party coup by traditionalist Hispanics for control of the Taos County Democrats reminds me of Maoist China's old internecine bloodshed. Taos has been delivering 70%+ for Democrats consistently; so, in this one-party local democracy, wouldn't it make sense for Democrats to start fighting each other?
That it seems absurd I can say from any objective viewpoint; also, that there is an issue in the pattern of gerrymandering of seats by precinct. This, though, is much less alarming than the reports of flagrant violations of party rules and clear patterns of bias in consideration of credentials challenges.
I am waiting to hear the other side of the story, from those who actually won the vote count fairly easily, partly if not decisively due to the cumulative effect of favoritism in resolution of challenges. Maybe they think their position is unassailable; I guarantee that, in the political world, they will find they must ultimately answer the charges. They cannot sit quiet and remain confident of holding onto their victory.
Those who backed the losing slate headed by the incumbent County party head Billy Knight have not conceded and are "leaving everything on the table" in terms of potential action. I see the palette of retaliations including a challenge at the state party level, announcing an alternate county party leadership, and/or heading to the Green party and reviving it from its moribund status.
Bill Richardson is the key actor at the higher level for the next round. State party leader John Wertheim is taking the blame from some defeated elements, but if this is a rogue operation then Richardson is weaker in his control than I think. The argument goes that Richardson's crew calculates they can get a better percentage in the state's Presidential primary if Anglo liberals don't turn out. It is down to Bill to stand up for fair play when it comes to him, and one way or another it will. He should look into the issues and not shy from it.
I don't believe the argument much. I think this one is mostly about control of patronage jobs, secondarily about control of graft. Knight upset the traditionalists by showing the temerity to back someone other than the machine Hispanic candidates in two districts of the recent "non-partisan" municipal school board elections, and this was the payback. Pretty impressive, in terms of using bold power-grab methods and getting the intended result. "Virtu", as Macchiavelli called it, won out. Richardson will consider it just politics as it used to usually be, boys being boys, unless he sees a danger it will escalate and expand in significance.
Now, personally, I think the only sensible vote would have been one against the incumbent board members, regardless of any other consideration--that's how badly I think the schools are being operated. In the Hispanic community, though, the attitude is, "Well, they aren't good but they are ours." The Native American community here is certainly getting that point. Billy Knight has now gotten the point in a big way.
There aren't that many places in the US where Hispanics have such a strong political position. It's a shame their leaders here in El Norte, many of whom tout their multigenerational roots in the land here, have adopted tactics suitable for one of the so-called Banana Republics far to the south.
This could end very badly: Rebellion and mob rule have a long tradition in this town. Usually put down harshly in the end.
That it seems absurd I can say from any objective viewpoint; also, that there is an issue in the pattern of gerrymandering of seats by precinct. This, though, is much less alarming than the reports of flagrant violations of party rules and clear patterns of bias in consideration of credentials challenges.
I am waiting to hear the other side of the story, from those who actually won the vote count fairly easily, partly if not decisively due to the cumulative effect of favoritism in resolution of challenges. Maybe they think their position is unassailable; I guarantee that, in the political world, they will find they must ultimately answer the charges. They cannot sit quiet and remain confident of holding onto their victory.
Those who backed the losing slate headed by the incumbent County party head Billy Knight have not conceded and are "leaving everything on the table" in terms of potential action. I see the palette of retaliations including a challenge at the state party level, announcing an alternate county party leadership, and/or heading to the Green party and reviving it from its moribund status.
Bill Richardson is the key actor at the higher level for the next round. State party leader John Wertheim is taking the blame from some defeated elements, but if this is a rogue operation then Richardson is weaker in his control than I think. The argument goes that Richardson's crew calculates they can get a better percentage in the state's Presidential primary if Anglo liberals don't turn out. It is down to Bill to stand up for fair play when it comes to him, and one way or another it will. He should look into the issues and not shy from it.
I don't believe the argument much. I think this one is mostly about control of patronage jobs, secondarily about control of graft. Knight upset the traditionalists by showing the temerity to back someone other than the machine Hispanic candidates in two districts of the recent "non-partisan" municipal school board elections, and this was the payback. Pretty impressive, in terms of using bold power-grab methods and getting the intended result. "Virtu", as Macchiavelli called it, won out. Richardson will consider it just politics as it used to usually be, boys being boys, unless he sees a danger it will escalate and expand in significance.
Now, personally, I think the only sensible vote would have been one against the incumbent board members, regardless of any other consideration--that's how badly I think the schools are being operated. In the Hispanic community, though, the attitude is, "Well, they aren't good but they are ours." The Native American community here is certainly getting that point. Billy Knight has now gotten the point in a big way.
There aren't that many places in the US where Hispanics have such a strong political position. It's a shame their leaders here in El Norte, many of whom tout their multigenerational roots in the land here, have adopted tactics suitable for one of the so-called Banana Republics far to the south.
This could end very badly: Rebellion and mob rule have a long tradition in this town. Usually put down harshly in the end.
Iran Incident
The swift resolution of the British military hostage crisis without further recrimination could end up defusing the larger crisis of relations with Iran, which otherwise seemed headed for disaster.
The action was directly authorized by the ayatollahs, the timing to be driven by any U.N. action against Iran. The Revolutionary Guards told their Fearless Leaders they could take a small number of captives anytime they were directed. The theocrats went for hostage-taking, an act against international law but thoroughly in line with local traditions, out of desperation; they were feeling the menace of U.S. forces and wanted to show an ability to retaliate.
Other Actors:
Ahmadinejad's positive role seemed thoroughly scripted--the domestic political equivalent of The Good Cop, doing his best to keep those nasty Americans from invading our country. Tony Blair played it about right to minimize the chances of an unhappy outcome, and the British probably thanked the stars that this didn't happen a year from now, when post-Blair chaos will be underway. I'm sure Condi was HOLDING BACK DUBYA, for once successfully. The ayatollahs were more than ready to pursue this thing much further but got the result they wanted (release of our hostages).
When it comes to playing covert action hardball with these guys, US, better watch out. They have much greater ability to execute illegal policies than we, as we lack the subtlety.
The action was directly authorized by the ayatollahs, the timing to be driven by any U.N. action against Iran. The Revolutionary Guards told their Fearless Leaders they could take a small number of captives anytime they were directed. The theocrats went for hostage-taking, an act against international law but thoroughly in line with local traditions, out of desperation; they were feeling the menace of U.S. forces and wanted to show an ability to retaliate.
Other Actors:
Ahmadinejad's positive role seemed thoroughly scripted--the domestic political equivalent of The Good Cop, doing his best to keep those nasty Americans from invading our country. Tony Blair played it about right to minimize the chances of an unhappy outcome, and the British probably thanked the stars that this didn't happen a year from now, when post-Blair chaos will be underway. I'm sure Condi was HOLDING BACK DUBYA, for once successfully. The ayatollahs were more than ready to pursue this thing much further but got the result they wanted (release of our hostages).
