Nice Dress, Kate: Give a Kiss 'Ere, Duchess
I had to skip the nuptials of Prince William and the commoner, Kate Middleton this morning at 4:30 a.m. (Mountain time). It was my duty, I think, as an American not to be among the 2 billion who watched (or is that people who watched something? I am, unavoidably, seeing the highlights, so that might count me in.)
Though I certainly don't begrudge the lovely couple their chance to have a proper marriage, certainly there is something incongruous about a nation which is leading the world in government austerity having such a lavish ceremony. Yes, the royals are supposed to be footing the bills, though I am sure there is a sizeable cost overrun for security, military overflights (William's a Flight Lieutenant--that's "lef-ten-ant"). Maybe all that deficit spending and voyeuristic tourism will assist their nation's flagging recovery a bit--I'm willing to hope so.
The fact is that the royal family is an incredibly large, government-subsidized luxury burden on the nation, a long-running private enterprise of huge wealth (does Fortune bother to include them in their table?) The Queen and her grandson should make the country a wedding gift of a billion pounds or so to help pay for their share of the belt-tightening that everyone else has been told they must take.
And Now, for Something Completely More Interesting
I'm working on a significant project for the blog; its working title is "My Playlist of All Time". I'm planning it as a list of 200 songs, with no more than one from each artist (though I will allow myself to mention one or two others from artists who have multiple cuts of greatness). It'll be rock-centered, with some blues and soul, songs released during my conscious lifetime. The idea would be a playlist that is long enough, diverse enough, and with songs of good enough quality that I would never tire of it (though I may never actually put together the physical collection of the music, and will certainly never listen to it in 24-hour continuous fashion).
Sometimes the line is blurry as to the bounds enclosed by a single artist: for example, think of all the different groups Eric Clapton has played with--how many songs from Clapton will I include? (the answer is, I haven't decided yet). With regard to the Beatles, I will go by lifetime recordings by songwriter--Harrisongs, songs by John Lennon, as a solo artist or ones that he wrote for the band (as best as I can determine, and I took a stab at it last December on the anniversary of his murder), and McCartney's solo songs or ones written for the band.
It will still be a hugely difficult task for some artists--there's only one Bob Dylan, one Stevie Wonder (though I'm going in thinking I will allow myself to differentiate Rolling Stones with Brian Jones and without him). So it is with Steely Dan, defined as Becker + Fagen + whoever (their solo efforts could, in theory, get separate entries).
So, in honor of the royal couple, here is an effort to rank my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, counting down. The music in all these is so good, it's hard to have much preference. That comes more from the songs effect on my emotions, and from a fairly close study to try and figure out the lyrics. As you'll see, I like least their snobby put-downs (despite great music, such as 'Barrytown' and 'Gaucho' are not included here), not so crazy about their pervasive perversity, I appreciate their "character studies", and love their offbeat philosophical statements.
25: The Royal Scam--A big-time con, not something about the royals. The tone is an admiring one.
24: Haitian Divorce--I like this song for its offbeat musical styling, not for its story of illegitimacy and accidental miscegenation.
23: Two Against Nature--Nice pace in this one, as the duo re-emerge from retirement to take on everything. I have to say I share their point of view on this one more than I usually do.
22: Cousin Dupree--I'm going to hope that this popular recent ditty, about some old geezer's fling with his underage cousin, has no basis in their reality.
21: Your Gold Teeth II--A rarity--the groove was so good, the band had to continue it in a cut from a successive album.
20: Brooklyn--There's a clear tone of nostalgia in this rambling early piece.
19: Sign In Stranger--It's about plastic surgery for mobbed-up criminals, but that doesn't really matter.
18: Third World Man--Satire about the suburbs and desegregation, with a false tension and lyrics perfectly fitting the slow rhythm.
17: Reelin' in the Years--The first SD song I knew, for a long time the only one. Catchy chorus, tight soloing; it's got to be about waste (of time and oneself), but it's hard to tell if the viewpoint is supportive or just nasty.
16: Charlie Freak--A brilliantly-layered musical construction with great tension. The subject? Some poor sap's drug overdose.
15: FM--To me, this is nothing more than a razor-sharp recorded paean to the glory of modern sound reproduction, which the Dan exploited to the max.
14: My Old School--One of the few songs that I think is definitely about the boys themselves, rather than the voice of some twisted folks they know or imagine. The key word is "Annandale", a reference to Annandale-on-Hudson, the location of Bard College, where they went ("studied" would be the wrong word) for a year or so.
13: Chain Lightning--I don't know what it's about, not sure I want to (smoking crack?) Great guitar work.
12: Doctor Wu--See comments on "Chain Lightning".
11: Do It Again--The subject is recidivism--on criminality, gambling, bad romance--and the outlook is clearly pessimistic, the tone reproving, the music uplifting.
10: Your Gold Teeth--A piece that is seriously underrated in the pantheon; one practically never hears it. It has a complex musical format and lyrics that actually approach profundity for once. It's about using the I Ching to answer one's short-term questions, and how that fantasy somehow fits life's real strangeness.
9: Show Biz Kids--This, and the next three titles, are about as political as they get. This one's message is unmistakable, about the phony, self-absorbed Hollywood culture.
8: With A Gun--This one's condemning violent criminality. Perennially relevant in the US.
7: Black Friday--a typical upbeat song on a very dark subject, about heading for the hills when it all comes tumbling down.
6: King of the World--following on the "Black Friday" apocalypse theme; it seems to be about a nuclear holocaust in our area, the Rio Grande. I remember the band playing it on an outdoor stage near Albuquerque in '07(?), a plague of moths--attracted by the light, no doubt--getting in their faces and bugging them.
5: West of Hollywood--My clear favorite from the albums of the Nouveau Dan. Great, long sax solo, piercing lyrics about slacker-ism.
4: Kid Charlemagne--Can a groove be both dark and happy? Invokes nostalgia for the early hippie days, I think--could the title character be Owsley, the king of early-day LSD production?
3: Bodhisattva--I have always loved the Buddhist concept of the enlightened ones staying with us mortal fools to help us fiind the way (meaning of the title). I don't focus on SD's (no doubt perverted) use of the idea; instead I love the non-stop, infectious energy of the song.
2: Pretzel Logic--The band making a statement, I think. A great slow-rocking platform for soloing, with historical and philosophic references, all twisted up. The point of it is exactly that it is not all so straightforward.
1: Aja-Perhaps a bit of a surprise. I remember listening to it repeatedly as I walked the streets of Hong Kong with my new Walkman in 1987. I'm still not sure what it's about (I have a feeling it's something about drug dealing--"when all my dime dancing is through"--but it's seductive and affecting).
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Their Gold, Our Blues
With professional sports, our enjoyment is hostage to the whims of unfeeling plutocrats.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Enhancement through Lower Regard?
Today the leading credit rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) announced that they have given a "negative outlook" to US government debt. This is not a downgrade in itself, but does provide a more specific qualitative assessment when combined with the rating itself.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Miral
I have been lax in documenting and reviewing the movie "Miral", the new movie directed by Julian Schnabel ("The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", one of my top 10 movies of the last decade). On a recent visit to New York about two weeks ago, I happened upon the opportunity to watch the movie, followed by a Q&A session with Schnabel himself, and with the writer of the screenplay and the memoir upon which the movie was based, Israeli Palestinian Rula Jebreal.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
The Obama Plan
I watched most of President Obama's speech on deficit reduction today and later read the text of it. I have no problems with any of it, including the political positioning, which is clearly front and center, and I disagree with those who want or expect more specifics at this point.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Trump's Birther Baloney
It is shameful that Donald Trump has seized on the question of President Obama's birth certificate as a means of pandering to the right wing of the Republican party. Like most things he does, it's a publicity stunt, but it is one that is part of a plan that aims at a thought almost too terrible to consider, the first stage of which is to get enough support among Republicans that he can win primaries and delegates.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Intrade Odds
...of this moment (Friday, April 8, at 3:39 p.m. EDT)
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
It's Shutdown Friday!
Actually, it will be Shutdown Saturday tomorrow; today is Brinkmanship Friday, as Senate Democrats and Congressional Republicans posture about the nature of the disagreement: Speaker of the House of Orange John Boehner claims it's because Democrats won't agree to enough cuts in the budget, while Senate Majority Leader Reid says it's because the Republicans insist on a policy of defunding Planned Parenthood. For his part, President Obama, trying to preserve a role of impartiality to help get a deal done, is staying silent about which of the two is lying (and it could be both).
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
A noble man...can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor.
---Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
(Almost) No Apologies Necessary
Whether the US is a "confessional" society might make for a good debate. The term refers usually to a nation's being organized around religion, and on that point one could argue both for the prominence of religion in the expressions of our social life, including its politics, and on the other hand for its secular nature and the strong wall usually existing between state and formal religious groups.
In the terms of the classic dilemma for those about to get involved in transgressive behavior, America, compared to most countries, is much more a "beg forgiveness" country than an "ask permission" one. This is really one of our great strengths, a key source of our history of innovation, and one of the clearest expressions of the sense of liberty that Americans feel in their daily lives.
The "confessional" is that little closet where believers go to confess their sins in the Catholic church and in some of the others. A "confessional society" contains a paradox: beliefs fundamentally revolving around those private, secret admissions emerge into direct influence on public policy. American society is confessional in a different way: it is the public confessional which is important. In our legal system, the degree of punishment is very much affected if the guilty admit to their crimes; so it is in our trials of public opinion of the famous. It is not enough that our celebrity face up to his/her sins privately, in the confessional, the A.A. group meeting, or face-to-face with those wronged--we expect a public apology as the first step in rehabilitation.
There are countless examples, from Tiger Woods to Eliot Spitzer to Larry Craig. If the mea culpa is deemed sufficiently sincere, the American people will forgive almost anything; if not, they will punish endlessly and ostracize ruthlessly. Think of O.J. Simpson, of Roman Polanski.
Still, there are those whose behavior is publicly criticized who, I would argue, have no need to apologize. For example, Charlie Sheen may be wrong about his level of talent, the demand for it, and his popularity--I would say probably he is wrong--but he is not wrong in his "arrogant" posture that he does not owe the public an apology. His show, "Two and a Half Men", may have been simple-minded entertainment, but it was entertaining, and his lifestyle probably contributed to its success (by adding authenticity to his portrayal of an amoral, womanizing rake) more than it detracted from it. He certainly does not need to apologize for it, in the face of dozens of shows of much more embarrassing quality.
The Libya Thing
I don't see that President Obama has anything to apologize for in the case of the US' involvement in establishing--by force--the "no fly zone". Neither to us, nor to Congress, nor to the world community. Regardless of what he said while campaigning, prior approval for hostilities is not required by US law. There are dozens of precedents, including several in recent decades. I would argue that Obama should get Congressional approval before putting any troops, or military advisers, on the ground in Libya (and I think he will not choose to take that further step, anyway).
In terms of lack of clarity on objectives, exit strategy, and all those other criticisms, those reflect a desire to over-simplify a complex situation, rather than a defect on strategy or execution. Obama's decisions were careful to go up to the line of what the U.N. resolution authorized, but not beyond. Once the no-fly zone had been established, he moved quickly to end US direction and leadership of military action, passing the responsibility to NATO, which was more eager for the role than our own military chiefs.
