The news today about Philip Seymour Hoffman's death, and the posting of the j'accuse article on Nicholas Kristof's NYTimes blog by "Dylan Farrow" repeating her accusations of child molestation against Woody Allen (not posting the links, this time) force my hand a bit in writing this lead:
Smart people sometimes do stupid things.
Famous people sometimes do stupid things.
Artists sometimes do stupid things.
People who are not smart, famous, or artists sometimes do stupid things.
I have no statistics on the relative frequency of those occurrences.
Clearly, Woody Allen is a guy who has major psychological issues, and has had them all along. He is "narcissistic" (totally in love with himself and his own thoughts), he could clearly be accused of misogyny, of having lusted after young girls (as an "older" man), and guilt is a major theme in his work (one could ask: why?). He also seems to have some traits of weirdness which don't all fit together, like claustrophobia, agoraphobia, fear of crowds, fear of publicity, going to Knicks games, and playing the clarinet in public. He is also a brilliant, extremely hard-working artist, and, like many artists, he routinely sublimates his neurotic impulses into his art.* I don't know that much about Hoffman, who was also brilliant in his craft (and I don't use this word lightly at all) and seems to have been quite messed up, as well. In the end, though, he may just have made a major error and latched onto some poisonous smack. I'm sure it will all come out, in much more detail than I want to hear about. For that matter, relating to the Woody polemics, I think Roman Polanski and, yes, Mia Farrow are pretty screwed up, too, in very similar ways, but still very accomplished artists.
So, the first two things we have to get out of the way about the Oscars are: 1) Hoffman is not nominated for anything this year (thank goodness); and 2) Allen is nominated for best original screenplay for "Blue Jasmine" this year; he will not win--that is certain. I don't think he should have won, anyway. I saw "Blue Jasmine" on a plane; I could be self-righteous and say that in this way I did not contribute to his wealth (which is somewhat the way I feel about "The Wolf of Wall Street", though it's not Scorsese's or DiCaprio's wealth I'm concerned about but Jordan Belfort's). I'll just say that it was not one of my highest priority films to see in a theater, but I thought I'd catch it since I had the chance. We'll get to it later when we discuss the Actress nominations.
I mentioned "on a plane"--it was January 5, and I was on my way to Italy, where I am now. Italy has lots of great things about it, but one thing that's not great is access to first-run movies in their original language (unless that language is Italian). So, I'm basically stuck at the number of movies that I had seen before I left (with one major exception, which I'll get to). The key omissions are "Dallas Buyers Club", "Philomena", "Inside Llewyn Davis", "the Hobbit....", "Saving Mr. Banks", and "Nebraska"--the first two (out, but hard to find) and the hobbit one are really the only ones for which I need to apologize for not seeing, as the others basically ducked the holiday season in all but a very small number of theaters. I certainly would have liked to have been able to see the Coen Brothers film on a big screen, but I'm afraid they blew it for me this time. ("Nebraska" is the only one of those really out here in Italy, and I think it would lose something being dubbed into Italian!) I also didn't see "Wolf of Wall Street" (see above), "August: Osage County" (not interested--I could not believe it was listed as a comedy at the Golden Globes), or "Frozen" (not to worry: I'm sure it will win the Oscar for Best Animated without my endorsement). Or any of the shorts or documentaries, of course--I'm not one of the privileged members of the Academy--I'll skip voting on those, as I have no informed opinion.
Best Movie Discussion
This section could be entitled "discussion of the movie that will win the Oscar for Best Picture", and I don't mean to suggest this is "the best" movie discussion you can find, but what I really mean is that this is (at least in the first part) a discussion of what was the best movie of 2013, something I do not think is limited to the nominees. The Academy limits itself to 5-10 nominees and has nine this year; I really don't know how they decide that (probably the ones recommended by >X% of the Academy), but I do think they missed a couple, and they showed a typical American, late-year bias in their selections.
The five movies released in 2013 that I saw and think were the best were: "American Hustle", "12 Years a Slave", "Gravity", "Her", and "The Great Beauty" (a/k/a "La Grande Bellezza"). Close behind were "Captain Phillips", then two films which had the double misfortune of being released too early in the year and featuring young adult-type stories ("The Spectacular Now" and "The Way Way Back"), while the best comedy/musical of the year was the long-forgotten "The Great Gatsby" (yes, you forgot that one, Golden Globes!), the soundtrack of which I bought, and which I would say is only slightly less impressive than that of "American Hustle" (since they don't give awards for best soundtrack--maybe the Grammys do?). To fill out my ten, I'm going to guess I will put "Inside Llewyn Davis" or "Frozen" when I get the chance to see them (and no, they were not nominated for Best Picture--for a good concise listing of the nominees, I suggest this one that came out the same day as the nominations on CNN).
Back to best movie: the one I enjoyed the most is "American Hustle"; it also clearly had the best ensemble acting performance. "Gravity" was the one which had the most impressive artistic creativity. "Her" and "La Grande Bellezza" made me think, and feel, in ways that I had not thought or felt before, while "12 Years", though absolutely brutal and cruel to its viewers, was a work of world-historical significance: I think that, like "Schindler's List" a few years ago, and maybe "the Pianist", these historical recreations can establish truths and settle things, once and for all (OK, "Shoah" may have already done that before Spielberg and "Schindler", but few will ever see that.) In the case of "12 Years", the argument that one sometimes hears in the South that slaves "didn't have it so bad", that "many of them were happy", etc. just should not be tolerated after that movie. (Not that they should have been tolerated before, though they were/have been.)
For me, that's the difference-maker, a great film, which also has a lasting, meaningful effect on society. The story of "Gravity" is full of holes, though the art and performances were breath-taking. "La Grande Bellezza" has been criticized here in Italy for political incorrectness, though I think that criticism is off the mark--it is apolitical, because its themes are beyond mere politics of the moment, the country, or even of this era. It is highly self-indulgent, though--that narcissism thing, again. "Her" is a movie before its time--actually, way before its time--that deals with one of the most interesting topics that is out there today. The subject is referred to as "the singularity"--I recommend looking into it, as I'm sure writer/director Spike Jonze did--when machine intelligence catches up, surpasses, then outdistances human intelligence. When it comes, it could come very quickly, but I hasten to say that machines are really stupid today, and it doesn't seem that this story is close to our lives today. Fifty years from now or so, it will be considered a classic of this age. OK, it's about some other things, too, like the search for love, how the feeling of loss can bring people together, but let's face it--I'm all in favor of love between humans, in all its varied forms, but "falling in love" with your operating system is just weird, either now or in the future.
"American Hustle" is the one that is trickiest to deal with, as the gossip suggests the Academy is apparently wrestling with this one right now. It is the early favorite for the Best Picture award, and the hype behind it has generated a backlash. Basically it is a pretty mundane period piece from the '70's that was jazzed up tremendously with an adroit Hollywood treatment--pretty much the same as "Argo", only a less interesting story. The key aspect of the film (SLIGHT SPOILER FOLLOWS) was the addition of the Mafia kingpin played by Robert De Niro; without that, it was just your typical entrapment job on sleazy politicians--plenty of that around. But the treatment, with the great actors, makeup, music, and that edge of danger which the Mafia threat brought in, those are what made the movie. So, great artifice--sort of like "Gravity". But "12 Years a Slave" is the real thing--a true story, made real, with performances that tear your guts out, for all the right reasons. So, I'll go with that.
Will the backlash win out? It did last year, when the resentment against Spielberg and his "Lincoln" gave the award to a far less deserving film, and I don't know what the Academy was thinking when it awarded "The Artist" over "The Descendants". It's still embarrassing to consider. So, who knows? I'll be content if either "Hustle" or "12 Years" wins, surprised if neither does, though "Gravity" may have a shot, too.
Best Picture--Will Win/Should Win: "12 Years a Slave"
Directors!
Really, they shouldn't even have this category--the nominees should be the same as for Best Picture, and the award should go to the director, not the producers. I'm trying to think of a great movie that didn't have great direction, and I can't. At least they should open up the category in the same way they did for Best Picture, up to 10 nominees, and it wouldn't be hard to fill. So, my pick would be Steve McQueen ("12 Years"), for the reasons described above. (By the way, Steve McQueen the actor never won an Oscar--he was nominated once, for "The Sand Pebbles", in which he was great! I didn't care for his acting much, in general, but I loved his performance in that movie; kiddies, rent it sometime, you can really learn something from it. I won't spoil it and tell you what you would learn about, but it's not a beach/surfer movie.)
In terms of Hollywood politics, David O. Russell ("Hustle") is considered a jerk; I'd say he's a better shot to win for Original Screenplay (which is fine with me). Alexander Payne won for "The Descendants", so he's been taken care of; Martin Scorsese has also won (finally!), and I don't think "Wolf" should get him another; so the other main contender is Alfonso Cuaron, who is eminently deserving. Have I ever mentioned what an amazing movie was his "Children of Men"? I'll be content with either Cuaron or McQueen.
Best Director - Should Win: Steve McQueen
Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron
Acting!
Best lead actor (male) was a difficult category to limit to five nominees this year. "I hear" that there were several deserving actors who were not nominated (Hanks, Redford, Oscar Isaac for "Llewyn Davis"...). Among those who were nominated, I've seen the performances of only two, Christian Bale in "Hustle" (who was great, but will not win--see David O. Russell above) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (it's really hard to type his name!) for "12 Years"--I really hope he wins. So far, from the other award shows it looks like Matthew McConnaughey (he lost a whole bunch of weight--I guess that's harder to do than gain a bunch of weight, which Bale did) is the favorite; and I should say I give Matthew props for his (forgotten) performance early in the year in "Mud". I'd say Bruce Dern is the dark horse candidate, as there are a lot of old-timers in the Academy who'd like to give it to him. Leo DiCaprio will have to wait another year.
Best lead actress looks to me to be a race between Cate Blanchett ("Blue Jasmine") and Amy Adams ("Hustle"). I think this Woody thing will end up hurting Cate's chances, which is unfair--she was spectacularly good (she's always very good, but this role was tougher and she nailed it). As for Amy, I would say this role wasn't quite as tough as the one she mastered last year (for "The Master"), but she (and her intentionally phony English accent) were good enough to win this year, I think. Meryl Streep's got plenty of award-winning roles (and this ain't one), Sandra Bullock got hers (otherwise, she would win), and fortunately for the leading candidates, Judi Dench has won an Oscar (supporting, for "Shakespeare in Love") out of her seven nominations. Note: Cate has also won, for imitating a multi-Oscar winner (Katherine Hepburn) in "The Aviator", but I don't think that in itself will be the obstacle.
When it comes to Supporting Actor/Supporting Actress, I think there's a chance for a breakthrough this year with two Africans winning (there's even a chance for three, with Ejiofor, but I think that's unlikely). When it comes to Supporting Actor, I think that Barkhad Abdi as the Somali pirate in "Captain Phillips" should win--Academy voters don't usually hold it against a supporting actor/actress that he/she is "the bad guy". I hear that Jared Leto was superb, though, as a transgender AIDS patient in "Dallas Buyers Club". As for Supporting Actress, I don't know: it's a tough field, with Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lawrence bringing strong, popular entries, and Sally Hawkins has earned her praise for her latter-day "Stella!" (called "Ginger" in Woody's version), but I'm going to go with Lupita Nyong'o's searing performance as a brilliant, trapped slave in "12 Years".
Best Lead Actor: Should Win--Ejiofor; Will Win - McConnaughey
Best Lead Actress: Should Win--Blanchett; Will Win--Adams
Supporting Actor: Should Win--Abdi; Will Win--Leto
Supporting Actress: Should Win/Will Win--N'yong'o
Writers!
I'm tempted to use the old Bill Murray/SNL approach to the preview when it comes to the Original Screenplay category: "Nebraska", "Dallas Buyers Club"? Didn't see them--next! Seriously, I can imagine both getting some support as being truly original script ideas filled with human interest. I wasn't that thrilled with the quality of the wit in Woody's latest outing (and we have disqualified him above for other, less appropriate reasons), though I did think he did a good job with the flashbacks, using them to build the story and not making us all confused with their use. Failure to do that well was actually the problem with the script for "Hustle"--the flashbacks didn't always work so well, the initial scene (although hilarious) being a good example: it didn't tie back to the actual story very well. OK, the dialogue was often superb and chock-full of good lines (Jennifer Lawrence's character got most of them); despite its flaws I wouldn't mind if it won. No, the best original screenplay was "Her", by the almost-always genius, Spike Jonze. The back-and-forth between Joaquin Phoenix's character (how was he not nominated? I'd like to know...) and Scarlett's "character" was like a modern-day Platonic dialogue. Please, let him win!
Adapted Screenplay is one I always have trouble picking, and I have no confidence at all in my assessment of the nominees. I've heard "Wolf" went on far too long, so that suggests the screenplay was not tight. "Captain Phillips", on the other hand, had a very taut script, but I've heard a lot of the dialogue, like the amazing final scene when he's been (SPOILER) rescued, was improvised. I'd be really annoyed if "Before Midnight" wins--I did see it, and its script really annoyed me: very stilted, like Woody Allen but without the charm. The dialogue in the "12 Years" script could also be considered "stilted", but it was a very interesting approach: the words of all the characters, even the uneducated ones, had a flowing, well-reasoned quality, as if to say that folks 150 years ago could speak a lot better than we can today. Is it true? I don't know, but I think that principle is unlikely to be rewarded on Oscar night. So, I'll go with "Philomena"--Steve Coogan, one of the writers (and lead actor in it), is a really cool English guy and I think it will add some class if he wins.
Original Screenplay: Will win - "Dallas Buyers Club"; Should Win - "Her"
Adapted Screenplay: Will Win/Should Win - "Philomena"
Costumes! Makeup! Sound! Set!
OK, I'm not a pro in any of these areas, far from it, but I have had a pretty good track record picking these technical areas, using a few tricks. I can't really say, then, who I think should win, but I will say who I think will win.
Costumes - Edith Head (8 Oscars) is dead--she was an automatic pick, in her day. So, you go with the movie that had the fashion look that seems most interesting. "The Grandmaster" was Chinese silks, between the wars--definitely interesting. "Hustle"--'70's bimbos--out! "Great Gatsby" --'20's flappers and rich fops--been done too much! "12 Year" -1800's shabby, plus Southern slaveowners--too "GWTW"! "The Invisible Woman"--my first reaction was, "What the heck was this movie?" but when I looked it up, it's that hidden lover of Charles Dickens movie for which I saw a very interesting and attractive preview--I didn't even know it was out. Middle-class Victorian--boffo! I'll go with "Invisible", narrowly over "Grandmaster".
Sound Mixing/Editing--they always explain the difference, and I always forget (I think editing is the artificial creation of the special sounds, and mixing is the general sonorous feeling). These are ones that usually get swept up, when there's going to be a sweep (that's not this year, I think). Besides, the only nominee in these categories which is a potentially big-time Oscar winner this year is "Gravity", and everybody knows "there's no sound in space!" Still, I think it and the hobbit one are the main contenders. 'll go with "Gravity" on the editing side (lots of heavy breathing in costumes, muffled explosions), and the hobbit one for mixing. (Have I've confused myself again? Oh well...)
Makeup-- There are three nominees: one is a "Jackass" film, one is "The Lone Ranger"--a flop of historic proportion, and the ridiculous makeup for Tonto (Johnny Depp) was a main factor in its awkwardness--and the third is "Dallas Buyers Club". It's a pretty easy guess.
Production Design-- You want to pick the one which had the set that contributed most to the movie's success. "Her" had interesting sets--I think most of the futuristic look came from filming in Hong Kong; however, it's a choice between "Great Gatsby", where Gatsby's house was the star of many scenes, and the miraculous creation of deep space in "Gravity". I'd have to go with the latter.
Costume Design - "The Invisible Woman"
Sound Editing - "Gravity"
Sound Mixing - "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
Makeup - "Dallas Buyers' Club"
Production Design - "Gravity"
Music!
Original Score -- this is not best soundtrack! John Williams is always a good bet, but "The Book Thief" didn't score, so to speak. "Gravity" had music that was a little too intrusive, as I remember, though sometimes the Academy voters reward that. I really can't remember the music in "Her", to be honest--I was too focused on the dialogue. Obviously, I didn't see "Philomena", but I like Thomas Newman's music a lot, it would be a good opportunity to reward "Saving Mr. Banks", which otherwise got snubbed.
Original Song - A good opportunity to give an award to Bono, and posthumously to award Nelson Mandela. There was a scandal and one of the nominees was pulled for the crime (!) of sending emails out to remind voters to vote for his movie as a nominee.
Score - "Saving Mr. Banks"
Song - "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom"
Camera!