When it comes to playing covert action hardball with these guys, US, better watch out. They have much greater ability to execute illegal policies than we, as we lack the subtlety.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Chalk Rules!
I have to begin with a bit of a brag: two of my four entries in ESPN's Tournament Challenge have the Final Four exactly right.
My wife did the fifth of the five free entries. She did as well, or better, up to the round of eight. Though she had two wrong out of those--Kansas, and the Quackers of Oregon--she can still beat me out if Georgetown beats Ohio State. Meanwhile, I've got Florida beating Ohio St. in one of the perfect fours, and Ohio St. beating Florida in the final in the other.
I like the fact that you get multiple entries--it lets you try things out, act them through the whole scenario. I kept coming back to the same teams winning through the latter rounds, and I'm surprised that I was right. In that sense, the biggest game was not Xavier-Ohio St., or the tough losses Tennessee and Vandy suffered, but the defeat of the dragon, University of North Carolina, in the regional final at the hands of Georgetown.
I had it wrong, though, about chaos in the early rounds. Plenty of close games, but the top teams almost always pulled them out. This year. A blast of normalcy in the jetstream.
Applying this Learning...
Clearly this bodes well for HRC. Following the NCAA's example, Her Royal Chalkness should edge past upstart BHO with a couple of close scares in the preliminary rounds.
With the Republicans, it's always the Chalk, every time. Or so it seems. Last time there was an upset was 1940. Is it just too early to set the line?
The Most Favored Scenario is that McCain somehow survives the Iraq debacle to become the favorite going into the caucuses--Giuliani's true record of his mayoral years catches up with him, and the Bushites cut Johnny a break and begin withdrawals as we enter 2008, thus relieving the pressure.
McCain is now totally compromised among virtually all who would call themselves Democrats or Leaning Democratic. He's thus lost his chance to fully capitalize on Hillary's high negatives, and I think those will end up drifting off to a third-party candidate like Bloomberg, or not voting if there is no significant third.
We begin to believe in the concept of Hillary as the odds-on favorite, and it is very easy to see how a bit of momentum for her could snowball, as those who like her OK but doubt her chances become agreeable to her nomination, and then to her election.
Please note that with the acceleration in the primary schedule, it will be almost impossible for another Final Four to be nominated before the two party presidential candidates are--even if the Unofficial National Primary fails to name a clear winner.
My wife did the fifth of the five free entries. She did as well, or better, up to the round of eight. Though she had two wrong out of those--Kansas, and the Quackers of Oregon--she can still beat me out if Georgetown beats Ohio State. Meanwhile, I've got Florida beating Ohio St. in one of the perfect fours, and Ohio St. beating Florida in the final in the other.
I like the fact that you get multiple entries--it lets you try things out, act them through the whole scenario. I kept coming back to the same teams winning through the latter rounds, and I'm surprised that I was right. In that sense, the biggest game was not Xavier-Ohio St., or the tough losses Tennessee and Vandy suffered, but the defeat of the dragon, University of North Carolina, in the regional final at the hands of Georgetown.
I had it wrong, though, about chaos in the early rounds. Plenty of close games, but the top teams almost always pulled them out. This year. A blast of normalcy in the jetstream.
Applying this Learning...
Clearly this bodes well for HRC. Following the NCAA's example, Her Royal Chalkness should edge past upstart BHO with a couple of close scares in the preliminary rounds.
With the Republicans, it's always the Chalk, every time. Or so it seems. Last time there was an upset was 1940. Is it just too early to set the line?
The Most Favored Scenario is that McCain somehow survives the Iraq debacle to become the favorite going into the caucuses--Giuliani's true record of his mayoral years catches up with him, and the Bushites cut Johnny a break and begin withdrawals as we enter 2008, thus relieving the pressure.
McCain is now totally compromised among virtually all who would call themselves Democrats or Leaning Democratic. He's thus lost his chance to fully capitalize on Hillary's high negatives, and I think those will end up drifting off to a third-party candidate like Bloomberg, or not voting if there is no significant third.
We begin to believe in the concept of Hillary as the odds-on favorite, and it is very easy to see how a bit of momentum for her could snowball, as those who like her OK but doubt her chances become agreeable to her nomination, and then to her election.
Please note that with the acceleration in the primary schedule, it will be almost impossible for another Final Four to be nominated before the two party presidential candidates are--even if the Unofficial National Primary fails to name a clear winner.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
I Got Barry Bonds for $30...
...and other notes of despair.
I can't decide what to do with him (his 3rd year of a 3-year contract in a 5X5 w/runs and IP NL-only keeper Rotisserie 15H/10P league--12 teams). In other words, the price is a pretty reasonable estimate of his value until he gets 755. The Giants and he toyed with each other, but it looks as though he's ready to go for the season--at least until he breaks the record or he gets indicted (probably under a charge of sheer effrontery), whichever comes first. The choices are: cut him now (potentially to be claimed by others at $30), keep him, trade him before Draft Day, or trade him after Draft Day. Obviously the optimal is to trade him just before he breaks the record, but I have to advise the unitiated that the problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. I also make note that I discard the option to extend his contract beyond this year at any price. Apart from that, any advice would be welcome.
NCAA Brackets
Big controversy! 'Cuse, Drexel don't make it! In favor of, what, Xavier and Illinois (or Arkansas)? Where was the Eastern delegate?
These are all marginal decisions in the extreme (though they might mean real points in ratings), though not marginal at all to the players, coaches, and fans of the teams involved. I think Boeheim had missed once before, so the thought was not unthinkable, though it did seem so in the case of Bobby Knight's team, Texas Tech. For all those not picked, NIT is a good party in NYC, though, if you keep practicing.
As far as personal leanings, I'm pulling for Kentucky to beat Kansas in the second round, for Louisville to go a long way (unless it's at the cost of my father's dedication to Indiana), and the winner of the Virginia-Albany game to go a couple of rounds further. So will read my first two espn pick sets (one with Albany), driven totally by emotions. Then I'll try one crazy one and one sober, chalk-driven.
Chalk is definitely called for, after the second round. There are essentially 8-9 teams with fairly similar chances to win it all (Florida has the best, though, with its #1 seed and draw--well earned, I say!). Beyond those, I would deny that anyone else has a chance: they just weren't consistent enough. Predicting results among teams rated 14-51 in the tourney will be total chaos. This already emerged during "Championship Week", and caused a lot of the wild, Brownian movements of The Bubble.
