Alfred, Lord Hobbs

Taos suffered a great loss last Friday when our dear friend Alfred Hobbs passed away. He was 83 and had been in poor health for a few months, basically since his return a few months ago from his final round-the-world trip.

What made Alfred so special was his spirit and zest for life; it drew people of all kinds to him, and he was always welcoming, graceful and tolerant. The title above is a bit of a play on words on the poet Tennyson; Alfred in one sense was hardly lordly, being down-to-earth and unpretentious, but he was a fine Southern gentleman, chivalrous and noble in behavior (especially with the ladies).

Did I mention that he looked like a cross between Grizzly Adams and Santa Claus (though he did slim down the last few years, he still had that facial aspect, not to mention a long, white beard and a bright red, slightly misshapen nose)?

The Adventure of a Lifetime
Alfred's life was one of a rogue and wanderer, who found his destination here in Taos (though it never erased the wanderlust, which he would exercise periodically to the end of his days).

He basically ran off from his rural North Carolina home and joined the Marines as an underage 17 in 1944. "His war" was not a bad one, in the sense that he was fully credited as a veteran (which came in handy toward the end when he needed major eye surgery), but didn't end up needing to fight. His unit was mobilized in the Pacific and was one of those which would have faced the daunting task of invading Japan, had it not been for the atomic bombs (at least that's the official story).

After the war, he kicked around for a while, then married a Danish woman. Then, together they took a huge, multi-year adventure through Africa and Asia in a '30's-era London taxi (which they converted into a sort of camper). The taxi eventually made it back to Taos and he preserved it, on blocks, until the present (it's now in the custody of his son in upstate New York). A documentary movie (working title: "Driven") is planned of the great adventure, and of the last cross-country trip he made in it with his son just last year (details below).

He undertook many more trips (six round-the-world trips in all), but after that expedition he went to live in upstate New York and was studying for a Ph.D. in anthropology when he came to Taos in the late '60's to write his thesis on the New Buffalo hippie commune that had been started near here. The paper was never finished, and he stayed here as his permanent residence thereafter. He worked--mostly as an archeologist on road crews, in case some bones or fossils turned up--but not too much. He kept his lifestyle simple and his costs low.

His Ideas
At one point some six or seven years ago, Alfred remarked to me that he had a number of ideas he wanted to propagate while he still could, but that people didn't listen. So, we had a series of interviews on our back porch: mostly just him, me, some refreshments maybe, and the tape recorder.

As it turned out, most of the 3-4 hours of interviews consist of reminiscences--from his childhood, his military days, his travels--but still I got some idea of what he wanted to get across (also from a public meeting he held 2-3 years later).

To a surprising extent, this very tolerant and progressive person's ideas wouldn't be out of place at a Tea Party conclave (minus all the birther and Muslim and socialism nonsense). Alfred had no faith in politicians or top-down reform; he distrusted government meddling. He was looking for a spontaneous movement of the people--leaders not required--to change the way things are done around here and preserve our liberties.

The fullest elaboration of his thinking would've focused on ideas of education: teaching traditional values in a more-or-less Socratic method, learning how to exchange ideas sincerely, with passion, but respectfully. He did have a sense, which came late, of the supernatural and its involvement in human affairs; that part I mostly never elicited too much detail about.

Alfred's memorial celebration was held August 28 at Anglada's. It was extremely well attended (I'd estimate 250-300 people at its peak), cheerful but not overly so (given the recent loss we still felt acutely), plenty of food, plenty of music (something that Alfred really did not care about all that much). Oh, and necessarily so, for one of Alfred's parties, lots of "buddah" (as he would say).

His absence will leave a void, but it will be filled with memories and inspirational thoughts.

For his formal bio, a great picture, and a reference to the movie--and an appeal for money to help finish it--see:

http://www.riverafuneralhome.com/sitemaker/sites/rivera0/obit.cgi?user=244417Hobbs

Political Trivia

The inanity of this year's political season is beyond belief. I continue to have hope that the American electorate will show some good sense when it finally goes to the polls this November, but there is plenty of reason to worry.

TP: Don't Just Beat It, Wipe It
Conceptually, the idea of renovating the Republican Party through a hostile takeover from its core makes sense and is even somewhat appealing. It was certainly time to throw over the Bushite elements who have spoiled the party's image of competent, limited governance. There was something similarly appealing about the grassroots nature of the movement, to the extent it was not merely Astroturf generated by right-wing media sucking wind in a vacuum.

My only complaint is about the quality of the candidates being promoted by the Tea Party elements and about the quality of their leadership. In terms of the latter: Dick Armey? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck? And the candidates: Sharron Angle? Rand Paul? And these people could actually win?

I endorsed Sarah Palin for the Republican nomination in November, 2008, and I'll stick with that--somehow I can't believe she could ever win, and I do feel that the GOP deserves her as their standard-bearer. It's sad, but I agree with the analysts who perceive that the one who could stop her is Mike Huckabee--if he runs, he either neutralizes her by splitting their shared supporters, or she decides to stick to producing highly-compensated, oil-slick-thin political commentary.

Anti-Obama Fever
What does it mean when a quarter of the population believe President Obama is a Muslim? When only about three-eighths think he's a Christian? Somebody's not paying attention, maybe?

It's perfectly understandable that the Democrats' national fortunes may be sagging this year. For one thing, most independents believe the government works best when control is split between parties. Second, we must expect the governing party's support to suffer when the economy is so weak; so why is there no meaningful debate about revitalizing the economy (extending Bushite tax cuts certainly doesn't qualify, and why would anyone of middle-income or less ever support that idea)?

How can "firing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker" be an attractive campaign slogan when the person proposed to replace her in the job is John Boehner?

As Hillary Clinton once remarked, there is "a vast right-wing conspiracy", and what's got them all conspiring nowadays is the notion that they can demonize President Obama and destroy him with big lies.

Somebody has to step up and say this year's campaign is idiotic, so I guess that's me.

And Now for the Stupid Mosque Debate
(It's the debate stupid.)

Although it is appropriate for opponents of the proposed Islamic center to urge its sponsors to move it, it does not appear there is any legal basis to compel them to move. Anyway, how far away from Ground Zero is far enough to put up a mosque? If, indeed, the proposed Islamic Community Center could be called a mosque...

I would propose that the Islamic center's sponsors announce that the center will have a permanent exhibition on its ground floor which will promote the argument that the atrocities perpetrated not far away were in all ways un-Islamic, contrary to the precepts of the religion. If they would only do that, the moral argument against the center disappears immediately.

If they won't do that, they may still be able to build it (will their financial backers stay the course?), but what will come? Probably permanently continuing demonstrations against the center....

Financing the Recovery

The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Prevention of Self-Immolation Act
I haven't commented on the financial reform legislation as it finally came down the pike. Mostly, it was unobjectionable in the sense that it contains provisions that the banking industry agreed were needed to prevent itself from destroying itself so easily next time.

Think of the banking crisis which caused the Great Crater as being like a person strapping an explosive device to himself, going into a public area, and threatening to blow himself and everyone around to smithereens if the authorities don't come and help him take this thing off.

In that scenario, the new legislation is simply the banks agreeing not to strap explosive devices to themselves anymore, and, if they do, agreeing that the authorities can clear the square of others before they blow themselves up. Sounds OK, but you still wouldn't want such individuals hanging around your kids.

The one thing in the legislation that might put a crimp in the bankers' plans is the new Consumer Financial Practices agency: the banks assumed they could negate the power of that organization from the start, but there's a chance it could still be a problem for them, at least for a short while if President Obama picks Elizabeth Warren for it.

Unfinished Business

I commented at one point that the legislation was too silent on the subject of capital requirements for banks. It's clear now that there was a strategy there--this will be the province of the Bank for International Settlements (a/k/a Basel), and that the rules will be standardized across countries. That's really the only approach that will make sense--otherwise, the US banks would be penalized (or advantaged) vs. banks from other countries. There has been an agreement in principle on the new rules, which will be phased in slowly enough that their impact in restraining lending (requiring higher capital for a given amount of lending, for the most part) will not impede global recovery from the current downturn.

The other big time bomb strapped to public chests out there is Fannie/Freddie (FNMA and FRMC), the government-backed enterprises which insure huge quantities of mortgages, which are losing money hand over fist these days, presenting a potential new bailout issue. It appears to be either bail or jail--letting these organizations fail, or taking away their government backing, would have a catastrophic effect on the weak domestic housing market and simply can't be contemplated at the time.

The solution is pretty straightforward, and I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. It would be called "recapitalization", and it would be quite similar to what was done through a consortium of banks in the '80's, when sovereign Third World debt volumes threatened to sink all the major banks. Here, the healthy loans in Fannie/Freddie (and there are plenty) would require a smaller amount of capital (using the new rules) once the bad loans are stripped off. Fannie/Freddie used to have rules which kept out the bad loans; they degenerated in the final years before the crisis, but not nearly as bad as some others. The bad loans on their books--a relatively small percentage but still a huge quantity--would be reworked, hopefully very creatively, and the effort put into them would eventually limit damage to something much smaller than what current estimates would suggest.

Where is the Love?

Where is the Loan,
You said was mine oh mine
Til the end of time
Was it just a lie
Where is the loan?

This should be a good situation: the banks are sitting on a ton of money; the companies that might borrow it are sitting on their own tons of money (which makes them great candidates for loans); neither banks nor companies can make enough just pussyfooting around with their piles (i.e., Treasury bills and the like).