Cinematography should be a slam dunk for Ernest Lubezki in "Gravity". Basically, they should retire the award after they give it to him, with future years' award being the "Ernest Lubezki award for Cinematography"--the camera work was that good, and that important to the film.
Film Editing - everyone was talking about the opening 15-minute single-take shot in "Gravity", and Cuaron is listed as co-nominee in this category for that film. But I ask you, how hard is it to edit a 15-minute take? No, I'm going to go with the hobbits on this one and hope the Academy agrees.
Visual Effects - This one often surprises, with the award going not to the big hit but one with a stunning visual. I would've thought "Elysium" could have won, but it wasn't nominated, so I'm going with the "Star Trek" one, as I remember a pretty dazzling scene where the Starfleet headquarters in San Francisco was totally destroyed.
Cinematography - "Gravity"
Film Editing - "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
Visual Effects - "Star Trek Into Darkness"
Animation!
One word: "Frozen"! The other guys don't even need to show up, unless they want to.
Animated Feature - "Frozen"
Foreigners!
I'm going to close with a bit of rant: of course I'm pulling for "The Great Beauty" ("La Grande Bellezza"), but that's the only one of these I've seen. I'm sure that's true of a lot of others, and it should win. (The French lesbian film could've been a threat, but it didn't end up being nominated.)
Instead, I want to lobby for a little bit more consideration from the Academy for foreign films' being considered in other categories. Yes, "The Artist" won several awards--all mistakenly, in my view, and "Life is Beautiful" won best actor for Roberto Benigni--a highly entertaining winner, also probably a mistake. The point is, these are exceptions, and the Academy is not seriously considering the exceptional work being done regularly outside of the US and Britain for the most part, especially in the technical areas. If it were doing so in 2013, "La Grande Bellezza" would have been nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, there would have been some kind of nomination for Film Editing (selection of locations--where does that get an award?) and Toni Servillo should have gotten consideration--if not a nomination--for Best Actor. So there--!
Final Tally of "Will Win": "Gravity" - 4; "Dallas Buyers Club" - 3; "The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" - 2; "12 Years a Slave" - 2; all others, 1 (or less). Amy Adams prevents an embarrassing shutout of pre-nomination favorite "American Hustle".
Enjoy Oscar night--I think Ellen DeGeneres will be a good choice: hip, but not too much.
*My five favorite Woody movies--and it is not a trivial question:
1) Sleeper; 2) Broadway Danny Rose; 3) Zelig; 4) Bananas; 5) Crimes and Misdemeanors. Me, I like the funny ones best--at his best (for me), the Woodster called in mind the inspired madness of the Marx Brothers. He hasn't been that light-hearted for a long, long time. .
Sunday, February 02, 2014
2014 Political Preview: Europa/Italia--Pt. 1
I aim to demystify two extremely complicated subjects in this post, and one which will follow soon after: the proposal for reform of the electoral system in Italy, and the upcoming (in May) elections for the European Parliament.
I suppose I should try to make the case to my audience--those who are not Italians, or Europeans of any kind--that these are important subjects. I know one group to whom these subjects are intrinsically of interest, and that would be the political scientists. Italy has long been a case study in the conflict between the desire for greater democracy, which in Italy has taken the form of elections with proportional representation and multiple parties, and for governmental stability (which has been elusive in Italy with that system); while the European Parliament is a political experiement in multicultural representative democracy far more adventurous than has ever been attempted previously. Far more complex than the US democracy, the only plausible comparison is to India's electoral system, but Europe's system does not have the unifying element of a single, historically-dominant party (the Congress Party), and those unified by their desire to oppose it. Beyond that, just consider that Europe's economy is far larger than China's, larger even than the US', so that if it were considered a single economy--and what is the European Union if not an attempt to make it so?--it would be the largest. And, considered as a unit, Europe is lagging in its recovery from the Great Crater, so this has a significant effect on the global economy. Further, within Europe Italy leads in lagging, that is, it is the country with the largest net loss in GDP yet to be recovered from the double-dip recession that has been experienced in Europe. So, whatever, interesting and/or important, I hope you're convinced. If so, read on, and I will be your Virgil to lead you through the dark paths ahead.
Primer on Italian Electoral Reform History:
70 Years in 10 Minutes (if you read slowly)
Before I can go into depth about this political lightning rod named Matteo Renzi and possibly explain what this reform thing is all about (and how it might be a little different from all the other electoral/political "reforms" that have occurred in Italy since World War II), I need to give a little background. I refer you also to the two other times that I have dared to post on Italian politics before, both within the last twelve months. One of these was in February, 2013, just after the last Parliamentary elections, on the challenge of forming a government, and the other was in June when, contrary to many people's expectations, a government was actually formed.
So, a primer: Italy's Parliamentary system has generally had elections driven around party lists with proportional representation within regions (the word is used loosely here, the electoral districts do not necessarily correspond to the Italian governmental regions); if your party could get over 5% of the vote, it will have representation in Parliament. There are two houses of the Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; today's Italian Senate differs only by having some lifetime members, an honor to those who have served the government prominently and honorably (that cuts it down, as will be discussed),slightly different computational formulas, and the electorate is limited to those over 25 years of age (so there, whippersnappers!).
The result of the party list/proportional representation scheme has been splitting of the electorate, with two or three larger parties in double digits but always less than 50%, and a few smaller parties with less than 10% nationally (and some much less, but scoring Parliamentary seats on a regional basis). The pattern, for most of the postwar period, has been shifting alliances and coalition governments based on pooling the strength of one or two large groups and a lot of similarly-minded smaller ones. The test of a coalition is its ability to maintain a majority in key test votes; failing a test vote, the government is dissolved, and either a new coalition is formed or early elections are called.
This system was highly democratic, in that most votes end up gaining representation in Parliament, and with some resemblance to their number, but more democracy does not necessarily translate into good governance. The larger parties in Italian history have eventually failed their supporters and collapsed. The three large parties of the postwar period--the Communists (the P.C.I.), the Socialists (the P.S.I.), and the Christian Democrats (D.C.--somehow the third initial of the inevitable TLA--three-letter acronym--was omitted, perhaps it was their flaw)--all collapsed in the early 1990's, due to a combination of scandals, of alleged bribery and of the exposure of the infamous P2 Masonic lodge (which seemed to run everything in secret), along with the end of the Cold War, which demoralized the Communists, but also removed the reason for uniting in the DC as the hated-but-necessary alternative to Eurocommunism. These were the latest in a series of party formations and collapses dating back to the beginning of the modern Italian state, including also the Liberals, the Republicans, the Social Democrats, the Popular Party (P.P.I.) and the Fascists. With the exception of the Fascists, whose ruin was entering into WWII with opportunistic intent and disastrous result, the usual theme was unreliability of the leadership's loyalties and internecine squabbling.
Without a doubt, these themes have continued, but since the early Nineties, there has been a sincere search for a two-party system, Italian style. The multiplicity of parties has continued, but there has been a unifying force: the dominant Italian politician of the last twenty years, Silvio Berlusconi; and the coalitions have been roughly aligned around the (Berlusconian) free-market appeal against socialism/Communism and for patriotism (or provincialism), and its natural (for Italy, anyway) opposition, good-government social democracy oriented toward greater participation in the European Union.
In 1993, Italy changed the electoral law (through a referendum) from the traditional, fully "democratic" one with proportional representation and preference selection, to one with a mix of single-representative electoral districts and proportional representation with list order fixed by the parties. In 2005, the political forces aligned (basically with Berlusconi's desire) to create a new law designed to ensure major-party coalitions. Under this law, the parties could choose to agree to run in coalitions (though they would have different lists of candidates), and the coalition with the largest share of the popular vote (in the Chamber of Deputies only) would get enough additional representatives to reach 55% of that house, thus ensuring the basis of a majority. This worked pretty well--there were "only" four different governments between 2005 and the 2013 elections, well below the postwar Italian average--but the system was wrecked by events which converged in 2013, a couple driven by decisions of the Judiciary (an additional, powerful and unpredictable force itself), and a couple driven by the inherent flaws of the system.
First, there were the results in 2013, in which the top three party/coalitions--called (in translation) "Common Good" (the center-left), "Center-right", and "5 Star" (the iconoclastic movement headed by Beppe Grillo, see previous post) each obtained greater than 25% and less than 30% in the vote for the Chamber of Deputies. Despite the center-left coalition having received a mere 0.4% more than the center-right, it gained the majority bonus and went to 55% of the Chamber, the other two groupings dropping below 20% (and the other parties outside these groupings dropping from 16% of the vote to 8%) of deputies. In the Senate, the popular vote results were similar (though a lower % for 5 Star, which tends to have more support among the young), but without the majority bonus the other two groups were virtually equal at about 40% of Senators.
So, in the Chamber of Deputies there was no problem, but a new government must be supported by majorities in both houses, and the Senate was the problem. The little parties could be managed, but with 5 Star firmly against any agreement or coalition, the only solution was an agreement between center-left and center-right. With the economic emergency, and the need above all else to agree on a budget which would convince the German bankers to continue to support Italy's, a non-partisan govenrment was formed. Instead of being led by Pier Luigi Bersani, the leader of the largest party of the "victorious" center-left (now called the "Democratic Party"), a lesser politician from that party, the able but somewhat colorless Enrico Letta, was chosen as prime minister, with the center-right gaining a major share of the government posts, and the party furthest to the left of the center-left coalition (let's call it, the S.E.L., "the Greens") cut out of the deal. Bersani did the honorable thing, given his inability to close the deal and the fairly weak plurality his coalition obtained, and resigned as leader of the Democratic Party (he has since had a serious stroke, so it is unclear if he will return to any active political role).
Next come the two judicial results which have combined to cause turmoil in that "historic compromise" government (I use the phrase ironically). It was formed to bring Italy's economy out of its slide; it hasn't done much to make that happen, though the slide seems to have slowed. It did, however, manage to survive its first crisis, which came at the conclusion of a series of court cases lasting years, in which Silvio Berlusconi's conviction for tax evasion was finally, definitvely, affirmed (subject to appeal, of course). It then fell to the Senate to decide whether to expel Berlusconi from its membership or defy the courts. This split the center-right party down the middle. A significant number of his side, perhaps surprisingly large, decided to cut Berlusconi loose (they formed a new party called "New Center-right"--N.C.D.), and he was expelled from the Senate--forever (unless they change their mind someday). The Senate coalition regrouped without the Berlusconi loyalists, who have taken on his party's former name, Forza Italia ("Go, Italy!"), and are seeking to bring down the government and bring new elections--in this regard, they agree with 5 Star, who got close but won no cigars out of the last election and are looking for a rematch.
Late last year, the Constitutional Court, Italy's highest, handed down a decision that the application of the 2005 law in the 2013 elections violated the Constitution, because the current law does not specify any minimum level of popular vote required to get the majority bonus; thus, the law departs too far from democratic principles. In theory, with a dozen parties, a party could get 10% of the vote and end up with 55% of the deputies; in the event, the center-left coalition went from 29.5 to 54.8%, and this was too much for them. They did not specify what needed to be done, nor did they deny Parliament the right to make the electoral law, but they did say something needed to change--and before the next Italian Parliamentary election occurs. Otherwise, the system would go back to the original proportional/preference scheme.
Matteo Renzi and the Italian Electoral Reform
Enter--finally!--Matteo Renzi. Renzi is not in the Parliament, nor in the current Letta government; his day job is Mayor of Florence. His real job, though, is head of the Democratic Party; he won a dramatic victory among the party loyalists last fall with two-thirds of the votes, and as the head of PD, he is also the de facto leader of the center-left, for the next election (which will come in the European Parliament this May; a subject for Part 2). Renzi has stepped dramatically into the fray (the Italian word they use is usually "palude", the swamp) and volunteered to help concoct an Italian electoral law which will satisfy the Constitutional Court and set the stage for the next Parliamentary elections.
I have to say I admire his courage (also his youthful vigor, he is thirty-something) in taking on this role. There are approximately as many possible solutions to this challenge as there are Deputies plus Senators (945!), and every one of them probably has a different solution in mind. Here are a few of the issues he is tackling, and the proposed solution in the draft law*:
The current answers proposed by Renzi are:
The proposed reform has caused a lot of agita+ to everyone except Renzi and Berlusconi, including Letta (the debate can definitely cause the fall of his government), other members of his own party (who are being put in the shade), of the other parties of the governing coalition (who are being squeezed), of the parties of the extreme left and right (in extreme danger of losing representation in Parliament), and, finally and most gravely, the 5 Star Movement of Beppe Grillo. Grillo & Co. are opposed to any form of electoral reform short of direct election of members (very much in line with their general proposition for direct participation, and elimination of parties and alignment along a left-right spectrum); what they want tactically is to find a way to break down the government and go to new elections in the old style. They felt they were close to getting the upper hand, and further government ineptitude can only lead to greater success for them.
The volume amped up this week as the bill was presented to Parliament; 5 Star tried obstructionist tactics which bordered on disrespect for the institutions--something I'm sure they feel but are not permitted to express (it could lead to criminal action). The first test--defeating a motion that the proposed reform was itself unconstitutional--was surmounted with strong support from the government parties, as well as Berlusconi's. The real debate will start in a week or two; Renzi will want to make some tactical concessions to bring in as much support as possible, as some of the deals he will have to make will turn off members of the smaller parties in the government--which after all is not his government--and the members are likely to be able to register their personal objections anonymously, in a secret ballot.
Regardless of the outcome of the debate--and the forces for passing something are very strong at the moment, despite the difficulties--Renzi has placed himself at the top of the list of candidates to be the next premier. Both he and Berlusconi have calculated that the reform would lead to a direct competition between his Democratic Party and a regrouped Berlusconi coalition, and Renzi would like his chances in that one: Berlusconi's support is ever more fragile in the public and the political elites. Still out there in (dis)loyal opposition, though, will be Grillo and his forces; in the meantime, Grillo has an ideal opportunity to upset the balance of political forces in Italy through the elections for the European Parliament in May.
* I have not yet found access to a text of the draft law--I refer you to the following articles (Google will translate to English) on formulas under consideration and the recent laws, and one in English that helped clarify things.
+agita =upset stomach; a useful word, though basically one of Italian-Americans and just a few from Italy's South.
I suppose I should try to make the case to my audience--those who are not Italians, or Europeans of any kind--that these are important subjects. I know one group to whom these subjects are intrinsically of interest, and that would be the political scientists. Italy has long been a case study in the conflict between the desire for greater democracy, which in Italy has taken the form of elections with proportional representation and multiple parties, and for governmental stability (which has been elusive in Italy with that system); while the European Parliament is a political experiement in multicultural representative democracy far more adventurous than has ever been attempted previously. Far more complex than the US democracy, the only plausible comparison is to India's electoral system, but Europe's system does not have the unifying element of a single, historically-dominant party (the Congress Party), and those unified by their desire to oppose it. Beyond that, just consider that Europe's economy is far larger than China's, larger even than the US', so that if it were considered a single economy--and what is the European Union if not an attempt to make it so?--it would be the largest. And, considered as a unit, Europe is lagging in its recovery from the Great Crater, so this has a significant effect on the global economy. Further, within Europe Italy leads in lagging, that is, it is the country with the largest net loss in GDP yet to be recovered from the double-dip recession that has been experienced in Europe. So, whatever, interesting and/or important, I hope you're convinced. If so, read on, and I will be your Virgil to lead you through the dark paths ahead.
Primer on Italian Electoral Reform History:
70 Years in 10 Minutes (if you read slowly)
Before I can go into depth about this political lightning rod named Matteo Renzi and possibly explain what this reform thing is all about (and how it might be a little different from all the other electoral/political "reforms" that have occurred in Italy since World War II), I need to give a little background. I refer you also to the two other times that I have dared to post on Italian politics before, both within the last twelve months. One of these was in February, 2013, just after the last Parliamentary elections, on the challenge of forming a government, and the other was in June when, contrary to many people's expectations, a government was actually formed.
So, a primer: Italy's Parliamentary system has generally had elections driven around party lists with proportional representation within regions (the word is used loosely here, the electoral districts do not necessarily correspond to the Italian governmental regions); if your party could get over 5% of the vote, it will have representation in Parliament. There are two houses of the Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; today's Italian Senate differs only by having some lifetime members, an honor to those who have served the government prominently and honorably (that cuts it down, as will be discussed),slightly different computational formulas, and the electorate is limited to those over 25 years of age (so there, whippersnappers!).