In basketball, the NCAA has done a good job of pushing that monster all the way down to around 45th place (where the last of the 34 at-large teams would rank). Compare that to their miserable flailing in football (due to the difficulties of scheduling multiple games for such large teams), where the crunch seems to happen around #7.
I can't decide what to do with him (his 3rd year of a 3-year contract in a 5X5 w/runs and IP NL-only keeper Rotisserie 15H/10P league--12 teams). In other words, the price is a pretty reasonable estimate of his value until he gets 755. The Giants and he toyed with each other, but it looks as though he's ready to go for the season--at least until he breaks the record or he gets indicted (probably under a charge of sheer effrontery), whichever comes first. The choices are: cut him now (potentially to be claimed by others at $30), keep him, trade him before Draft Day, or trade him after Draft Day. Obviously the optimal is to trade him just before he breaks the record, but I have to advise the unitiated that the problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. I also make note that I discard the option to extend his contract beyond this year at any price. Apart from that, any advice would be welcome.
NCAA Brackets
Big controversy! 'Cuse, Drexel don't make it! In favor of, what, Xavier and Illinois (or Arkansas)? Where was the Eastern delegate?
These are all marginal decisions in the extreme (though they might mean real points in ratings), though not marginal at all to the players, coaches, and fans of the teams involved. I think Boeheim had missed once before, so the thought was not unthinkable, though it did seem so in the case of Bobby Knight's team, Texas Tech. For all those not picked, NIT is a good party in NYC, though, if you keep practicing.
As far as personal leanings, I'm pulling for Kentucky to beat Kansas in the second round, for Louisville to go a long way (unless it's at the cost of my father's dedication to Indiana), and the winner of the Virginia-Albany game to go a couple of rounds further. So will read my first two espn pick sets (one with Albany), driven totally by emotions. Then I'll try one crazy one and one sober, chalk-driven.
Chalk is definitely called for, after the second round. There are essentially 8-9 teams with fairly similar chances to win it all (Florida has the best, though, with its #1 seed and draw--well earned, I say!). Beyond those, I would deny that anyone else has a chance: they just weren't consistent enough. Predicting results among teams rated 14-51 in the tourney will be total chaos. This already emerged during "Championship Week", and caused a lot of the wild, Brownian movements of The Bubble.
In basketball, the NCAA has done a good job of pushing that monster all the way down to around 45th place (where the last of the 34 at-large teams would rank). Compare that to their miserable flailing in football (due to the difficulties of scheduling multiple games for such large teams), where the crunch seems to happen around #7.
"Welcome Home, Don--And Don't Ever Go Back!"
I consider Jeff Haas a friend, but I have to disagree with his recommendations-- see http://us2.newsmemory.com/crawler/pma_index4/taosnews/dar_33/cd_20070222/What-to-say-to-Rumsfeld--and-why-say-it.htm--on how to deal with unexpected encounters with former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Haas raises the hypothetical (probably sparked by a real-life sighting): If we see him, say on the ski slopes, how should we treat him?
To Jeff Haas, we should confront him as a war criminal, a destroyer of innocent lives and trusted volunteers, a man who has made a wreckage of our force readiness, who has defended coercive treatment of prisoners and denial of civil liberties.
Others to whom I've spoken argue for the slightly different treatment of ostracism. Let him feel the hostility, expressed through shunning of normal human consideration. Banish him, as best we can, and send him on his way.
I feel differently. Things have improved mightily in this nation since the November elections, in terms of the mood of the public, and even the quality of discourse. It is, of course, no accident Rumsfeld was finally fired the day after the Republicans' election day debacle--one would think he was occupying Karl Rove's province--electoral hijinks--instead of occupying Iraq and the other zones directly afflicted by GWOT. No, the electoral defeat finally provided sufficient real-world proof of his complete and total failure--Bush's general one, and Rumsfeld's specific one in Iraq.
I was never one to climb on the "Fire Rumsfeld" bandwagon. His firing would be mere scapgoating, I realized, and we see that in the actual fact. The real point of my argument was that his dismissal would come, in due time, with the definitive collapse of the forces of Bushism, of which he was as central to the Bushite proposition as Dubya himself.
So, the odd thing about having Rumsfeld around here in Taos is that Bushites can still be found on the political battlefront in Washington, although retreating as fast as their lame little waddling feet can trot. This awkward period will continue for another twenty-two months. Although the pragmatic thrust of current maneuvers (co-opting McCain on Iraq, co-opting Baker-Hamilton and participating in talks with Syria and Iran, the surprise agreement with North Korea) suggest the Bushites are not looking for more trouble (like trying to deal with Israel-Palestine, for instance), they are still capable of great mischief.
Here in Taos, Rumsfeld has the least possible chance of influencing events in the world at large. Yes, it would be better if he were in a Saddamesque spider hole, electronically monitored. I think this is our opportunity to show ourselves to be better than he. Confronted with the defeated, boxed-in, but unapologetic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, he chose to attack that caged, but untranquilized, beast, as animal handlers around the world cringed at the faulty technique.
The worst outcome would be for Rumsfeld's advice or counsel to be sought once again in Washington. Undoubtedly he and Cheney share an irredentist urge to somehow get a changed outcome, away from this one of electoral defeat, repudiation of their theories, and the world moving on without them.
I say that we should sacrifice, give him shelter, and make sure he never raises his neocon profile in public again. We only shout him down if he stands up to speak to us.
To Jeff Haas, we should confront him as a war criminal, a destroyer of innocent lives and trusted volunteers, a man who has made a wreckage of our force readiness, who has defended coercive treatment of prisoners and denial of civil liberties.
Others to whom I've spoken argue for the slightly different treatment of ostracism. Let him feel the hostility, expressed through shunning of normal human consideration. Banish him, as best we can, and send him on his way.
I feel differently. Things have improved mightily in this nation since the November elections, in terms of the mood of the public, and even the quality of discourse. It is, of course, no accident Rumsfeld was finally fired the day after the Republicans' election day debacle--one would think he was occupying Karl Rove's province--electoral hijinks--instead of occupying Iraq and the other zones directly afflicted by GWOT. No, the electoral defeat finally provided sufficient real-world proof of his complete and total failure--Bush's general one, and Rumsfeld's specific one in Iraq.
I was never one to climb on the "Fire Rumsfeld" bandwagon. His firing would be mere scapgoating, I realized, and we see that in the actual fact. The real point of my argument was that his dismissal would come, in due time, with the definitive collapse of the forces of Bushism, of which he was as central to the Bushite proposition as Dubya himself.
So, the odd thing about having Rumsfeld around here in Taos is that Bushites can still be found on the political battlefront in Washington, although retreating as fast as their lame little waddling feet can trot. This awkward period will continue for another twenty-two months. Although the pragmatic thrust of current maneuvers (co-opting McCain on Iraq, co-opting Baker-Hamilton and participating in talks with Syria and Iran, the surprise agreement with North Korea) suggest the Bushites are not looking for more trouble (like trying to deal with Israel-Palestine, for instance), they are still capable of great mischief.