What's needed is actually a FDR-style National Recovery Act kind of industrial and energy plan which the companies could rally around and put the system's money to work. The problem with this is all the TP hanging around gumming things up, but that problem isn't going away. The challenge of framing targeted investments to get the economy going (gradually) and moving in logical directions to assist our economic future is one that will have to be handled with a great deal of diplomacy. If it is handled properly (for example, "energy independence" to bring the conservatives on board; the promise of easy profits to get the companies falling in line), it can work.

Rot Reversal

I do get involved in some of these online chat/debate/name-calling sessions, though not as often as I used to do. I often do this under my nom de plume, chinshihtang (usually without caps or apostrophes) so if you want to find some of those you can find them searching Google and some other sites (N.Y. Times, Huffington Post, etc.). The ones I cut, paste, and post on this blog are probably about only 25% of those that I get into, but I generally don't get too much more feedback there than here.

So, why do I bother? Good question, and one that I can not answer in so many words except to paraphrase a writing teacher I had once who said, essentially, that if you don't feel compelled to write, you won't.

Anyway, I'd been thinking about a blog posting about our economic mess and found I'd pretty much said what I wanted in this comment dialogue about a posting called "18 Signs America Is Rotting Right Before Our Eyes". That posting itself was a bit of selective reporting drawing huge conclusions from anecdotal information, so as such not a big deal, but I was touched by the comment posted by a sincere guy named "George":

I agree with the "diagnosis," but would like to hear from people who have good ideas on solutions. They could be categorized as follow: (1) Targeted taxes (increases) and targeted tax breaks (reductions). (2) Major cuts in selected domestic programs. (3) Major cuts in selected military programs. (4) Getting more money in the hands of people who will spend it right-away to immediately boost consumer spending - i.e., the lower middle class, the poor, people out-of-work, ect. (5) Means Test" selected entitlement programs (social security, medicare). (6) Eliminate "corporate tax breaks" to companies who outsource jobs overseas, and give tax breaks to companies who increase their payroll and pay a living wage. (7) Renegotiate U.S. taxpayer interest rate to The Federal Reserve. (8) Remove corporate subsidies and introduce real capitalism into the marketplace. (9) Employ cost-benefit analysis to all unnecessary wars and miltary bases.(10) Charge other nations and companies when the U.S. military is used to protect "their" shipping lanes and locations. (11) Promote "workfare" and public works for able-bodied persons receiving pubic assistance. (12) etc.
You get the idea, George.

And here was my response:

I like what you are doing, George, trying to be constructive. I would say immediately that 3), 6), and 8) are great ideas that should be no-brainers but in this constipated political environment are not. 2) sounds good but will not produce the results many expect. 9) doesn't really make sense--if the war is "unnecessary" there would be no cost-benefit analysis that would change that and make it desirable.

I would like to suggest a general category that I don't see: targeted investment in our nation's future. To give an example, highway investment makes sense to a certain extent to keep the economy flowing, but not all highways and bridges need to be kept up, and minor roads returning to gravel may make sense in some cases (remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska?). There should be a strategic assessment of the roads and bridges that are most important. We should be investing in alternative fuels such as natural gas for public transportation, upgrade of rail lines, and research in lower-emission forms of cars and airplanes. We should be investing in upgrading our power grid and providing home electricity inverters so that alternative energy sources will be more practicable. Investment in education is actually on the right track now but should be more strategic in the expenditures.

The macroeconomic debate seems to focus on a point/counter-point between the Keynesians and the supply-siders, neither of which has a good argument to deal with this jobless recovery (a/k/a the shallow ascent portion of The Great Crater). I have plenty of respect for the ideas of deficit spending in a recession, and I do not agree that the stimulus did not "work", in that it stopped a downward spiral, but I think it's clear that we both overspent and overly cut taxes all the way through the lead-in to this economic miasma, so it is almost illogical to expect the same policies to get us out of it.

The high jobless rates we are in are structural in nature and will tend to continue for decades, because this society simply doesn't need to put everyone who wants a job to work in order to produce and consume everything we need or think we need. There is no short-term solution which is really going to work to produce millions of new private-sector jobs, so forget about it, accept the reality, and blame whomever you want.

The key word is "structural": we need to be building a new economic structure suited to our children's and grandchildren's needs--upon that is what it would be worth spending our macroeconomic, legislated (or executively ordered) dollars. I gave a few ideas above.

Baseball View: 2/3 Re-, 1/3 Pre-

Major league baseball teams reach the two-thirds mark of the season (108 of 162 regular-season games) this week, and the principal trade deadline just passed. This is a good time to review the season so far and what remains.

MLB YTD

In my preseason picks, I had a few things right (besides the obvious ones), but there have been some big surprises, as well. Here are the top five unexpected team performances for me, thus far:

1) San Diego Padres--I had them dead last; I was not alone in this. They are over the hump in terms of believing they can win, but that doesn't mean they're in. It looks as though they will have a tough battle down the stretch with the Giants (whom I did see coming; I picked them to win the Wild Card, and if the season ended today, they'd have it).
2) Colorado Rockies--The offsetting error, the team that I picked to win the NL West, is now in fourth place, despite the performance of the most outstanding NL player of the year thus far, pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez. It's not surprising that their pitching, other than Jimenez, has been spotty (or downright poor); the surprising thing has been a relative lack of hitting.
3) Cincinnati Reds--I thought they were a year away from what they have been able to achieve so far this year. They are a great example of the sudden surge in pitching depth; seems like they have a new, young flamethrower emerging every three months (with the flamiest thrower of all, Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman, about ready to emerge). Like the Padres, though, they haven't won anything yet, and they are up against the wiliest veteran team in the league, the Cardinals.
4) Tampa Bay Rays--I am thrilled by their resurgence this year. I had hoped for this; a lot of misfortune to the Botox has contributed to that result.
5) Atlanta Braves--Like the Reds, they came up faster than expected; like Tampa Bay, they've been helped by the ineptness of a key divisional rivals, the Phillies.

Next on the list would be the degree of collapse of the Orioles, which I had thought may be an improving team (it may yet be, but not meaningfully for this year), and the continuing rise of the late-starting Chicago White Sox.

On an individual performance level, there are several surprises, but generally the positive ones (like, for example, Jose Bautista on the Blue Jays, or Rickie Weeks on the Brewers) have not translated into major team success. The one exception I would note is the combo of Vladimir Guerrero, who has had a great season so far for the Texas Rangers (moderately surprising, as he seemed to be in decline the past couple years), and Josh Hamilton; their hitting has been a key component in their developing a large lead in the AL West.

Yet to Come

American League
There are really two races remaining in the AL regular season: 1) the AL Central rematch between Minnesota and Chicago; and 2) the three-way race in the AL East (and for the Wild Card) with New York, Tampa Bay, and Boston. The latter race could realistically be down to two after this weekend, if Boston doesn't hurt the Yanks in their series in New York.

One might say that it doesn't matter whether New York or Tampa Bay wins the division, but I would disagree with that. If the likely scenario unfolds with one winning the AL East--with the best record in the league--and the other the Wild Card, the rules would set the WC against the second best of the division winners, which I would expect to be Texas. Although I picked the Yanks to win the pennant (not much of a stretch, I admit), I would look to a possible first-round matchup with the Rangers as a likely route to getting the Yanks out of the way in the postseason, before they build up a head of steam. So, I do care, and I want TB to take the division. I won't be happy with anything but a Tampa Bay-Texas AL Championship series, in which I now like the Rangers (due to their acquisition of Cliff Lee).

The conventional wisdom is that the ChiSox' surge will continue and push them well past the Twins, but I'm not buying that. I see some weak spots in Chicago's pitching, which I think will lead to a cold streak before long and keep the race close until the end. Still, they are probably the better bet, and I'm willing to pull for them for our President's sake (he's a White Sox backer).

National League
In the National League, every postseason spot is seriously contested, with no sign that the tension will end soon. Late trading moves by most of the contenders will have significant effect on the pennant races, too.

In the East, the Phillies' pickup of Roy Oswalt gives them a reasonable facsimile of last year's postseason star, Cliff Lee, whom they should've kept. That failure still rankles me, and I'm actively rooting against them, for the division and, more critically for me, for the Wild Card. Josh Howard's injury gives me hope for that outcome. The Braves have emerged as a team with a good mix of youths and veterans, with a sense of purpose to win now (Bobby Cox's last year, seems like it's likely to be Chipper Jones' last, and also closer Billy Wagner's, at least according to him, and he should know). I'm moderately confident of the Bravos' ability to hold off Philly, as long as they have no more setbacks to their pitching rotation (the recent loss of Kris Medlen hurts, but another loss would be fatal).

In the NL West, San Francisco has slightly better pitching than San Diego, with similarly anemic team offense. This looks to be a tight race, possibly coming down to a key failure in the Padres' pitching (most likely, on a road trip), or a key hitter on one team or the other (Adrian Gonzalez, say, or Pablo Sandoval or newcomer Pat Burrell on the Giants) either getting real hot, real cold, or injured. The Dodgers and the Rockies have fallen out of the race, but will be playing key games down the stretch against the contenders and are likely spoilers.