The result of the party list/proportional representation scheme has been splitting of the electorate, with two or three larger parties in double digits but always less than 50%, and a few smaller parties with less than 10% nationally (and some much less, but scoring Parliamentary seats on a regional basis). The pattern, for most of the postwar period, has been shifting alliances and coalition governments based on pooling the strength of one or two large groups and a lot of similarly-minded smaller ones. The test of a coalition is its ability to maintain a majority in key test votes; failing a test vote, the government is dissolved, and either a new coalition is formed or early elections are called.
This system was highly democratic, in that most votes end up gaining representation in Parliament, and with some resemblance to their number, but more democracy does not necessarily translate into good governance. The larger parties in Italian history have eventually failed their supporters and collapsed. The three large parties of the postwar period--the Communists (the P.C.I.), the Socialists (the P.S.I.), and the Christian Democrats (D.C.--somehow the third initial of the inevitable TLA--three-letter acronym--was omitted, perhaps it was their flaw)--all collapsed in the early 1990's, due to a combination of scandals, of alleged bribery and of the exposure of the infamous P2 Masonic lodge (which seemed to run everything in secret), along with the end of the Cold War, which demoralized the Communists, but also removed the reason for uniting in the DC as the hated-but-necessary alternative to Eurocommunism. These were the latest in a series of party formations and collapses dating back to the beginning of the modern Italian state, including also the Liberals, the Republicans, the Social Democrats, the Popular Party (P.P.I.) and the Fascists. With the exception of the Fascists, whose ruin was entering into WWII with opportunistic intent and disastrous result, the usual theme was unreliability of the leadership's loyalties and internecine squabbling.
Without a doubt, these themes have continued, but since the early Nineties, there has been a sincere search for a two-party system, Italian style. The multiplicity of parties has continued, but there has been a unifying force: the dominant Italian politician of the last twenty years, Silvio Berlusconi; and the coalitions have been roughly aligned around the (Berlusconian) free-market appeal against socialism/Communism and for patriotism (or provincialism), and its natural (for Italy, anyway) opposition, good-government social democracy oriented toward greater participation in the European Union.
In 1993, Italy changed the electoral law (through a referendum) from the traditional, fully "democratic" one with proportional representation and preference selection, to one with a mix of single-representative electoral districts and proportional representation with list order fixed by the parties. In 2005, the political forces aligned (basically with Berlusconi's desire) to create a new law designed to ensure major-party coalitions. Under this law, the parties could choose to agree to run in coalitions (though they would have different lists of candidates), and the coalition with the largest share of the popular vote (in the Chamber of Deputies only) would get enough additional representatives to reach 55% of that house, thus ensuring the basis of a majority. This worked pretty well--there were "only" four different governments between 2005 and the 2013 elections, well below the postwar Italian average--but the system was wrecked by events which converged in 2013, a couple driven by decisions of the Judiciary (an additional, powerful and unpredictable force itself), and a couple driven by the inherent flaws of the system.
First, there were the results in 2013, in which the top three party/coalitions--called (in translation) "Common Good" (the center-left), "Center-right", and "5 Star" (the iconoclastic movement headed by Beppe Grillo, see previous post) each obtained greater than 25% and less than 30% in the vote for the Chamber of Deputies. Despite the center-left coalition having received a mere 0.4% more than the center-right, it gained the majority bonus and went to 55% of the Chamber, the other two groupings dropping below 20% (and the other parties outside these groupings dropping from 16% of the vote to 8%) of deputies. In the Senate, the popular vote results were similar (though a lower % for 5 Star, which tends to have more support among the young), but without the majority bonus the other two groups were virtually equal at about 40% of Senators.
So, in the Chamber of Deputies there was no problem, but a new government must be supported by majorities in both houses, and the Senate was the problem. The little parties could be managed, but with 5 Star firmly against any agreement or coalition, the only solution was an agreement between center-left and center-right. With the economic emergency, and the need above all else to agree on a budget which would convince the German bankers to continue to support Italy's, a non-partisan govenrment was formed. Instead of being led by Pier Luigi Bersani, the leader of the largest party of the "victorious" center-left (now called the "Democratic Party"), a lesser politician from that party, the able but somewhat colorless Enrico Letta, was chosen as prime minister, with the center-right gaining a major share of the government posts, and the party furthest to the left of the center-left coalition (let's call it, the S.E.L., "the Greens") cut out of the deal. Bersani did the honorable thing, given his inability to close the deal and the fairly weak plurality his coalition obtained, and resigned as leader of the Democratic Party (he has since had a serious stroke, so it is unclear if he will return to any active political role).
Next come the two judicial results which have combined to cause turmoil in that "historic compromise" government (I use the phrase ironically). It was formed to bring Italy's economy out of its slide; it hasn't done much to make that happen, though the slide seems to have slowed. It did, however, manage to survive its first crisis, which came at the conclusion of a series of court cases lasting years, in which Silvio Berlusconi's conviction for tax evasion was finally, definitvely, affirmed (subject to appeal, of course). It then fell to the Senate to decide whether to expel Berlusconi from its membership or defy the courts. This split the center-right party down the middle. A significant number of his side, perhaps surprisingly large, decided to cut Berlusconi loose (they formed a new party called "New Center-right"--N.C.D.), and he was expelled from the Senate--forever (unless they change their mind someday). The Senate coalition regrouped without the Berlusconi loyalists, who have taken on his party's former name, Forza Italia ("Go, Italy!"), and are seeking to bring down the government and bring new elections--in this regard, they agree with 5 Star, who got close but won no cigars out of the last election and are looking for a rematch.
Late last year, the Constitutional Court, Italy's highest, handed down a decision that the application of the 2005 law in the 2013 elections violated the Constitution, because the current law does not specify any minimum level of popular vote required to get the majority bonus; thus, the law departs too far from democratic principles. In theory, with a dozen parties, a party could get 10% of the vote and end up with 55% of the deputies; in the event, the center-left coalition went from 29.5 to 54.8%, and this was too much for them. They did not specify what needed to be done, nor did they deny Parliament the right to make the electoral law, but they did say something needed to change--and before the next Italian Parliamentary election occurs. Otherwise, the system would go back to the original proportional/preference scheme.
Matteo Renzi and the Italian Electoral Reform
I have to say I admire his courage (also his youthful vigor, he is thirty-something) in taking on this role. There are approximately as many possible solutions to this challenge as there are Deputies plus Senators (945!), and every one of them probably has a different solution in mind. Here are a few of the issues he is tackling, and the proposed solution in the draft law*:
- Whether there will be lists at all, or whether it will all be one seat per district, most votes wins;
- Whether the parties will have the same list of candidates or different lists, by region, and the right to determine the list order or whether it will be determined in a primary;
- Whether there will be a majority bonus, and at what level of popular vote it will kick in, and what will happen if no coalition gets to that level;
- What the minimum level of votes for representation in Parliament will be, and whether there will be any regional concessions (i.e., whether that minimum will apply on a national basis only);
- What, if anything, will be done to bring more women into the Parliament; and, last but not least,
- What's to be done about the Senate?
The current answers proposed by Renzi are:
- There will be lists (basically non-negotiable to Renzi);
- The parties will name the lists (though he is agreeable to having primaries, they would not be mandated in the law);
- Majority bonus is currently negotiated to kick in at 37% (boosting the leading coalition's level to 55%, though that is negotiable--the idea is to have it safely above 50% so the government would be stable), but so far, there is no plan to deal with the situation in which no coalition reaches the minimum level--it would lead to a difficult Parliamentary environment and probably necessitate new, early elections;
- The minimum number is being negotiated downward, to try and get some minor-party support, with 4.5% and 4.0% being discussed--allowances for provincial qualification is still under discussion;
- Women will be equally represented on the lists, though there is the possibility for trickery (some women have discovered that and are challenging the provision); and
- Tthe current thinking is either to abolish the Senate, or make it a dilatory, honorary body like the House of Lords in the U.K., which advises on laws but whose support is not required for a bill to become law. This would be a separate bill, approved after the Election Law (which the Senate must approve!), but which would take effect either before or after the Electoral Reform law.
The proposed reform has caused a lot of agita+ to everyone except Renzi and Berlusconi, including Letta (the debate can definitely cause the fall of his government), other members of his own party (who are being put in the shade), of the other parties of the governing coalition (who are being squeezed), of the parties of the extreme left and right (in extreme danger of losing representation in Parliament), and, finally and most gravely, the 5 Star Movement of Beppe Grillo. Grillo & Co. are opposed to any form of electoral reform short of direct election of members (very much in line with their general proposition for direct participation, and elimination of parties and alignment along a left-right spectrum); what they want tactically is to find a way to break down the government and go to new elections in the old style. They felt they were close to getting the upper hand, and further government ineptitude can only lead to greater success for them.
The volume amped up this week as the bill was presented to Parliament; 5 Star tried obstructionist tactics which bordered on disrespect for the institutions--something I'm sure they feel but are not permitted to express (it could lead to criminal action). The first test--defeating a motion that the proposed reform was itself unconstitutional--was surmounted with strong support from the government parties, as well as Berlusconi's. The real debate will start in a week or two; Renzi will want to make some tactical concessions to bring in as much support as possible, as some of the deals he will have to make will turn off members of the smaller parties in the government--which after all is not his government--and the members are likely to be able to register their personal objections anonymously, in a secret ballot.
Regardless of the outcome of the debate--and the forces for passing something are very strong at the moment, despite the difficulties--Renzi has placed himself at the top of the list of candidates to be the next premier. Both he and Berlusconi have calculated that the reform would lead to a direct competition between his Democratic Party and a regrouped Berlusconi coalition, and Renzi would like his chances in that one: Berlusconi's support is ever more fragile in the public and the political elites. Still out there in (dis)loyal opposition, though, will be Grillo and his forces; in the meantime, Grillo has an ideal opportunity to upset the balance of political forces in Italy through the elections for the European Parliament in May.
* I have not yet found access to a text of the draft law--I refer you to the following articles (Google will translate to English) on formulas under consideration and the recent laws, and one in English that helped clarify things.
+agita =upset stomach; a useful word, though basically one of Italian-Americans and just a few from Italy's South.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
General Update
Go Back to 'Doing Nothing'
What is this infernal Congress thing up to? It's fine that there is some sort of general budget agreement--something is better than nothing--though there seems to be a lot randomness in what's in and what's out (I'm sure it's not random, but a function of who's paid their subscriptions to key members' ears). It didn't solve any of the heated political issues like the Farm Bill (and associated food stamps for the poor), the extension of unemployment insurance, and the upcoming debt ceiling.
What? How can the Republican leadership line up for a budget and then say they don't agree to the increase in the debt that flows directly from the spending? I think--I hope--if they try to pull this nonsense again that President Obama is going to have a nice political bombshell waiting for them. Something like, "Forget the statutory debt limit--we're spending the authorized amounts. Do something about it, if you think you can." My assessment is: They can't, and President Obama should be fully aware of that by now.
And while I'm ranting about Congress, I have to focus directly on the Senate--and particularly on certain middle-Atlantic Democratic Senators--who have combined with a bunch of Republicans to take it upon themselves to make foreign policy--bad foreign policy--with regard to Iran. They say the bill is designed to make sure Iran follows through on its responsibilities in the interim agreement (it is already doing so) and force its hand in the general negotiations on reduction of forces, but they have an exaggerated and distorted view of both the US' economic and poliical influence on Iranian domestic politics and how to conduct a negotiation. One could say they are being the "bad cops" in order to allow President Obama to "good cop" a deal, but the whole idea around that concept is that it is supposed to be a cooperative effort. This is just political play-acting to show that they are more pro-Zionist than the Israelis. Speaking of Zionists....
Ariel Sharon
Sharon was indeed one of the nationalist Great Men, which, as I discussed with regard to Nelson Mandela recently, does not mean he was a good man (though, to be clear, Mandela was). So Twentieth Century, though. I basically said my piece and made my peace with him eight years ago, when he basically died--this was merely the cessation of bodily functions.
I will limit myself to saying this: they say he wanted to be remembered as a Man of Peace; he was not that at all. He was a warrior, and a leader of warriors, and an effective, calculating, brutal one at that. They say he might have been the guy who could have rammed through a peace deal, but it turned out he was not (whether he was just unlucky to have had his stroke at that time, or whether it was not going to happen, we will never know). Clearly his successors, Ehud Olmert of his party and Benyamin Netanyahu of the Likud, were not the people to complete the deal. Sharon's legacy is the stupid Wall between Israel and the Palestinians; my hope is that it crumbles or is torn down. Then, maybe, it will be time for him to rest in peace; his soul (if there is such) has no business doing so now.
Sports Report
I have no suitable transition, so this admission of ineptness will have to do.
It's hard to believe that the new pro tennis season has started already, with the Australian Open. The weather is outrageously hot (no "climate change" here, is there, deniers?) It will be just a test of fitness and stamina, so the number one question for the men's side is whether Novak Djokovic can hold up. He has had some problems in the past with the heat there, but his conditioning has gotten a lot better, aided by a gluten-free diet. On the women's side, the main question is whether it will be Azarenka or Sharapova who loses to Serena Williams in the final. My recommendation is that the tour change things around a little, give a longer warm-up period (maybe some optional East Asian tourneys?) and move the Aussie grand slam to March or April, when temperatures may be a bit more reasonable down under. Do it soon, like next year, hopefully not after some player collapses or dies from heat stroke.
Next: I think that NBC (and its owner, Comcast) is headed for a massive ratings disaster with the Winter Olympics that will begin soon. The latest is that they will not be doing free podcasts; you will have to pay to see it live, which will tick off the enthusiasts, of which there are precious few for the winter sports in the US.
I see nothing that will be both compelling and new for the rest of us potential mass-market viewers: Shaun White is competing, will be able to go after some new and different gold medals, but is tired of his nickname as the "Flying Tomato" (or "Il Pomodoro Volante", as he was called in Torino last Olympics--I love the sound of it, try saying it out loud). I say, oh yeah? Die your hair white (for camouflage), then. Lindsay Vonn (and her Tiger beau) will not be attending, or at least she will not be competing, due to injury; however, I'm guessing she will be paid incredible sums to do commentary there--I don't blame her at all, though. The US and Canadian hockey teams (men and women) will go to war again--all too familiar. Oh, no! Apollo will not be competing in the most bogus of the ballyhooed events, short-track speed skating. At least the Bob Costases of the massive US (broadcasting) team that will attend can phone in their reports from the relatively balmy lakeside Sochi headquarters instead of heading out into the trackless cold mountains.
Baseball has announced there will be two exhibition-games-that-count in Australia a week before Opening Day, an impressive willingness to bend all rules to create a publicity stunt. More intelligently, they have taken a page from the NFL and will allow managers to challenge two rulings per game (that's one per half) to go to the video tape. That's potentially four more long-form advertisements per game, as if the games weren't too long already; there will probably be some sort of make-up provision to reduce game time, borrowing from tennis, which will allow umpires to call a ball if the pitcher stands there too long on the mound, tugging on his cap and pulling up his jock.
What I saw today on this topic is that baseball's "neighborhood play", in which the second baseman turning a doubleplay makes a phantom move with his foot in the general neighborhood of second base before throwing to first (and often does not touch the base, as the rules would require), will not be reviewable, by request from the players' association. The reason is clear: The "neighborhood play" is the flip side of the baserunner charging in with spikes up, and this allowance will protect infielders from a certain amount of career-damaging injuries. I am sure that the umpires will be guided not to allow the infielders to take it too far--if they don't even move in the general direction, they will be permitted to call the baserunner "safe". I have to say that this was a good decision from a humanitarian point of view, as is the one about cutting down home-plate collisions. Yes, "baseball is getting soft", but it was never supposed to be football.
Finally, with regard to football, the NFL conference championship games (a little better transition): your intrepid previewer had three of the final four teams right (the fourth, the Saints, ended up having to play the Seattle Seahawks in the last round, so the pairings made it impossible). The team I overlooked, last year's Super Bowl runners-up (let's not call them losers) the SF 49'ers, are the Sweet Babboo crush of expert football analysts: they have a very exciting young quarterback, and a good defense, and some impressive playoff performances at their back. Seattle has all the above (except the playoff history), and they have home-field advantage, which the Seahawks, their noise-focusing and weather-funneling stadium design, and their frenzied fans, have made into their critical competitive edge. So, I'm going against the smart money and picking the home team.
Will Seattle get its first championship in any sport in thirty-some years? I would say it's unlikely: the Denver Broncos seem to be the team of destiny this year. Peyton Manning, who has had the greatest regular season in the history of quarterbacks this year, has willed and skilled his team to the top: it would be unjust if the Broncos were to lose, either to the Patriots this weekend or in the Super Bowl.