Here in Taos, Rumsfeld has the least possible chance of influencing events in the world at large. Yes, it would be better if he were in a Saddamesque spider hole, electronically monitored. I think this is our opportunity to show ourselves to be better than he. Confronted with the defeated, boxed-in, but unapologetic Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, he chose to attack that caged, but untranquilized, beast, as animal handlers around the world cringed at the faulty technique.
The worst outcome would be for Rumsfeld's advice or counsel to be sought once again in Washington. Undoubtedly he and Cheney share an irredentist urge to somehow get a changed outcome, away from this one of electoral defeat, repudiation of their theories, and the world moving on without them.
I say that we should sacrifice, give him shelter, and make sure he never raises his neocon profile in public again. We only shout him down if he stands up to speak to us.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Big Ticket
Much has happened since my last stab at the Democratic nomination forecast. This thing about 20-25 states having a primary the same day, including most of the big ones: I dig it, although I think ideally the date would come a couple of months later. Perhaps once this thing gets established, it'll be able to shift later--it's just the dynamic of not being after everyone else that's making this thing happen, and happen so early in the season.
From a strategy and tactics point of view, it changes things considerably. The first four contests remain as they were, but they gain even more importance. The way the primaries have run (since 1972), there develops an inevitable momentum, and buyer's remorse creeps in. This event could conceivably have a different, completely unintended pattern: a split decision, and a close contest following.
Like a buttery stew, 2008 Candidate soup has clarified and then congealed, except for the continuing suggestions that Gore might enter at some point. The big news has been the announcement and continuous rise of Obama. BHO has captured the best terrain on Iraq--don't blame me, I was right all along--and it looks like he's made a serious down payment on the hearts of the African-American community.
Far from being taken for granted, Before Obama there appeared the prospect of an interesting battle for the black vote between Edwards, who had all the right positions, was a genuine Southerner for the key South Carolina contest, and Clinton, who had justly inherited the strong bond her husband held (no, not marriage). Now, it looks as though at least half of African-Americans will gravitate naturally towards Obama as they become convinced that he is, for all the complexity of his background, one of them. That's about 20% of the national Democratic primary vote for Obama, right there.
He's been winning points from Clinton up to now, but in the next, more difficult phase, he will need to gain at the expense of Edwards and the 15% or so (national Dems) of would-be Gore supporters. I see his support among the other two-thirds of Democratic primary voters, the white and Hispanic Democrats, rising to about 30% in this long buildup phase. That brings him to just under 40%; that's where I expect his poll support to plateau.
That's enough to win, depending on the strength and number of other serious contenders. Right now, I'd say there are two, besides Clinton and Obama: Edwards and Bill Richardson. Richardson could well take a substantial share of Hispanic voters, especially out West, which could put him in an interesting role if things should break fairly evenly on Super Tuesday. Even though he's clearly worked on his policies, paying his dues, and honing his message, Edwards would seem to have a tough time making it all the way to winning the nomination, being boxed in by more moderate candidates who attract women and blacks even more than he. Obama could even win over some of the bar community! Dodd and Biden don't look to me to have much chance.
My assumption is that only these four, then, will make it through the qualifiers, the four points of the geographical diamond the DNC has set up: first, the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and then the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Winning three of these should set up inevitable momentum for the Unofficial National Primary, and for big, neutral-territory California, so a strategic win in the early round--3 or 4 wins out of 4--should allow the nominee to emerge immediately from super Tuesday. A tactical win would be two first-place and two second-place finishes from the first four: the results that should then emerge from Big Ticket Day would bring things near clinching. This assumes that one of the other candidates can break through to a second-place finish in at least one of the first four.
On the contrary, though, I see the story line as follows: narrow wins for Clinton (in the 40% range) in both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses; Obama narrowly second in each, over Richardson in NV and over Edwards in Iowa. Obama wins in New Hampshire, narrowly over Clinton, and then more clearly in South Carolina, over Edwards. Having split all but one of the four first-and-second-places between them, Clinton and Obama are at about 40% each going into super Tuesday, with others taking the remaining 20%. On The Big Day, and afterwards, if necessary, Clinton tends to win the open primaries and caucuses, Obama where only Democrats vote. As I suggested before, California could be decisive in a close two-way race.
My greatest concern is if something happens to Obama during the campaign a la Bobby Kennedy in '68.
I'd rate the odds now as: Clinton 50%, Obama 40%, Others (including the normally long-shot possibility of a convention not yet decided for a nominee) 10%.
And the Mezzanine Ticket
With regard to the Republican race, my October projection in the case of a Democratic Victory in '06 was:
Giuliani/Pataki/Romney 25%; McCain 40%; anti-Bushite Right-winger 35%.
The absence of any dominant force among anti-Bushite Right-wingers thus far has probably eased that group's chances of winning down to about 25%--but it's still real. (As I've said, I see Gingrich as the most likely claimant to the mantle).
McCain came out of the election as the clear favorite, as I had been thinking, but he has been busy looking old and flustered, having his iconoclastic Iraq war policy co-opted unexpectedly by the President, and having his policy successes disintegrate. His chances still remain at least 30-35%, though.
Giuliani's chances I would rate just lower than McCain's, Romney's at no more than 5%, and there's still a 5% someone else (besides Newt) could sweep down and claim this nomination.
At this point, none of the candidates are worthy of consideration in a head-to-head with any of the major Democratic candidates (or even the minor ones). That will be different if Chuck Hagel enters.
From a strategy and tactics point of view, it changes things considerably. The first four contests remain as they were, but they gain even more importance. The way the primaries have run (since 1972), there develops an inevitable momentum, and buyer's remorse creeps in. This event could conceivably have a different, completely unintended pattern: a split decision, and a close contest following.
Like a buttery stew, 2008 Candidate soup has clarified and then congealed, except for the continuing suggestions that Gore might enter at some point. The big news has been the announcement and continuous rise of Obama. BHO has captured the best terrain on Iraq--don't blame me, I was right all along--and it looks like he's made a serious down payment on the hearts of the African-American community.
Far from being taken for granted, Before Obama there appeared the prospect of an interesting battle for the black vote between Edwards, who had all the right positions, was a genuine Southerner for the key South Carolina contest, and Clinton, who had justly inherited the strong bond her husband held (no, not marriage). Now, it looks as though at least half of African-Americans will gravitate naturally towards Obama as they become convinced that he is, for all the complexity of his background, one of them. That's about 20% of the national Democratic primary vote for Obama, right there.