Will the mission succeed? This is very much in doubt, though the immediate aims of the U.N. resolution and US military action--protecting civilian populations in the east of the country from being overrun by Qadhafi forces, and the expected reprisals--were largely accomplished. Eastern Libya is still not out of danger, though, Qadhafi lives and continues to repress Libyans in most of the west of the country, and it is unclear whether the emerging stalemate will cost more innocent lives than a cathartic bloodletting would. Probably not, but the preferred outcome remains Qadhafi dead, his sons disinherited and exiled, and letting Libya be governed--for good or ill--by different Libyans. Obama has been clear enough about this (except for the part about Qadhafi's mortal expiration), and again has no reason to apologize.
Perhaps I need to apologize, though, for calling for the bad Colonel's assassination by willing agents of the Libyans. After all, the one major American political figure who I've seen espouse "my" policy is John Bolton, the never-confirmed former US Ambassador to the U.N. Generally, one can count on Bolton's undiplomatic pronouncements to be 100% in error. In this case, he's no more than 5% off, though; I would differ with him only in that the assassination should not be a product of US policy, but something done by Libyans, with private encouragement as necessary (OK, maybe a little "persuasion" in the form of attacks on Qadhafi's hometown base). The fact Qadhafi still breathes is not a deficiency of the Obama Administration's policy, then, just an incomplete development of events to date.
Anyway, to whom would I apologize? Colonel Qaddafi? No way.
Talking about the Men's NCAA Tournament
Next on the list of criticized entities that need no apologies are the four teams of the Final Four. Though the semifinal and championship games may not have met the artistic standards some desired (particularly in offensive execution), these teams reached their stations in the traditional way, winning at least five games in a row in single elimination.
Yes, they had some dicey moments: Butler's win over Pittsburgh came after two highly improbable mental error fouls, but the highly-favored Panthers had their chance and failed. Kentucky needed a last-second basket to beat Princeton in the first round; Butler should have lost to Florida, and VCU to Florida State, had those teams executed their offenses properly in their final offensive plays in regulation time. This was a tournament of close games and fateful accidents, but also of some surprising one-sided defeats of higher-seeded teams, like VCU's destruction of regional #2 and #1 seeds Notre Dame and Kansas.
Certainly the Connecticut Huskies have nothing for which to apologize. They followed up a fantastic series of wins in the Big East conference tourney with similar successes all the way through the NCAA tourney. The only thing to wonder about is what happened in the regular-season conference play, when they could only win half their games, but they came from nowhere early in the season to establish their credentials, then put it together again "when it counted" at the end.
VCU's run troubled me, though: this was a team which did very little to earn its bid in the tournament. They did not win their conference, or their conference tourney, or beat any powerful teams in non-conference games, or even put up an impressive overall won-lost record (19-11 going into the tournament, I believe). Their selection was justifiably highly criticized, but they had the last laugh; they were strong enough to win through to the semis, including a decisive win against the team considered second-best in the country going into the tournament (if not the best), Kansas. What all this means is some demeaning of the importance of quality of performance in the regular season: just do enough to get in, don't show your methods of competing against the best, and prep your athletes for a surprise run. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the game is already too close to a semi-pro league, and coasting through the regular season to get into "the playoffs" is not the behavior the college game needs.
Finally, my picks: neither the dream Kentucky-Louisville final nor the chalky varieties of Kansas and Ohio State made it to the final, so I didn't win any money. I did have one of my ESPN picks with Connecticut winning the tourney (and some other good picks along the way; I had only one of the Final Four, but I had all four of the regional finalist losers making it that far), and that one made it above 99 percent of entries. So, no need to apologize for lack of prognostication excellence.
I do have to apologize to my wife, though: I meant to make one of my ESPN entries (they allow 10, I did eight) be her picks, but I made a key mistake or two in entering them, which caused her some de-motivation in watching the games. Sorry, dear!
In the terms of the classic dilemma for those about to get involved in transgressive behavior, America, compared to most countries, is much more a "beg forgiveness" country than an "ask permission" one. This is really one of our great strengths, a key source of our history of innovation, and one of the clearest expressions of the sense of liberty that Americans feel in their daily lives.
The "confessional" is that little closet where believers go to confess their sins in the Catholic church and in some of the others. A "confessional society" contains a paradox: beliefs fundamentally revolving around those private, secret admissions emerge into direct influence on public policy. American society is confessional in a different way: it is the public confessional which is important. In our legal system, the degree of punishment is very much affected if the guilty admit to their crimes; so it is in our trials of public opinion of the famous. It is not enough that our celebrity face up to his/her sins privately, in the confessional, the A.A. group meeting, or face-to-face with those wronged--we expect a public apology as the first step in rehabilitation.
There are countless examples, from Tiger Woods to Eliot Spitzer to Larry Craig. If the mea culpa is deemed sufficiently sincere, the American people will forgive almost anything; if not, they will punish endlessly and ostracize ruthlessly. Think of O.J. Simpson, of Roman Polanski.
Still, there are those whose behavior is publicly criticized who, I would argue, have no need to apologize. For example, Charlie Sheen may be wrong about his level of talent, the demand for it, and his popularity--I would say probably he is wrong--but he is not wrong in his "arrogant" posture that he does not owe the public an apology. His show, "Two and a Half Men", may have been simple-minded entertainment, but it was entertaining, and his lifestyle probably contributed to its success (by adding authenticity to his portrayal of an amoral, womanizing rake) more than it detracted from it. He certainly does not need to apologize for it, in the face of dozens of shows of much more embarrassing quality.
The Libya Thing
I don't see that President Obama has anything to apologize for in the case of the US' involvement in establishing--by force--the "no fly zone". Neither to us, nor to Congress, nor to the world community. Regardless of what he said while campaigning, prior approval for hostilities is not required by US law. There are dozens of precedents, including several in recent decades. I would argue that Obama should get Congressional approval before putting any troops, or military advisers, on the ground in Libya (and I think he will not choose to take that further step, anyway).
In terms of lack of clarity on objectives, exit strategy, and all those other criticisms, those reflect a desire to over-simplify a complex situation, rather than a defect on strategy or execution. Obama's decisions were careful to go up to the line of what the U.N. resolution authorized, but not beyond. Once the no-fly zone had been established, he moved quickly to end US direction and leadership of military action, passing the responsibility to NATO, which was more eager for the role than our own military chiefs.
Will the mission succeed? This is very much in doubt, though the immediate aims of the U.N. resolution and US military action--protecting civilian populations in the east of the country from being overrun by Qadhafi forces, and the expected reprisals--were largely accomplished. Eastern Libya is still not out of danger, though, Qadhafi lives and continues to repress Libyans in most of the west of the country, and it is unclear whether the emerging stalemate will cost more innocent lives than a cathartic bloodletting would. Probably not, but the preferred outcome remains Qadhafi dead, his sons disinherited and exiled, and letting Libya be governed--for good or ill--by different Libyans. Obama has been clear enough about this (except for the part about Qadhafi's mortal expiration), and again has no reason to apologize.
Perhaps I need to apologize, though, for calling for the bad Colonel's assassination by willing agents of the Libyans. After all, the one major American political figure who I've seen espouse "my" policy is John Bolton, the never-confirmed former US Ambassador to the U.N. Generally, one can count on Bolton's undiplomatic pronouncements to be 100% in error. In this case, he's no more than 5% off, though; I would differ with him only in that the assassination should not be a product of US policy, but something done by Libyans, with private encouragement as necessary (OK, maybe a little "persuasion" in the form of attacks on Qadhafi's hometown base). The fact Qadhafi still breathes is not a deficiency of the Obama Administration's policy, then, just an incomplete development of events to date.
Anyway, to whom would I apologize? Colonel Qaddafi? No way.
Talking about the Men's NCAA Tournament
Next on the list of criticized entities that need no apologies are the four teams of the Final Four. Though the semifinal and championship games may not have met the artistic standards some desired (particularly in offensive execution), these teams reached their stations in the traditional way, winning at least five games in a row in single elimination.
Yes, they had some dicey moments: Butler's win over Pittsburgh came after two highly improbable mental error fouls, but the highly-favored Panthers had their chance and failed. Kentucky needed a last-second basket to beat Princeton in the first round; Butler should have lost to Florida, and VCU to Florida State, had those teams executed their offenses properly in their final offensive plays in regulation time. This was a tournament of close games and fateful accidents, but also of some surprising one-sided defeats of higher-seeded teams, like VCU's destruction of regional #2 and #1 seeds Notre Dame and Kansas.
Certainly the Connecticut Huskies have nothing for which to apologize. They followed up a fantastic series of wins in the Big East conference tourney with similar successes all the way through the NCAA tourney. The only thing to wonder about is what happened in the regular-season conference play, when they could only win half their games, but they came from nowhere early in the season to establish their credentials, then put it together again "when it counted" at the end.
VCU's run troubled me, though: this was a team which did very little to earn its bid in the tournament. They did not win their conference, or their conference tourney, or beat any powerful teams in non-conference games, or even put up an impressive overall won-lost record (19-11 going into the tournament, I believe). Their selection was justifiably highly criticized, but they had the last laugh; they were strong enough to win through to the semis, including a decisive win against the team considered second-best in the country going into the tournament (if not the best), Kansas. What all this means is some demeaning of the importance of quality of performance in the regular season: just do enough to get in, don't show your methods of competing against the best, and prep your athletes for a surprise run. Of course, it isn't that simple, but the game is already too close to a semi-pro league, and coasting through the regular season to get into "the playoffs" is not the behavior the college game needs.
Finally, my picks: neither the dream Kentucky-Louisville final nor the chalky varieties of Kansas and Ohio State made it to the final, so I didn't win any money. I did have one of my ESPN picks with Connecticut winning the tourney (and some other good picks along the way; I had only one of the Final Four, but I had all four of the regional finalist losers making it that far), and that one made it above 99 percent of entries. So, no need to apologize for lack of prognostication excellence.
I do have to apologize to my wife, though: I meant to make one of my ESPN entries (they allow 10, I did eight) be her picks, but I made a key mistake or two in entering them, which caused her some de-motivation in watching the games. Sorry, dear!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
'Cats Hyperbole
It's probably just me, but the game last night between Kentucky and Ohio State has to rate as one of the best NCAA basketball games I've seen in the last ten years.
It had the feel of a championship game--high tension, close scores, furiously contested--though it was just the Round of 16. Both teams had breadth in the quality of their starting fives and top reserves, though not a lot of bench depth. Each had a good mix of freshman talent (now, getting seasoned) and veteran mental toughness.
The defense was excellent--particularly from Kentucky, and from Ohio St.'s freshman point guard Aaron Craft--but there were not a lot of turnovers, a credit to good ball-handling from both teams. Fouls were a big factor, but Kentucky showed a great deal of poise in playing solid defense without fouling through the second half, when most of their players were in some foul trouble.
Finally, a great finish, and the right team won, from my point of view. I will of course pat myself on the back for identifying this game in my tournament preview as a pivotal one (let's not talk about the other one, the never-to-be Louisville-Kansas showdown that should've been happening last night, too).