What is this infernal Congress thing up to? It's fine that there is some sort of general budget agreement--something is better than nothing--though there seems to be a lot randomness in what's in and what's out (I'm sure it's not random, but a function of who's paid their subscriptions to key members' ears). It didn't solve any of the heated political issues like the Farm Bill (and associated food stamps for the poor), the extension of unemployment insurance, and the upcoming debt ceiling.
What? How can the Republican leadership line up for a budget and then say they don't agree to the increase in the debt that flows directly from the spending? I think--I hope--if they try to pull this nonsense again that President Obama is going to have a nice political bombshell waiting for them. Something like, "Forget the statutory debt limit--we're spending the authorized amounts. Do something about it, if you think you can." My assessment is: They can't, and President Obama should be fully aware of that by now.
And while I'm ranting about Congress, I have to focus directly on the Senate--and particularly on certain middle-Atlantic Democratic Senators--who have combined with a bunch of Republicans to take it upon themselves to make foreign policy--bad foreign policy--with regard to Iran. They say the bill is designed to make sure Iran follows through on its responsibilities in the interim agreement (it is already doing so) and force its hand in the general negotiations on reduction of forces, but they have an exaggerated and distorted view of both the US' economic and poliical influence on Iranian domestic politics and how to conduct a negotiation. One could say they are being the "bad cops" in order to allow President Obama to "good cop" a deal, but the whole idea around that concept is that it is supposed to be a cooperative effort. This is just political play-acting to show that they are more pro-Zionist than the Israelis. Speaking of Zionists....
Ariel Sharon
Sharon was indeed one of the nationalist Great Men, which, as I discussed with regard to Nelson Mandela recently, does not mean he was a good man (though, to be clear, Mandela was). So Twentieth Century, though. I basically said my piece and made my peace with him eight years ago, when he basically died--this was merely the cessation of bodily functions.
I will limit myself to saying this: they say he wanted to be remembered as a Man of Peace; he was not that at all. He was a warrior, and a leader of warriors, and an effective, calculating, brutal one at that. They say he might have been the guy who could have rammed through a peace deal, but it turned out he was not (whether he was just unlucky to have had his stroke at that time, or whether it was not going to happen, we will never know). Clearly his successors, Ehud Olmert of his party and Benyamin Netanyahu of the Likud, were not the people to complete the deal. Sharon's legacy is the stupid Wall between Israel and the Palestinians; my hope is that it crumbles or is torn down. Then, maybe, it will be time for him to rest in peace; his soul (if there is such) has no business doing so now.
Sports Report
I have no suitable transition, so this admission of ineptness will have to do.
It's hard to believe that the new pro tennis season has started already, with the Australian Open. The weather is outrageously hot (no "climate change" here, is there, deniers?) It will be just a test of fitness and stamina, so the number one question for the men's side is whether Novak Djokovic can hold up. He has had some problems in the past with the heat there, but his conditioning has gotten a lot better, aided by a gluten-free diet. On the women's side, the main question is whether it will be Azarenka or Sharapova who loses to Serena Williams in the final. My recommendation is that the tour change things around a little, give a longer warm-up period (maybe some optional East Asian tourneys?) and move the Aussie grand slam to March or April, when temperatures may be a bit more reasonable down under. Do it soon, like next year, hopefully not after some player collapses or dies from heat stroke.
Next: I think that NBC (and its owner, Comcast) is headed for a massive ratings disaster with the Winter Olympics that will begin soon. The latest is that they will not be doing free podcasts; you will have to pay to see it live, which will tick off the enthusiasts, of which there are precious few for the winter sports in the US.
I see nothing that will be both compelling and new for the rest of us potential mass-market viewers: Shaun White is competing, will be able to go after some new and different gold medals, but is tired of his nickname as the "Flying Tomato" (or "Il Pomodoro Volante", as he was called in Torino last Olympics--I love the sound of it, try saying it out loud). I say, oh yeah? Die your hair white (for camouflage), then. Lindsay Vonn (and her Tiger beau) will not be attending, or at least she will not be competing, due to injury; however, I'm guessing she will be paid incredible sums to do commentary there--I don't blame her at all, though. The US and Canadian hockey teams (men and women) will go to war again--all too familiar. Oh, no! Apollo will not be competing in the most bogus of the ballyhooed events, short-track speed skating. At least the Bob Costases of the massive US (broadcasting) team that will attend can phone in their reports from the relatively balmy lakeside Sochi headquarters instead of heading out into the trackless cold mountains.
Baseball has announced there will be two exhibition-games-that-count in Australia a week before Opening Day, an impressive willingness to bend all rules to create a publicity stunt. More intelligently, they have taken a page from the NFL and will allow managers to challenge two rulings per game (that's one per half) to go to the video tape. That's potentially four more long-form advertisements per game, as if the games weren't too long already; there will probably be some sort of make-up provision to reduce game time, borrowing from tennis, which will allow umpires to call a ball if the pitcher stands there too long on the mound, tugging on his cap and pulling up his jock.
What I saw today on this topic is that baseball's "neighborhood play", in which the second baseman turning a doubleplay makes a phantom move with his foot in the general neighborhood of second base before throwing to first (and often does not touch the base, as the rules would require), will not be reviewable, by request from the players' association. The reason is clear: The "neighborhood play" is the flip side of the baserunner charging in with spikes up, and this allowance will protect infielders from a certain amount of career-damaging injuries. I am sure that the umpires will be guided not to allow the infielders to take it too far--if they don't even move in the general direction, they will be permitted to call the baserunner "safe". I have to say that this was a good decision from a humanitarian point of view, as is the one about cutting down home-plate collisions. Yes, "baseball is getting soft", but it was never supposed to be football.
Finally, with regard to football, the NFL conference championship games (a little better transition): your intrepid previewer had three of the final four teams right (the fourth, the Saints, ended up having to play the Seattle Seahawks in the last round, so the pairings made it impossible). The team I overlooked, last year's Super Bowl runners-up (let's not call them losers) the SF 49'ers, are the Sweet Babboo crush of expert football analysts: they have a very exciting young quarterback, and a good defense, and some impressive playoff performances at their back. Seattle has all the above (except the playoff history), and they have home-field advantage, which the Seahawks, their noise-focusing and weather-funneling stadium design, and their frenzied fans, have made into their critical competitive edge. So, I'm going against the smart money and picking the home team.
Will Seattle get its first championship in any sport in thirty-some years? I would say it's unlikely: the Denver Broncos seem to be the team of destiny this year. Peyton Manning, who has had the greatest regular season in the history of quarterbacks this year, has willed and skilled his team to the top: it would be unjust if the Broncos were to lose, either to the Patriots this weekend or in the Super Bowl.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The Great Privacy Debate Begins
If there is anything about which I have been insistent in this blog, it is the call to place the debate over what's private into the public arena. Until now, one of the worst aspects of the political performance of President Obama, both as candidate and as President, has been his lack of attention or initiative in this area, and I have criticized him frequently for it. I had reason to look for more from him, as constitutional scholar was one of his career specializations, prior to his electoral one.
I do have to thank Edward Snowden and his outing of the NSA's methods of high-tech espionage for finally launching this debate and bringing it into the public eye. I find it hard to consider Snowden a hero, this hired hand who took it upon himself to decide to break his oaths of secrecy; he doesn't quite qualify as a "whistleblower", in the legal sense which protects such activity, because the activities he revealed have been thoroughly vetted, albeit against extremely lax legal limitations. On the other hand, he's definitely been a whistleblower in the senses of a) blowing the whistle to signal the start of the game; and b) using the fricative (not "fricking") device to call attention to himself. And, again, his "revelations"--none of which were truly new and surprising, to those who've been paying attention--have performed a public service in focusing our attention on the subject.
That being said, making the issue all about the NSA is a bit misplaced, I think. There was clearly an abuse of the quietly-granted prerogatives the organization got from Congress and the Courts, and the simple public disclosure of their methods probably invalidates those recent ones (though they would be able to find new ones). Then there is the reform that is now going to be forthcoming. In that sense, debate is tardy: the fix is already in. President Obama commissioned a group of four experts on the subject, and they produced a report with 46 unanimously-agreed measures. They understood very clearly that there are times when information must be obtained for reasons of security, but that expectations under normal circumstances should be that the government not snoop around in people's business without reason, exactly the principle I have been proposing for years. I expect Obama will be announcing very soon that he will be putting virtually all of the recommendations into place--they are basically within the realm of Executive Branch discretion.
I would say the most important provision will be the naming of a public advocate to argue, at the appropriate times, against warrants for privacy invasions at the FISA court that has been until now a rubber stamp, if not bypassed entirely. This advocate will need to be a strong individual with a proven regard for the protection of the public's privacy interest, comparable to the way Elizabeth Warren or Richard Cordray were for the newly-created role as consumer advocate in financial dealings, and that quality will need to be sustained over time. This last will be the hard part, as the historical tendency is for such roles to be co-opted by the power centers. One other notable recommendation is some attempt to restrict the snooping on data flows outside the US, whether or not they involve Americans; this is WORSP-behavior at its worst.
My hope is that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a vigorous public discussion of what activities, by which people, should be left out of the public eye (and the private eye), and when something that someone does is legitimate grist for the public mill. The media today is a gluttonous shark, which smells sweet new blood, munches furiously, spitting out the bones, then darts off for new prey. With Warhol's prediction coming partly to fruition, of brief celebrity for many (not all, yet), this is leaving a lot of casualties and not providing much cultural nutrition.
I do have to thank Edward Snowden and his outing of the NSA's methods of high-tech espionage for finally launching this debate and bringing it into the public eye. I find it hard to consider Snowden a hero, this hired hand who took it upon himself to decide to break his oaths of secrecy; he doesn't quite qualify as a "whistleblower", in the legal sense which protects such activity, because the activities he revealed have been thoroughly vetted, albeit against extremely lax legal limitations. On the other hand, he's definitely been a whistleblower in the senses of a) blowing the whistle to signal the start of the game; and b) using the fricative (not "fricking") device to call attention to himself. And, again, his "revelations"--none of which were truly new and surprising, to those who've been paying attention--have performed a public service in focusing our attention on the subject.
That being said, making the issue all about the NSA is a bit misplaced, I think. There was clearly an abuse of the quietly-granted prerogatives the organization got from Congress and the Courts, and the simple public disclosure of their methods probably invalidates those recent ones (though they would be able to find new ones). Then there is the reform that is now going to be forthcoming. In that sense, debate is tardy: the fix is already in. President Obama commissioned a group of four experts on the subject, and they produced a report with 46 unanimously-agreed measures. They understood very clearly that there are times when information must be obtained for reasons of security, but that expectations under normal circumstances should be that the government not snoop around in people's business without reason, exactly the principle I have been proposing for years. I expect Obama will be announcing very soon that he will be putting virtually all of the recommendations into place--they are basically within the realm of Executive Branch discretion.
I would say the most important provision will be the naming of a public advocate to argue, at the appropriate times, against warrants for privacy invasions at the FISA court that has been until now a rubber stamp, if not bypassed entirely. This advocate will need to be a strong individual with a proven regard for the protection of the public's privacy interest, comparable to the way Elizabeth Warren or Richard Cordray were for the newly-created role as consumer advocate in financial dealings, and that quality will need to be sustained over time. This last will be the hard part, as the historical tendency is for such roles to be co-opted by the power centers. One other notable recommendation is some attempt to restrict the snooping on data flows outside the US, whether or not they involve Americans; this is WORSP-behavior at its worst.
My hope is that this will be the beginning, not the end, of a vigorous public discussion of what activities, by which people, should be left out of the public eye (and the private eye), and when something that someone does is legitimate grist for the public mill. The media today is a gluttonous shark, which smells sweet new blood, munches furiously, spitting out the bones, then darts off for new prey. With Warhol's prediction coming partly to fruition, of brief celebrity for many (not all, yet), this is leaving a lot of casualties and not providing much cultural nutrition.
Friday, January 10, 2014
2014 General Political Preview: US
Unlike 2013, a phony election year which led to broad, mistaken conclusions about the body politic and enormous efforts to raise money for a very small number of races, 2014 is a real election. One-third of the Senate, all the House, and a whole lot of state governors' races are being contested this year.
CNN had an interesting poll recently in which they asked the voters who had more to fear from the 2014 elections. 33% of respondents said the Republicans; 19% said the Democrats; but the plurality (48%) was that the party that had the most to fear was The Voters. I think they had it almost right, as the Democrats have as much to fear as the Republicans from 2014, but mostly we recognize that we are going to be bombarded with solicitations, ads, a lot of baloney, and not much to show for it.The 2012 election's results led to a lot of people saying, "elections have consequences"; those consequences were not fully apparent last year, and I'm not sure about 2014, either. Similarly, this election will have a lot of hullabaloo--mostly about the "do-nothing Congress" and the contrarian point of view that inertia is a Good Thing--and an endless series of fund-raising efforts, but the fear I share with those who selected The Voters is that the consequences may be vanishingly slight.
Nevertheless, the risks that are present with this year's balloting, and the attention it will draw, suggest that I should go out on the limb--once again--and tell my dear reader what s/he should be listening and looking for in this year's cacophony, and what one can predict about the likely outcomes. Today, we address the issues that are going to be salient; in a post in the near future, we will get down to cases.
Issues: It's not the Stupid Economy
Of course people will always vote their pocketbooks to some extent--whether they perceive their economic interests accurately and vote them effectively, that's another matter. As the vast money raised and blown on the Romney campaign in 2012 showed, even the big-money contributors are having a hard time getting what they want out of their freely-donated "speech".
This year, though, I can't see either party making a trenchant economic argument that will move voters, absent a sudden collapse of some kind--and I don't think even a bursting Wall Street bubble would qualify, unless accompanied by a more general unraveling. A lot of people would be glad to see those wolves and parasites (those people's view; not wholly mine) down on the same level with the rest of "us". The economy isn't doing that badly, after all. Fifth year of sustained growth, unemployment down to new normal levels, inflation very low, interest rates low--sorry, I can't agree with the nay-sayers on either side of the aisle. The new Fed chair-pilot Janet Yellen seems to have worked out the glide path with outgoing chair Bernanke and the plan is for a seamless transition toward autopilot and cruise control. There are issues that will have economic ramifications, but I think those are secondary for them--they are primarily social issues.
My view is that healthcare will not be the hot issue in 2014 that some think, fear, or hope. The Republicans got their mileage from it, but the program is not going to be stopped, and the Democrats--if they have any sense--will stop short of accepting comprehensive ownership of the whole mess and stick to what the Affordable Care Act actually does and does not do.
Neither will the Republicans be able to make any more hay about the budget deficit this year. President Obama has essentially fulfilled his promise to reduce the budget deficit by half and the current deficit is not in itself a problem. There is a problem, but it is a long-term one, and it will not be addressed honestly this year by either party. The failure of the government shutdown effort has dampened Republican enthusiasm for mud-wrestling on the deficit and the debt ceiling, and just in time for their chances this year, I'd say.
Return of the Social to the Media
So, what is there that will get people excited? I think there are a few social issues that have gotten people's attention in recent months and upon which politicians may be forced to take positions.
First, it is evident that the recent flood of states that have moved to legalize same-sex marriage has raised it as a topic that will remain current for 2014. Those states that came out forcefully and made popular-backed changes may have moved on, but there are several states where the outcome is still conflicted, and there are still more in which the issue has only begun to rise. Then there is the federal question, whether the marriages of one state should, or must, be recognized by others--my understanding is that same-sex marriages do not yet have that federal cross-border protection. The momentum for the movement to allow same-sex marriage remains strong, and the reaction is regrouping, so there will be some relatively hot clashes in the near future.
Next, there has been a creeping anti-abortion movement which has obtained success in several states by making access to abortions difficult. Limitations around the term of the pregnancy, reducing the doctors or clinics that can perform them, putting onerous hurdles in the way of those seeking them (your ultrasounds, permission slips, required re-educational programs, etc.) are having an effect, and there is a majority on the Supreme Court--with all of swing Justice Kennedy's temporizing--that can only be watching all this with concern. Whether or not SCOTUS takes some action this year--and I'd bet against--I think the activists on both sides of this issue will be pumping hard for contributions and working the candidates to take stands, particularly in contested state gubernatorial and legislative elections. I think it will be the central issue in the Texas governor's race, for example, and could spark a surprising result if Democratic candidate Wendy Davis, who came to national view in filibustering abortion restrictions in the state legislature, can mobilize national support and Texas women and minorities. Someday it will happen, if not in 2014, and it will make a dramatic change in the political landscape when it does.