In the NL Central, the Cardinals have shored up their pitching with Jake Westbrook, which should help both down the stretch and in the postseason, if they make it. And I would have to say I expect them to get in, and to do well. The Reds' emergence--a good blend of young hitters, young starting pitching arms, and good defense, is the most exciting development in recent years (at least since Tampa Bay's emergence). I fear they might be overmatched (because of lack of experience) in a head-to-head for the divisional title, but I'm hoping they can stay with the Cards until the end, and that that will be good enough for a Wild Card berth (over the East and West's second-placers--so, another reason to root against the Phils).

I will stick with my preseason pick of the Cards to win the NL pennant, and the World Series, though of course I hope I will be wrong here, too.

Historical Notes
My preseason World Series pairing of the Yanks and Cards features the two teams with the most World Series wins (the Cards' 10 slightly ahead of the Athletics' franchise--we won't discuss the 27 titles the Yankees have), and they have played many times in the World Series in the past (I didn't check to see if it is the most frequent matchup, but it's certainly one of them). Somewhat surprisingly, though, they haven't opposed each other in the Fall Classic since 1964. Of course, I am hoping my prediction is wrong and that, in fact, neither team makes it, but I'd still say it is the most probable single matchup.

If the Phillies overcome my moral resistance and make it to the NL Championship Series, they will be gunning to make history, as the first NL team to three-peat for league pennants since...the 1942-44 Cardinals. Eight teams have won twice and come up short in the third try since then, from most recently:

1995-96 Braves (lost in '97 NLCS to the Florida Marlins, who won the Series;
1991-92 Braves (lost in the '93 NLDS to the Phils, who lost the Series)
1977-78 Dodgers (were beaten out in the NL West in '79 by the Reds, who lost to the eventual Series winner, the Pirates);
1975-76 Reds (in '77, despite George Foster's breakout 52-HR year and the midyear trade for Tom Seaver, the Reds finished a distant second in the NL West, the loss of mojo blamed by us Reds' fans on the preseason trade of Tony Perez);
1967-68 Cards (lost in '69 to the Mets' team of destiny);
1965-66 Dodgers (lost to the aforementioned Cards);
1955-56 Dodgers (lost out to the Atlanta Braves);
1952-53 Dodgers (lost out in '54 to the Giants, who actually won the Series).

Before the Cards' wartime threepeat, there had been in the modern era three consecutive NL pennants for the New York Giants (1911-1913) and the 1906-08 Cubs. The alltime NL record of four consecutive pennants is held by the New York Giants, from 1921-24.

Nickel and Dime-ing US (and Tuppence, too!)

Stamp Act Reaction

In the 1770's the reaction to the Stamp Act was the original Boston Tea Party. This year, Congress is expected to authorize a 2-cent increase in the first class postage, from 44 to 46 cents. Under the current regime, Congress can not/will not subsidize the Post Office, requiring it to support itself like a business, but on the other hand it must approve any increases in postage. The financial situation at USPS is such that Congress really has no choice.

My reaction and advice to the postal unit: why stop at 46 cents? Go on up to 50 cents, a respectable round number, accompanied by a promise not to raise rates for, say, six years (two-cents every other year is about the recent pattern). Take the windfall revenues and do some real upgrading of capabilities, and maybe you won't even need to increase in six years.

Always Forever Now

When the Post Office inevitably gets its OK to raise the prices, there will be one of those great investment opportunities: buy the "Forever" stamps at 44 cents just before the rates go up, and you can save on the cost increase--as many stamps as you want!

This seems to be one of those calculated business decisions: balancing the time value of money against the expected "leakage" rate (people will lose some of the stamps they buy and never use them), but for the sophisticated stamp investor, it would make sense to buy about six months' worth of stamps, which, assuming a uniform rate of usage, would give a return of just under 5% for an investment with an average duration of three months. That's a return worth cashing your Treasury bills to obtain.

I, though, won't be taking much advantage of this opportunity. Most of my stamps come to me free from certain charitable organizations who think that their commitment to me--expressed by placing stamps on their return envelopes--will be fully reciprocated by contributions. I haven't done the math to see if that's true or not (I do give to them, but only a fraction of the time), but I do appreciate the willingness to save me trouble. (I've never forgotten Brooklyn Union Gas, which had metered prepaid postage on their return envelopes 15-20 years ago; do they still?) Instead, I take the trouble to save those envelopes, cut off the uncancelled stamps, and I eventually glue them onto other return envelopes of billers which are not so accommodating.

I see that, rather than helping me pay them by putting the postage out there (for which they would get paid sooner--American Express charge cards, take notice!), the debtor community prefers to "hock" me to pay through the Internet (allowing us to do the heavy lifting for them). They should back that up by giving us a postage-stamp's worth of rebate for our trouble.

Optimal Purchase of Socks

On another topic, totally unrelated except by the identical theme of "common-sense consumerism", I am shocked--shocked!--to find that I have not yet posted the results of my lifetime's worth of close observation on the best strategy for purchasing socks.

I presume that all you readers share certain tendencies: accidentally to occasionally pull too hard and tear irrevocably single socks, the nature of laundry machines to somehow randomly "disappear" a sock, a preference for wearing socks that actually match each other. If one grants all these, then there is a single, best strategy for buying socks.

You should buy exactly three pairs of socks--the same color, brand, and size--at a time. If you do this, then, over time, individual sock attrition will not leave you with a drawer-full of single socks. Instead, your pool of that particular style of sock will eventually pare down to two pair, and, over a long period of time, one pair--at which time you can examine the survivors to see if those two are worth keeping in the rotation.

Buying less than three pairs will mean the remaining socks will not get their full use before reducing to the useless status of <2 (and buying a single pair of socks is the moral equivalent of unjustly condemning one valid sock to permanent isolation in the dead drawer); buying more than three pairs will mean you are over-committing to a single style and color (i.e., boring). Of course, this strategy doesn't work so well if one goes for the ultra-modern "toe socks" which fit each toe snugly and therefore have a sense of right sock and left sock--I discourage their purchase for that reason, except for use in rare occasions of luxury or foot ostentation.

Messin' about in Political Muck

The Wiki-Leaks Gusher and Afghan Policy
The flood of classified documents recently released on Wiki-Leaks, and analyzed by the press, are analogous to the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg in the latter stages of the Vietnam conflict (1971). They give a factual basis for many arguments made by critics or opponents of the war, and they force the Administration leading the war effort into a contorted posture. The Obama administration took a stance defending not the futility of past war efforts by administrations of both parties, but their right to maintain secrets from the public for the sake of the war's conduct.

Like the Ellsberg papers, the documents confirm what background reports have always said (for example, about civilian casualties, and about Pakistan's intelligence agency's continuing contacts with insurgency leaders), and they reveal the difficulties of the military in conducting wars of counterinsurgency in hostile territory, with neighboring countries with different motivations from ours. They give plenty of encouragement to the enemy, though their target is the US domestic population, and specifically to rally opposition to the war, so the leaker is living on a narrow line between behind being protected by press freedom and taking a hit for criminal behavior. The military has hit out at the leaks for disclosing the identities of Afghan collaborators, endangering their lives and their families: certainly this is egregious, probably unintentional (there were 97,000 documents leaked, but others were withheld for this kind of reason), and possibly exaggerated.

We don't know yet the source of the Afghan leaks or that person's relation to the war effort, though I tend to doubt he/she is in the active military (Ellsberg was a civilian contractor from a think-tank working with the military).

Defining Down Victory
Contributing to the sense that the debate on the strategy and outlook may be near a pivotal phase, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, contributes a very significant opinion piece in last week's Newsweek headlined, "We're not Winning. It's not worth it." To its credit, though, the piece is not quite as simplistic as that, though it does come out against merely staying the course through mid-2011 and beginning the slow withdrawal the US military will likely urge after that.

The advice is not just to cut and run, or even to cut forces and conduct a remote war with drones against Al Qaeda (as some, like VP Biden, recommended at the last strategy review). That strategy, Haass argues, will almost surely lead to the collapse of the Karzai government and put the Taliban in charge in much of the country--possibly leading to a new civil war like the one experienced in the '90's. He doesn't put much faith in the strategy of reconciliation with the Taliban organization (which I see Karzai himself as favoring); instead he opts for an approach he calls "decentralization", with the weakness of the central government being fully embraced, local militias empowered to fight the Taliban (if they so choose), accepting some return in force of insurgent elements, as long as they do not permit the restoration of Al-Qaeda activity.

Haass is one of those foreign policy centrists respected by all parties, so his movement away from the current policy likely reflects some real shift in Washington civilian views of the conflict, and, as such, gives a preview of a policy shift likely to occur in the planned review in December. I think the military will still be itching for one good offensive effort to take on the Taliban in Kandahar, but I'm not certain they will still get that (now delayed) chance.

Elizabeth Warren, for Consumer Advocate
Warren's suggestions have led to the creation in the new financial reform bill of a new agency to watch banks and (most) other financial companies for unfair practices toward consumers. It is now Obama's choice to make a nomination for head of that new agency, and progressive forces are putting forward the Harvard prof.

The "industry" spokespeople/lobbyists are softly opposing her nomination, praising her talents but preferring someone more sympathetic to their point of view (what they call "balanced"). Sen. Chris Dodd, the floor leader of the recent legislation, who is in his last year in the Senate, doesn't think Warren can get the 60 votes to be confirmed, so he is gently tip-toeing the bankers' line.

This is one battle Obama should take on. Republicans who try to filibuster Warren's approval would be defending an extremely unpopular position. If they succeed, that will only make the Democrats look better to voters.