Kentucky eliminated the #1 team in the tournament, in a game reminiscent of the one in the quarterfinals last year in which it was eliminated, but the Wildcats' work is far from done. Their regional final will be a difficult matchup with a team with some similarities (the height, the freshman talent) which they played early in the year: Kentucky's narrow loss at North Carolina proved a turning point in the Tar heels' second turnaround, from overrated to under-regarded, then to a truly powerful, dangerous squad. I hesitate to predict another Kentucky win: this one took huge mental energy, and they will have little time to recharge, while North Carolina coasted to an easy win over Marquette.
It had the feel of a championship game--high tension, close scores, furiously contested--though it was just the Round of 16. Both teams had breadth in the quality of their starting fives and top reserves, though not a lot of bench depth. Each had a good mix of freshman talent (now, getting seasoned) and veteran mental toughness.
The defense was excellent--particularly from Kentucky, and from Ohio St.'s freshman point guard Aaron Craft--but there were not a lot of turnovers, a credit to good ball-handling from both teams. Fouls were a big factor, but Kentucky showed a great deal of poise in playing solid defense without fouling through the second half, when most of their players were in some foul trouble.
Finally, a great finish, and the right team won, from my point of view. I will of course pat myself on the back for identifying this game in my tournament preview as a pivotal one (let's not talk about the other one, the never-to-be Louisville-Kansas showdown that should've been happening last night, too).
Kentucky eliminated the #1 team in the tournament, in a game reminiscent of the one in the quarterfinals last year in which it was eliminated, but the Wildcats' work is far from done. Their regional final will be a difficult matchup with a team with some similarities (the height, the freshman talent) which they played early in the year: Kentucky's narrow loss at North Carolina proved a turning point in the Tar heels' second turnaround, from overrated to under-regarded, then to a truly powerful, dangerous squad. I hesitate to predict another Kentucky win: this one took huge mental energy, and they will have little time to recharge, while North Carolina coasted to an easy win over Marquette.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
To Liberate Libya?
Although it is not acknowledged, it is hard to credit any other outcome as the ultimate objective of the U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize "all necessary steps" to protect civilians, and of the beginning of military activities by a coalition, led by France, the U.S., and the U.K., to establish a "no-fly zone" for Qadhafi's air force over Libya.
The actions were defensible and just barely in time to prevent the routing of the rebel forces from their stronghold in Benghazi and a massacre which surely would have followed. Perhaps, not even in time: the immediate response of the Qadhafi regime to the U.N. resolution was to declare a cease-fire, a ruse designed to give his forces time to invest Benghazi in a siege.
It is likely that the initiation of air attacks on Qadhafi's forces may give the rebels a chance to regroup and protect some of their strongholds, maybe even to re-emerge in some of the Western Libyan towns from which they had been brutally driven. It does not seem likely to achieve either a negotiated peace or a comprehensive defeat of Qadhafi forces.
It still falls on the rebels to do most of the work if the country is to be freed of Qadhafi's rule by force of arms, and, barring a new round of defections by loyalist forces, unclear whether they will have the capacity to do so. It is extremely important that the US keep to its pledge not to involve any ground forces (except possibly for rescue operations if any of our planes are shot down); the American public will not support a new, third ground war in a Muslim country, one which has little connection with Al-Qaeda or its allied movements (as with Iraq's Saddam, Libya's Qadhafi and Al-Qaeda have been sworn enemies), and from which the oil production, though significant, is not critical. There are too many parallels with Iraq--both the first and second conflicts there--to feel very comfortable with the initiation of foreign involvement in the hostilities. They include the very vexing problem of what would be done, if there were some sort of national liberation, with Qadhafi's minority of tribal supporters, who are not going to accept defeat and loss of privilege with good grace.
I do support the limited aims announced and intended from the short-term actions, but if reducing civilian casualties is indeed the goal, a standoff and prolonged civil conflict are not going to achieve it. Reducing the degree of intensity of conflict may be achievable in a week or so, then we might redouble our efforts (which I hope have started) to induce some of Qadhafi's protectors to turn on him and kill him in his sleep--followed by a 24-hour notice to his sons to get out of Dodge. This remains the best outcome for this challenging, somewhat ill-considered rebellion.
The actions were defensible and just barely in time to prevent the routing of the rebel forces from their stronghold in Benghazi and a massacre which surely would have followed. Perhaps, not even in time: the immediate response of the Qadhafi regime to the U.N. resolution was to declare a cease-fire, a ruse designed to give his forces time to invest Benghazi in a siege.
It is likely that the initiation of air attacks on Qadhafi's forces may give the rebels a chance to regroup and protect some of their strongholds, maybe even to re-emerge in some of the Western Libyan towns from which they had been brutally driven. It does not seem likely to achieve either a negotiated peace or a comprehensive defeat of Qadhafi forces.
It still falls on the rebels to do most of the work if the country is to be freed of Qadhafi's rule by force of arms, and, barring a new round of defections by loyalist forces, unclear whether they will have the capacity to do so. It is extremely important that the US keep to its pledge not to involve any ground forces (except possibly for rescue operations if any of our planes are shot down); the American public will not support a new, third ground war in a Muslim country, one which has little connection with Al-Qaeda or its allied movements (as with Iraq's Saddam, Libya's Qadhafi and Al-Qaeda have been sworn enemies), and from which the oil production, though significant, is not critical. There are too many parallels with Iraq--both the first and second conflicts there--to feel very comfortable with the initiation of foreign involvement in the hostilities. They include the very vexing problem of what would be done, if there were some sort of national liberation, with Qadhafi's minority of tribal supporters, who are not going to accept defeat and loss of privilege with good grace.
I do support the limited aims announced and intended from the short-term actions, but if reducing civilian casualties is indeed the goal, a standoff and prolonged civil conflict are not going to achieve it. Reducing the degree of intensity of conflict may be achievable in a week or so, then we might redouble our efforts (which I hope have started) to induce some of Qadhafi's protectors to turn on him and kill him in his sleep--followed by a 24-hour notice to his sons to get out of Dodge. This remains the best outcome for this challenging, somewhat ill-considered rebellion.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Bracketing My Thoughts
And Then There Were 64
Tomorrow the NCAA men's basketball tournament will properly begin. I don't mind the four warm-up games that were played Tuesday and Wednesday, an expansion of just three teams. This was supposed to make go away the "bubble" problem--the one the BCS has such a problem with in college football--though it just pushed it from the 34th at-large team to the 37th, or something like that. The problem being, what about the best team not included? and the answer clearly not being "the NIT".
I would've liked to have seen Harvard and St. Mary's as the two, creative inclusions for the extra spots in the play-in at-large games for 11th and 12th seeds somewhere, instead of the roundly criticized VCU and UAB. Really, though, this is not as important as it's been made out--the real problems were in the seedings and the scheduling of the solid teams that would be in any conceivable bracket.
There is a bias in the selection committee, which I would describe as "somewhat Eastern, somewhat Southern, somewhat Big 10, definitely not Kentucky, though". This was also evidenced by the teams getting early-round home-court advantages in Cleveland (Xavier and Ohio St.), Chicago (Notre Dame and Purdue), and Charlotte (most egregiously, Duke and U. of North Carolina), and the "awarding" to U. of Kentucky and U. of Louisville each 4th-seeds (a bit too low, given Kentucky's win of the SEC tournament after a very challenging season schedule, and U. of L.'s fine runner-up performance in the Big East tournament, with the same notation on its schedule difficulty); worse, those #4 seedings line them up to play the tournament's two favorite teams, Ohio St. (for U. of K.) and Kansas (for U. of L.) Those two games, for me, are the pivotal ones in the whole tournament: there aren't too many teams that have legitimate chances against Ohio St. and Kansas, and a win by either Kentucky or Louisville (or better, by both) would throw the tournament wide open.
So, I'm making two classes of picks: one in which one or both of my faves pull the big upset, and "the others" in which chalk rules (I'm going with Kansas in the final between the two tourney favorites, as my experiences watching Ohio St.--especially their game against Northwestern in the Big 10 tourney--have disappointed me somewhat).
Successful NCAA tournament teams are of two kinds, really: the team game with strong defense, good point guards, and clutch foul shooting, and the one which adds to that mix (more or less on the FT's) big men who can score and guards who can get the ball to them. The ordinary class of successful NCAA team is the first kind, and there are several of them in the tournament, and Kansas and Ohio St. seem to be the candidates for the latter (which prevails over the former).
Pittsburgh, Duke, North Carolina, and Florida also (along with Kentucky, Louisville) fit the second class, more or less, and they will be the ones to contest the championship if we can get the big guys--Ohio St.'s Jared Sullinger, Kansas' Morris twins--out of there. There is one other interesting team--perhaps a bit of a throwback to the UNLV Runnin' Rebels of the '80's--from San Diego State, which lost two games all year (both to the Cougars of Jimmer Fredette's BYU), and reminds me of a lower-level NBA team for their athletic, fast, similar-sized, mature players. They are definitely an interesting choice to make the Final Four, which would require beating Duke (which has the easiest schedule to the Elite Eight and seems a sure bet to go that far, and likely farther if their talented, injured player, Kyrie Irving, makes it all the way back).
I see this tournament as having: two top teams, about 8-10 highly competitive teams of similar skill, and relatively few good upset candidates among seeds 9-16. It won't be too interesting until next week when we're down to 16.
Japan Down, Not Out
My deepest sympathies for the Japanese people, victimized as they have been in the past by earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear radiation. I hope that the Japanese will rise from this tragedy in due course; we should be giving them our fullest aid. I would also challenge the peoples of China and Korea--both still harboring grudges, perhaps deservedly, from Japan's aggression in World War II--but both thriving nations in the area (I'm excluding the Pyongyang joke regime in North Korea) which could show unprecedented goodwill and help all the peoples of East Asia rise above the waves of anger, tragedy, and disaster.
Tomorrow the NCAA men's basketball tournament will properly begin. I don't mind the four warm-up games that were played Tuesday and Wednesday, an expansion of just three teams. This was supposed to make go away the "bubble" problem--the one the BCS has such a problem with in college football--though it just pushed it from the 34th at-large team to the 37th, or something like that. The problem being, what about the best team not included? and the answer clearly not being "the NIT".
I would've liked to have seen Harvard and St. Mary's as the two, creative inclusions for the extra spots in the play-in at-large games for 11th and 12th seeds somewhere, instead of the roundly criticized VCU and UAB. Really, though, this is not as important as it's been made out--the real problems were in the seedings and the scheduling of the solid teams that would be in any conceivable bracket.
There is a bias in the selection committee, which I would describe as "somewhat Eastern, somewhat Southern, somewhat Big 10, definitely not Kentucky, though". This was also evidenced by the teams getting early-round home-court advantages in Cleveland (Xavier and Ohio St.), Chicago (Notre Dame and Purdue), and Charlotte (most egregiously, Duke and U. of North Carolina), and the "awarding" to U. of Kentucky and U. of Louisville each 4th-seeds (a bit too low, given Kentucky's win of the SEC tournament after a very challenging season schedule, and U. of L.'s fine runner-up performance in the Big East tournament, with the same notation on its schedule difficulty); worse, those #4 seedings line them up to play the tournament's two favorite teams, Ohio St. (for U. of K.) and Kansas (for U. of L.) Those two games, for me, are the pivotal ones in the whole tournament: there aren't too many teams that have legitimate chances against Ohio St. and Kansas, and a win by either Kentucky or Louisville (or better, by both) would throw the tournament wide open.