He's been winning points from Clinton up to now, but in the next, more difficult phase, he will need to gain at the expense of Edwards and the 15% or so (national Dems) of would-be Gore supporters. I see his support among the other two-thirds of Democratic primary voters, the white and Hispanic Democrats, rising to about 30% in this long buildup phase. That brings him to just under 40%; that's where I expect his poll support to plateau.
That's enough to win, depending on the strength and number of other serious contenders. Right now, I'd say there are two, besides Clinton and Obama: Edwards and Bill Richardson. Richardson could well take a substantial share of Hispanic voters, especially out West, which could put him in an interesting role if things should break fairly evenly on Super Tuesday. Even though he's clearly worked on his policies, paying his dues, and honing his message, Edwards would seem to have a tough time making it all the way to winning the nomination, being boxed in by more moderate candidates who attract women and blacks even more than he. Obama could even win over some of the bar community! Dodd and Biden don't look to me to have much chance.
My assumption is that only these four, then, will make it through the qualifiers, the four points of the geographical diamond the DNC has set up: first, the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and then the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. Winning three of these should set up inevitable momentum for the Unofficial National Primary, and for big, neutral-territory California, so a strategic win in the early round--3 or 4 wins out of 4--should allow the nominee to emerge immediately from super Tuesday. A tactical win would be two first-place and two second-place finishes from the first four: the results that should then emerge from Big Ticket Day would bring things near clinching. This assumes that one of the other candidates can break through to a second-place finish in at least one of the first four.
On the contrary, though, I see the story line as follows: narrow wins for Clinton (in the 40% range) in both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses; Obama narrowly second in each, over Richardson in NV and over Edwards in Iowa. Obama wins in New Hampshire, narrowly over Clinton, and then more clearly in South Carolina, over Edwards. Having split all but one of the four first-and-second-places between them, Clinton and Obama are at about 40% each going into super Tuesday, with others taking the remaining 20%. On The Big Day, and afterwards, if necessary, Clinton tends to win the open primaries and caucuses, Obama where only Democrats vote. As I suggested before, California could be decisive in a close two-way race.
My greatest concern is if something happens to Obama during the campaign a la Bobby Kennedy in '68.
I'd rate the odds now as: Clinton 50%, Obama 40%, Others (including the normally long-shot possibility of a convention not yet decided for a nominee) 10%.
And the Mezzanine Ticket
With regard to the Republican race, my October projection in the case of a Democratic Victory in '06 was:
Giuliani/Pataki/Romney 25%; McCain 40%; anti-Bushite Right-winger 35%.
The absence of any dominant force among anti-Bushite Right-wingers thus far has probably eased that group's chances of winning down to about 25%--but it's still real. (As I've said, I see Gingrich as the most likely claimant to the mantle).
McCain came out of the election as the clear favorite, as I had been thinking, but he has been busy looking old and flustered, having his iconoclastic Iraq war policy co-opted unexpectedly by the President, and having his policy successes disintegrate. His chances still remain at least 30-35%, though.
Giuliani's chances I would rate just lower than McCain's, Romney's at no more than 5%, and there's still a 5% someone else (besides Newt) could sweep down and claim this nomination.
At this point, none of the candidates are worthy of consideration in a head-to-head with any of the major Democratic candidates (or even the minor ones). That will be different if Chuck Hagel enters.
Monday, March 05, 2007
GOP Handicap: Sent to CQ Quarterly
McCain-Feingold will fade to insignificance shortly, along with Presidential election financing. Too much is at stake in 2008 to allow meaningful controls. Already the fundraising is insane, and there is no election of significance in 2007.
McCain's 2008 candidacy has been fatally crippled by Dubya's unexpected selection of McCain's own preferred strategy. Giuliani can not be excluded in an extraordinary circumstance such as this election, but it would be the first such nomination from the Republicans since Willkie in 1940. Romney is a typical haircut candidate of the type we know too well.
The right is waiting to be scooped up by Gingrich, who pretends to be waiting for someone to ask him to run. Since no one will, he will decide on his own to do so shortly, which will frame what could be a very close 3-way contest (McCain-Giuliani-Gingrich).
McCain's 2008 candidacy has been fatally crippled by Dubya's unexpected selection of McCain's own preferred strategy. Giuliani can not be excluded in an extraordinary circumstance such as this election, but it would be the first such nomination from the Republicans since Willkie in 1940. Romney is a typical haircut candidate of the type we know too well.
The right is waiting to be scooped up by Gingrich, who pretends to be waiting for someone to ask him to run. Since no one will, he will decide on his own to do so shortly, which will frame what could be a very close 3-way contest (McCain-Giuliani-Gingrich).
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Inspired by Vanity Fair: M-M 2:0
Had to give up on this one when I misplaced my copy. Seriously. It had some very clever stuff in it, but so hard to find!
This issue of ours will tail along with the current (March) issue of Vanity Fair. Since it'll be March soon, VF in their wisdom had very little in its "Annual Hollywood Issue", neither preview nor recap. Clever fellows--after all, they own Oscar Night in Hollywood.
More grist for the emill, they might say (except I just did, first).
This issue lives up to whatever is promised by being a "Collector's Edition"--perhaps just because as it says, after the dot, "Our Biggest Issue Ever!" And thus, the biggest issue for any NY mag not purely a fashion book, or something. Who cares? The point is, this issue delivers.
From the viewpoint of our Common-sense Consumer, the Real Question is whether subscription to this, the most elevated of gossip magazines, makes sense. This one's $4.95, and all those cards that drop out from inside the issue offer "12 Issues, $15". Thus, if there were anything more than three decent (news-stand-price-worthy) issues in a year, subscription would be valuable. It should be a slam dunk.
Thing is, it's not. VF produces a high percentage of totally worthless rag content. They'll milk this issue (and the Oscar-night Morton's party) for three months of throwaway effort.
The first 121 pages of the VF Collector's Edition issue of March, 2007
29 pages of Ads to start out, for VF, is hardly excessive. Notable Scarlett, Angie.
one page of the table of contents
15 pages of ads
one more page of table of contents
19 pages of ads
third page of table of contents
8 pages of Calvin jeans ads
1 page of Vanity Fair auto-promotion
20 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
5 pages of ads
Vanity Fair's masthead (page number 102 by both our counts)
4 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
a mere 2 pages of ads
a second masthead page--this one corporate
12 pages of ads
What's to say of all this? It's so socially useful, it actually keeps the money flowing. Kate Moss count down (finally!) from previous months. I detect a healthy trend toward using offbeat celebrities, rather than models, as mannequins. Good on you.
Graydon Carter's intro to the issue (page 122):
This guy, who's become a celebrity as the impresario of Oscar night, is an editor who leaves his point of view out there for all to see. Here he points out how this issue goes deep into both worlds--"real and reel". He's got a point, but the virtual/fantasy/entertainment/sports/gossip world of deeds that are not real has breadth that goes far beyond movies. This consensual hallucination universe now rivals the dream world and the real world for compelling story lines, excitement, and share of audience attention span. These three spheres of mutual lack of influence govern our lives in the 21st century.