Then there is the Herbal Liberation Front--the strengthening movement for decriminalization of marijuana. Despite major victories in a couple of states, the definitive success of the effort is far from secure; with the current status, a new administration could legally decide to crack down on legalized distribution in those states--both for personal and for medicinal use--and we would be back to Square Zero. (and I do mean Square!) As I argued recently, the key initiative--one which will not pass in this Congress--will be a Federal protection for states to take the measures they choose to liberalize possession, or not. Candidates for Congress will, and should be expected to, take positions on this issue, and those positions may have consequences. Further, there will undoubtedly be new state initiatives on ballots in 2014, which will keep attention on the issue regardless of Congressional candidates' reluctance to antagonize either pro-pot libertines and libertarians or anti-pot reactionaries. My priority on this will be to express continuing solidarity with the experiment of Colorado and Washington and protect it from ridicule or Federal intrusion.
Finally, there is the growing inequality of income and wealth in the country, which is really a social issue with economic implications, and what can and should be done about that inequality. The fact that the economy's growth is all going to relatively few would not be so bad, if they were spending it in ways that were perceived, or actually, helping the rest. The Democrats are hoping that they can use empathy for the less fortunate as a wedge issue to either embarrass Republicans or pressure them to pass things they don't like, like unemployment insurance, food stamps, or an increase in the minimum wage. I would predict the results will be: embarrassment--yes; unemployment insurance extension - no (!); food stamps--yes; minimum wage--no.
I do think that 2014 will see a renewal of debate about taxation, which from a long-term point of view is really the way to address this issue. President Obama will look to accomplish something in this area, probably in the next Congress, but the debate this year may begin to frame the possible outcome. It's early to predict how that will come out, but I could envision a compromise solution which involves both more progressive and less progressive taxation: raising the income limits substantially (or eliminating them) for the (regressive) Social Security contribution, lowering the top tax rates on the basic income tax, but removing enough deductions to make general tax revenues neutral (or slightly higher). I could also see a trade-off with the special low tax rate for capital gains ending in exchange for lower corporate tax rates. With this logic, the debate will focus on the types of deductions to be removed, and this will up the ante for those special interests who need to protect theirs. I can see both parties goading the lobbyists to put down PAC money by raising this threat.
Is It Safe Out There?
There are two topics that are generally discounted, but I think could emerge as major issues in the 2014 elections. I will say first, that I hope these two emerge, because they are debates that we need; second, I would bet that they would, but only if I am given generous odds.
The first is a new, post-GWOT (Global War on Terror) debate on security, military spending, and foreign policy. I think President Obama is ready to allow this one to come forward and not try to snuff it out with some sort of demagogic, flag-waving artificial scare tactics, which is usually the case.
I am hoping that the issue will not arise because of some tragic incident, and I'm definitely putting the advice out there to beef up security at all our embassies, consulates, and other outposts on September 11, 2014, especially anywhere in the Middle East. We should take a couple of divisions that are being removed from Afghanistan, send home the veterans, but keep the units in the region, and parcel out the new recruits to these locations. The contrary argument--bring everybody home--will be a popular one, but it is unwise, and I don't think it will be adopted.
Afghanistan itself will present an issue, with this proposed Security Agreement that would potentially keep American troops on the ground there for 10 more years (albeit in reduced numbers). This is unpopular in the extreme at home, and it's likely to be an unsettled issue in Afghanistan itself until after the elections there: will the new President want us there--as a tripwire to help prevent a collapse--or will he want us out in order to remove an obstacle to a possible peace agreement? And how will we feel about that, when the new President makes a deal and lets the Taliban back into controlling Kandahar? About how we feel about letting the Sunni militants take back Fallujah (as they just did), I'd say.
Then there are all the other countries in the Middle East and the security issues--about one or two per country. I don't think Iran and its nuclear program will be the hot button this year, but their involvement in the scraps in Syria and Lebanon could be. Then there is Israel, and the Palestinians, and their respective inclinations to pretend to make a deal, and the Egyptians who are thumbing their nose at us, and the Libyans who are thumbing their nose, and the Saudis who feel unwanted.....it will be surprising if there is not an urgent security crisis of some kind in the Middle East this fall that will draw our attention.
The Meta-Election
You saw the term here first: this is the second issue that I am hoping will surprise and emerge. I think there's a good chance that a huge portion of this year's electoral dialogue could be about the nature of our elections themselves, as we conduct them today, and the Cost of Bad Quality associated with them. One way this could come forward would be through a series of "third-party" independents of left (Democratic dissidents), center (moderate Republicans), and right (Tea Partyists) who make serious bids for office challenging the two major-party candidates. An even more helpful development would be a debate about the ridiculous amounts of money being spent, and what would be required to scale back the fund-raising arms race.
At the end of 2013, I was receiving about fifty emails a day from various party fundraising groups and individual candidates, all trying to convince me that I really needed to give them money so that they could meet some arbitrary year-end fundraising goal. With one exception, Lois Frankel, who is trying to pre-empt a return run by Allen West in her district (anything to keep him out of the limelight), I did not give to any of them--what's the point, really? Do they really think that showing that they can raise a bunch of money quickly from out-of-state contributors is going to inhibit their opponents from running, or raising money? Giving only encourages them, at this point.
I think that people are about fed up with the current electoral system, and a recent poll suggested they are ready to look at wholesale change. So, what is needed to change? A couple of constitutional amendments, the way I see it. One would be to specify that corporations (or special-purpose vehicles, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations) have certain rights and responsibilities, but that they are not the same as those for individuals. A second one would be to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President through the popular vote. I also think it's time to bring forward the idea that we should have the President serve one six-year term: I am convinced there will never be another President who has a successful second term (the last was Eisenhower, I guess).
Another aspect of this meta-election concept is the whole question of access to the voting booths, with the Democrats driving to make it simpler and the Republicans seeking to obstruct the masses. We can expect the volume level on "voter fraud/voter suppression" to rise dramatically as the election approaches, as turnout will be a make-or-break issue for the Democrats. Particularly it concerns access for the minority voters, and this is what the Congressional block on immigration reform is all about: trying to impede the growth of Hispanic voting power for the long run. That is why the piecemeal approach of the House to the issue this year will include more visas for professionals and will look to reduce conflict about deportation, but it will not grant a path to future citizenship for the undocumented.
This bring us to the bottom line: the main issue which will be resolved in the 2014 elections will be the political careers of those who are running. I will address their concerns in a future post.
In the meantime, let me give one more plug to Nate Silver, the proven colossus of sound statistical analysis for use in predicting electoral outcomes Nate has packed up from the New York Times (and they have left 538.com to be bought up by some silly Chinese merch site--don't go there!) and moved to ESPN. He has been recruiting additional editorial talent and will be starting a site there (I think it will be called "FiveThirtyEight", though I hope that reference to the Electoral college will become obsolete soon)--in the meantime,ESPN's blog Grantland has provided him a temporary home when he gets the chance to post, as he did here about the shutown.
CNN had an interesting poll recently in which they asked the voters who had more to fear from the 2014 elections. 33% of respondents said the Republicans; 19% said the Democrats; but the plurality (48%) was that the party that had the most to fear was The Voters. I think they had it almost right, as the Democrats have as much to fear as the Republicans from 2014, but mostly we recognize that we are going to be bombarded with solicitations, ads, a lot of baloney, and not much to show for it.The 2012 election's results led to a lot of people saying, "elections have consequences"; those consequences were not fully apparent last year, and I'm not sure about 2014, either. Similarly, this election will have a lot of hullabaloo--mostly about the "do-nothing Congress" and the contrarian point of view that inertia is a Good Thing--and an endless series of fund-raising efforts, but the fear I share with those who selected The Voters is that the consequences may be vanishingly slight.
Nevertheless, the risks that are present with this year's balloting, and the attention it will draw, suggest that I should go out on the limb--once again--and tell my dear reader what s/he should be listening and looking for in this year's cacophony, and what one can predict about the likely outcomes. Today, we address the issues that are going to be salient; in a post in the near future, we will get down to cases.
Issues: It's not the Stupid Economy
Of course people will always vote their pocketbooks to some extent--whether they perceive their economic interests accurately and vote them effectively, that's another matter. As the vast money raised and blown on the Romney campaign in 2012 showed, even the big-money contributors are having a hard time getting what they want out of their freely-donated "speech".
This year, though, I can't see either party making a trenchant economic argument that will move voters, absent a sudden collapse of some kind--and I don't think even a bursting Wall Street bubble would qualify, unless accompanied by a more general unraveling. A lot of people would be glad to see those wolves and parasites (those people's view; not wholly mine) down on the same level with the rest of "us". The economy isn't doing that badly, after all. Fifth year of sustained growth, unemployment down to new normal levels, inflation very low, interest rates low--sorry, I can't agree with the nay-sayers on either side of the aisle. The new Fed chair-pilot Janet Yellen seems to have worked out the glide path with outgoing chair Bernanke and the plan is for a seamless transition toward autopilot and cruise control. There are issues that will have economic ramifications, but I think those are secondary for them--they are primarily social issues.
My view is that healthcare will not be the hot issue in 2014 that some think, fear, or hope. The Republicans got their mileage from it, but the program is not going to be stopped, and the Democrats--if they have any sense--will stop short of accepting comprehensive ownership of the whole mess and stick to what the Affordable Care Act actually does and does not do.
Neither will the Republicans be able to make any more hay about the budget deficit this year. President Obama has essentially fulfilled his promise to reduce the budget deficit by half and the current deficit is not in itself a problem. There is a problem, but it is a long-term one, and it will not be addressed honestly this year by either party. The failure of the government shutdown effort has dampened Republican enthusiasm for mud-wrestling on the deficit and the debt ceiling, and just in time for their chances this year, I'd say.
Return of the Social to the Media
So, what is there that will get people excited? I think there are a few social issues that have gotten people's attention in recent months and upon which politicians may be forced to take positions.
First, it is evident that the recent flood of states that have moved to legalize same-sex marriage has raised it as a topic that will remain current for 2014. Those states that came out forcefully and made popular-backed changes may have moved on, but there are several states where the outcome is still conflicted, and there are still more in which the issue has only begun to rise. Then there is the federal question, whether the marriages of one state should, or must, be recognized by others--my understanding is that same-sex marriages do not yet have that federal cross-border protection. The momentum for the movement to allow same-sex marriage remains strong, and the reaction is regrouping, so there will be some relatively hot clashes in the near future.
Next, there has been a creeping anti-abortion movement which has obtained success in several states by making access to abortions difficult. Limitations around the term of the pregnancy, reducing the doctors or clinics that can perform them, putting onerous hurdles in the way of those seeking them (your ultrasounds, permission slips, required re-educational programs, etc.) are having an effect, and there is a majority on the Supreme Court--with all of swing Justice Kennedy's temporizing--that can only be watching all this with concern. Whether or not SCOTUS takes some action this year--and I'd bet against--I think the activists on both sides of this issue will be pumping hard for contributions and working the candidates to take stands, particularly in contested state gubernatorial and legislative elections. I think it will be the central issue in the Texas governor's race, for example, and could spark a surprising result if Democratic candidate Wendy Davis, who came to national view in filibustering abortion restrictions in the state legislature, can mobilize national support and Texas women and minorities. Someday it will happen, if not in 2014, and it will make a dramatic change in the political landscape when it does.
Then there is the Herbal Liberation Front--the strengthening movement for decriminalization of marijuana. Despite major victories in a couple of states, the definitive success of the effort is far from secure; with the current status, a new administration could legally decide to crack down on legalized distribution in those states--both for personal and for medicinal use--and we would be back to Square Zero. (and I do mean Square!) As I argued recently, the key initiative--one which will not pass in this Congress--will be a Federal protection for states to take the measures they choose to liberalize possession, or not. Candidates for Congress will, and should be expected to, take positions on this issue, and those positions may have consequences. Further, there will undoubtedly be new state initiatives on ballots in 2014, which will keep attention on the issue regardless of Congressional candidates' reluctance to antagonize either pro-pot libertines and libertarians or anti-pot reactionaries. My priority on this will be to express continuing solidarity with the experiment of Colorado and Washington and protect it from ridicule or Federal intrusion.
Finally, there is the growing inequality of income and wealth in the country, which is really a social issue with economic implications, and what can and should be done about that inequality. The fact that the economy's growth is all going to relatively few would not be so bad, if they were spending it in ways that were perceived, or actually, helping the rest. The Democrats are hoping that they can use empathy for the less fortunate as a wedge issue to either embarrass Republicans or pressure them to pass things they don't like, like unemployment insurance, food stamps, or an increase in the minimum wage. I would predict the results will be: embarrassment--yes; unemployment insurance extension - no (!); food stamps--yes; minimum wage--no.
I do think that 2014 will see a renewal of debate about taxation, which from a long-term point of view is really the way to address this issue. President Obama will look to accomplish something in this area, probably in the next Congress, but the debate this year may begin to frame the possible outcome. It's early to predict how that will come out, but I could envision a compromise solution which involves both more progressive and less progressive taxation: raising the income limits substantially (or eliminating them) for the (regressive) Social Security contribution, lowering the top tax rates on the basic income tax, but removing enough deductions to make general tax revenues neutral (or slightly higher). I could also see a trade-off with the special low tax rate for capital gains ending in exchange for lower corporate tax rates. With this logic, the debate will focus on the types of deductions to be removed, and this will up the ante for those special interests who need to protect theirs. I can see both parties goading the lobbyists to put down PAC money by raising this threat.
Is It Safe Out There?
There are two topics that are generally discounted, but I think could emerge as major issues in the 2014 elections. I will say first, that I hope these two emerge, because they are debates that we need; second, I would bet that they would, but only if I am given generous odds.
The first is a new, post-GWOT (Global War on Terror) debate on security, military spending, and foreign policy. I think President Obama is ready to allow this one to come forward and not try to snuff it out with some sort of demagogic, flag-waving artificial scare tactics, which is usually the case.
I am hoping that the issue will not arise because of some tragic incident, and I'm definitely putting the advice out there to beef up security at all our embassies, consulates, and other outposts on September 11, 2014, especially anywhere in the Middle East. We should take a couple of divisions that are being removed from Afghanistan, send home the veterans, but keep the units in the region, and parcel out the new recruits to these locations. The contrary argument--bring everybody home--will be a popular one, but it is unwise, and I don't think it will be adopted.
Afghanistan itself will present an issue, with this proposed Security Agreement that would potentially keep American troops on the ground there for 10 more years (albeit in reduced numbers). This is unpopular in the extreme at home, and it's likely to be an unsettled issue in Afghanistan itself until after the elections there: will the new President want us there--as a tripwire to help prevent a collapse--or will he want us out in order to remove an obstacle to a possible peace agreement? And how will we feel about that, when the new President makes a deal and lets the Taliban back into controlling Kandahar? About how we feel about letting the Sunni militants take back Fallujah (as they just did), I'd say.
Then there are all the other countries in the Middle East and the security issues--about one or two per country. I don't think Iran and its nuclear program will be the hot button this year, but their involvement in the scraps in Syria and Lebanon could be. Then there is Israel, and the Palestinians, and their respective inclinations to pretend to make a deal, and the Egyptians who are thumbing their nose at us, and the Libyans who are thumbing their nose, and the Saudis who feel unwanted.....it will be surprising if there is not an urgent security crisis of some kind in the Middle East this fall that will draw our attention.
The Meta-Election
You saw the term here first: this is the second issue that I am hoping will surprise and emerge. I think there's a good chance that a huge portion of this year's electoral dialogue could be about the nature of our elections themselves, as we conduct them today, and the Cost of Bad Quality associated with them. One way this could come forward would be through a series of "third-party" independents of left (Democratic dissidents), center (moderate Republicans), and right (Tea Partyists) who make serious bids for office challenging the two major-party candidates. An even more helpful development would be a debate about the ridiculous amounts of money being spent, and what would be required to scale back the fund-raising arms race.
At the end of 2013, I was receiving about fifty emails a day from various party fundraising groups and individual candidates, all trying to convince me that I really needed to give them money so that they could meet some arbitrary year-end fundraising goal. With one exception, Lois Frankel, who is trying to pre-empt a return run by Allen West in her district (anything to keep him out of the limelight), I did not give to any of them--what's the point, really? Do they really think that showing that they can raise a bunch of money quickly from out-of-state contributors is going to inhibit their opponents from running, or raising money? Giving only encourages them, at this point.
I think that people are about fed up with the current electoral system, and a recent poll suggested they are ready to look at wholesale change. So, what is needed to change? A couple of constitutional amendments, the way I see it. One would be to specify that corporations (or special-purpose vehicles, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations) have certain rights and responsibilities, but that they are not the same as those for individuals. A second one would be to eliminate the Electoral College and select the President through the popular vote. I also think it's time to bring forward the idea that we should have the President serve one six-year term: I am convinced there will never be another President who has a successful second term (the last was Eisenhower, I guess).