So, I'm making two classes of picks: one in which one or both of my faves pull the big upset, and "the others" in which chalk rules (I'm going with Kansas in the final between the two tourney favorites, as my experiences watching Ohio St.--especially their game against Northwestern in the Big 10 tourney--have disappointed me somewhat).
Successful NCAA tournament teams are of two kinds, really: the team game with strong defense, good point guards, and clutch foul shooting, and the one which adds to that mix (more or less on the FT's) big men who can score and guards who can get the ball to them. The ordinary class of successful NCAA team is the first kind, and there are several of them in the tournament, and Kansas and Ohio St. seem to be the candidates for the latter (which prevails over the former).
Pittsburgh, Duke, North Carolina, and Florida also (along with Kentucky, Louisville) fit the second class, more or less, and they will be the ones to contest the championship if we can get the big guys--Ohio St.'s Jared Sullinger, Kansas' Morris twins--out of there. There is one other interesting team--perhaps a bit of a throwback to the UNLV Runnin' Rebels of the '80's--from San Diego State, which lost two games all year (both to the Cougars of Jimmer Fredette's BYU), and reminds me of a lower-level NBA team for their athletic, fast, similar-sized, mature players. They are definitely an interesting choice to make the Final Four, which would require beating Duke (which has the easiest schedule to the Elite Eight and seems a sure bet to go that far, and likely farther if their talented, injured player, Kyrie Irving, makes it all the way back).
I see this tournament as having: two top teams, about 8-10 highly competitive teams of similar skill, and relatively few good upset candidates among seeds 9-16. It won't be too interesting until next week when we're down to 16.
Japan Down, Not Out
My deepest sympathies for the Japanese people, victimized as they have been in the past by earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear radiation. I hope that the Japanese will rise from this tragedy in due course; we should be giving them our fullest aid. I would also challenge the peoples of China and Korea--both still harboring grudges, perhaps deservedly, from Japan's aggression in World War II--but both thriving nations in the area (I'm excluding the Pyongyang joke regime in North Korea) which could show unprecedented goodwill and help all the peoples of East Asia rise above the waves of anger, tragedy, and disaster.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What I Said
(The self-contradictory statements in much of this are intentional, self-deprecatory irony, and nobody does it better. Whatever it is.)
I've posted it before, quoting the Talking Heads' "Psycho-Killer":
So, as I don't want to repeat myself, I refer you to my prior commments, without further elaboration, on the following topics: What should be done about Libya; my comments on the 2010 movies, before nominations and after the awards; the New Mexico gas crisis--I'm glad to see there is a class action suit now being formed up for those, like us, who did not have pipes break or have to close our business, but were just tremendously inconvenienced; my comments about "The Lightning Revolution" in the Middle East, especially which countries are not good sites for People Power uprisings (Libya among them); and the opinions expressed in my last Political Update.
I'd just add to my prior comments on Wisconsin's mess that the way it ended--with the Republicans ramming the limitations on the public unions through--was the way it had to end, given the Governor's stubborn insistence on refusing to negotiate on that issue, regardless of the falsely argued connection or lack to their budget issue. And, while I hope Walker and his legislative cronies are recalled, I can't see that it is a national issue to which I should contribute: it's up to the residents of Wisconsin to determine whether they want to become one of the states-wrongs "right-to-work" places like most of the South, or not.
...Modified Just Slightly
I must call attention to my last blog posting of the 2001-2010 decade entitled "Best of a Bad Decade", sadly hidden by the chronological scheme this blog uses to organize its archives. I have to underline my praise for David Mitchell (his "Cloud Atlas" is being made into a movie for release this year--I can't imagine how, really, except possibly to focus on the pivotal futuristic episodes in a deteriorating Hawaii Big Island), for the Coen Brothers (I have since expounded a lot more on the quality of "True Grit"), and for Bright Eyes (his new album deserves a proper critique, which I'll do after a few more listens). Let me just add that I might've mentioned some good 2010 musical products from Arcade Fire and the Black Keys in my update from the 2009 9/10 decade review.
In terms of my initial SPBLORG in January, I neglected to give sufficient attention to the emerging big stories: the owner-player battles in the NFL and NBA. I will summarize my views by saying the owners are not to be trusted, that their problems lie in their inability to restrain themselves from offering great contracts to mediocre players and to share revenue properly among themselves, and that I stand prepared to offer extraordinary assistance to either players' union should they strike out on their own and leave these unsympathetic oligarchs behind.
I will close with some transitional comments on college basketball, elaborating on that SPBLORG and anticipating some future posting on the NCAA tournament. As I write, the final tournament championship game is being played and the bracket announcements are due in a couple of hours. I think this is a great time to speculate on what will be, though I am limited in my guesses of something like the Final Four because I don't know which seeds will go to which regions--it's becoming more random all the time. In my previous comments, I rated too highly Texas--a team with great talent but difficulty in recent weeks playing their game--and neglected completely Ohio State, the team which has come through all this as #1 (though they were no more immune to the #1 jinx than all the others, they disappointed the poll participants less frequently, losing only twice and late, to good teams, on the road).
Bracket pickers, and especially bracket contest organizers, will have less time to think and prepare this year because of the added four teams--the so-called bracket busters--which will be playing on Tuesday and Wednesday (there's also, less significantly, another play-in game). A few comments on faves and the opposite of those: Three teams that were "hot" in the late season got comeuppance in the tournaments--North Carolina, which proved that you can come back against some teams all the time, but not all teams all the time; Notre Dame, which narrowly lost to Louisville in the Big East semis just when they seemed to have won a #1 seed; and Florida, decisively handled by Kentucky (which seems to have overcome their tendency to late-game jitters). All three are dangerous, but I'd tend to discount their chances of going all the way. I don't like BYU, which despite the superb play of Jimmer (who eliminated local fave UNM in the MWC semifinals with a 52-point effort), showed themselves far too weak up the middle since they dropped their center for dubious moralistic reasons--they will find a team in the middle rounds strong enough to eliminate them (Ohio St., or practically any Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 team, for that matter, would be examples). On the other hand, I love MWC tourney champion SDSU as a dark-horse pick to win it all, along with Kansas, Pittsburgh, Duke (hate to admit it), and either Kentucky or Louisville (but not both--I see they are likely to be in the same region according to ESPN's "bracketologist").
The conference tournament week is one of the purest events in sports; some of it is desperate bids to make the tournament for teams on the bubble, or completely outside the bubble in smaller conferences; some of it is the simple love of the game, the urge to play, as shown by the eight final teams in the Big East tournament, all of which were pretty much guaranteed tourney spots, but who played their butts off (possibly to the detriment of their future tournament chances)--I'm thinking particularly of Louisville, which looked totally exhausted at the end of their Big East final game, and Connecticut, which somehow did not after winning five games in five days. I was thrilled by the performance of Kemba Walker, my Player of the Year, who re-emerged after superior early-season performance for the week of his life. Good luck in the NBA, Kemba!
I've posted it before, quoting the Talking Heads' "Psycho-Killer":
Said something once; Why say it again?
So, as I don't want to repeat myself, I refer you to my prior commments, without further elaboration, on the following topics: What should be done about Libya; my comments on the 2010 movies, before nominations and after the awards; the New Mexico gas crisis--I'm glad to see there is a class action suit now being formed up for those, like us, who did not have pipes break or have to close our business, but were just tremendously inconvenienced; my comments about "The Lightning Revolution" in the Middle East, especially which countries are not good sites for People Power uprisings (Libya among them); and the opinions expressed in my last Political Update.
I'd just add to my prior comments on Wisconsin's mess that the way it ended--with the Republicans ramming the limitations on the public unions through--was the way it had to end, given the Governor's stubborn insistence on refusing to negotiate on that issue, regardless of the falsely argued connection or lack to their budget issue. And, while I hope Walker and his legislative cronies are recalled, I can't see that it is a national issue to which I should contribute: it's up to the residents of Wisconsin to determine whether they want to become one of the states-wrongs "right-to-work" places like most of the South, or not.
...Modified Just Slightly
I must call attention to my last blog posting of the 2001-2010 decade entitled "Best of a Bad Decade", sadly hidden by the chronological scheme this blog uses to organize its archives. I have to underline my praise for David Mitchell (his "Cloud Atlas" is being made into a movie for release this year--I can't imagine how, really, except possibly to focus on the pivotal futuristic episodes in a deteriorating Hawaii Big Island), for the Coen Brothers (I have since expounded a lot more on the quality of "True Grit"), and for Bright Eyes (his new album deserves a proper critique, which I'll do after a few more listens). Let me just add that I might've mentioned some good 2010 musical products from Arcade Fire and the Black Keys in my update from the 2009 9/10 decade review.
In terms of my initial SPBLORG in January, I neglected to give sufficient attention to the emerging big stories: the owner-player battles in the NFL and NBA. I will summarize my views by saying the owners are not to be trusted, that their problems lie in their inability to restrain themselves from offering great contracts to mediocre players and to share revenue properly among themselves, and that I stand prepared to offer extraordinary assistance to either players' union should they strike out on their own and leave these unsympathetic oligarchs behind.
I will close with some transitional comments on college basketball, elaborating on that SPBLORG and anticipating some future posting on the NCAA tournament. As I write, the final tournament championship game is being played and the bracket announcements are due in a couple of hours. I think this is a great time to speculate on what will be, though I am limited in my guesses of something like the Final Four because I don't know which seeds will go to which regions--it's becoming more random all the time. In my previous comments, I rated too highly Texas--a team with great talent but difficulty in recent weeks playing their game--and neglected completely Ohio State, the team which has come through all this as #1 (though they were no more immune to the #1 jinx than all the others, they disappointed the poll participants less frequently, losing only twice and late, to good teams, on the road).
Bracket pickers, and especially bracket contest organizers, will have less time to think and prepare this year because of the added four teams--the so-called bracket busters--which will be playing on Tuesday and Wednesday (there's also, less significantly, another play-in game). A few comments on faves and the opposite of those: Three teams that were "hot" in the late season got comeuppance in the tournaments--North Carolina, which proved that you can come back against some teams all the time, but not all teams all the time; Notre Dame, which narrowly lost to Louisville in the Big East semis just when they seemed to have won a #1 seed; and Florida, decisively handled by Kentucky (which seems to have overcome their tendency to late-game jitters). All three are dangerous, but I'd tend to discount their chances of going all the way. I don't like BYU, which despite the superb play of Jimmer (who eliminated local fave UNM in the MWC semifinals with a 52-point effort), showed themselves far too weak up the middle since they dropped their center for dubious moralistic reasons--they will find a team in the middle rounds strong enough to eliminate them (Ohio St., or practically any Big East or Big 10 or Big 12 team, for that matter, would be examples). On the other hand, I love MWC tourney champion SDSU as a dark-horse pick to win it all, along with Kansas, Pittsburgh, Duke (hate to admit it), and either Kentucky or Louisville (but not both--I see they are likely to be in the same region according to ESPN's "bracketologist").