25 pages more of ads, mixed in with three pages of profiles of this month's Contributors
The Big Shoot--Annie Leibovitz talking about making her VF cover--three pages of that, mixed with one more page of other VF self-promotion and 20 pages more of ads
page 174--Letters to the editor (six pages) mixed with 17 pages of ads. As I suggested, the last issue was a weak one, so the letters are pretty uninspired. It seems they get a lot, though, every month.
FanFair--31 days in the life of the culture--also 31 pages. Of which, 17 pages of ads. Most notable the Dior j'adore perfume ad in which Charlize Theron is pulling down (!) her strapless dress and apparently taking off her right dangly earring. The most important pages in this section are always Hot Type and Hot Tracks, which feature one-sentence reviews of dozens of new books and recordings. It's way too much, but it can give a tipoff to something new you might want, and tons of grist for the emills. The rest of FanFair is basically fluff, but with a nice portrait under "Beauty" of beautiful Aerin Lauder, and the "Planetarium" horoscope section is worth scanning for the portraits of celebrities (always different, always trendy ones) it shows under each sign.
page 220--James Wolcott. Finally, the issue, this one, seriously begins.
This issue of ours will tail along with the current (March) issue of Vanity Fair. Since it'll be March soon, VF in their wisdom had very little in its "Annual Hollywood Issue", neither preview nor recap. Clever fellows--after all, they own Oscar Night in Hollywood.
More grist for the emill, they might say (except I just did, first).
This issue lives up to whatever is promised by being a "Collector's Edition"--perhaps just because as it says, after the dot, "Our Biggest Issue Ever!" And thus, the biggest issue for any NY mag not purely a fashion book, or something. Who cares? The point is, this issue delivers.
From the viewpoint of our Common-sense Consumer, the Real Question is whether subscription to this, the most elevated of gossip magazines, makes sense. This one's $4.95, and all those cards that drop out from inside the issue offer "12 Issues, $15". Thus, if there were anything more than three decent (news-stand-price-worthy) issues in a year, subscription would be valuable. It should be a slam dunk.
Thing is, it's not. VF produces a high percentage of totally worthless rag content. They'll milk this issue (and the Oscar-night Morton's party) for three months of throwaway effort.
Compared to them, our Mid-Monthly performance last year, with 7 legitimate submissions (OK, somewhere between 4 and 6) is a much better deal. Even if the timing was a bit erratic.
The first 121 pages of the VF Collector's Edition issue of March, 2007
29 pages of Ads to start out, for VF, is hardly excessive. Notable Scarlett, Angie.
one page of the table of contents
15 pages of ads
one more page of table of contents
19 pages of ads
third page of table of contents
8 pages of Calvin jeans ads
1 page of Vanity Fair auto-promotion
20 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
5 pages of ads
Vanity Fair's masthead (page number 102 by both our counts)
4 pages of ads
1 more page of VF auto-promotion
a mere 2 pages of ads
a second masthead page--this one corporate
12 pages of ads
What's to say of all this? It's so socially useful, it actually keeps the money flowing. Kate Moss count down (finally!) from previous months. I detect a healthy trend toward using offbeat celebrities, rather than models, as mannequins. Good on you.
Graydon Carter's intro to the issue (page 122):
This guy, who's become a celebrity as the impresario of Oscar night, is an editor who leaves his point of view out there for all to see. Here he points out how this issue goes deep into both worlds--"real and reel". He's got a point, but the virtual/fantasy/entertainment/sports/gossip world of deeds that are not real has breadth that goes far beyond movies. This consensual hallucination universe now rivals the dream world and the real world for compelling story lines, excitement, and share of audience attention span. These three spheres of mutual lack of influence govern our lives in the 21st century.
25 pages more of ads, mixed in with three pages of profiles of this month's Contributors
The Big Shoot--Annie Leibovitz talking about making her VF cover--three pages of that, mixed with one more page of other VF self-promotion and 20 pages more of ads
page 174--Letters to the editor (six pages) mixed with 17 pages of ads. As I suggested, the last issue was a weak one, so the letters are pretty uninspired. It seems they get a lot, though, every month.
FanFair--31 days in the life of the culture--also 31 pages. Of which, 17 pages of ads. Most notable the Dior j'adore perfume ad in which Charlize Theron is pulling down (!) her strapless dress and apparently taking off her right dangly earring. The most important pages in this section are always Hot Type and Hot Tracks, which feature one-sentence reviews of dozens of new books and recordings. It's way too much, but it can give a tipoff to something new you might want, and tons of grist for the emills. The rest of FanFair is basically fluff, but with a nice portrait under "Beauty" of beautiful Aerin Lauder, and the "Planetarium" horoscope section is worth scanning for the portraits of celebrities (always different, always trendy ones) it shows under each sign.
page 220--James Wolcott. Finally, the issue, this one, seriously begins.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Pre-Oscars: The Mexican Wave
We're going to the Oscar night gala here at Shadows: Bar and Grill. Black tie, but not a bow (can't be found)--you think a bolo might work? I'm going to try for a table that has a direct line of sight both to the front door, and to the street (opposite each other)--that way I'm in a good strategic position wherever a ruckus may start. Is this the "Mexican wave" to which my title refers? I sincerely hope not.
But seriously, I'm not in a good position to comment on the Oscars' races this year. The first thing I want to say is, IT'S NOT ALL MY FAULT! The intersection of Oscar-worthy and commercial didn't happen this year, not even for "Dreamgirls". (OK, maybe for "Monster House", but we'll see if it wins best animated.) "Last King of Scotland" hasn't arrived, "Notes on a Scandal" just this weekend, "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Pan's Labyrinth" just a week ago. So, I haven't seen any of the nominees for Best Actress or Best Actor. Some is definitely my fault; I expect to catch "Letters" in the big screen, and to find the videos for "Queen" and "Little Miss Sunshine" over the next couple of weeks).
I did make it a point to see all three of the quality movies by the Mexican directors: "Children of Men", "Babel", and "El Laberinto del Fauno". I would say that each is valuable, but I give a clear nod to "El Laberinto del Fauno" ("Pan's Labyrinth" is the somewhat inaccurate translation used to market the movie; I don't think the faun ever gives a name.) I found the story well thought through, the characters sharp and memorable, the visual elements exciting.
With regard to "Babel", I thought a third of it--the wild scenes with the couple's kid and their housekeeper on their journey across to Mexico and their return--was excellent, the main third--the scenes in Morocco with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and the local family whose youngsters accidentally shot her--unconvincing, and a third--the scenes in Japan with the crazed mute girl--superfluous.