Another issue which should only work to the Democrats' favor is the debate on extending the Bushite tax cuts past 2010, when they are due to expire from the original 2001 legislation. Obama would like the cuts for the middle-class to be extended, but not for those with incomes over $250,000. The Republicans would like them all to be extended, or even made permanent. Either the Democrats will get their way, or the Republicans will be exposed as favoring the rich and increasing the deficit; in the latter case, no legislation would be approved and the tax cuts would expire for all (which would reduce the deficit sharply).

Election 2010 Update

My personal views, strategies, and tactics for the 2010 election have not changed; I still expect the Democrats to hold the Senate safely, but with a reduced margin, the House more or less the same (loss of some 25-30 seats). I suggest people give a close look to statehouse elections (legislatures and governorships) which are in some danger, and which will have an important effect on the redistricting of electoral districts after the 2010 Census results. I would encourage giving either to local House candidates in close races, or to the DCCC; I do not encourage giving to the DSCC, but to candidates in certain specific races (Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado) who are both worthwhile and in close contests.

There have been a few specific changes in Senate races since my late February analysis. One change is the West Virginia seat of the late Robert Byrd (a great constitutionalist, and a good example both of the leverage states get by returning the same person, election after election, and how that person can grow in the job); that has moved from uncontested to one in which we should expect Democratic victory in the special election to retain control of the seat (by current Gov. Manchin).

Mostly, Senate elections are going in the direction I expected back in March, and the net effect is positive for the Democrats. The largest trend is that the Republican Senate candidates backed by Tea Party activists are finding that the hard-core rightist views the TP requires are not doing so well in general elections in most states. The smartest ones may be able to tack away from the TP enough to hold their share of moderates, but some are getting caught in their own billowing canvas.

On the Republican side, they hold 23 seats not contested this year, and are clear favorites in 14 more (unchanged since March, though the identity of the certain conservative Republican Senator in Utah has changed from Robert Bennett to somebody else). There are three more I continue to expect them to win: in Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona--but that is two decreased from the past analysis, due to the movement in Kentucky and Florida. In Kentucky, Tea Party Republican Rand Paul's extreme views have moved that normally Republican-favoring state's race to a tossup, and Charlie Crist's emergence as a viable Independent candidate in Florida makes him now a slight favorite over both the Republican and Democratic candidates.

Of the six races I identified as tossups in March, I still consider three (plus Kentucky) to be such: Pennsylvania (Specter's seat, with Democratic Joe Sestak in a tough race he may win), Colorado (with worthy temporary Senator Michael Bennet still facing tough battles in both the primary and general election, though the TP effect may help in the latter) and New Hampshire (where Paul Hodes is looking stronger now, as I expected, but is still not a clear favorite).

Two races I have moved from tossup to leaning Republican, the leaders being Rob Portman in Ohio and Roy Blunt in Missouri (never had too much hope in either); and one has moved from tossup to leaning Democratic (Harry Reid in Nevada, thanks to lots of money and a thick TP Republican nominee). I see some weakness in Patty Murray's race for re-election in Washington, due to the rise of a strong Republican opponent (Dino Rossi) and have downgraded her chances from expecting her re-election to a weak leaner in her favor.

So, compared to the current 57-41-2 breakdown (independents Lieberman and Sanders being the last two), I take the seats not up for grabs this year and add those where the races are safe or I clearly expect one side to win, and we get 49-40-2; adding the five "leaners" I get 51-42-3 (Crist added to the independents). Of the remaining four tossups I look for three of them to go Democratic--partly due to favorable Senate debates in the run-up to the election, partly due to TP Effect and strong candidates--so my prediction is 54-43-3. I think if Crist is elected, he will try to peel off Joe Lieberman into a small Independents' caucus (those two, plus potentially a couple of Blue Dogs and New England moderate Republicans), but that will fail and he will then join the Democrats, to punish the state Republicans who turned against him in the primary. That would make a Democratic caucus of 57, just two less than the current number.

I cannot put in the time to analyze the House race in full detail, though my original prediction of 25-30 seats lost by the Democrats still feels right (they need to keep it to 39 or less to hold control). The Republicans are basing their Congressional campaign on their loathing of Nancy Pelosi; that will no doubt rally their troops, but when it comes time to consider, fear of handing control to John Boehnert is just as likely to dismay independents. Mostly, though, House races are determined by local political alignments and perceptions of parties' nominees, rather than national figures. Democratic retirements and soft seats taken in Republican-leaning districts in 2006 and 2008 offer plenty of attractive targets, but I'm not expecting a Republican sweep of those seats.

In our state of New Mexico, we have three Representatives, each with a first-term Democrat: our district, heavily Democratic, is extremely safe for Ben Ray Lujan, the son of a longtime party politico who has done better than I could have thought. The southern district had an extremely right-wing Democrat elected, Harry Teague; he looks likely to lose, to which I would say "no great loss", except that his opponent is arch-right-winger Steve Pearce, who gave up his seat in an unsuccessful attempt to run for the Senate seat won by Tom Udall. The one I'm most concerned is the middle district in the Albuquerque area, which historically has gone to Republican candidates in close elections, and I may give to the endangered incumbent, Martin Heinrich. His loss would be a strong negative indicator for the Democrats' ability to hold their majority.

In the statewide elections, the Republicans have cleverly put up a Hispanic woman candidate for governor, Susanna Martinez, a tough-talking prosecutor, and she has a real chance of winning. This result could make for a standoff in critical Congressional redistricting battles, as I don't think the Republicans can get control of the legislature.
Arizona Law Enjoined
The decision announced today to block implementation of some provisions of the Arizona law to combat illegal immigration seems very sound. It is the "reasonable suspicion" provision which requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people stopped or arrested if they suspect they are illegal immigrants--that provision is too vague and will certainly lead to racial profiling if implemented.

To give an example, while an Arizona driver's license would provide satisfactory proof of citizenship to the detained individual suspected of being an illegal, a New Mexico driver's license would not--because NM allows illegal immigrants to have a license, with very good reason I might add. Now, as an Anglo, I could be subjected to a requirement to provide proof of citizenship (say, a passport, which I do have, though many Americans do not), but I would traverse the state's speedways (excuse me, interstate highways) without fear of being detained and deported, while an Hispanic New Mexican would have no such assurance.


The Mathematics of Voting
This is the name of a new book analyzing various voting methods from a mathematical perspective by George Szpero. In the July 26 New Yorker former Economist editor Anthony Gottlieb has a very informative and entertaining review of the book.

Not unexpectedly, Briton Gottlieb gives a lot of attention to the recent British elections and the permutations caused by the strong third party (which we covered extensively). He tries not to take sides but does point out the seeming inequity of the Liberal Democrats winning over 20% of popular votes but less than 4% of seats. He sees the US, I'd say correctly, as hopelessly mired in an antiquated anti-democratic rut (though he doesn't comment on the imaginative legislative initiative in states, slowly gaining ground, to disempower the presidential Electoral College and empower a popular majority). He has an incredible paragraph in the lead describing the Byzantine, laughably complex, but well-intentioned, historic method used in the Venetian Republican to select a new doge (the doges were a small council with huge powers). He doesn't say much about whether the book he's reviewing is worth reading.

Whither Paolo Soleri?

This week, the Paolo Soleri Amphitheater in Santa Fe hosted its last scheduled event, a Lyle Lovett concert. The open-air performance venue and architectural gem is in dire straits, with its future options ranging from none whatsoever (its demolition was the plan) to sale, takeover, designation as a historical site, rebuilding it somewhere else (the worst idea) or, what may be most likely, temporary abandonment until its future is figured out.

In an article largely sympathetic to the plight of its owners, the Santa Fe Indian School, alternative newspaper the Santa Fe Reporter quoted an estimate of $4.5 million needed to bring the place up to snuff. Basically, its infrastructure is crumbling and it needs a roof for when it rains or snows.

The SFIS had announced the Paolo Soleri would be demolished, and it was no idle threat, seeing the job they did to demolish most of the other buildings in the complex a couple years ago. No doubt they got some nasty feedback on this most recent demolition announcement, so they were backtracking: they would love not to demolish it, but

1) they don't need it;
2) they can't afford it; and
3) they don't really like the element that comes to concerts too much, either.

I went early this month to my first concert ever at the Paolo--Modest Mouse, it was--and found the place thoroughly charming, classically small urban (like Santa Fe itself), and very intimate. Yes, one could see the OK Corral-looking backstage area off to the audience's right, and the desert scrub comes right up to the back of the stage (for the rest of it). It's pretty humble--no comparison whatsoever to the godlike Santa Fe Opera faciiity.

OK, there was a heavy aroma of various blended pot smokes (the thickness something of an accomplishment in the open-air arena). The State Police was there, busting people who were too open about smoking or about filming the event (a guy two rows in front of me was taken down for doing both).

Nevertheless, the city needs it. I left thinking, SFIS should sell for $1, getting perpetual rights to use it, and the city council should authorize funding to fix it up. We shall see.

JOBS #2 (point-0)

I was rather amused by the cluster-talk this morning on CNBC about Apple's new iPhone4 and its defect of dropping calls.

I feel sorry for the poor, overjuiced geeks with funny gadgets stuck in theirears (or maybe theirands for the iPhone4), who are not used to having their calls on their cellphones drop in mid-sentence. On the bright side, though, many of the Apple-controlled Apps on their overpriced toys don't even need a cellular connection to do the lame little "cool" tasks for which they are programmed.