The conference tournament week is one of the purest events in sports; some of it is desperate bids to make the tournament for teams on the bubble, or completely outside the bubble in smaller conferences; some of it is the simple love of the game, the urge to play, as shown by the eight final teams in the Big East tournament, all of which were pretty much guaranteed tourney spots, but who played their butts off (possibly to the detriment of their future tournament chances)--I'm thinking particularly of Louisville, which looked totally exhausted at the end of their Big East final game, and Connecticut, which somehow did not after winning five games in five days. I was thrilled by the performance of Kemba Walker, my Player of the Year, who re-emerged after superior early-season performance for the week of his life. Good luck in the NBA, Kemba!
Friday, March 04, 2011
Two Modest Proposals
1) Death to Qadhafi
Spell it any way you want, Muammar's lifespan does not bear prolungation. It's time for him to meet his maker. He deserves death, no doubt about it.
The question is, how? American policy prohibits assassination as an officially-approved action. The CIA has been accused of sponsoring attempts on Castro's life in Cuba, and in return there is some suggestion that Oswald's successful assassination of John F. Kennedy followed...and there's the rub. All kings oppose regicide of all other kings, for very logical reasons.
Ghedafi, though, is a bit different, and there is a way to proceed. This is a man who is ordering airstrikes on his political opponents, who is bringing in foreign mercenaries to fire indiscriminately on his citizens. My recommendation is that one of the human rights agencies--one with balls, if such exist--should offer a reward of $1 million to the person or persons who knocks him off (and can prove it), in the interests of saving many more lives. The CIA has infinite slush funds, and one of their front organizations can make a semi-legitimate "charitable contribution" to the organization in their own sweet time. When Khadafi is knocked off, his sons should be given 24 hours to leave Libya, or else get the same treatment (the citizenry would likely do the job anyway, a la Mussolini or Ceaucescu). Also, the euthanists putting down this rabid dog should be guaranteed safety, or asylum, if they want it.
Barring the quick route, we are looking at a protracted civil battle; the insurgents have enough arms that Gadafi will not be able to re-impose rule over the country, and that is a very, very good thing. The up-and-up route involves the African Union meeting, deciding that Qadafi is endangering security in the continent due to the refugees, the chemical weapons, the genocide, and requesting assistance from the U.N. Security Council. Only then would there be a decent chance that Russia and China--nations opposed on principle to the idea that a government cannot do whatever it wants to its own people--might agree to let the U.N. do something like create a no-fly zone in the liberated east, or a blockade of Tripoli, or authorize Ghedafi's arrest.
2) Death to Khamenei
One of the few things that has given me reason to thank Wiki-Leaks is the report that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has terminal cancer. This is good to know, and gives all the world hope that, given the swelling of popular will for liberation in the region, there may yet be hope of ending the regime of clerical-sponsored kleptocracy in Iran.
The key is for Khamenei to disappear before a religious succession plan is put into place, and Khamenei probably has improved that plan's chances for success by suspecting everyone around him. I think we can take our chances with Ahmadinejad; once his religious cover is gone, his political foes will take care of him.
The route to success here is through Khamenei's doctors. All we ask is to relieve his pain, make sure there aren't any heroic efforts to keep prolong his life--no "Generalissimo Franco--still not dead" headlines. There are plenty of ways to reward the doctors who help make it happen.
Spell it any way you want, Muammar's lifespan does not bear prolungation. It's time for him to meet his maker. He deserves death, no doubt about it.
The question is, how? American policy prohibits assassination as an officially-approved action. The CIA has been accused of sponsoring attempts on Castro's life in Cuba, and in return there is some suggestion that Oswald's successful assassination of John F. Kennedy followed...and there's the rub. All kings oppose regicide of all other kings, for very logical reasons.
Ghedafi, though, is a bit different, and there is a way to proceed. This is a man who is ordering airstrikes on his political opponents, who is bringing in foreign mercenaries to fire indiscriminately on his citizens. My recommendation is that one of the human rights agencies--one with balls, if such exist--should offer a reward of $1 million to the person or persons who knocks him off (and can prove it), in the interests of saving many more lives. The CIA has infinite slush funds, and one of their front organizations can make a semi-legitimate "charitable contribution" to the organization in their own sweet time. When Khadafi is knocked off, his sons should be given 24 hours to leave Libya, or else get the same treatment (the citizenry would likely do the job anyway, a la Mussolini or Ceaucescu). Also, the euthanists putting down this rabid dog should be guaranteed safety, or asylum, if they want it.
Barring the quick route, we are looking at a protracted civil battle; the insurgents have enough arms that Gadafi will not be able to re-impose rule over the country, and that is a very, very good thing. The up-and-up route involves the African Union meeting, deciding that Qadafi is endangering security in the continent due to the refugees, the chemical weapons, the genocide, and requesting assistance from the U.N. Security Council. Only then would there be a decent chance that Russia and China--nations opposed on principle to the idea that a government cannot do whatever it wants to its own people--might agree to let the U.N. do something like create a no-fly zone in the liberated east, or a blockade of Tripoli, or authorize Ghedafi's arrest.
2) Death to Khamenei
One of the few things that has given me reason to thank Wiki-Leaks is the report that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei has terminal cancer. This is good to know, and gives all the world hope that, given the swelling of popular will for liberation in the region, there may yet be hope of ending the regime of clerical-sponsored kleptocracy in Iran.
The key is for Khamenei to disappear before a religious succession plan is put into place, and Khamenei probably has improved that plan's chances for success by suspecting everyone around him. I think we can take our chances with Ahmadinejad; once his religious cover is gone, his political foes will take care of him.
The route to success here is through Khamenei's doctors. All we ask is to relieve his pain, make sure there aren't any heroic efforts to keep prolong his life--no "Generalissimo Franco--still not dead" headlines. There are plenty of ways to reward the doctors who help make it happen.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
BYU: Don't Lets U Be U
B Yu?
The sports world is a-buzz with the "premarital sex scandal" which seems likely to deprive Brigham Young Univ. of its shot at a wide-open NCAA basketball championship.
The facts are pretty simple:
1) BYU's center Brandon Davies was dismissed from the team yesterday for admitting to a violation of the Honor Code that all BYU students are required to sign and observe;
2) BYU then went out and lost a home game to Univ. of New Mexico, 82-64 (and the game wasn't even that close).
Davies has subsequently admitted that his violation was having premarital sex with his girlfriend, though tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, growing facial hair, getting a tattoo, or not going to church regularly would also have been code violations.
I am somewhat conflicted about the "scandal". First, unambiguously, I have to cheer UNM's crushing of BYU; Davies is the second-best player on his team (after probable Player of the Year Jimmer Fredette), but he was the only one providing the team with some legitimate size and strength up front; without him, the Lobos went right at BYU, and the shaken Cougars folded up. UNM needed the win badly, and I don't want it devalued by Davies' departure--this was the #3 team in the country, even if they'd had a stunning player loss.
Second, BYU has announced it's cutting ties with the Mountain West Conference and going to join the West Coast Conference (Gonzaga, Pepperdine, St. Mary's, etc.) for all sports except football (in which it will try to be "the Notre Dame of the West"). Good luck with that last one: after this, all prospects will be fully warned off from the requirements of Control Freak U. Good riddance!
I will give BYU some credit for failing to exhibit the usual hypocrisy shown by colleges when their athletes violate the rules. At the same time, I'd say they showed a lack of proportionality in their punishment of Davies, the team, and ultimately, themselves. I'm going to pretend that the fact Davies is an African-American, and the ugly history BYU's sponsoring religion, the Church of Latter Day Saints (a/k/a the Mormons) has had with the darker-skinned members of our society, have absolutely nothing to do with the harsh punishment given to Davies. I will acknowledge that Davies chose freely to go to BYU and sign the Honor Code and the strictures imposed on matriculants by the religion (is he really a Mormon? Hard to believe...)
I do have to say something about the Mormon religion, though. It may come up again next year when there may well be two Republican Presidential candidates of that persuasion. Respectable journalists are required to "respect" the beliefs of the Mormons; I am not bound by that. The fundamental beliefs of the Mormon religion include things like: angels came to Joseph Smith, showed him hidden gold tablets and "inspired" him to translate them, then took the tablets back, they're all about a lost race of Jews in North America whom Jesus visited after his crucifixion, that divine inspiration (and a relative excess of women) gave inspiration to the Mormon leaders to permit polygamy, then later, when it was necessary to co-exist with the USA, the same divine inspiration told them to end it, that Negroes were shunned and considered an inferior race until the 1970's, and so on. I know what I'm talking about--I've sat through the interminable Mormon pageant presented annually in Palmyra, New York (site of the Joseph Smith miracle) where they act out the whole story. The beliefs basically require credulity of the highest (or lowest) order.
As a design for living, a "business plan", on the other hand, the Mormons have a very workable model. Clean living, lots of fertility (after marriage only, please), and aggressive proselytizing worldwide has allowed the membership of the church to skyrocket. BYU brings that program to its college, and the church subsidizes tuition heavilyl, in return for which they require all their students to stay with the program (though I think they are allowed to attend other churches of their "choice").
Is it a good deal? I'd go with no; I'm all in favor of students choosing to give up various vices, in order to allow them to focus better on their studies, but I'd also argue that "education" means learning about the world they are going to be dumped into after graduation, and that the commitments students make should be revocable, as they live and learn. Dismissal from the university is too much, I've heard far too much about a "snitch" culture that exists at BYU after the "scandal" broke, and dismissal from the team for consensual sex with another adult also seems too much to me. I wish them a high seeding in the tournament, combined with an early exit, and a similar result in the Mountain West Conference's postseason tournament next week.
The sports world is a-buzz with the "premarital sex scandal" which seems likely to deprive Brigham Young Univ. of its shot at a wide-open NCAA basketball championship.
The facts are pretty simple:
1) BYU's center Brandon Davies was dismissed from the team yesterday for admitting to a violation of the Honor Code that all BYU students are required to sign and observe;
2) BYU then went out and lost a home game to Univ. of New Mexico, 82-64 (and the game wasn't even that close).
Davies has subsequently admitted that his violation was having premarital sex with his girlfriend, though tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, growing facial hair, getting a tattoo, or not going to church regularly would also have been code violations.
I am somewhat conflicted about the "scandal". First, unambiguously, I have to cheer UNM's crushing of BYU; Davies is the second-best player on his team (after probable Player of the Year Jimmer Fredette), but he was the only one providing the team with some legitimate size and strength up front; without him, the Lobos went right at BYU, and the shaken Cougars folded up. UNM needed the win badly, and I don't want it devalued by Davies' departure--this was the #3 team in the country, even if they'd had a stunning player loss.
Second, BYU has announced it's cutting ties with the Mountain West Conference and going to join the West Coast Conference (Gonzaga, Pepperdine, St. Mary's, etc.) for all sports except football (in which it will try to be "the Notre Dame of the West"). Good luck with that last one: after this, all prospects will be fully warned off from the requirements of Control Freak U. Good riddance!
I will give BYU some credit for failing to exhibit the usual hypocrisy shown by colleges when their athletes violate the rules. At the same time, I'd say they showed a lack of proportionality in their punishment of Davies, the team, and ultimately, themselves. I'm going to pretend that the fact Davies is an African-American, and the ugly history BYU's sponsoring religion, the Church of Latter Day Saints (a/k/a the Mormons) has had with the darker-skinned members of our society, have absolutely nothing to do with the harsh punishment given to Davies. I will acknowledge that Davies chose freely to go to BYU and sign the Honor Code and the strictures imposed on matriculants by the religion (is he really a Mormon? Hard to believe...)