Another aspect of this meta-election concept is the whole question of access to the voting booths, with the Democrats driving to make it simpler and the Republicans seeking to obstruct the masses. We can expect the volume level on "voter fraud/voter suppression" to rise dramatically as the election approaches, as turnout will be a make-or-break issue for the Democrats. Particularly it concerns access for the minority voters, and this is what the Congressional block on immigration reform is all about: trying to impede the growth of Hispanic voting power for the long run. That is why the piecemeal approach of the House to the issue this year will include more visas for professionals and will look to reduce conflict about deportation, but it will not grant a path to future citizenship for the undocumented.
This bring us to the bottom line: the main issue which will be resolved in the 2014 elections will be the political careers of those who are running. I will address their concerns in a future post.
In the meantime, let me give one more plug to Nate Silver, the proven colossus of sound statistical analysis for use in predicting electoral outcomes Nate has packed up from the New York Times (and they have left 538.com to be bought up by some silly Chinese merch site--don't go there!) and moved to ESPN. He has been recruiting additional editorial talent and will be starting a site there (I think it will be called "FiveThirtyEight", though I hope that reference to the Electoral college will become obsolete soon)--in the meantime,ESPN's blog Grantland has provided him a temporary home when he gets the chance to post, as he did here about the shutown.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2013 Review
This is the time when the custom of the country is to look back and review the year just ending. It's somewhat random, the idea of the December review of the year gone by, not what I'd call natural: In times past, the calendars of most classical societies began the year in the spring. If we followed that pattern, we'd have the whole winter to stay in from the cold and think (in the dark, or by candlelight) about the growing season and harvest season of the past twelve months.
That might not sound too attractive, but it would make more sense to review the past year when it is actually over, instead of sometime in the middle of December, when more could still happen that's worth including in the recap. I'm waiting until the very end, so there isn't much chance of that (just over 0.1% of the year remaining). One year, I might do a Meta-Review in January--"the year's 10 best '10 best'"--maybe drawing one from news, music, sports, movies, etc.--but it's not going to be this year; I haven't got time for the research now. More about that in some future posts.
The Year in Obama
I'm sure you are reading elsewhere that this was a disastrously bad year for the Obama Administration. In particular, the media-borne criticism has been that he is an incompetent executive and that the public has lost confidence in him. I would argue, on the contrary, that in 2013 he was vindicated, time after time, despite the increasingly desperate efforts to defeat him. I will argue--in my preview of 2014--that the efforts will become even more desperate, and that they will be defeated even more comprehensively. (link to follow)
First, though, we must stipulate three points, ones that I have made before, but must reiterate for purposes of the argument:
President Obama was exalted more than he deserved for his victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. His campaign performance was never as great as it was made out afterwards, nor as poor as it was described when he was perceived to have a subpar TV appearance in the first debate. Romney was just the strongest of a weak field of Republican candidates; I'll admit it wasn't quite as close as I thought, but just by a couple of states' worth of electoral votes.
The tear-down started almost immediately, with the Benghazi affair. Although it occurred two months before the election, it didn't connect as a serious campaign issue; however, early this year came the craziness of Susan Rice's media and Congressional crucifixion following her appearances after the incident on the talk-show circuit, then the hearings, and John Kerry's rise as Secretary of State. Now, finally, the story comes full circle as the Times reveals that, in fact, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the riot and it was fomented by militia groups we had once supported. The right wing blog Townhall concedes the point and says, in effect, that detail didn't matter. True, but a little late. And Kerry? He is on a bit of a roll, if a fragile one, with the interim deal on Iran and the success (so far) in avoiding a seemingly inevitable military involvement in Syria.
Congressional affairs can't be said to have given what Obama wanted (no immigration reform, no background check requirement for all gun purchases), but he ended up with the upper hand in two critical cases. The "nuclear" confrontation came and was overcome, in the manner I suggested back in November of 2005, when the shoe was on the other foot: Save the protracted filibuster dramatics for the big ones, the Supreme Court appointments that can change the direction of the whole government. The government "shutdown", of course, was just round 5 of a 12-round bout, but one that was won overwhelmingly, including a "standing eight count", the boxing term for the equivalent of a knockdown with the opponent on his feet but staggered, accomplished by the defending champion in the dark (blue) trunks.
And then there was the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I first heard of the impending website fiasco only days before it was due to go live, from former Gov. Howard Dean, the man who should probably have been given responsibility for the implementation in the first place. OK, the President is responsible for the execution of the law, and it was fumbled; and, he did fail to put the correct qualifier "if it is adequate" on his promise that "you can keep your insurance" (and he did allow the standard of adequacy to be placed a lot higher than it needed to be, as part of his deal--let's face it--with the insurers); however, Obamacare will end up doing most of what it was designed to do. The real problems are that it was not designed to do nearly enough and that now Obama has been associated with ownership of US healthcare in general, and the responsibility for remedying its every defect. One can only hope that this particular cycle will end with a separation announcement, in which Obama can put the hurting where it belongs, on the insurers and on those states which tried to prevent the ACA's implementation through every means they had.
I'm sure Obama will be feeling unloved and injured by the harsh treatment he received in 2013, but I hope he realizes it is just part of the circle of (political) life and his fall from grace is not as real as it may seem.
Fall Sports Preview Reviewed
A lot of the preview topics (for example, basketball and soccer) have not yet had definitive results--my hopes for the Bulls were dashed with DRose's new injury, and Chelsea remains in the middle of a crowded group at the top in England--so the predictions/comments which I made and must now assess are the ones about the regular season of football, NCAA and NFL, and the post-season of baseball.
My early-season NFL comments (dated Oct. 1) were right on the mark. I was pleased by the changing of the leadership, citing the bad starts of the Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, and the Packers--only that last team made it into the playoffs, and that one just barely. I identified the Seahawks and Broncos as the early standouts (and they ended up as the #1 conference seeds) and the Saints and Patriots as veteran teams that could threaten to go deep in the playoffs. Those were good guesses, too, though the Saints' narrow loss of the division title to Carolina means they will have a very tough time getting through. My prediction at this point is that the Broncos, this season's team earmarked for destiny, whipped into line by Peyton Manning's extraordinary ambition, will face whatever team in the NFC can muster a bit of defensive prowess (the Eagles, maybe?)
For the NCAA, the appropriate internal reference point is my later post on the subject, and my follow-up comment to that. As for my commentary now, I refer to Daft Punk and lyrics from their big 2013 hit:
Baseball: there is little to say except that I failed to recognize the Botox-driven Beards of Destiny for what they were. The Tigers should have beaten them but manager Jim Leyland failed to keep sufficient faith with his starters and was punished for it. I can't take much credit (or pleasure) in the Cardinals' run to the Series, as it was quite likely all along. I do find the NL the more interesting league upon which to speculate with regard to 2014 (even though it's the AL doing most of the free agent spending, as usual): were the 2013 Pirates the equivalent of the 2012 Nationals? Are the Dodgers or Reds contenders next year? Are the Nationals? Tune in next spring, when we know what the starting rotations' composition and their health status look like.
Preliminary Review of 2013 Movies
Even though the year is essentially over--and it looks to be a top-drawer one in the overall assessment--my review is only preliminary: mostly it's the fault of the movie studios' scheduling, a perennial irritant for me which is worse this year. The game, for the producers of serious films which are not commercially as competitive, is to do a phony release before 12/31 and distribute the film out to the Academy in the hope that it will reward them and boost their subsequent box office.
The prime offenders this year are Nebraska, August: Osage County, Wolf of Wall Street, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Her. A couple of them--in particular, the last two I named--are ones that I am very excited to see (and don't know when I will--more on this later). August and Wolf are two that I am quite willing to ignore despite their pre-release hype and star power. What, August: Osage County is a comedy (as nominated for the Golden Globes--probably trying to avoid the ultra-competitive drama categories)? Wolf of Wall Street has some of the worst word of mouth I have ever seen, especially a killer diss from the daughter of one of the real-life principal villains, which made me resolve not to ever give a penny to the movie--directly or indirectly--if any of the money goes to the guilty-as-sin author of the book from which it was drawn.
So, let us instead celebrate those movies which dared to release properly during this season: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, Hobbit pt. 2 (Desolation of Smaug), and Hunger Games: Catching Fire. The last two were well-made but commercially certain, so the decision to release was not risky (and made long ago). I have not seen Saving Mr. Banks, which emerged late and could be a dark horse, but I would say--provisionally, because of the offending, really-released-in-2014 movies castigated above--that most of the award honors for 2013 should go to three movies: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, and Gravity.
I notice a direct comparison between each of the three and one of the top movies of recent years: American Hustle vs. last year's Oscar Best Picture, Argo; 12 Years a Slave vs. last year's best picture, Lincoln; and Gravity vs. the similarly ground-breaking space travel-and-special-effects flick Avatar. All of these are fine, worthwhile movies, but I think the 2013 efforts are at least as good as their counterparts. Hustle is the one that most surprised me--I didn't even have it in my fall movie preview--and seeing it proved even better than my raised expectations. The dialogue is first-rate, as is the acting level of the ensemble; I think it should garner 8-10 Oscar nominations and several awards. Also, versus Argo (and Zero Dark Thirty, for that matter), they are very much up-front about the fact that they mix truth and art, and I like Hustle's artistic additions (like the main characters' development, and the critical, brief performance of Robert DeNiro as a top gangster) better than those of the other two. Like Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave is a difficult movie with an 1800's theme; this kind of boldness should be rewarded. Like Avatar, Gravity has a storyline full of holes, but the payoff is well worth it--Avatar won three of the more technical awards, and Gravity should get those and possibly more.
In terms of awards, the hot categories will be the lead actor/actress ones and director, which have extremely rich fields of contenders. I will be rooting for American Hustle's Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and for Joaquin Phoenix in Her, at least to get nominations. What I think, though, is that the actual winner for actor will be Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years, and it would be thoroughly deserved. For Best Actress, I feel Sandra Bullock in Gravity would have been close to a lock for Best Actress if she had not won for Blind Side a couple of years ago. Given that, Adams might squeak through, as she may be the only nominee in the category who has not previously won an Oscar (vs., say, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Bullock). Wow--that's quality! As for Director--it's tough: there are so many good candidates, they should expand the category in 2013 to 10 nominees, as they have done with Best Picture (auteur theory salute). Just to be nominated in this category this year is a high honor. My guess is that the winner will be Steve McQueen, for 12 Years a Slave, over Alfonso Cuaron (for Gravity), David O. Russell (for American Hustle), Spike Jonze (for Her), and either Alexander Payne (for Nebraska) or Paul Greengrass (for Captain Phillips).
This last-named movie leads me to the final point in my movie review: My condolences to those movies of quality released in long ago September or October (Captain Phillips, Rush, The Spectacular Now) or even before (Great Gatsby, Mud)--memories are too short, you had no chance for award consideration.
Oh--Best Picture? An afterthought for me, a popularity contest among the Academy based on their guilt trips and other social impulses. Probably 12 Years a Slave.
Last Notes
My apologies to Arcade Fire, Daft Punk, and Jack White--all of them had strong 2013 releases to which I paid insufficient heed.
This year in Death: Nelson Mandela, Doris Lessing, Lou Reed, Charlie Trotter, Ray Manzarek, Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, and Ed Koch. Peace be unto you all. *
*According to a recent survey (you can see the map in The Economist, if you've paid them), that's the second-person-plural form used most often just in Kentucky (and it comes naturally to me); it's "yinz" in western Pennsylvania (you-ins?), "you guys" in most of the US, and, of course, "y'all" in the Southeast. And "you lot" in much of England.
That might not sound too attractive, but it would make more sense to review the past year when it is actually over, instead of sometime in the middle of December, when more could still happen that's worth including in the recap. I'm waiting until the very end, so there isn't much chance of that (just over 0.1% of the year remaining). One year, I might do a Meta-Review in January--"the year's 10 best '10 best'"--maybe drawing one from news, music, sports, movies, etc.--but it's not going to be this year; I haven't got time for the research now. More about that in some future posts.
The Year in Obama
I'm sure you are reading elsewhere that this was a disastrously bad year for the Obama Administration. In particular, the media-borne criticism has been that he is an incompetent executive and that the public has lost confidence in him. I would argue, on the contrary, that in 2013 he was vindicated, time after time, despite the increasingly desperate efforts to defeat him. I will argue--in my preview of 2014--that the efforts will become even more desperate, and that they will be defeated even more comprehensively. (link to follow)
First, though, we must stipulate three points, ones that I have made before, but must reiterate for purposes of the argument:
- the President does not control the economy;
- the President does not control Congress; and
- expectations for reform must be limited by an appreciation of the difficulties involved.
President Obama was exalted more than he deserved for his victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. His campaign performance was never as great as it was made out afterwards, nor as poor as it was described when he was perceived to have a subpar TV appearance in the first debate. Romney was just the strongest of a weak field of Republican candidates; I'll admit it wasn't quite as close as I thought, but just by a couple of states' worth of electoral votes.
The tear-down started almost immediately, with the Benghazi affair. Although it occurred two months before the election, it didn't connect as a serious campaign issue; however, early this year came the craziness of Susan Rice's media and Congressional crucifixion following her appearances after the incident on the talk-show circuit, then the hearings, and John Kerry's rise as Secretary of State. Now, finally, the story comes full circle as the Times reveals that, in fact, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the riot and it was fomented by militia groups we had once supported. The right wing blog Townhall concedes the point and says, in effect, that detail didn't matter. True, but a little late. And Kerry? He is on a bit of a roll, if a fragile one, with the interim deal on Iran and the success (so far) in avoiding a seemingly inevitable military involvement in Syria.
Congressional affairs can't be said to have given what Obama wanted (no immigration reform, no background check requirement for all gun purchases), but he ended up with the upper hand in two critical cases. The "nuclear" confrontation came and was overcome, in the manner I suggested back in November of 2005, when the shoe was on the other foot: Save the protracted filibuster dramatics for the big ones, the Supreme Court appointments that can change the direction of the whole government. The government "shutdown", of course, was just round 5 of a 12-round bout, but one that was won overwhelmingly, including a "standing eight count", the boxing term for the equivalent of a knockdown with the opponent on his feet but staggered, accomplished by the defending champion in the dark (blue) trunks.
And then there was the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I first heard of the impending website fiasco only days before it was due to go live, from former Gov. Howard Dean, the man who should probably have been given responsibility for the implementation in the first place. OK, the President is responsible for the execution of the law, and it was fumbled; and, he did fail to put the correct qualifier "if it is adequate" on his promise that "you can keep your insurance" (and he did allow the standard of adequacy to be placed a lot higher than it needed to be, as part of his deal--let's face it--with the insurers); however, Obamacare will end up doing most of what it was designed to do. The real problems are that it was not designed to do nearly enough and that now Obama has been associated with ownership of US healthcare in general, and the responsibility for remedying its every defect. One can only hope that this particular cycle will end with a separation announcement, in which Obama can put the hurting where it belongs, on the insurers and on those states which tried to prevent the ACA's implementation through every means they had.
I'm sure Obama will be feeling unloved and injured by the harsh treatment he received in 2013, but I hope he realizes it is just part of the circle of (political) life and his fall from grace is not as real as it may seem.
Fall Sports Preview Reviewed
A lot of the preview topics (for example, basketball and soccer) have not yet had definitive results--my hopes for the Bulls were dashed with DRose's new injury, and Chelsea remains in the middle of a crowded group at the top in England--so the predictions/comments which I made and must now assess are the ones about the regular season of football, NCAA and NFL, and the post-season of baseball.
My early-season NFL comments (dated Oct. 1) were right on the mark. I was pleased by the changing of the leadership, citing the bad starts of the Giants, Cowboys, the "Washington Natives", Steelers, and the Packers--only that last team made it into the playoffs, and that one just barely. I identified the Seahawks and Broncos as the early standouts (and they ended up as the #1 conference seeds) and the Saints and Patriots as veteran teams that could threaten to go deep in the playoffs. Those were good guesses, too, though the Saints' narrow loss of the division title to Carolina means they will have a very tough time getting through. My prediction at this point is that the Broncos, this season's team earmarked for destiny, whipped into line by Peyton Manning's extraordinary ambition, will face whatever team in the NFC can muster a bit of defensive prowess (the Eagles, maybe?)