Here in Taos, there's no issue: we don't even have service from AT&T here yet, though I hear it's coming soon. When it comes, it'll probably slot right into the middle range of service, i.e. awful.

I am definitively not interested in phones which will fail to perform ever more tasks for which they are hyped. Until the USA gets its coverage act together--which to me means the cellular providers collaborate somewhat in ensuring that coverage gaps are filled--I will limp along with my minimal service level on a for-free phone. Or use GSM when I go abroad.

The Best Prediction I Ever Made

During the peak of the Asian debt crisis--I think it must have been 1998--the country manager for the Taiwan business (his team gave me the Chinese name I use as my nom de plume here) asked me where I thought the Dow Index was going. My response:

10,000--as far as the eye can see.

I hasten to add that I'm sure Lawrence did not use my advice exclusively to form his stock investment strategy, but I do think he was looking to diversify and wondering whether to buy into the US market. And, I don't know what he ultimately did.

Anyway, here we are, 12 years later, still kicking around that round 5-digit number. Yes, it's just a number, the experts go by the S&P 500-stock index much more, some of the stocks comprising the Dow index have changed, and 10k of anything today won't buy what it did in 1998, but I think the number has had an important psychological significance. Twice the market has risen significantly above the 10K +/-15% range, and both times (2001-02 and 2007-08) it has fallen hard, as though gravity were pulling it back to earth, and once (2009, of course) it sank more than that depth below, only to eventually bob back up when the crisis had passed sufficiently. I don't know what the technical term is: an "attractor" level?

Just in the last month, the downward "correction" from the "bull market" succeeding the much greater "bear market" hit bottom just below 10,000 and has bounced back upwards, though not far away from that mark yet. The time has come to ask: is this the moment when we leave behind 10,000, for good? There are plenty of reasons to doubt, plenty of weaknesses both short-term and long-term, but I think also some reason to be hopeful that this could be the one, a real climb which will leave that number forever behind.

After all, there was a very long period, decades ago now, when it seemed the Dow would never leave behind 1000, but it finally did so, and not even the most pessimistic among us think the market will go back to that level (barring an apocalypse). The question really comes down to whether the current recovery has a sufficiently sound basis, more than the tech bubble of the turn of the millennium, or the real estate-driven bubble of the latter Bushite years, for only then can we escape the gravitational pull of 10,000.

World Cup Postscript

First, I want to congratulate Spain for its World Cup victory: its team was at least as deserving of the honor as any other.

Next, I should point out that some new ground was broken by its victory (besides Spain's first championship, or its first entry into the championship game). This first World Cup in Africa brought the first win by a European team outside Europe, and the first win by a team which lost its first game in the tournament.

Except for the goal in the 116th minute of 120, which spared everyone the horror of decisive penalty kicks, the game bore a superficial resemblance to "the worst final ever", the 1994 Italy-Brazil match in L.A. The score was the same for most of it, but the quality of the game felt different (semi-bragging note: I was in the endzone seats for that 1994 game). In 1994, Brazil had all the offense; Italy's strategy seemed to be to play solid defense and wait for the end, or try to get lucky on a break (never close to happening)--in short, a successful strategy of forcing a stalemate, but not winning the somewhat random penalty kick result--which is why the game is rated so low.

The final yesterday was similar in the sense that Spain, like Brazil in '94, went for the ball possession game which it featured in all its games this year. The Dutch disrupted it, for the most part successfully, through tough tackling (and a whole bunch of yellow cards) in the midfield area, but Spain still had the possession edge throughout. What was different is that both teams had some serious chances to score. Until the end, though, it was nothing doing.

The referee (British) had a very tough job, given the circumstances and the Dutch choice of style of play. He gave out a number of yellow cards, particularly during a stretch midway through the first half, to players who were impeding the flow or making ill-timed tackles. After a while, though, his reluctance to send off players--a near-decisive event in a close match--meant that the major perpetrators, who all already had a yellow, were getting away with things. I think the players sensed it and it got even rougher.

The big break came after a questionable second yellow card on a Dutch defenseman halfway through the 30-minute extra time. After that, the Dutch were reduced to trying to hold on to try to finish the last 15 minutes scoreless, but about ten minutes later, the goal came. Iniesta, who scored it, had looked very likely (though perhaps more likely to draw a penalty with his frequent dives) along with Spain's late replacement, Fabregas. .

Game of the States
Followers of this blog will know I am no big fan of nationalism in general, and of nationalism in sports in particular. I make an exception for the World Cup, though.

In terms of quality of play, one could criticize the World Cup teams, and the ESPN/ABC broadcasting team would sometimes do so: compared to some of the top club teams, most national teams have a lower overall standard of player and less-organized attack schemes and set plays. On the other hand, the national teams' play often has more emotional content, a greater level of individual effort, and less of a mercenary feel. It's not that there have never been pay disputes around national teams' players, but there is a high level of pride shown, even in games that may be hopeless, in the sense of chances for the team's ultimate success; by comparison, sometimes the club teams' level of effort--for example, those doomed for relegation, playing on the road-comes up a bit short.

One of the more valid reasons political scientists give for the walls between peoples (usually figurative; US/Mexico becoming more literal) is that of preserving the distinctiveness of differing cultures. If it were all mixed together too much, something would be lost to humanity. In the international game of football, there are standardized rules but some interesting differences in the way people play (although, like world music, for example, there is a whole lot of transference, through watching others play, through coaching, etc.) Arguably, there are national "styles" of play, reflected in the differing skill sets of players from those nations, which wise national team coaches do well to nurture.

The World Cup, then, is a sort of World's Fair of different playing styles: there is some consistency over time to the nature of the way teams play, even as the identity of the players changes. I want to avoid cliche, or overly broad generalization, but a couple of quick examples: the East Asian teams are guaranteed to show great hustle and effort to the end; Italy plays solid defense, and looks for the counterattack; Brazil (and now Spain) will monopolize ball possession and make single-touch passing.

There is sometimes a pendulum swing in the overall level of World Cup goal-scoring; the balance between defense and offense is not a constant. I do feel that this year's Cup showed a good balance. Some teams were able, on a given day, to get an acceptable result without making any great effort at offense, just shutting down the opponent's offense: the result was usually, but not always, 0-0. Examples include Uruguay's effort vs. France, Portugal's in all games but the one against North Korea, Switzerland vs. Spain--which the Swiss somehow won, 1-0, and Paraguay's approach in most of its games. Despite that fact, the teams that did best in the tournament had both explosive offense and solid defense.

The US? Well, I'd say the style is still emergent; clearly, we produce good goaltenders, have good athletes, speedy attackers, and good late-game fitness--but also, and this year's Cup performance will reinforce this--a few holes in the game, a tendency toward unfortunate play at times.

Finally, there is England. The English papers may say there was no excuse for their failures, with their talent level, but I would say they have two good ones. The English teams play too many games in their season, and they looked tired and ready to head home early--which they ended up doing. Secondly, alone among the 32 teams, England is not a sovereign nation. It's not that they lack government support; in fact, keeping the governments out of the affairs of the national football federations was a frequent side theme this year. The problem is that England's team puts the other British components (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) in the shade, the English lose the possible additional talents and passion, and the other teams, in recent years at least, don't get through the qualification rounds.

State of the Game
The critique of England is the same one that could've been made anytime in the last 40 or so years--the inertia of football is that great. Most true fans of the game fit in the category of being highly resistant to change to it; as a convert, rather than someone born to it, I am less that way. I'll now discuss a few salient issues of the game, as illustrated by observations from this year's tournament and final.

As I said before, I think the game is pretty healthy now; the biggest change in our lifetime came with the modified backpass limitation some 25 years ago when the game had shifted too far in favor of the defense. We do not have that problem now--I think the biggest problem is an overabundance of either intentional, or dangerous, near-intentional fouls (because one can't always tell intentions). In a normal pro soccer game, the final had two fouls (one a flying kick by a Dutch player, one an angry follow-up strike by a Spaniard) which would likely have produced immediate red cards. The referee was intimidated by the spectacle no doubt.

He seemed also unwilling to hand out penalty kicks for fouls in the box--not an unusual problem in today's game. The fear of giving a penalty is always present; if a referee wanted, he could call one on virtually every set piece near a goal. The fear of deciding games too often makes referees allow constant shirt-pulling and wrestling inside the box, as well as causing a lot of diving (to try to draw the penalty kick) on hopeless surges into the box, unclear hand-ball non-calls and the inevitable intentional trip just outside the box. There is too sharp a trichotomy: foul by defender inside the box=penalty; foul just outside=dangerous set play with much wrestling allowed; foul anywhere else=free kick and nobody cares (the only effective play at a distance is the quick kick, which sometimes leads to a breakaway situation).

There needs to be graduated punishments: the straight-on penalty kick should be limited to egregious fouls in the box (like the intentional handball of Uruguay's Suarez) or the goalie's trip of the attacker after missing the ball, or even, at the discretion of the referee, the last man intentional foul just outside the box. The next level might be today's direct kick for serious fouls outside the box, but also the indirect free kick (a rarity today, used for backpass violations) for lesser fouls inside it. Repeated fouls in the field need something stronger than a yellow card--a new penalty kick from a greater distance, 18 meters perhaps? That might also become a new skill to be used at the end of do-or-die matches. Much as I like the 10-on-10 game, when each team has a player sent off (the second one often follows quickly on the first), graduated punishments which make sense should reduce sending players off, and the number of fouls (not yellow cards) before that extreme punishment might be increased.