I do have to say something about the Mormon religion, though. It may come up again next year when there may well be two Republican Presidential candidates of that persuasion. Respectable journalists are required to "respect" the beliefs of the Mormons; I am not bound by that. The fundamental beliefs of the Mormon religion include things like: angels came to Joseph Smith, showed him hidden gold tablets and "inspired" him to translate them, then took the tablets back, they're all about a lost race of Jews in North America whom Jesus visited after his crucifixion, that divine inspiration (and a relative excess of women) gave inspiration to the Mormon leaders to permit polygamy, then later, when it was necessary to co-exist with the USA, the same divine inspiration told them to end it, that Negroes were shunned and considered an inferior race until the 1970's, and so on. I know what I'm talking about--I've sat through the interminable Mormon pageant presented annually in Palmyra, New York (site of the Joseph Smith miracle) where they act out the whole story. The beliefs basically require credulity of the highest (or lowest) order.
As a design for living, a "business plan", on the other hand, the Mormons have a very workable model. Clean living, lots of fertility (after marriage only, please), and aggressive proselytizing worldwide has allowed the membership of the church to skyrocket. BYU brings that program to its college, and the church subsidizes tuition heavilyl, in return for which they require all their students to stay with the program (though I think they are allowed to attend other churches of their "choice").
Is it a good deal? I'd go with no; I'm all in favor of students choosing to give up various vices, in order to allow them to focus better on their studies, but I'd also argue that "education" means learning about the world they are going to be dumped into after graduation, and that the commitments students make should be revocable, as they live and learn. Dismissal from the university is too much, I've heard far too much about a "snitch" culture that exists at BYU after the "scandal" broke, and dismissal from the team for consensual sex with another adult also seems too much to me. I wish them a high seeding in the tournament, combined with an early exit, and a similar result in the Mountain West Conference's postseason tournament next week.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Post-Oscar Quickie
The Oscars program was a good one; entertaining and less boring than usual. I thought Anne Hathaway's performance was livening, in particular, and I enjoyed the opening and the fake-musical sequences prepared for the show.
In terms of the awards themselves, there were few surprises. We got 16 out of 24 right, a creditable performance, but not an outstanding one. We took chances on Hallie Steinfeld for Supporting Actress and Geoffrey Rush as Supporting Actor and went with the favorite for director, David Fincher of Social Network, and got burned a bit on those. Some will have gotten those right (it was considered very close between Fincher and the winner, Tom Hooper of The King's Speech--as was the race for Best Picture), so I'm not expecting to win any prizes in the award-winner picking pools, but a decent result, still.
We have to give some credit to Gold Derby, which compiled the picks of 28 notable critics; their consensus got 19 or 20 out of 24 (one was tied, at least when we consulted the site); I didn't see a single critic's picks that were particularly accurate, but the group of them produced a Delphi group that was near-perfect. Their picks helped us navigate relatively successfully through the impossible categories of documentaries and short films. The only one we got right going strongly against the consensus was "Alice in Wonderland" for Art Direction (I could see both sides of that argument); the only big upset was for Cinematography ("Inception" over "True Grit"--definitely not right).
So, if you want to win your pool next year, go there--and not to Nate Silver's blog, which claimed to tell you how to win your pool, and which had picks for only six categories, all pretty obvious.
Postscript: That the award winners' identities became identifiable does not excuse the choices. How is that "True Grit", the year's best movie, in the sense of quality of form and content, the best story told the best way, was good enough for 10 nominations but failed to win a single award? One can go through most of the categories--but not all--and find reasons for other movies to take the awards--as I argued before, recent awards for Bridges and the Coens providing a good reason not to reward them again. Still, one is left with the conclusion, so tediously and unconvincingly repeated during the acceptance speeches and elsewhere, that the nomination itself is the honor. So, why not give an award to all the nominees?
Here's one more suggestion: most of the movies that I indicated previously that "I might have liked, if I had seen them" are now available in DVD, and I've had a chance to see most (including "127 Hours", "Get Low", and "Never Let You Go"), and the same is true of the feature-length documentaries (managed to catch the Banksy one). At this point in the year, the first-run (or even return-run) of the contenders is over and the box-office 99% complete; what we're talking about now is the film rentals/DVD sales/Netflix receipts. So, do the "show" about the nominations--a bit earlier, when the nominations do come out--and let a combination of votes--the Academy, and yes, the viewers--determine winners in a separate "People's" event (and just invite the winners, jazz it up as they do now).
In terms of the awards themselves, there were few surprises. We got 16 out of 24 right, a creditable performance, but not an outstanding one. We took chances on Hallie Steinfeld for Supporting Actress and Geoffrey Rush as Supporting Actor and went with the favorite for director, David Fincher of Social Network, and got burned a bit on those. Some will have gotten those right (it was considered very close between Fincher and the winner, Tom Hooper of The King's Speech--as was the race for Best Picture), so I'm not expecting to win any prizes in the award-winner picking pools, but a decent result, still.
We have to give some credit to Gold Derby, which compiled the picks of 28 notable critics; their consensus got 19 or 20 out of 24 (one was tied, at least when we consulted the site); I didn't see a single critic's picks that were particularly accurate, but the group of them produced a Delphi group that was near-perfect. Their picks helped us navigate relatively successfully through the impossible categories of documentaries and short films. The only one we got right going strongly against the consensus was "Alice in Wonderland" for Art Direction (I could see both sides of that argument); the only big upset was for Cinematography ("Inception" over "True Grit"--definitely not right).
So, if you want to win your pool next year, go there--and not to Nate Silver's blog, which claimed to tell you how to win your pool, and which had picks for only six categories, all pretty obvious.
Postscript: That the award winners' identities became identifiable does not excuse the choices. How is that "True Grit", the year's best movie, in the sense of quality of form and content, the best story told the best way, was good enough for 10 nominations but failed to win a single award? One can go through most of the categories--but not all--and find reasons for other movies to take the awards--as I argued before, recent awards for Bridges and the Coens providing a good reason not to reward them again. Still, one is left with the conclusion, so tediously and unconvincingly repeated during the acceptance speeches and elsewhere, that the nomination itself is the honor. So, why not give an award to all the nominees?
Here's one more suggestion: most of the movies that I indicated previously that "I might have liked, if I had seen them" are now available in DVD, and I've had a chance to see most (including "127 Hours", "Get Low", and "Never Let You Go"), and the same is true of the feature-length documentaries (managed to catch the Banksy one). At this point in the year, the first-run (or even return-run) of the contenders is over and the box-office 99% complete; what we're talking about now is the film rentals/DVD sales/Netflix receipts. So, do the "show" about the nominations--a bit earlier, when the nominations do come out--and let a combination of votes--the Academy, and yes, the viewers--determine winners in a separate "People's" event (and just invite the winners, jazz it up as they do now).
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Political Update
I find myself having to hit the political trail again a little sooner than I thought I would, as the budget/debt ceiling process has gone off the rails even faster than it should have, the '012 Presidential and Senate races are worthy of comment, and there is a new major issue rising: the struggles of states to deal with revenue shortfalls from above (Federal funds disappearing) and below, along with huge unfunded pension liabilities. We will start with the latter topic.
So Far, It's On Wisconsin!
The emerging debt crisis of the states is partly the product of the aging population, partly a reckoning deferred through various tricks of financial engineering, and largely a result of the Great Crater, which sharply diminished the value of the states' pension funds. There were already large, under-funded pension obligations to state workers across the nation (though concentrated in some states), but the funds set aside to help pay for them were decimated. The 2009 Federal stimulus program provided funds to the states in various forms which delayed the crisis, but now those programs are ending and, with the new Congress, it is clear they will not be renewed.
The more aggressive state fund managers have invested wisely in equities and other rising assets in the past couple of years and recovered much of the ground lost, though "getting back to even" (as CNBC's "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer calls getting out of the Crater) would still mean a loss of precious time for growth of their money. Some were probably obligated to take more conservative investment strategies, which would leave them further behind (and in position for it to get worse). Many--or most--states are in a position where they will have to make major changes to prevent insolvency--soon, or in the foreseeable future.
Give Wall Street some credit: the danger of defaults in municipal bonds has been a hot topic there for months--the consensus there is that municipalities may be allowed to fail, but states will not. If states fail to take measures to address their issues, though, the cost of borrowing will rise sharply, exacerbating their problems, and there will eventually be a specter of a new despised bailout.
The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, and 2009-elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have dared to speak this truth to their states' voters and have survived politically. This has emboldened the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, to take a more provocative stance. He has pushed forward legislation to require larger pension and healthcare contributions from state workers. Even more, the legislation would take away the state workers' right to collective bargaining. Democrats in the legislature, unable to vote the legislation down but in sufficient numbers to deny a quorum, took to the hills.
The rallying cry has been sounded by the journals of the left and union organizations across the country to support Wisconsin's public workers, who have taken to the streets. They are right to do so, though their arguments--to the effect that "balancing the budget on the back of the workers is wrong!"--only recognize one side. Concessions will have to be made by public workers, sacrifice will need to be shared, revenues will need to be raised, and--in some cases--states will appeal to the Federal government for assistance. The statement made on the right that public workers are paid more than private ones is a canard (a bald lie), but they have enjoyed greater job security, better benefits, and their defined-benefit pension plans (usually after only 20 years' service) are a bit rich. A compromise could be found--precisely through the collective bargaining process Walker wants to eliminate (with the unions a bit hampered in the negotiations by the law's prohibition of strikes by public workers).
Taking away their right to collective bargaining is the political red meat in the battle--a measure probably exceeding states' authority under Federal labor legislation, but surely a sop to Republicans and fighting words to Democrats and their base. The public unions make up a numerous, well-funded part of that base, easily the best-organized one. President Obama has been forced to take a stand against the Wisconsin Governor, identifying the legislation as "an assault on unions" and putting his Organizing for America political machinery into action on behalf of the public employee unions.
Governor Walker is motivated by ideology and may find this issue to be a political catapult into the front ranks of his party, but his is not the solution to the larger issue--it will end up making his state even harder to govern, and it may ultimately backfire for him. If he is successful, though, there are many other states that will jump on the bandwagon, so this is a battle with implications that go beyond Wisconsin.
Frankly, I need to study the labor history and labor law more to be expert on this topic, but this has blown the political lid off the month or so of relative peace and civility which followed the Tucson murders.
The Slow-Motion Train Wreck To Beat All
The 19th-century version of Radical Republicans went to extreme lengths--several Constitutional amendments, impeachment of President Andrew Johnson--to punish the Southern states for their secession, the Civil War, and the postwar denial of rights to the freed slaves. In the 20th century, Republicans started by heading the Progresive movement, but quickly moved to the forefront of reaction and resistance to liberal ideas of political equality and broadened economic opportunity; their defeat by the New Deal eventually forced them into an uneasy cooperation with progress. Now, there is a new breed of Radical Republicans for the 21st-century, and Walker's Wisconsin and the Republican-led House of Representatives are the new battlegrounds.