For the NCAA, the appropriate internal reference point is my later post on the subject, and my follow-up comment to that. As for my commentary now, I refer to Daft Punk and lyrics from their big 2013 hit:
Like the legend of the phoenix/All ends with beginnings/What keeps the planet spinning/The force from the beginning/We've come too far to give up who we are/So let's raise the bar and our cups to the stars...We're up all night to get luckyYes, the BCS and NCAA got lucky in their drunken stagger to the end of the current cycle of chaos and stupidity, as two teams with appropriate records, one from the predominant SEC, made it to the championship. I wish them slightly more luck in the future as they improve their system slightly, and I urge all fans of Something-other-than-Chaos to avoid all conference championship games, live or on TV, in all collegiate sports, as a form of protest to the corruption and venality of the college presidents, TV networks, and conference directorates.
Baseball: there is little to say except that I failed to recognize the Botox-driven Beards of Destiny for what they were. The Tigers should have beaten them but manager Jim Leyland failed to keep sufficient faith with his starters and was punished for it. I can't take much credit (or pleasure) in the Cardinals' run to the Series, as it was quite likely all along. I do find the NL the more interesting league upon which to speculate with regard to 2014 (even though it's the AL doing most of the free agent spending, as usual): were the 2013 Pirates the equivalent of the 2012 Nationals? Are the Dodgers or Reds contenders next year? Are the Nationals? Tune in next spring, when we know what the starting rotations' composition and their health status look like.
Preliminary Review of 2013 Movies
Even though the year is essentially over--and it looks to be a top-drawer one in the overall assessment--my review is only preliminary: mostly it's the fault of the movie studios' scheduling, a perennial irritant for me which is worse this year. The game, for the producers of serious films which are not commercially as competitive, is to do a phony release before 12/31 and distribute the film out to the Academy in the hope that it will reward them and boost their subsequent box office.
The prime offenders this year are Nebraska, August: Osage County, Wolf of Wall Street, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Her. A couple of them--in particular, the last two I named--are ones that I am very excited to see (and don't know when I will--more on this later). August and Wolf are two that I am quite willing to ignore despite their pre-release hype and star power. What, August: Osage County is a comedy (as nominated for the Golden Globes--probably trying to avoid the ultra-competitive drama categories)? Wolf of Wall Street has some of the worst word of mouth I have ever seen, especially a killer diss from the daughter of one of the real-life principal villains, which made me resolve not to ever give a penny to the movie--directly or indirectly--if any of the money goes to the guilty-as-sin author of the book from which it was drawn.
So, let us instead celebrate those movies which dared to release properly during this season: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, Hobbit pt. 2 (Desolation of Smaug), and Hunger Games: Catching Fire. The last two were well-made but commercially certain, so the decision to release was not risky (and made long ago). I have not seen Saving Mr. Banks, which emerged late and could be a dark horse, but I would say--provisionally, because of the offending, really-released-in-2014 movies castigated above--that most of the award honors for 2013 should go to three movies: American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, and Gravity.
I notice a direct comparison between each of the three and one of the top movies of recent years: American Hustle vs. last year's Oscar Best Picture, Argo; 12 Years a Slave vs. last year's best picture, Lincoln; and Gravity vs. the similarly ground-breaking space travel-and-special-effects flick Avatar. All of these are fine, worthwhile movies, but I think the 2013 efforts are at least as good as their counterparts. Hustle is the one that most surprised me--I didn't even have it in my fall movie preview--and seeing it proved even better than my raised expectations. The dialogue is first-rate, as is the acting level of the ensemble; I think it should garner 8-10 Oscar nominations and several awards. Also, versus Argo (and Zero Dark Thirty, for that matter), they are very much up-front about the fact that they mix truth and art, and I like Hustle's artistic additions (like the main characters' development, and the critical, brief performance of Robert DeNiro as a top gangster) better than those of the other two. Like Lincoln, 12 Years a Slave is a difficult movie with an 1800's theme; this kind of boldness should be rewarded. Like Avatar, Gravity has a storyline full of holes, but the payoff is well worth it--Avatar won three of the more technical awards, and Gravity should get those and possibly more.
In terms of awards, the hot categories will be the lead actor/actress ones and director, which have extremely rich fields of contenders. I will be rooting for American Hustle's Christian Bale and Amy Adams, and for Joaquin Phoenix in Her, at least to get nominations. What I think, though, is that the actual winner for actor will be Chiwetel Ejiofor for 12 Years, and it would be thoroughly deserved. For Best Actress, I feel Sandra Bullock in Gravity would have been close to a lock for Best Actress if she had not won for Blind Side a couple of years ago. Given that, Adams might squeak through, as she may be the only nominee in the category who has not previously won an Oscar (vs., say, Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Bullock). Wow--that's quality! As for Director--it's tough: there are so many good candidates, they should expand the category in 2013 to 10 nominees, as they have done with Best Picture (auteur theory salute). Just to be nominated in this category this year is a high honor. My guess is that the winner will be Steve McQueen, for 12 Years a Slave, over Alfonso Cuaron (for Gravity), David O. Russell (for American Hustle), Spike Jonze (for Her), and either Alexander Payne (for Nebraska) or Paul Greengrass (for Captain Phillips).
This last-named movie leads me to the final point in my movie review: My condolences to those movies of quality released in long ago September or October (Captain Phillips, Rush, The Spectacular Now) or even before (Great Gatsby, Mud)--memories are too short, you had no chance for award consideration.
Oh--Best Picture? An afterthought for me, a popularity contest among the Academy based on their guilt trips and other social impulses. Probably 12 Years a Slave.
Last Notes
My apologies to Arcade Fire, Daft Punk, and Jack White--all of them had strong 2013 releases to which I paid insufficient heed.
This year in Death: Nelson Mandela, Doris Lessing, Lou Reed, Charlie Trotter, Ray Manzarek, Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, and Ed Koch. Peace be unto you all. *
*According to a recent survey (you can see the map in The Economist, if you've paid them), that's the second-person-plural form used most often just in Kentucky (and it comes naturally to me); it's "yinz" in western Pennsylvania (you-ins?), "you guys" in most of the US, and, of course, "y'all" in the Southeast. And "you lot" in much of England.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Decriminalizing Pot: A No-Brainer*
Joking aside, I am fully in favor of changing the Federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. I have indicated this before (for example, here and here), but not as clearly and unambiguously as I should have done.
Here I follow the example of The Nation magazine, which devoted most of its Nov. 18 issue to the argument that now, as always, is a good time to change the law. The lead was a "full-throated", signed editorial (titled "Waiting to Exhale") by Katrina vanden Heuvel (one of my editorial heroes, to be sure), which endorsed all the main arguments and came up with a couple of unusual ones:
The terms of the change advocated by the various Nation contributors are somewhat unclear, and the most frequently-used word is "legalize". What they consistently mean, and what I advocate, is to repeal the Federal prohibition and permit states to allow its personal use under some common-sense regulations, as opposed to the current status, in which Federal enforcement of prohibition is always a threat.
Marijuana is not good for everyone, I would contend: it's not for children, it can accentuate the problems of those tending toward paranoia, unhygenic use of it can spread respiratory illness, and its persistent use might adversely affect those with a tendency toward diabetes (by causing dramatic change in the blood sugar level; on the other hand, it might help, too!) Its use while driving is problematic, rather than disastrous, as is the case with elevated levels of alcohol consumption: my unscientific observations suggest it causes slower driving, with more risk of distraction and drowsiness. All in all, hardly a catalog of demerits which justifies prosecution, much less persecution, of all use by responsible adults.
The formula on the table is a bill which would allow folks its use in compliance with state laws. This is a good idea to gain possible support from some Republicans with libertarian leanings (as opposed to the reactionary "big-government conservative" types), which would be essential if the current Congress is going to pass anything worthwhile. That would allow the varieties of more permissive State laws, from the Colorado/Washington legal personal use, to the permissive use of medical marijuana (as in California) to the more restricted ones, and would clear the way for more initiatives in the states. It would also permit those states whose economic conditions and/or contractual commitments require them to continue to build more prisons and to incarcerate large numbers of people for this nonviolent behavior, and would permit small-s stoners to do their homework and be clearer about the states/localities they should avoid.
*I came to the conclusion, and the witticism, on my own, but such an obvious remark could hardly be original. Sure enough, Google traced it for me back to a comment made by the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, Bill Piper. It's a serious subject for him, as for me, but that doesn't mean one can't have a little fun with it.
Here I follow the example of The Nation magazine, which devoted most of its Nov. 18 issue to the argument that now, as always, is a good time to change the law. The lead was a "full-throated", signed editorial (titled "Waiting to Exhale") by Katrina vanden Heuvel (one of my editorial heroes, to be sure), which endorsed all the main arguments and came up with a couple of unusual ones:
- The last three Presidents have all been pot smokers at some point in their life;
- So has she, and she finds it difficult to explain to her daughter;
- The enforcement of the law has been unjust, focused on the poor and minorities;
- It is not as harmful as legal substances like tobacco and alcohol; and, most meaningfully,
- Public opinion has come around so that it is no longer political suicide to advocate it.
The terms of the change advocated by the various Nation contributors are somewhat unclear, and the most frequently-used word is "legalize". What they consistently mean, and what I advocate, is to repeal the Federal prohibition and permit states to allow its personal use under some common-sense regulations, as opposed to the current status, in which Federal enforcement of prohibition is always a threat.
Marijuana is not good for everyone, I would contend: it's not for children, it can accentuate the problems of those tending toward paranoia, unhygenic use of it can spread respiratory illness, and its persistent use might adversely affect those with a tendency toward diabetes (by causing dramatic change in the blood sugar level; on the other hand, it might help, too!) Its use while driving is problematic, rather than disastrous, as is the case with elevated levels of alcohol consumption: my unscientific observations suggest it causes slower driving, with more risk of distraction and drowsiness. All in all, hardly a catalog of demerits which justifies prosecution, much less persecution, of all use by responsible adults.
The formula on the table is a bill which would allow folks its use in compliance with state laws. This is a good idea to gain possible support from some Republicans with libertarian leanings (as opposed to the reactionary "big-government conservative" types), which would be essential if the current Congress is going to pass anything worthwhile. That would allow the varieties of more permissive State laws, from the Colorado/Washington legal personal use, to the permissive use of medical marijuana (as in California) to the more restricted ones, and would clear the way for more initiatives in the states. It would also permit those states whose economic conditions and/or contractual commitments require them to continue to build more prisons and to incarcerate large numbers of people for this nonviolent behavior, and would permit small-s stoners to do their homework and be clearer about the states/localities they should avoid.
*I came to the conclusion, and the witticism, on my own, but such an obvious remark could hardly be original. Sure enough, Google traced it for me back to a comment made by the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, Bill Piper. It's a serious subject for him, as for me, but that doesn't mean one can't have a little fun with it.
Transitions
As I recall it, that was the old Newsweek magazine's title for its obituary page. Yeah, there were a few other items on it, people retiring or taking on new roles, but mostly the transitions were to a more permanent status (like the one Newsweek made, recently).
A Great, Good Man
The history of the twentieth century, it is already clear, will be one which features a number of Great Men: national leaders who came to dominate the landscape, who provided the leadership which induced their followers to produce the great changes, for good and for ill, which marked the century. Stalin, Mao, Churchill, FDR, Tito, Mussolini, Nehru....the list goes on. The last of these Great Men still standing was Nelson Mandela, the father of modern, post-apartheid South Africa, who died this week. Unlike many of these, he seemed to be also a good person, one who cared about the "little people", and one who did not crave power for its own sake.
Mandela suffered greatly, but his victory was all the more massive in the end for his pain. I do not know his religion, but for me he demonstrated the ideals of Christianity through his life more than most.
First, he was a communitarian, one who believed in the sharing of wealth. He was not a Communist, as such, though he did ally himself and the African National Congress which he led with the South African Communists during the darkest days of his revolutionary opposition to the apartheid regime.
His greatest example for us all came upon his release from prison after 27 years, when he spoke without bitterness and sought reconciliation with white South Africa. Then, again, he yielded power voluntarily after a single term as President, when he could easily have stepped into the usual "President for life" role seen far too often in Africa's post-colonial history.
Mandela became an advocate for the poor and powerless all over the world, a leader of the non-aligned movement. That meant he was not a friend of the US government for the most part. When the chips were down, as in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to support the sanctions of the apartheid regime, our government rarely met the test, so his alliances were often with our political enemies, like the Soviets, Red China, Yasir Arafat, and Fidel Castro (Castro could be counted as one of those Great Men I mentioned, and he's still alive, but I'd hardly consider him "still standing".)
Yes, he did advocate and lead violent actions, though from what I have read, they were not what we think of as being "terrorism"--acts designed to kill innocent civilians--but ones designed to disrupt and sabotage the tyrannical, racist system. In his day, when he had to be, he was a warrior, but one for justice, and then he became a notable peacemaker.
I have to thank The Special A.K.A. for the song named for him (a/k/a "Free Nelson Mandela") from 1983, which introduced me for the first time to the growing legend. And what a song, by the way!
The US Men's Soccer Team's World Cup Chances
OK, they're not dead yet--the draw was just announced, the games are several months away--but it looks very doubtful that the USA team will make it out of the first round in the World Cup in Brazil next year. They are in a group with Germany, which is one of the top favorites, with Portugal, a squad full of top-rated international talent, and Ghana, which has been the immediate cause of our elimination in the last two World Cups. Two teams will advance. The US will seek revenge against Ghana, and will be a target of revenge for Portugal, but is unlikely to be more than a troublesome obstacle for Germany, the team for which our coach Jurgen Klinsmann performed so well in past WC's.
The USA team emerged to its potential in recent months, playing well in the final round of our regional qualifying and finishing first in the group (after a putrid set of performances in the preliminary round, which we barely escaped). This got us exactly nothing in the draw--we were not one of the eight top-seeded teams--so we took our chances and got hosed. Mexico, in contrast, which under-performed in the final round, finishing fourth and having to win a playoff with New Zealand to make it in at all, got a more comfortable group and is quite likely to go through if it can edge out Croatia.
Two countries whose seeding I have to question are Uruguay, which has proven tough in the past but finished fifth in South American qualifying and also had to play in for a spot, and mighty Switzerland. Uruguay got put in the absolute toughest group, with unseeded England and Italy (and poor Costa Rica), while Switzerland has a relatively easy road to the second round (with France, Honduras, and Ecuador).
Just as the groups show wide disparity in quality, the pairings for the following rounds suggest there will be easy and extremely challenging brackets. Probably the most critical first-round game will be the matchup between Spain and Netherlands, the two finalists in 2010. Paired in the same group, one would expect them both to advance fairly easily (over Chile and Australia), but one of them will face Brazil in the second round. Brazil's path to the Cup semifinals looks difficult to me; after a fairly easy group (the one including Mexico) for the first stage would likely come Spain or Netherlands, then Italy (assuming they finish second in the group, as they always seem to do, but then win in the first knockout round).
Assuming Brazil wins its group, it almost behooves Spain or Netherlands to lose that game and finish second, where its path will likely be easier. In the bottom half of the brackets, though, I see few obstacles for Germany and Argentina to win through to the semis (and face Brazil and Netherlands/Spain, respectively). My prediction is for a Brazil-Argentina final, with the home team a big favorite to win it all--and a big target for any quality team looking to make its name with an upset of historic proportions. It's not likely, but it can happen--after all, Brazil is always a favorite and has won "only" five times, and it lost (to Uruguay) in the one previous instance that the World Cup final was in Brazil.
A Great, Good Man
The history of the twentieth century, it is already clear, will be one which features a number of Great Men: national leaders who came to dominate the landscape, who provided the leadership which induced their followers to produce the great changes, for good and for ill, which marked the century. Stalin, Mao, Churchill, FDR, Tito, Mussolini, Nehru....the list goes on. The last of these Great Men still standing was Nelson Mandela, the father of modern, post-apartheid South Africa, who died this week. Unlike many of these, he seemed to be also a good person, one who cared about the "little people", and one who did not crave power for its own sake.
Mandela suffered greatly, but his victory was all the more massive in the end for his pain. I do not know his religion, but for me he demonstrated the ideals of Christianity through his life more than most.
First, he was a communitarian, one who believed in the sharing of wealth. He was not a Communist, as such, though he did ally himself and the African National Congress which he led with the South African Communists during the darkest days of his revolutionary opposition to the apartheid regime.
His greatest example for us all came upon his release from prison after 27 years, when he spoke without bitterness and sought reconciliation with white South Africa. Then, again, he yielded power voluntarily after a single term as President, when he could easily have stepped into the usual "President for life" role seen far too often in Africa's post-colonial history.
Mandela became an advocate for the poor and powerless all over the world, a leader of the non-aligned movement. That meant he was not a friend of the US government for the most part. When the chips were down, as in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to support the sanctions of the apartheid regime, our government rarely met the test, so his alliances were often with our political enemies, like the Soviets, Red China, Yasir Arafat, and Fidel Castro (Castro could be counted as one of those Great Men I mentioned, and he's still alive, but I'd hardly consider him "still standing".)