The most surprising thing I saw was just how good the line judges were for most offside calls. Basically, on a direct pass they always got it right; the problems, like with the Spanish winning goal (called correctly, though; Iniesta was offside for the initial pass to the center, but got onside when he drifted open for his pass. Again, it was called correctly, but put an intolerable strain on the Dutch defense, one man down) or Tevez' goal incorrectly given, come when the ball zigzags around like a pinball: the line judges will sometimes call the player offside when it is not played to him, or fail to notice that he had gone offside by the second touch of the play, which may go accidentally to a player who has drifted offside after the initial pass. I'm no offside expert, but the difficulty of calling these plays has made the offside trap increasingly dangerous as a strategy--will it be called correctly?

Finally, the question of instant replay. FIFA seems to be willing to consider it for the single question of whether the ball crosses the goal line (like on Lampard's first-half shot in the Germany-England game, though many of that type of calls are much less obvious than that one). Clearly, instant replay's cheaper than the more traditional no-brain response of stationing an additional official at each end to verify goals. I don't think it will go farther than that, though: the normal calls at the "touch line" boundary are difficult, but usually not too critical, and getting a machine to resolve offsides is way too difficult to program.

Me and Paul
Paul the Octopus whipped my butt. He went eight-for-eight in predicting games (seven games with Germany in them, plus the correct choice in the final); I missed four of those predictions (I picked a draw for Ghana-Germany, England over Germany, Argentina over all (and therefore in the semifinal), and Uruguay to win the third-place game), and I did not make a prediction for the actual final game (both teams I predicted for the final didn't make it). Paul found one of the worst spots in my (admittedly overall disastrous) picks, as I predicted poor results for Germany, when they turned out to be a surprisingly good team.

The best pick for both of us may have been Serbia over Germany in a first-round match (that may have been my best one of the whole tournament, in fact). That means either that they didn't try to pick out the tastiest clam to put under Germany's box for the octopus, or they selected the wrong clam, or Paul made a mistake in clam selection, or he either got lucky or knew something. Hitting eight-of-eight randomly would occur once every 864 tries (assuming the chances of a draw in the first round games were 1-in-3--in the actual event, they occurred a very high 14 of 32 games). Perhaps they had a couple dozen octopi, and only trotted out the one that had all of them right after a few games, as it was below my radar at least that long.

In any case, my commitment to reviewing the quality of my predictions post hoc requires me to make the following sour grapes comment: even a blind octopus can find the tastiest clam in a box once in a while.

The Right Message

President Obama is hitting the campaign trail for Democratic candidates, and his message is emerging, both from his recent speeches and from the talking points of his chief advisers. I'd summarize the message as this: "Do you want to go with the Republicans and their unmodified, failed policies of the past, or do you want to move forwards?"

Some have criticized Obama and his administration for lacking an overall theme. This one, I think, is the right message for him and his party, for the foreseeable future. The facts--as regards the condemnation of the Republicans' failed approach and the lack of any change in it--are all on his side. The political strategy will appeal to the younger generation, which is the way to re-establish the Democrats as the dominant party for the decades to come.

Some criticize this new theme as one that won't work in 2010's midterm elections, for which the overriding concern will be the economy--primarily, unemployment; and secondarily, the economic prospects for growth (probably best measured by the stock market). The criticism may be accurate: the economy will be largely what it is now, and the alternative--claims that it the economy has improved--will certainly ring hollow.

There are still economic initiatives to help the recovery which the Obama administration can and should champion, but those are mostly to try to free up the piles of capital and cash that our financial instiutions and industrial companies are sitting upon, not new spending inititatives (there's no political support for the latter). These economic initiatives may well be acceptable to both parties, and thus are not really a platform for political battle; Republicans' failure to back things like tax credits for investment targeting new jobs, or for accelerated deprectiation on new investment, would be out of character and would backfire badly, and I don't expect such obstinacy.

A painful midterm election has been indicated for a long time, and the focus should be to retain control of both Houses of congress, even if narrowly, minimize losses in statehouses, and prevent the unraveling of the administration before the 2012 elections, which will be much more critical in the long term.

Making It Stick
Having the right message for an overall theme of governance is just words, though, if the policies don't fit. It is in this area that I think Obama's administration can improve.

An in-house policy review across every area is what is needed: Does our policy fit the message, that Democrats are the ones looking to bring a better future? Here are a few examples I think they would identify, and could correct:

o Long-term reduction in debt levels: The Republicans will pull their support from supposedly "bipartisan" commissions if they see they are being played. They want political cover for reductions in costly services; Democrats want cover for tax increases. The Republicans seem to expect they won't get what they want out of it and won't put up with just the Democrats' portion of the debt-reduction agenda.

I say, put out both sides of the agenda, and don't wait for the political consensus to form or to fall apart. If increasing the retirement age for Social Security will save the program forever, then phase it in. Why resist something that makes perfect sense? As for tax policy, take the good ideas which bring in new revenue, and make sure the policy fits Democratic ideas: restore the estate tax, raise corporate tax (yes!) and high-end income tax rates, reduce subsidies for fossil fuel exploration.

Finally, the most pernicious, and the most problematic, debt issue for the future is the cost of health care mandates that are not fully funded by revenues. The healthcare bill that passed didn't really change that--costs may be reduced somewhat by covering more people, but the breadth of costly government commitments to help with the health care of the poor increased. In this case, moving the Medicare eligibility age would not help, nor would moving it closer help. What would help, though, is the revival of the public option, now under the more euphonic name of "Medicare for all".

Even if political weariness suggests this second round of reform wait for the second term, once the realities of the new healthcare regime emerge (principally, that private insurers were excessively protected from competition in it), it can be a popular and successful program that can contain key long-term healthcare cost problems. The initiative needs some key caveats to be outlined up front: that expansion must include fair (non-subsidized) pricing for most of the public, fair compensation for healthcare providers (so they don't drop out), and inclusion of the public option in employer-provided options. The policy consistent with Democrats' concern for the future is providing low-cost catastrophic health care for young, health people, which will importantly ease the states' growing problem with Medicaid costs and coverage.

While the current deficits will ease when the recovery gets legs, we cannot simply grow out of these long-term structural problems, and the Republicans can not be relied upon to help solve these.

o Military/foreign policy: I am one of the few who say there are often good reasons to develop partisan policies in this area--as opposed to consensus policies driven by military-industrial complex objectives. Soft power costs much less than military expansion and will accomplish more for us in the long run; we should be champions of foreign aid to accomplish objectives of reducing poverty, disease, tyranny, and war, rather than providing it mostly because of national security objectives. We should put strings on our military aid to nations such as Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, mostly related to ending policies which tend to lead to continued strife and war.

We have the opportunity to provide a "generation of peace" to our children. That would be a huge benefit to their lives, even if peace creates less jobs than continuous preparation for war. I am very much in favor of detente policies toward China, India and Russia which will lead us toward that promise, and should also produce pressure leading to positive results with the real trouble spots, like North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran.

o Commit to Environmental Improvement: President Obama's natural tendencies go the right way, but he is sometimes pressured to vary from the right course--his mistimed support for offshore oil drilling a few months ago being a good example. We should only back such things as "clean coal" burning and nuclear power if we have high confidence those investments will produce the desired results--no more bottomless "synfuel" or "biofuel" investments. On the other hand, major investment money for improving our capabilities in storage batteries, wind, solar, and geothermal should be forthcoming now. Natural gas is a viable transitional technology--much more than restoring offshore drilling--but it must be pursued with full attention to the safeguards necessary to protect our underground water resources.

One way or the other, we should commit to significant improvements in greenhouse gas emissions and, simultaneously, to reductions in imports of foreign-sourced fossil fuels (yes, driven by taxation on those commodities). We must back increased efforts to protect and restore ecosystems, ones backed by sound science and intelligent human relations, both domestically and internationally. We should support intelligent population growth management (and get off the politically-based, self-defeating policies conditioning assistance on contraception policy). Finally, we should advance the cause of water conservation as a global priority for the future, one that will be indispensable if global warming is arrested and imperative if it doesn't.

These are all policies the Democrats should advance boldly; if the Republicans recognize their wisdom, both political and social, and match them, so much the better. If not, they will have a winning platform for the next decade, at least.

World Cup Championship Game Preview

My analysis was excellent, but my predictions, reasonable though they were, have been all wrong for this World Cup, both before it started and after Round 1. I didn't even get right the winner of the 3rd place game today (though I did guess the 3-2 score).

So, I'm not going to make a prediction for the final game tomorrow, except that one team will finally break through, and the other team will continue a long pattern of heartbreak and disappointment. I'm rooting for the Dutch.

LeBron's Big Secret

So, we finally have an answer to the second of the two big questions of the 2009-10 NBA season. The first, can anyone stop LA, was answered in the negative. So, finally, was the second: Can/Did Cleveland do enough to keep LeBron from jumping the Cavaliers' ship?

I am not one to blame LeBron for his lack of patience with the Cavaliers: they did their best, but it was far from enough to win the title, and it was not necessarily going to get better. Nor do I blame the people of northeast Ohio, or the owner of the Cavs, for feelings of resentment: whether James did it himself or allowed it to happen, their expectations were raised, then unfulfilled.

I do have a bit of a quarrel, though, with LeBron's taste and selection. He wants to win a championship or five, but this feels like trying to do it the easy way--hard feelings from Cleveland and his other jilted suitor teams notwithstanding. Further, I don't know that he will get what he wants by going to Miami and playing with his two best buddies.