As for "Children of Men", I think the execution of the story was superb (Clive Owen, as always, slays; the setting in England was well chosen), but the story premise was flimsy. I imagine the germination of the story to be a simple thought--"The Miracle of Childbirth". Now imagine a world in which the simple fact of a child's birth would actually be considered miraculous. Now contrive some story to make that world a reality--don't worry how plausible.
I see "El Laberinto" possibly winning three Oscars, which will put it near the top, just behind "Dreamgirls", (which is sure to win a couple for sound/music, and probably one for each of the supporting actor/actress categories). I think "The Departed" will win for Scorsese, and possibly for Best Picture (in an upset over "Babel") and best adapted screenplay. If I'm right, "Babel" will end up losing out frequently (splitting the vote in Best Supporting Actress, when Adriana Barranza should win), and "Queen" will basically be limited to wins for Helen Mirren, and possibly an upset win for Original Screenplay.
"Costume Design" would seem to be an early indicator to me: if it goes to "Dreamgirls" or "Queen", that film could have a surge going (to use a word with currency). Otherwise, "Curse of the Golden Flower" would mean a broad distribution of awards, as I've suggested here.
I see 2006 being, like 1999, basically a writer's year. A fairly weak one for major releases, but some interesting plot twisting going on.
But seriously, I'm not in a good position to comment on the Oscars' races this year. The first thing I want to say is, IT'S NOT ALL MY FAULT! The intersection of Oscar-worthy and commercial didn't happen this year, not even for "Dreamgirls". (OK, maybe for "Monster House", but we'll see if it wins best animated.) "Last King of Scotland" hasn't arrived, "Notes on a Scandal" just this weekend, "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Pan's Labyrinth" just a week ago. So, I haven't seen any of the nominees for Best Actress or Best Actor. Some is definitely my fault; I expect to catch "Letters" in the big screen, and to find the videos for "Queen" and "Little Miss Sunshine" over the next couple of weeks).
I did make it a point to see all three of the quality movies by the Mexican directors: "Children of Men", "Babel", and "El Laberinto del Fauno". I would say that each is valuable, but I give a clear nod to "El Laberinto del Fauno" ("Pan's Labyrinth" is the somewhat inaccurate translation used to market the movie; I don't think the faun ever gives a name.) I found the story well thought through, the characters sharp and memorable, the visual elements exciting.
With regard to "Babel", I thought a third of it--the wild scenes with the couple's kid and their housekeeper on their journey across to Mexico and their return--was excellent, the main third--the scenes in Morocco with Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and the local family whose youngsters accidentally shot her--unconvincing, and a third--the scenes in Japan with the crazed mute girl--superfluous.
As for "Children of Men", I think the execution of the story was superb (Clive Owen, as always, slays; the setting in England was well chosen), but the story premise was flimsy. I imagine the germination of the story to be a simple thought--"The Miracle of Childbirth". Now imagine a world in which the simple fact of a child's birth would actually be considered miraculous. Now contrive some story to make that world a reality--don't worry how plausible.
I see "El Laberinto" possibly winning three Oscars, which will put it near the top, just behind "Dreamgirls", (which is sure to win a couple for sound/music, and probably one for each of the supporting actor/actress categories). I think "The Departed" will win for Scorsese, and possibly for Best Picture (in an upset over "Babel") and best adapted screenplay. If I'm right, "Babel" will end up losing out frequently (splitting the vote in Best Supporting Actress, when Adriana Barranza should win), and "Queen" will basically be limited to wins for Helen Mirren, and possibly an upset win for Original Screenplay.
"Costume Design" would seem to be an early indicator to me: if it goes to "Dreamgirls" or "Queen", that film could have a surge going (to use a word with currency). Otherwise, "Curse of the Golden Flower" would mean a broad distribution of awards, as I've suggested here.
I see 2006 being, like 1999, basically a writer's year. A fairly weak one for major releases, but some interesting plot twisting going on.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
GWOT: Other Fronts than the Central One
...that being Washington, D.C.
I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.
Afghanistan
After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.
The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.
Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.
One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.
The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.
Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.
This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.
Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.
It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.
It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.
Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.
The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".
This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.
North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.
As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.
As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.
I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!
SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!
Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.
Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.
It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.
There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.
I have heard GWOT referred to as World War III, or as World War IV (if you count the Cold War as III). I think we should avoid the Roman numeral, and globalizing our wars. We should remember the example of the NFL and the Super Bowl: I and II went according to form, but III upset everything.
Afghanistan
After too many hours of the Iraq debate from the House, C-Span2 happened to show something far more interesting and critical: a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan.
The key witness in the hearing was Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, now Asst. Director of NATO's Afghanistan Commission, previously Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. It was striking how good this guy was, and he was remarkably confident--if he got the $4.8 billion and additional 5,000 forces that he was before the Senate to ensure--that this year NATO, rather than the Taliban, would have the offensive.
Many other aspects of the Afghanistan campaign were disclosed, which add up to a remarkable contrast with the Iraq one in so many ways:
1) the sense that the truth is being told to us;
2) the fact of cooperation from other nations (though it is insufficient from Europe);
3) ability to fulfill a complex mission (for example, there is a U.S. force that fights under NATO, and there is one that fights under the U.S. flag);
4) the seeming lack of internal dispute or controversy within U.S. government representatives.
5) the lack of economic opportunity in Afghanistan, under the best of circumstances. Eikenberry felt the situation though was relatively good for the Afghanis, though, compared to the continuing disaster of the previous 25 years.
One thing that was like in Iraq, as Eikenberry and Co. told it, was the rising reliability of the army and the poor reliability of the police.
The most interesting questioning regarded the border with Pakistan and cooperation with Pakistani forces--very wisely, Senators were feeling out the idea of crossing the border into the al-Qaeda havens in North Waziristan, where Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has backed off and agreed to a truce.
Eikenberry does not criticize Musharraf but simply points out that the truce has not worked. He complimented the Pakistani border people for their tactical cooperation. In classified session, he will confirm that it is the secret service of Pakistan where we must obtain better results, as they subtly provide support to the Taliban in Pakistan (and among whom should be found key leaders of al-Qaeda) outside the Afghan borders in these areas beyond Pakistani national control.
This is quite intricate and complex stuff. I would not be surprised to see a paratrooper assault on certain areas within Pakistan's borders before Bush departs. In this case one could only hope for a swift victory and withdrawal, followed by heavy indebtedness to Musharraf--whether we like it or not, and going beyond the near-certain revolt that would follow. It could well be another Shah of Iran type situation; we are that unpopular.