Yes, he did advocate and lead violent actions, though from what I have read, they were not what we think of as being "terrorism"--acts designed to kill innocent civilians--but ones designed to disrupt and sabotage the tyrannical, racist system. In his day, when he had to be, he was a warrior, but one for justice, and then he became a notable peacemaker.
I have to thank The Special A.K.A. for the song named for him (a/k/a "Free Nelson Mandela") from 1983, which introduced me for the first time to the growing legend. And what a song, by the way!
The US Men's Soccer Team's World Cup Chances
OK, they're not dead yet--the draw was just announced, the games are several months away--but it looks very doubtful that the USA team will make it out of the first round in the World Cup in Brazil next year. They are in a group with Germany, which is one of the top favorites, with Portugal, a squad full of top-rated international talent, and Ghana, which has been the immediate cause of our elimination in the last two World Cups. Two teams will advance. The US will seek revenge against Ghana, and will be a target of revenge for Portugal, but is unlikely to be more than a troublesome obstacle for Germany, the team for which our coach Jurgen Klinsmann performed so well in past WC's.
The USA team emerged to its potential in recent months, playing well in the final round of our regional qualifying and finishing first in the group (after a putrid set of performances in the preliminary round, which we barely escaped). This got us exactly nothing in the draw--we were not one of the eight top-seeded teams--so we took our chances and got hosed. Mexico, in contrast, which under-performed in the final round, finishing fourth and having to win a playoff with New Zealand to make it in at all, got a more comfortable group and is quite likely to go through if it can edge out Croatia.
Two countries whose seeding I have to question are Uruguay, which has proven tough in the past but finished fifth in South American qualifying and also had to play in for a spot, and mighty Switzerland. Uruguay got put in the absolute toughest group, with unseeded England and Italy (and poor Costa Rica), while Switzerland has a relatively easy road to the second round (with France, Honduras, and Ecuador).
Just as the groups show wide disparity in quality, the pairings for the following rounds suggest there will be easy and extremely challenging brackets. Probably the most critical first-round game will be the matchup between Spain and Netherlands, the two finalists in 2010. Paired in the same group, one would expect them both to advance fairly easily (over Chile and Australia), but one of them will face Brazil in the second round. Brazil's path to the Cup semifinals looks difficult to me; after a fairly easy group (the one including Mexico) for the first stage would likely come Spain or Netherlands, then Italy (assuming they finish second in the group, as they always seem to do, but then win in the first knockout round).
Assuming Brazil wins its group, it almost behooves Spain or Netherlands to lose that game and finish second, where its path will likely be easier. In the bottom half of the brackets, though, I see few obstacles for Germany and Argentina to win through to the semis (and face Brazil and Netherlands/Spain, respectively). My prediction is for a Brazil-Argentina final, with the home team a big favorite to win it all--and a big target for any quality team looking to make its name with an upset of historic proportions. It's not likely, but it can happen--after all, Brazil is always a favorite and has won "only" five times, and it lost (to Uruguay) in the one previous instance that the World Cup final was in Brazil.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
The Usual Chaos and Disaster
It's the BCS, of course. Two critical games yesterday set the stage for yet another--thankfully, final--mess in college football's attempts to set up a conclusive single game for the national championship.
The first was the narrow victory of Ohio State over a mediocre Michigan team, 42-41, when Michigan went for a two-point conversion late in the contest rather than a more certain tie and the randomness of college football's overtime scheme. (The result would not be random if the teams were unequally matched, but, of course, overtime presumes the teams have ended up tied after 60 minutes of play. One could argue that Michigan's coach knew their team was weaker, thus the gamble rather than opting for a fair chance at a 50-50 proposition.) The victory allowed the Buckeyes to finish their regular season undefeated and, as such, hold onto their bid for a berth in the finale, if they can win their conference championship game next week, a game against a very respectable 11-1 Michigan State team.
The second result was the real wild card, though, as #1 Alabama lost on the final play of the game to their in-state rival, Auburn (which was once defeated and ranked #5 going into the game). The improbable finish was a 100+-yard return of a missed field goal attempt--itself the result of other improbable outcomes, most immediately a referee's decision to put one second back on the clock and give Alabama that chance for a long field goal try. Auburn, which had escaped defeat in its previous game on a last-minute desperation "Hail Mary" pass, has to qualify as one of the most fortunate potential champions in history, but they did hold their own against, and finally defeat, a team which has had a historic run of quality over the last three years, winning two national championships and which seemed headed for another one this year until yesterday.
Besides Ohio State and Alabama, there was one other team from a "top-level conference" (defined as being one that has an automatic berth in one of the four BCS games) which entered yesterday undefeated. That was Florida State, and they closed out their regular season with a decisive victory over Florida, normally a close matchup but not with this year's underperforming Gators. Florida State still needs to win the ACC championship against #20 Duke to earn its berth in the championship game, but it seems very likely.
The problem is that today the SEC has the #3 (Auburn), #4 (Alabama), and #5 teams (once-beaten Missouri), as well as several more top 10-quality teams (#8 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #22 Georgia, and #24 Texas A&M, all of which dropped down only because they have to play so many games against other SEC teams). Also worth noting is that the SEC is 7-for-7 in the championship game since it was established, usually defeating its opponents decisively. Effectively, the winner of the SEC championship game has been the uncrowned national champion even before the championship game most years--it was that obvious. Only the absence of an SEC team with an unblemished record (Auburn lost to LSU fairly early in the season), combined with unbeaten teams from two of the stronger also-ran conferences, could produce an outcome in which an SEC team would not get an invite.
I am no fan of the SEC football establishment--it is truly the AAA pro league training "amateurs" for the NFL--but, honestly speaking, having a national championship game in which no SEC team is included would be yet another sad BCS joke. There is some possibility Florida State or Ohio State could lose, just as it was conceivable Auburn could beat Alabama before it happened, and if Auburn should lose to Missouri in its conference championship (more likely but still not probable), there would be a less-strong top claimant from the conference. More likely, though, there will be a sham championship game between OSU and FSU, while the two best teams in the country--Alabama and Auburn--will be excluded. I would love to see them play each other in a rematch, for "the real heavyweight title".
If the NCAA had just moved a little faster, the scheme they have planned for next year, with four teams in a two-round playoff, would have worked perfectly. Match the four of them (assuming Auburn, Ohio St., and Florida St. each win their conferences, and adding the defending champs) any way you want, you would have gotten an honest championship game out of the winners. I predict that this format, although improved, will still prove to be more than a little faulty, with the problem then moving to the identity of the fourth-best team (as opposed to the fifth-best), because that's just the way the BCS ball bounces. Their karma is bad enough that I think they will have to continue to pay for their sins.
The first was the narrow victory of Ohio State over a mediocre Michigan team, 42-41, when Michigan went for a two-point conversion late in the contest rather than a more certain tie and the randomness of college football's overtime scheme. (The result would not be random if the teams were unequally matched, but, of course, overtime presumes the teams have ended up tied after 60 minutes of play. One could argue that Michigan's coach knew their team was weaker, thus the gamble rather than opting for a fair chance at a 50-50 proposition.) The victory allowed the Buckeyes to finish their regular season undefeated and, as such, hold onto their bid for a berth in the finale, if they can win their conference championship game next week, a game against a very respectable 11-1 Michigan State team.
The second result was the real wild card, though, as #1 Alabama lost on the final play of the game to their in-state rival, Auburn (which was once defeated and ranked #5 going into the game). The improbable finish was a 100+-yard return of a missed field goal attempt--itself the result of other improbable outcomes, most immediately a referee's decision to put one second back on the clock and give Alabama that chance for a long field goal try. Auburn, which had escaped defeat in its previous game on a last-minute desperation "Hail Mary" pass, has to qualify as one of the most fortunate potential champions in history, but they did hold their own against, and finally defeat, a team which has had a historic run of quality over the last three years, winning two national championships and which seemed headed for another one this year until yesterday.
Besides Ohio State and Alabama, there was one other team from a "top-level conference" (defined as being one that has an automatic berth in one of the four BCS games) which entered yesterday undefeated. That was Florida State, and they closed out their regular season with a decisive victory over Florida, normally a close matchup but not with this year's underperforming Gators. Florida State still needs to win the ACC championship against #20 Duke to earn its berth in the championship game, but it seems very likely.
The problem is that today the SEC has the #3 (Auburn), #4 (Alabama), and #5 teams (once-beaten Missouri), as well as several more top 10-quality teams (#8 South Carolina, #15 LSU, #22 Georgia, and #24 Texas A&M, all of which dropped down only because they have to play so many games against other SEC teams). Also worth noting is that the SEC is 7-for-7 in the championship game since it was established, usually defeating its opponents decisively. Effectively, the winner of the SEC championship game has been the uncrowned national champion even before the championship game most years--it was that obvious. Only the absence of an SEC team with an unblemished record (Auburn lost to LSU fairly early in the season), combined with unbeaten teams from two of the stronger also-ran conferences, could produce an outcome in which an SEC team would not get an invite.
I am no fan of the SEC football establishment--it is truly the AAA pro league training "amateurs" for the NFL--but, honestly speaking, having a national championship game in which no SEC team is included would be yet another sad BCS joke. There is some possibility Florida State or Ohio State could lose, just as it was conceivable Auburn could beat Alabama before it happened, and if Auburn should lose to Missouri in its conference championship (more likely but still not probable), there would be a less-strong top claimant from the conference. More likely, though, there will be a sham championship game between OSU and FSU, while the two best teams in the country--Alabama and Auburn--will be excluded. I would love to see them play each other in a rematch, for "the real heavyweight title".
If the NCAA had just moved a little faster, the scheme they have planned for next year, with four teams in a two-round playoff, would have worked perfectly. Match the four of them (assuming Auburn, Ohio St., and Florida St. each win their conferences, and adding the defending champs) any way you want, you would have gotten an honest championship game out of the winners. I predict that this format, although improved, will still prove to be more than a little faulty, with the problem then moving to the identity of the fourth-best team (as opposed to the fifth-best), because that's just the way the BCS ball bounces. Their karma is bad enough that I think they will have to continue to pay for their sins.
Doris Lessing
The Nobel prize-winning author died two weeks ago today.
Lessing was a prolific writer who covered a wide range of subject matter over a long period of time (she was aged 94 at her death), but there were certain persistent elements in her art. Number one is the clinical precision with which she addressed emotion in her fiction. This seems like a contradiction, but what one can find on virtually any page of any of her novels (I have not read her non-fiction) is close attention to the emotional state of her character, always described succinctly.
Number two is a cross-cultural approach; she was a person who traveled widely and lived in various societies. She tended to look for the universal characteristics, but she drew upon her awareness of the specifics of many cultures.
Number three would be the frustration which comes from a search for universal justice. She was a Communist before that got too repugnant; she wrote one of the great treatises on women's liberation but then denied that she was a feminist; she had a phase, in the '70's and '80's, in which she examined the motivations which drove people to become "terrorists".
I think that eventually she concluded that she could not identify the way out of our political morass for all of us, and that drove her to what I considered her most interesting work: her "science fiction" series. The books were collectively called by her "Canopus in Argos: Archives". The series had an almost impossible ambition: to explain--fictionally--the largest themes that we can imagine. It was essentially a retelling of some key aspects, focusing on the commonalities, of all the sacred texts of the ages--the Bible, Koran, the Hindu classics, Buddhism, etc.
Her version was the archives of "godlike", immortal emissaries of an interstellar empire challenged by rival empires with less pure motives. The Canopeans possess(ed) certain powers--powers over nature, and great physical capabilities sufficient to move planets--but also to move through different planes of existence, and even to inhabit the minds of mortals. Still, the powers were not unlimited. and the interplay of Canopus' plans with the interference of rivals created the world we live in, one which repeatedly disappointed Those Who Formed Us; they regarded us with pity, exasperation, but recognized their responsibility for our fate. I would describe the theory as "intelligent design--imperfectly executed", and I imagine it to be somewhat like the way our dear President looks upon our flawed society (!)
Two of the novels, The Sirian Experiments and Shikasta, dealt primarily with Earth and the evolution of life and human society here. The others dealt with various universal themes, like social decay, and love. Shikasta, the first of the series (1979), is the one to which she applied her most powerful efforts of creativity and synthesis. Among the topics she "explains" are the shifting of the geologic and magnetic poles, the separation of Pangaea into continents, the near-universal Great Flood legends, the reason why so many of our religions arose during a fairly short period of time (+/- 600 B.C./A.D.), and, most provocatively, our future. She anticipated the Chinese resurgence, predicting that their superior administrative skills would prove irresistible to most of the world; however this would not bring universal harmony, but a doomed endgame. (This was, of course, written before the definitive change toward a more pragmatic economic approach and the rise of China as an international player, as well as before the end of the Cold War, which she apparently foresaw as being but a transitional phase.)
It boils down to a hypothesis, one which either does or doesn't help explain the phenomena of our lives. As I say, incredibly ambitious. It's the kind of work which might be considered 200 years from now as a bold attempt to try to go beyond the limitations of our own life experiences and gain a greater understanding. For that, I definitely think that the Nobel prize--which came to her at age 89, and which honored the body of her work--was well earned.
Sorry I didn't get to this a little sooner; that little problem with Google to which I referred recently contributed to my delay but does not totally excuse my tardiness. I will say that, with an obituary post, it's better to think twice and write once (and to edit multiple times)
Lessing was a prolific writer who covered a wide range of subject matter over a long period of time (she was aged 94 at her death), but there were certain persistent elements in her art. Number one is the clinical precision with which she addressed emotion in her fiction. This seems like a contradiction, but what one can find on virtually any page of any of her novels (I have not read her non-fiction) is close attention to the emotional state of her character, always described succinctly.
Number two is a cross-cultural approach; she was a person who traveled widely and lived in various societies. She tended to look for the universal characteristics, but she drew upon her awareness of the specifics of many cultures.
Number three would be the frustration which comes from a search for universal justice. She was a Communist before that got too repugnant; she wrote one of the great treatises on women's liberation but then denied that she was a feminist; she had a phase, in the '70's and '80's, in which she examined the motivations which drove people to become "terrorists".
I think that eventually she concluded that she could not identify the way out of our political morass for all of us, and that drove her to what I considered her most interesting work: her "science fiction" series. The books were collectively called by her "Canopus in Argos: Archives". The series had an almost impossible ambition: to explain--fictionally--the largest themes that we can imagine. It was essentially a retelling of some key aspects, focusing on the commonalities, of all the sacred texts of the ages--the Bible, Koran, the Hindu classics, Buddhism, etc.
Her version was the archives of "godlike", immortal emissaries of an interstellar empire challenged by rival empires with less pure motives. The Canopeans possess(ed) certain powers--powers over nature, and great physical capabilities sufficient to move planets--but also to move through different planes of existence, and even to inhabit the minds of mortals. Still, the powers were not unlimited. and the interplay of Canopus' plans with the interference of rivals created the world we live in, one which repeatedly disappointed Those Who Formed Us; they regarded us with pity, exasperation, but recognized their responsibility for our fate. I would describe the theory as "intelligent design--imperfectly executed", and I imagine it to be somewhat like the way our dear President looks upon our flawed society (!)
Two of the novels, The Sirian Experiments and Shikasta, dealt primarily with Earth and the evolution of life and human society here. The others dealt with various universal themes, like social decay, and love. Shikasta, the first of the series (1979), is the one to which she applied her most powerful efforts of creativity and synthesis. Among the topics she "explains" are the shifting of the geologic and magnetic poles, the separation of Pangaea into continents, the near-universal Great Flood legends, the reason why so many of our religions arose during a fairly short period of time (+/- 600 B.C./A.D.), and, most provocatively, our future. She anticipated the Chinese resurgence, predicting that their superior administrative skills would prove irresistible to most of the world; however this would not bring universal harmony, but a doomed endgame. (This was, of course, written before the definitive change toward a more pragmatic economic approach and the rise of China as an international player, as well as before the end of the Cold War, which she apparently foresaw as being but a transitional phase.)
It boils down to a hypothesis, one which either does or doesn't help explain the phenomena of our lives. As I say, incredibly ambitious. It's the kind of work which might be considered 200 years from now as a bold attempt to try to go beyond the limitations of our own life experiences and gain a greater understanding. For that, I definitely think that the Nobel prize--which came to her at age 89, and which honored the body of her work--was well earned.
Sorry I didn't get to this a little sooner; that little problem with Google to which I referred recently contributed to my delay but does not totally excuse my tardiness. I will say that, with an obituary post, it's better to think twice and write once (and to edit multiple times)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