The first problem is that the Heat are stripped bare, besides the three superstud free agents. The only other guy under contract is Mario Chalmers, whom I'm personally fond of as a player but who has been ripped by his team and by his only returning teammate. They have little to no money to fill out the team, and not a whole lot of free agents left to do it with.

I will remind the readers that while Kevin Garnett came to Boston to make the Big Three and won a title the first year, they also had Rajan Rondo, on the rise, and others. I am also reminded of when Gary Payton and Karl Malone came to the Lakers, joining Shaq and Kobe (2003-4 season), and the coronation failed to happen. The Lakers are still out there, and the Celtics are back, as well.

I wish Miami well in their efforts to prevent a Lakers' threepeat--Pat Riley is a personal favorite, and coach Erik Spoelstra is certainly a young coach with a lot of potential--but no more than any other Eastern Conference, and certainly no more than the Western Conference rivals.

Afghan Re-examination

The news blowup from US General McChrystal's disrespectful remarks (more from his staff than from him, really) about our civilian leadership gave President Obama a good opportunity to make some mid-surge course corrections.

McChrystal had already been warned about opening his mouth to the press, during the 2009 review which led to the decision to make the surge. The comments quoted in the Rolling Stone article were punishable under the military code. I thought, though, that Obama could've taken the opportunity to "show empathy" and forgive (though most people didn't).

I think the reason why he didn't is that the battle hasn't really been going well enough, thus far. The President has brought David Petraeus, the professor of counterinsurgency strategy, back in to replace McChrystal, the practitioner. He will have a chance to revise strategy, rules of engagement, and even the grand plan.

As I suggested before, my recommendation is that the US plan an offensive for the fall of 2011, just when the Taliban is going to think it's safe to come out of hiding with the Americans starting to leave. The objective of this surge, and of that offensive, would be to deal them a harsh blow, to weaken them for the next phase, when they would be permitted to live in peace in Afghanistan, and thus hopefully to prevent their dominating the country when we have substantially completed our departure (which must be by November, 2012).

The Isner-Mahut Marathon

For those among you who are not tennis fans (hard as it is to imagine), the news of the first week of the Wimbledon tennis championships was the five-set marathon between American John Isner and Frenchman Nicholas Mahut. There were five sets, and the score was roughly this: 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-7, 70-68.

Wimbledon is one of the few tennis tournaments that has not gone to the tiebreaker for the final set (the French Open is another). The match goes on until someone wins by two games. The fifth set, then, was some three times as long as the rest of the match, and it was played on a knife-edge throughout: one service break game, and the match would be over (and that's what finally happened, after some 168 consecutive service games held, Isner broke Mahut's serve and the match was indeed over).

There were several admirable aspects of the match: really good serving by both players, incredible tenacity, physical endurance, patience, emotional stability, great bladder control (!) and good sportsmanship. Isner has risen to the top 20 in men's tennis with a powerful, accurate serve, and in this match, Mahut--a qualifier who's just outside the top 100--was close to his equal in serving. What it was not was exceptional tennis: the only reason a match would go on that long is because neither player could break the other's serve. Most of the points were aces, service winners, or at most a couple of shots long.

The long deadlock (basically seven hours of serve and re-serve, on Thursday: the match had been suspended for darkness on Wednesday after the first four sets, and the finale was "just" an hour and a half and 15 games or so on Friday) gradually caught the attention of the tennis world as it dragged on, and there were a ton of single-match records broken. Still, I wouldn't call it epic--the Federer-Roddick finals from last year was much more impressive (though similar in its fifth-set stalemate, just not lasting quite as long, but with much more at stake). The stakes were not really so high--it was a first-round match, and pretty much suicidal from the point of view of the tournament. After the three-day match threw off the schedule (that's pronounced "shedule"), Isner had to come back the next day and was promptly ousted from the tournament in a quickie, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2. It will be interesting to see how quickly Isner and Mahut recover from the marathon and return to full strength; also, to see how much commercial mileage they can make from their new fame.

It's perhaps surprising there hasn't been such a ridiculous fifth-set in the past--either in the decades (centuries?) that Wimbledon and the other majors had five-set matches without tiebreakers before it was invented in the 70's, or in the modern era when many men's matches feature few or no service breaks. It's only because there are so few tournaments which have this rule of playing to the bitter end, so the frequency is low.

If I were running Wimbledon, I would react to this extreme result by changing the rules a little--not radically, as we are English and traditional and all that, and not being just like everyone else. There are too many problems of scheduling, and fairness in the subsequent matches, to allow play without end. I'd set a maximum of about 20 games each before going to the tiebreaker in all the rounds except the final, in which the traditional rule would be maintained.

Themes from Imaginary Western Wins

In the Naked City of the World Cup's first round, there were 32 stories. There were several stories of dramatic merit, like the Slovenian Tragedy, the disaster epic that was France, and the commedia dell'arte farce of Italy (in which Buffon, so well-named for his role, inexplicably comes out of the play midway through the first act). The high-wire circus trapeze act Italy often provides in the first round ended this time with the Wallendas falling and just missing the net.

With the possible influence of parochial sentiments, though, nothing beat the melodrama--in three acts with an epilogue--of the USA. It's a saga awaiting its Homer, which should be written in rhyming couplets full of allusions--to Beowulf maybe, long-suffering Job, or the Iliad (Landon Donovan strides forward, without his shield and armor, to face the Algerian Hector--or maybe more geographically relevant, their Aeneas). Mostly, though, it would be some mythic Batman or Superman story, overcoming his nemesis--with Fate as the cruel Joker or as Lex Luthor, the weird ball as some sort of anti-kryptonite (power comes from having it near)--our hero(es) somehow escaping from certain doom in each episode to triumph just before the final commercial and credits.

The USA's rise against adversity in all three games--whether self-generated, through allowing cheap early goals, or through being denied gratification through the referee's ruling out legitimate goals--made for high drama and seat edge-sitting in all their encounters.

Fortune Favors the Brave

In my World Cup preview, I noted that there would be a certain opening, all the way to the semifinals, for some fortunate team that was not among the top-rated coming into the tournament. In this "top-left" quarter of the draw, I suggested that the Fortunate One could be England, France, or Germany. Well, France blew its chance quite spectacularly, England got nosed out on goal difference (largely due to their failure to break through and score against Algeria) and Germany--well, they did their part by losing to Serbia, but the Serbs failed to clinch first when they lost their last game to Australia. As a result, England and Germany are in the tough "top-right" bracket, for which Argentina should be the clear favorite to advance to the final four.

Instead, it is the USA which finds itself in the favored position--but, I should immediately point out, so do Ghana, Uruguay, and South Korea. None of them should be written off--if the first round has taught us anything, it is that there are no easy games, no easy teams this year. The Americans need to win against two moderate-level teams, overachievers like they, to get to the semis and a real tough matchup for which they should be overmatched (in order of probability, Brazil, Netherlands, Chile, or the unlikely Slovaks).

One Game Changes Everything--Almost

In the first round, a single game can change the outlook for the rest of the tournament, but it depends on the timing. The big surprise which could've affected everything to come was in the first set of games, when Switzerland surprised Spain, 1-0. The result was a bit of a fluke, in that Spain dominated posession, had most of the shots, but couldn't score, while the Swiss managed the winning goal in practically their only offensive threat.

Spain was set up to finish second and switch over to the dangerous "lower-left" bracket, with a round of 16 game against Brazil. The Spanish might even possibly have missed out entirely from the top two spots (one likely possibility, largely overlooked, was if the Swiss beat Honduras by a couple of goals, and the Spanish got nose out on goal difference by both Chile and Switzerland). In the end, though, Switzerland couldn't overcome its torpor, and Spain edged Chile (helped by a dubious early red card on a Chilean) and took its place at the top.

Of the five first-round games I identified as critical, four were on target: US-Slovenia, Spain-Chile, Portugal-Ivory Coast (the Portuguese showed their cautious nature, while the Ivorians missed their best chance to advance), and Germany-Serbia (which should've decided their group for Serbia, again, except for their failure to handle the Aussies). Greece-Nigeria was not critical in determining the second-place to Argentina--both teams failing to advance--because of South Korea's key 2-0 win over Greece in its first game.

In the end, though, results were not too surprising: France and Italy looked to disappoint; the only surprise was how completely (against weak groups). Five out of eight favorites won their groups, the exceptions being France, Italy, and England. The Africans had great challenges, and it is not surprising how few got through (though I didn't get the identity right). South America's success was expected, though it was surprising how complete it was (even the weaker qualifiers, like Paraguay and Uruguay, were undefeated).

The further West the team (starting from the Urals, roughly), the better the first-round result. The exceptions to this rule were Slovakia, in the positive sense, and Honduras and North Korea, in the negative one.

Forward-Looking Statements

I make excuses without apology for being a tad late--we drove 800 miles yesterday, and there's barely time to catch your breat between the first round and the second. For the record--and you'll have to trust me on this one--my pre-match prediction for Uruguay-South Korea would've been: "a tougher match for Uruguay than their fluffy first-round group--possibly a first goal allowed--but they advance".