In Congress, the House of Orangeman Speaker John Boehner has commenced war against the Obama Administration with its version of the continuing resolution needed by March 4 to keep the Federal government operating. The cuts they passed this week, without a single Democratic vote--$61 billion for the remaining two-thirds of the current fiscal year--are only part of the assault; more radical still are amendments included in it to prevent the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act against large-scale greenhouse gas emitters and to block funding for measures required by the health insurance reform bill approved last year. The Senate, backed by President Obama's certain veto, will not pass the House's resolution in any recognizable form, so it is unlikely there will be any agreement by March 4 to continue normal operations of the Federal government. The Senate Democrats have suggested the presence of a door in the form of a short-term resolution, but the RR of the House of Orange have not yet acknowledged the presence of any door nor any need for one.
President Obama's budget proposal--considered too austere by many on the left--had about half as many cuts in Federal programs, but it was not seriously considered by the House (which, constitutionally, is required to begin the budget process). Neither side has yet taken up the elephants in the room--Medicare, or Social Security, or growth in Defense spending--so the posturing on both sides is limited to a few percent of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit for the year, and neither side is proposing significant assistance to states or much in the way of job creation.
A train wreck which has been developing for years and which takes 30 days to happen is pretty slow, but the trains are clearly on the same track, going in opposite directions, and braking hasn't even started.
'012 Electoral Drumroll Begins Softly, Slowly
The importance of state political battles has been underlined by their financial problems, as it will by the coming fights over House redistricting, but the main event in 2012 will be the battle for control of the Federal government: in the House, in the Senate, and for the Presidency itself.
House: The big breaker waves have gone in both directions in recent years, and at this point the next big wave has not yet formed. If the budget/deficit train wreck happens, though, for more than a couple of days anyway, blame is likely to settle on the Radical Republicans and the House of Orange may have a very short dynasty.
Without a major breaker, the numbers would suggest a reduced Republican majority coming out of 2012. Voters in the general election are likely to lean more Democratic than in the midyear election, and there are a number of seats the Republicans won last time that will be tough to hang onto (just as there were many won by the Democrats in '08 that were successfully targeted in '010). The target increase for the Democrats is 25, which is likely to be made harder by five or so net seats that redistricting in the states will design in the Republicans' favor.
The Intrade betting currently gives the Democrats a 45% chance of regaining control, up from 25% last month and from 35% last November. I think that quote is a bit high.
Senate: Defense of the Democrats' narrow Senate majority will be a major, expensive challenge. The Democrats have to defend 23 seats (including both of the Independents allied with them), the Republicans only 10. If the incumbent party holds 80% of seats on each side, the Democrats would hold on by 51-49; if they hold 60%, the Republicans would lead 52-48. So, along with swings in popular opinion toward one side or the other, the perception of the Senate's effectiveness will be important, especially for the Democrats.
The biggest development so far has been the announcement by six of the incumbent Senators that they will not run for re-election. The latest one is very significant: five-term Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who would have been a heavy favorite to win again. Of the other retirements, the Democrats are strong favorites to hold Joe Lieberman's seat, and the Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson's, while Kent Conrad's North Dakota seat is likely to go Republican, and Jon Kyl's in Arizona will favor a Republican hold (unless, of course, Gabrielle Giffords can ride her so-far miraculous recovery all the way to the upper house). Finally, Jim Webb's Virginia seat will certainly be vigorously contested, though I like the Democrats' chances if they can unite behind a candidate, such as former Governor Tim Kaine, and face "macaca" George Allen.
Bingaman's surprise announcement creates a wide-open race here, just as Pete Domenici did in 2008. Some of the same names are likely for the Republicans: newly-restored Representative Steve Pearce from the Republican-leaning Southern part of the state, and Heather Wilson, who gave up her Albuquerque seat in a losing bid for the seat won by Tom Udall. A Republican wild card might be former Governor Gary Johnson, who might give up his quixotic Presidential campaign and has unusually high crossover appeal. The Democrats might field former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, loser in the 2010 gubernatorial race, or current representatives Martin Heinrich (Albuquerque) or our Ben Ray Lujan, each of whom just won their second terms in the House. With New Mexico polling quite strongly in favor of President Obama, I like the Democrats' chances to hold the seat.
Apart from the seats being vacated, there will be a lot of difficult contests for incumbents whatever the political climate. Several of the Democratic seats will be relatively easy holds, but Montana's Jon Tester will surely be tested, Ben Nelson in Nebraska will be favored to lose, and three difficult holds will also be critical Presidential battlegrounds: Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, and Bill Nelson in Florida. The Republicans may face more Tea Party primary challenges in Tennessee (Bob Corker) and Maine (Olympia Snowe) which could either weaken the incumbent or bring forward a relatively weak insurgent. Two seats that the Republicans could easily lose are scandal-weakened John Ensign in Nevada (currently favored to lose a primary) and Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's old Massachusetts seat. One of the more interesting initiatives I saw recently was a movement to draft Elizabeth Warren--a key Obama adviser on financial reform--to run against him.
The Intrade betting on Senate control after 2012 has been light; the current quote for the Republican side is 69%, which seems way too high. I see the contest as a 50-50 proposition, and that result itself is far from unlikely--which would put control of the Senate in the hands of the party winning the Presidential election.
The Big Ticket:
The battle for the White House will be monstrous, ugly, and expensive, so it's a welcome, small blessing that it hasn't really started yet. President Obama has been able to stake out some advantageous, high-ground positions in domestic battles--brokering the tax cut deal, proposing moderate cuts on spending--which have earned him some points with independents and improved his ratings. His foreign policy, though hardly brilliant, has dealt with the Mideast crisis well enough that his critics have been few, even among Republicans. His left flank, though grumbling, should not mutiny as long as he sticks to the plan to complete withdrawal from Iraq and begin it in Afghanistan before 2012.
So, it's perhaps not surprising that, at least until the train wreck occurs, Republicans have not been springing forward to announce their challenges to the titleholder. There are some who I consider nearly certain to run: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich (and lesser contenders Herman Cain, John Bolton, Rick Santorum). It's now looking likely that Mitch Daniels will run, also (and, so far, only positive signals from Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, and the ridiculous Donald Trump). But it also is starting to appear that neither of the right-wing's favorites, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, will make the decision to run (and Sen. John Thune may opt to continue his current gig, as well). Equally important, the odds on any of the big-time decliners (Marco Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry) choosing to run continue to lengthen.
If Palin or Huckabee runs, he/she will be a rallying point for primary voters seeking to avoid Romney's nomination. If neither runs, it should help the viability of Ron Paul, who's a favorite among the libertarian portion of the Tea Party, and it will allow any of the other Republicans to pander to the more conventional party right-wing. Romney will certainly be among them, and he can pander more effectively than most. He is starting to look like 2012's version of 2004's John Kerry.
One interesting recent poll result showed Obama with a narrower lead over a generic Republican than for any named opponent (except Huckabee). Obviously, this reflects the perceived absence of any specific individual as a strong opponent, but I would say it is also due to Republican poll subjects imagining "their" preferred candidate as the opponent. Once it is clear that their candidate will not be the nominee, it will be up to the party winner to impress upon the rank-and-file that he/she is "close enough" to their ideal. That means, above all, gaining unity in the party.
The Democratic party's Intrade quote for winning the 2012 election is holding at about 60%, as is Obama's personal quote (though the combined percentages on the name-the-winner bet for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are another 4% in that market). I find that likelihood considerably too low, train wreck or no, unless there is some sort of foreign policy disaster.
So Far, It's On Wisconsin!
The emerging debt crisis of the states is partly the product of the aging population, partly a reckoning deferred through various tricks of financial engineering, and largely a result of the Great Crater, which sharply diminished the value of the states' pension funds. There were already large, under-funded pension obligations to state workers across the nation (though concentrated in some states), but the funds set aside to help pay for them were decimated. The 2009 Federal stimulus program provided funds to the states in various forms which delayed the crisis, but now those programs are ending and, with the new Congress, it is clear they will not be renewed.
The more aggressive state fund managers have invested wisely in equities and other rising assets in the past couple of years and recovered much of the ground lost, though "getting back to even" (as CNBC's "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer calls getting out of the Crater) would still mean a loss of precious time for growth of their money. Some were probably obligated to take more conservative investment strategies, which would leave them further behind (and in position for it to get worse). Many--or most--states are in a position where they will have to make major changes to prevent insolvency--soon, or in the foreseeable future.
Give Wall Street some credit: the danger of defaults in municipal bonds has been a hot topic there for months--the consensus there is that municipalities may be allowed to fail, but states will not. If states fail to take measures to address their issues, though, the cost of borrowing will rise sharply, exacerbating their problems, and there will eventually be a specter of a new despised bailout.
The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, and 2009-elected New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have dared to speak this truth to their states' voters and have survived politically. This has emboldened the new Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, to take a more provocative stance. He has pushed forward legislation to require larger pension and healthcare contributions from state workers. Even more, the legislation would take away the state workers' right to collective bargaining. Democrats in the legislature, unable to vote the legislation down but in sufficient numbers to deny a quorum, took to the hills.
The rallying cry has been sounded by the journals of the left and union organizations across the country to support Wisconsin's public workers, who have taken to the streets. They are right to do so, though their arguments--to the effect that "balancing the budget on the back of the workers is wrong!"--only recognize one side. Concessions will have to be made by public workers, sacrifice will need to be shared, revenues will need to be raised, and--in some cases--states will appeal to the Federal government for assistance. The statement made on the right that public workers are paid more than private ones is a canard (a bald lie), but they have enjoyed greater job security, better benefits, and their defined-benefit pension plans (usually after only 20 years' service) are a bit rich. A compromise could be found--precisely through the collective bargaining process Walker wants to eliminate (with the unions a bit hampered in the negotiations by the law's prohibition of strikes by public workers).
Taking away their right to collective bargaining is the political red meat in the battle--a measure probably exceeding states' authority under Federal labor legislation, but surely a sop to Republicans and fighting words to Democrats and their base. The public unions make up a numerous, well-funded part of that base, easily the best-organized one. President Obama has been forced to take a stand against the Wisconsin Governor, identifying the legislation as "an assault on unions" and putting his Organizing for America political machinery into action on behalf of the public employee unions.
Governor Walker is motivated by ideology and may find this issue to be a political catapult into the front ranks of his party, but his is not the solution to the larger issue--it will end up making his state even harder to govern, and it may ultimately backfire for him. If he is successful, though, there are many other states that will jump on the bandwagon, so this is a battle with implications that go beyond Wisconsin.
Frankly, I need to study the labor history and labor law more to be expert on this topic, but this has blown the political lid off the month or so of relative peace and civility which followed the Tucson murders.
The Slow-Motion Train Wreck To Beat All
The 19th-century version of Radical Republicans went to extreme lengths--several Constitutional amendments, impeachment of President Andrew Johnson--to punish the Southern states for their secession, the Civil War, and the postwar denial of rights to the freed slaves. In the 20th century, Republicans started by heading the Progresive movement, but quickly moved to the forefront of reaction and resistance to liberal ideas of political equality and broadened economic opportunity; their defeat by the New Deal eventually forced them into an uneasy cooperation with progress. Now, there is a new breed of Radical Republicans for the 21st-century, and Walker's Wisconsin and the Republican-led House of Representatives are the new battlegrounds.