Iran
Hoo boy, all the elements are there: the fleet, air force, cruise missiles, a grand quantity of targets relating to nuclear labs "and their support facilities", a need to distract, unfinished business, and if those were not enough, the probable next prime minister of Israel (after Olmert gets out of the way, already) Benyamin Netanyahu egging us on. The "subject matter experts" tell us that they are advising the Deciders to go with "just an all-out aircraft and missile strike"; no land war this time. Thanks for the small favors, teste merdose.
It's got to be tough for the Bushites not to pull the trigger, dare Congress to do anything about it, and send things spiraling down even further. I'm thinking, though, that they will not. Instead, they will go down the sanctions road--with frequent bullying--in the hope that the pressure will force Ahmadinejad out. It won't, but I think the mullahs will opt for someone else next time around, if that's any consolation to the Bushites.
It should be; I don't think Iran will get around to testing a bomb during the remaining year's of Ahmadinejad's term, and he won't get another.
Unlike the North Koreans, who have absolutely no scruples and little else besides the bomb, the Iranians have lots of assets and no bomb. There won't be any deals anytime soon, either.
The "assisting the terrorists" bit about Iran and the Shiites is so much Bushism; it won't work. The simple fact that 92% of casualties to US forces is attributed to Sunni forces kind of puts that smelly sea creature in the box labeled "red herring".
This is a war we can dodge, and one that we must postpone past January, 2009 at all costs. If we can do that, there is no reason why we should have war.
North Korea - I give the US team some credit here. This is our most imminent threat, and our guys bit the bullet and made a deal. Kudos to Russia, and especially to China, for signing on. I think it was the Chinese role to send a discreet signal to these bozos, at the right time, that this was the most they were going to get. As for South Korea, they are studying the history of Germany in the 1990's very closely: they have a historic opportunity coming, and they'd like to get it right. Japan's position in the new government is incoherent: they hate the deal and don't want to contribute to it, but they agreed to it.
As a strategy, the deal is poor, and that gives our right-wing extremists (like John Bolton) a chance to denounce it. Good riddance to bad advice, and thank you Sen. Voinovich for vetoing Bolton's butt out of there in the lame-duck session. As an interim vacancy appointment, Bolton, you were an intolerant bore. As a permanent appointee, you would have been a disaster.
As I say, though, it's bad strategy: the international community is letting all these tinhorn dictatorships know that our nonproliferation efforts can be funneled down into a willingness to pay ransom.
I expect that the North Koreans will comply with the terms of this agreement, at least until 2009, then will try to figure out some new way to offend international sensibilities and threaten the peace. This will continue until the regime change, which I would guess is about 10 years away. Bless their hearts!
SCIA--I was absolutely shocked by the report I read in Vanity Fair this month about this shadowy, unknown organization (even though it went public last year), which is making the most hay of any of the Beltway Bandits off GWOT--so much hay, I think there's a real ethanol opportunity if we just mulch and boil down the whole place. I will save further comment for my review of the issue in next month's Mid-Monthly!
Palestine/Israel: The Saudis put in the shoe leather, getting the Damascus head of Hamas and al-Fatah's head Mahmoud Abbas, and literally locking them in the room together in Mecca (check?) and throwing away the key. They produced something, and the incompetent combo of Condi and Sharon-wannabe Ehud Olmert have combined to squander it. Another opportunity to begin to transform GWOT into something winnable lost.
Iraq--anything happening there? If it is, I don't think it's the US' "scourge", no "surge"; really, the correct word for the Baghdad operation is "purge". The idea is to cleanse a few of Sadr's rogue elements while he lies low and lets the "crazy Americans" do their thing.
It would seem that this "thing" is the actual invasion; they're getting some zones that were missed in the process of going after Saddam and the Baathist irredentists. Like much of the first invasion, this one will not be strongly opposed, but there will be some legitimate fighting, and there will be some success. These will be temporary, but it should give cover for some "diminution" in six months or so.
There's still a legitimate fight against a ferocious enemy force in Anbar province, and beyond that, Syria is a potential target for a variety of reasons. Syria's regime is a lot like Saddam's old one, though more crafty, and it seems like the logical place for Iraq's chaos to spill over, especially as the Shiites consolidate their control in Iraq. Even if the Bushites (or their successors) don't start trouble, and the Israelis don't start trouble, Syria is a likely candidate for strife.
Notes from the Iraq Debate
The Senate was smart to have punted on the non-binding res. For now--their day for this circus sideshow may still come.
Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.
Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.
It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.
A few comments on the individual speeches:
David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.
A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.
This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.
Still, watching this debate is a good opportunity to showcase the House: the new Congress, the new Congressmen, the players for foreign and military affairs.
Right now, the way it's working is very disciplined, controlled straight from the Majority leadership. This is not unreasonable since the discussion is still primarily one for electoral advantage. When real legislation comes forward there will be a test of whether they learned how to play the game while being abused in the minority, or whether, as so often occurs in society, the abused become abusers.
It's also, a good opportunity to smack 3-D in the face for his obduracy. For that reason, I expect few Republican defections and very close to a party-line vote in the House.
A few comments on the individual speeches:
David Kildee--MI-5; best analysis of how we got here. The "I had this one right all along" that some have taken is surely the only stance on this farce that shows a respectable level of intelligence (and thus, worthy of having their words heard this time). Unfortunately, there are only a few dozen who can take it, and, in general, the more nuanced, interesting speeches come from those who voted for initial authorization in October '02.
David Obey--WI (Appropriations Chairman); best summation of what we should do. (Inform the Shiites that they must agree to amend the Constitution to form a confederation and divide up the oil money, or we take our bats and balls and leave.)
Steve Pearce--NM-2; quoted Thomas Jefferson on the evils of Islam. Represents the lunatic fringe on the right, but in his frank acceptance of that role has some interesting commentary on the motives of the left.
Heather Wilson--NM-1; Breaking down, went for the "but what about the body armor for those people being sent over now?" melodramatic intentional misreading of the bill as a way to dodge.
Adm. Joe Sestak, PA; I've been suprised to see that he's too shy! He let them cut him off, and didn't even ask for additional time.
A lot of martial talk, some of it very vaguely related to the debate. It reminds me that one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion was to find an outlet for Americans' urge for revenge against radical jihadists.
This particular debate seems to be very frustrating to the Republicans, some of whom are looking to express their displeasure with Bushite strategy, though this doesn't look a likely vehicle (harmless though it is). I'm very sympathetic to any Republicans who truly wanted to contribute to a modification of Iraq war policy through House legislation, but surely they should have known better than to expect something like that.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Why Don't We Just Pass a Resolution to Stop the War?
The last posting didn't seem to stop this slow-motion train wreck on national Iraq War policy from continuing, so we'll try again:
While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.
The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.
The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.
Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.
The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.
The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.
1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.
2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.
While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.
The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.
The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.
Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.
The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.
The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.
1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.
2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