Here are pithy, one-sentence previews for all the 15 remaining games:

US-Ghana: another tense encounter--the Ghanaians are tough, strong, and more dangerous offensively than they have shown--and another nail-biting success for the USA, 1-0.
Argentina-Mexico: Mexico will lose bravely, let's say 3-1.
England-Germany: Great second-round match: I'll go with the ascendant team (England's best game was its most recent, Germany's was its first), in extra time, or possibly even in penalty kicks, a shock for everyone based on historical performance--1-1 in regular time.
Netherlands-Slovakia: The Dutch catch a break with Italy's flameout, and have a fairly easy opponent, which they might just make harder than they should--1-0.
Paraguay--Japan: My biggest miss was underrating the Asians' chances, so I will try to make up by calling an upset here (any loss by a South American team to a non-S.A. is an upset, at this point)--2-1.
Brazil-Chile: The best match of this round (a shocker loss by Brazil is by no means impossible, and here, at least, a South American team must lose) though the Chileans will be missing some players due to the card-happy ref of their last game--2-1 Brazil.
Spain-Portugal: This Iberian Showdown is sure to disappoint, as Portugal will attempt to negate Spain's huge offensive potential with ugly negativity--0-0 in regular time, Spain finally logs a cheap win when the ref calls a penalty in extra time.

Quarterfinals:

US-Uruguay: My heart says "USA" but my brain says Uruguay will win out, 1-0.
Argentina-England: Malvinas Grudge Cage Rematch, on terms more favorable to the Argentines, 2-1. Some Englishman gets a crucial red card (I'd bet on Rooney).
Netherlands-Brazil: Best match of the entire tournament; I'll be among those disappointed by the outcome but encouraged by the quality, Brail 3-2.
Spain-Japan: What, no South American? I have no clue what to expect--Spain 1-0?

Semifinals:
I'm sticking with my preview prediction of Argentina-Brazil. Argentina over Spain, 3-1, in a wild one, and Brazil over Uruguay, 1-0, in a boring one.

Third-Place Game:
Who cares? Uruguay is more likely to care than Spain, 3-2.

Final:
I'm a bit shaky here, but I like Argentina to win it all. I'd feel better about this prediction if Chile, Netherlands, or Brazil's Cinderella semifinal opponent would do me a favor and take them out, but I don't feel "lucky" about that. Messi finally scores a goal himself, and it's the Cup winner, 2-1.

In his excitement and exhibitionist zeal, Maradona drops trow, and gets a coach's yellow card banishment for Argentina's next game (by which time, he will be long gone).

Odds on Big Match-ups

First, the most hyped game in US soccer history. I intentionally gave it little discussion in my post on The Big Picture, because it shouldn't really matter in that sense: the loser still should have a good chance of advancing (if they don't let the loss get in their head too much).

I did neglect--both in this case and overall--the possibility/likelihood of draws, which occur in the first round only (in the knockout stages, they play extra time, then, if still tied, go to penalty kicks until a winner is decided). A draw would work well for both England and US in this game: it would set both teams up for wins against the other two teams in the group (Slovenia and Algeria) and both going through comfortably (the Group winner, in this case, would be the team with the superior goal difference in the other two games).

Given this fact, and the fact that both teams are wary of each other, I would expect the probability of a draw to be relatively high. The key will be the reaction of the team that falls behind (assuming a first goal): if the trailing team is persistent, but not heedless, patient, but aggressive, they can respond. After that, quite possibly, both teams would settle down and accept a tie.

If we think of the 90-minute game as divided in three 30-minute sections, I would expect little action and no goals in the first 30. The key section will be the middle 30, including the halftime break, which is when I expect goals to score. The last 30 minutes will be either frantic, if one team is behind, or extremely settled, if it's tied.

My probabilities are: one-sixth chance (16 2/3%) US victory; one-third (33 1/3%) draw; 50% England win. My specific prediction is a 1-1 tie (same as Ruud Gullit's).

Two of Three

Lakers and Celtics are 2-2 in the NBA finals. The fifth game is tomorrow night, but it's different in the finals: in the finals only, the fifth game is played at the home of the "underdog" and the last two games will be at the Lakers' arena. So, this game is critical for Boston, less so for Los Angeles.

I rate the odds--actually independent of the previous results--as 60% chance for Boston in Game 5, 70% chance for LA in Game 6, and 60% chance for LA in Game 7, if it goes that far. Working out the flows, this translates to a 39.6% chance for Boston to win the championship and 60.4% for LA. If Boston wins game 5, LA still has a 42% chance to win it; if Boston loses game 6, LA's chances to win one of the last two is 88%.

What's New?

On the political front, with the primaries in many states yesterday: nothing. On the blog front: we'll take it case-by-case, with references to previous post predictions.

Yesterday's primary results either confirmed what we already knew or suspected, or else provided results which have little consequence. A good example of the latter was incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln's win in the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff against Atty. Gen. Bill Halter--who was much-hyped by the left-wing bloggers and unions in an effort to punish Sen. Lincoln's pallid Democratic qualities. I don't deny her lameness at all, just question whether Halter had a chance to win in November. Neither do I think it real interesting whether Lincoln will win an uphill battle against her Republican opponent (little to be gained or lost, one way or the other).

The California results should help the economy--hundreds of millions will be spent in the statewide Senate and Governor's races--but the primaries don't change much, in my view. I think Barbara Boxer should be able to point to Carly Fiorina's shortcomings as CEO for Hewlett-Packard and, ultimately defeat her--though it will be expensive. I think it less likely that Democrat Jerry Brown will be able to win one for old times against ex-CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman in the governor's race.

I haven't changed my view--in the big picture, or even of any of the individual races--of the upcoming Senate battle since March's detailed analysis. Of course, my view of the chances for Democrats in such states as Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are a lot more optimistic than many other analysts'.

Sports Notes

I was a bit lax in failing to preview the NBA finals. Here we are near the end of the road, still not having answered either of the big questions from my preseason post--the Cavs didn't do well enough by Lebron to keep him, in my view, but he seems well disposed toward them and their efforts to please, failed though they were; and we still don't know if anyone can stop the Lakers.

Although I didn't like their chances much, the Celtics are probably the toughest team the Eastern Conference could put forward to face the Lakers, so I have to be happy with that. The emergence of Rajan Rondo as a game-changing force at point guard (despite weaknesses like poor free-throw shooting) has compensated for the decline of some of their veterans like Garnett and Ray Allen, their overall team size is adequate to compete with the Lakers, and their team concept remains strong. Of course, those (nor their win over the Lakers in 2008) don't mean they will prevail--I'd give them about a 25% chance; it's our best shot, though.

Chelsea announced today that they will let go three first-string players from last season's squad: Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, and Michael Ballack. The truth is that all three are first-string quality, though they didn't necessarily start that much. Cole and Ballack often were injured, while Belletti was overlooked as a defensive starter once Bosingwa emerged, if the other usual starters were healthy. I can't say I'm eager to see any of them go, and I think the release of Cole, in particular, could haunt Chelsea in the future. Nevertheless, it will free up a lot of money, which will allow for the acquisition of some new, young talent, which is certainly important.

I continue to be thrilled by the strong run of the Cincinnati Reds this year. I didn't expect them to challenge the Cardinals for the division lead, as they are currently doing (we are now just past the one-third mark of the regular season): I see progress, but wasn't expecting them to rise to the top until next year and Dusty Baker's departure as manager. A key to their success has been the performance of rookie pitcher Mike Leake (who has done Stephen Strasburg-like feats since earning a spot this spring without ever playing in the minor leagues); even more, though, has been the production of their young, healthy hitters. I'll be satisfied with most anything--a winning season, for example, would be a great improvement.

International Affairs

The sanctions the U.N. approved today (in draft form, apparently) seem to follow the suggestions I made. President Obama's comments seem to indicate that the door is open for Iran to straighten things out and avoid more pain. We'll see.

As I suggested after the attack on the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza, the blockade was now due to change. Israel opened some restrictions on non-lethal aid (like snack foods and coriander), but that seemed to be opening the barn door after the animals were already out: Egypt found it intolerable to maintain its portion of the blockade and announced it was opening its border with Gaza.

It's great when events validate my calls, and absolutely essential for me to draw attention to it!

Imperfect Game

Whose 2010 single-game performance will be remembered in years to come: Armando Galarraga's or Dallas Braden's?* I think the story that will stay in baseball history will be Galarraga's perfect game that got away, due to a bad umpiring call at first base. So, while we should feel sympathy for Galarraga, and perhaps even for umpire Jim Joyce, who blew the call, it's not quite a tragedy for young Galarraga.

This will be true especially if, as now seems likely to me, the rules will be changed--largely as a result of this incident--on use of instant replay to allow it for calls at the bases--the "bang-bang" calls at first base (of which there are many, and they are difficult, though umpire Jim Joyce's call on Galarraga's 27th out was not all that close), and the extremely difficult calls on tag plays at the other bases.

One thing they will not do is open up the can of worms of umpires' ball/strike calls at home plate to the delays and overrides caused by instant replay. And, you can mark my words, there will be a case when a perfect game will be ruined by a questionable ball/strike call (causing a walk, or preventing one).

The thing that's a little surprising about the umpiring error was its direction: I would think it more likely that an umpire would tend to err in favor of the pitcher trying to complete his perfecto, rather than taking it away. But what do I know; I'm no umpire.

*Roy Halladay's perfect game is a different case; this is a top pitcher who could pitch a shutout anytime he goes out there, and he could even duplicate his feat before his career is over. As for Mark Buehrle, the jury is still out: was his perfect game last year totally out of his character, an indication of what he could yet become, or perhaps just indicative of a very promising but inconsistent pitcher?