In Congress, the House of Orangeman Speaker John Boehner has commenced war against the Obama Administration with its version of the continuing resolution needed by March 4 to keep the Federal government operating. The cuts they passed this week, without a single Democratic vote--$61 billion for the remaining two-thirds of the current fiscal year--are only part of the assault; more radical still are amendments included in it to prevent the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act against large-scale greenhouse gas emitters and to block funding for measures required by the health insurance reform bill approved last year. The Senate, backed by President Obama's certain veto, will not pass the House's resolution in any recognizable form, so it is unlikely there will be any agreement by March 4 to continue normal operations of the Federal government. The Senate Democrats have suggested the presence of a door in the form of a short-term resolution, but the RR of the House of Orange have not yet acknowledged the presence of any door nor any need for one.
President Obama's budget proposal--considered too austere by many on the left--had about half as many cuts in Federal programs, but it was not seriously considered by the House (which, constitutionally, is required to begin the budget process). Neither side has yet taken up the elephants in the room--Medicare, or Social Security, or growth in Defense spending--so the posturing on both sides is limited to a few percent of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit for the year, and neither side is proposing significant assistance to states or much in the way of job creation.
A train wreck which has been developing for years and which takes 30 days to happen is pretty slow, but the trains are clearly on the same track, going in opposite directions, and braking hasn't even started.
'012 Electoral Drumroll Begins Softly, Slowly
The importance of state political battles has been underlined by their financial problems, as it will by the coming fights over House redistricting, but the main event in 2012 will be the battle for control of the Federal government: in the House, in the Senate, and for the Presidency itself.
House: The big breaker waves have gone in both directions in recent years, and at this point the next big wave has not yet formed. If the budget/deficit train wreck happens, though, for more than a couple of days anyway, blame is likely to settle on the Radical Republicans and the House of Orange may have a very short dynasty.
Without a major breaker, the numbers would suggest a reduced Republican majority coming out of 2012. Voters in the general election are likely to lean more Democratic than in the midyear election, and there are a number of seats the Republicans won last time that will be tough to hang onto (just as there were many won by the Democrats in '08 that were successfully targeted in '010). The target increase for the Democrats is 25, which is likely to be made harder by five or so net seats that redistricting in the states will design in the Republicans' favor.
The Intrade betting currently gives the Democrats a 45% chance of regaining control, up from 25% last month and from 35% last November. I think that quote is a bit high.
Senate: Defense of the Democrats' narrow Senate majority will be a major, expensive challenge. The Democrats have to defend 23 seats (including both of the Independents allied with them), the Republicans only 10. If the incumbent party holds 80% of seats on each side, the Democrats would hold on by 51-49; if they hold 60%, the Republicans would lead 52-48. So, along with swings in popular opinion toward one side or the other, the perception of the Senate's effectiveness will be important, especially for the Democrats.
The biggest development so far has been the announcement by six of the incumbent Senators that they will not run for re-election. The latest one is very significant: five-term Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who would have been a heavy favorite to win again. Of the other retirements, the Democrats are strong favorites to hold Joe Lieberman's seat, and the Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchinson's, while Kent Conrad's North Dakota seat is likely to go Republican, and Jon Kyl's in Arizona will favor a Republican hold (unless, of course, Gabrielle Giffords can ride her so-far miraculous recovery all the way to the upper house). Finally, Jim Webb's Virginia seat will certainly be vigorously contested, though I like the Democrats' chances if they can unite behind a candidate, such as former Governor Tim Kaine, and face "macaca" George Allen.
Bingaman's surprise announcement creates a wide-open race here, just as Pete Domenici did in 2008. Some of the same names are likely for the Republicans: newly-restored Representative Steve Pearce from the Republican-leaning Southern part of the state, and Heather Wilson, who gave up her Albuquerque seat in a losing bid for the seat won by Tom Udall. A Republican wild card might be former Governor Gary Johnson, who might give up his quixotic Presidential campaign and has unusually high crossover appeal. The Democrats might field former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, loser in the 2010 gubernatorial race, or current representatives Martin Heinrich (Albuquerque) or our Ben Ray Lujan, each of whom just won their second terms in the House. With New Mexico polling quite strongly in favor of President Obama, I like the Democrats' chances to hold the seat.
Apart from the seats being vacated, there will be a lot of difficult contests for incumbents whatever the political climate. Several of the Democratic seats will be relatively easy holds, but Montana's Jon Tester will surely be tested, Ben Nelson in Nebraska will be favored to lose, and three difficult holds will also be critical Presidential battlegrounds: Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan, and Bill Nelson in Florida. The Republicans may face more Tea Party primary challenges in Tennessee (Bob Corker) and Maine (Olympia Snowe) which could either weaken the incumbent or bring forward a relatively weak insurgent. Two seats that the Republicans could easily lose are scandal-weakened John Ensign in Nevada (currently favored to lose a primary) and Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy's old Massachusetts seat. One of the more interesting initiatives I saw recently was a movement to draft Elizabeth Warren--a key Obama adviser on financial reform--to run against him.
The Intrade betting on Senate control after 2012 has been light; the current quote for the Republican side is 69%, which seems way too high. I see the contest as a 50-50 proposition, and that result itself is far from unlikely--which would put control of the Senate in the hands of the party winning the Presidential election.
The Big Ticket:
The battle for the White House will be monstrous, ugly, and expensive, so it's a welcome, small blessing that it hasn't really started yet. President Obama has been able to stake out some advantageous, high-ground positions in domestic battles--brokering the tax cut deal, proposing moderate cuts on spending--which have earned him some points with independents and improved his ratings. His foreign policy, though hardly brilliant, has dealt with the Mideast crisis well enough that his critics have been few, even among Republicans. His left flank, though grumbling, should not mutiny as long as he sticks to the plan to complete withdrawal from Iraq and begin it in Afghanistan before 2012.
So, it's perhaps not surprising that, at least until the train wreck occurs, Republicans have not been springing forward to announce their challenges to the titleholder. There are some who I consider nearly certain to run: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich (and lesser contenders Herman Cain, John Bolton, Rick Santorum). It's now looking likely that Mitch Daniels will run, also (and, so far, only positive signals from Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, and the ridiculous Donald Trump). But it also is starting to appear that neither of the right-wing's favorites, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, will make the decision to run (and Sen. John Thune may opt to continue his current gig, as well). Equally important, the odds on any of the big-time decliners (Marco Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry) choosing to run continue to lengthen.
If Palin or Huckabee runs, he/she will be a rallying point for primary voters seeking to avoid Romney's nomination. If neither runs, it should help the viability of Ron Paul, who's a favorite among the libertarian portion of the Tea Party, and it will allow any of the other Republicans to pander to the more conventional party right-wing. Romney will certainly be among them, and he can pander more effectively than most. He is starting to look like 2012's version of 2004's John Kerry.
One interesting recent poll result showed Obama with a narrower lead over a generic Republican than for any named opponent (except Huckabee). Obviously, this reflects the perceived absence of any specific individual as a strong opponent, but I would say it is also due to Republican poll subjects imagining "their" preferred candidate as the opponent. Once it is clear that their candidate will not be the nominee, it will be up to the party winner to impress upon the rank-and-file that he/she is "close enough" to their ideal. That means, above all, gaining unity in the party.
The Democratic party's Intrade quote for winning the 2012 election is holding at about 60%, as is Obama's personal quote (though the combined percentages on the name-the-winner bet for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are another 4% in that market). I find that likelihood considerably too low, train wreck or no, unless there is some sort of foreign policy disaster.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Humanity in Jeopardy!?
I've been watching the game show Jeopardy! since the early days of Art Fleming hosting it, something like 40 years! I would immodestly claim to be pretty good at its particular brand of diverse trivia, word association, and punning punditry (though my recall is not as instantaneous as it was once), and I've always wanted the chance to get on there.
So, the special program this week, in which two of the greatest champions ever are taking on an IBM-programmed computer called "Watson", has a great deal of interest for me. The contest has completed two of three half-hour segments, and Watson is mopping the floor with the two humans.
I watched the PBS Nova program in which the development of Watson's Jeopardy prowess was investigated in more depth, and the programming is remarkable for its subtlety, its breadth, and its rapidity. It is that last factor which seems to account for the computer's overwhelming performance.
Its accuracy, particularly in coming up with fact-based answers (OK, questions), has been impressive, though not perfect. The problem the humans are having is getting beat to the buzzer. I have a bit of complaint here: the mechanics of who buzzes first has always been mostly hidden from the viewer. Supposedly, the buzzers are suppressed until our intrepid host Alex Trebek has finished reading the question, to avoid interrupting the flow of the show; I suspect that Watson has not been inhibited in that way (as it would be too hard to implement). There's also the mechanics of how the computer is fed the "answer", which is not going to be the same way that a human contestant would do it (visually, while hearing it).
In terms of accuracy, I wouldn't rate the computer higher than the humans--at least these two humans, who rarely get one wrong. In the final questions of the first day's Single Jeopardy!, and in today's first-round Final Jeopardy!, Watson made glaring errors (I notice that one flaw remains uncorrected--after Ken Jennings missed one clue, the computer gave the same erroneous response). It almost seemed as if Watson was tanking on a few to keep the match close and the ratings from doing the same, but that would be anthropmorphizing--giving the computer motivations which it would be unlikely their programmers could include.
Very interesting has been the graphic provided by Watson showing the top three possible answers considered by the computer and their evaluated probabilities of being correct. It's a well-designed entertainment, but not a fair contest, and the human contestants should not feel compelled to burst their hearts (or brains), John Henry fashion, in what will surely be a failed attempt to beat the machine.
So, the special program this week, in which two of the greatest champions ever are taking on an IBM-programmed computer called "Watson", has a great deal of interest for me. The contest has completed two of three half-hour segments, and Watson is mopping the floor with the two humans.
I watched the PBS Nova program in which the development of Watson's Jeopardy prowess was investigated in more depth, and the programming is remarkable for its subtlety, its breadth, and its rapidity. It is that last factor which seems to account for the computer's overwhelming performance.
Its accuracy, particularly in coming up with fact-based answers (OK, questions), has been impressive, though not perfect. The problem the humans are having is getting beat to the buzzer. I have a bit of complaint here: the mechanics of who buzzes first has always been mostly hidden from the viewer. Supposedly, the buzzers are suppressed until our intrepid host Alex Trebek has finished reading the question, to avoid interrupting the flow of the show; I suspect that Watson has not been inhibited in that way (as it would be too hard to implement). There's also the mechanics of how the computer is fed the "answer", which is not going to be the same way that a human contestant would do it (visually, while hearing it).
In terms of accuracy, I wouldn't rate the computer higher than the humans--at least these two humans, who rarely get one wrong. In the final questions of the first day's Single Jeopardy!, and in today's first-round Final Jeopardy!, Watson made glaring errors (I notice that one flaw remains uncorrected--after Ken Jennings missed one clue, the computer gave the same erroneous response). It almost seemed as if Watson was tanking on a few to keep the match close and the ratings from doing the same, but that would be anthropmorphizing--giving the computer motivations which it would be unlikely their programmers could include.
Very interesting has been the graphic provided by Watson showing the top three possible answers considered by the computer and their evaluated probabilities of being correct. It's a well-designed entertainment, but not a fair contest, and the human contestants should not feel compelled to burst their hearts (or brains), John Henry fashion, in what will surely be a failed attempt to beat the machine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
