Spring Back, Fall Forward

Leaving aside the question of whether daylight savings time itself makes sense, the mnemonic to remember the directions of change for clocks entering, then leaving, our annual time dislocation has never quite convinced me, because the inverse (see above title) also makes some sense. Especially right now, when many things in public affairs are a little confusing:  When events surprise us, we "spring back"; in the absence of shocks, politically, we just "fall forward".

The Markets are Perverse
The global economy is slowing, US earnings reports have been generally unfavorable; so why are the stock markets heading toward an all-time high?

There is a sort of logical explanation; it starts with the glut of crude oil and gives far too much weight to the question of whether, and when, the Fed may begin to raise interest rates. Despite a long period of job and GDP growth, inflation remains close to zero.  The oversupply of crude oil has kept energy prices low, with a stable to negative trend; while many of the cost-of-living measures exclude energy cost, low energy prices have an indirect effect on prices in general--for suppliers, and, I would argue, by strengthening the US dollar, which makes purchased objects cost less in dollars (especially imported ones).

So, the Fed looks at flat price trends--nothing to correct there yet.  Unemployment going down--it is their secondary goal to allow economic growth to continue.  The conclusion that the time is not yet ripe to begin to re-set interest rates upward from their current near-zero values is justifiable.  The trick is that Fed members know that they cannot be wholly reactive; because of the time-lag effects of their monetary adjustments, they need to anticipate future trends and act based upon the leading indicators.  As the unemployment rate drops, one that the Fed will watch closely will be labor costs; the low labor participation rate which you may have heard mentioned by Presidential campaigners looking for dark clouds is structural and demographic, and shortages in skilled professions may start up inflation's engine.  So far, though, there is no imperative to act, though the eventuality of raising rates from the floor level, where they've been for several years, is not in doubt.

Somehow this inevitability does not seem to have registered much with the markets, which respond with these reactions that I would describe as both knee-jerk and perverse:  good economic news, in the form of growth or employment, causes the markets to pull back, as the day of rate increases is deemed to draw nearer; while continuation of the slow-growth improving trend pushes the markets ever upward.  (I exclude the usual overreactions to individual companies' reports of negative news in their reporting of short-term revenues and profits, and the shocks from abroad, which cause one-day drops but have generally been absorbed.)  It would seem that the current rally is due to be erased once the date of the initial Fed rate increases becomes certain. On the other hand, my expectation is that the anticipation--of rate increases' negative effects on the economy--will be much more painful than the reality, and that the Fed would do well to puncture this little bubble in the stock markets, raise rates a single time, then wait for a new equilibrium to develop before making its next move.

A Critical Ally Endangered
We in the US may think our policy is confused in the Middle East, but I would say the top two priorities--containing and reducing ISIS, and restoring peace in Syria by easing out the failing Assad regime--are clear, and generally accepted by all parties.  Among the various Presidential candidates of both parties there is lots of posturing about our posture, and less agreement on handling the Iranians, but little in the way of meaningful alternatives to advance our objectives (see below on the "no-fly" option which has been revived by some).

One aspect about which I hear very little intelligent discussion here is our view of the much more complex challenges faced by our second greatest ally in the region (after Israel, given that Israelis are a player in this active war theater, somewhat on the margin, bordering as it does on Syria in the Golan Heights area), and the ally which is most directly involved in the mess.  Turkey has the challenge of managing several difficult, interrelated problems simultaneously:

1) Turkey is the front line for the international Syrian refugee problem, sheltering more than 1.5 million, and the point of departure for those among them with the means to try to escape the camps;
2) Turkey is the point of arrival for those inspired to try to enter the war theater from outside, and thus the only country with the ability to intercept them, block them, or otherwise impede them;
3) Turkey faces a huge issue, both domestically and outside its borders, of the Kurdish population which seeks greater autonomy and has been the most effective counterforce to ISIS in northern Syria and northern Iraq;
4) Turkey's domestic politics have been roiled by the instability in the region. 

The last of these is the most acute at present.  Turkey had its second general election in months today, in an environment in which President Erdogan sought to play the nationalism card to reverse an electoral defeat in June, in which his party lost its parliamentary majority for the first time in a decade. Erdogan gained a partial victory, restoring his party's majority, but did not gain the two-thirds majority he had originally sought to pass constitutional amendments to lock in more deeply his political advantages.

Another result in today's election concerned the Kurdish party, perhaps comparable to Northern Ireland's Sinn Fein in being the peaceful arm of a movement which has--for decades--violently resisted the central government.  A significant factor in the defeat of Erdogan's party this spring was the emergence of this party as a political force which gained representation (at a minimum10% of the vote) in the national parliament for the first time.  The party lost ground but maintained a presence in parliament, so again only a partial victory for Erdogan.

The conditions of the electoral campaign were a state of high tension.  A peace rally of Turks and Kurds in the nation's capital, Ankara, was rocked by two suicide bombs which killed hundreds.  This great wound exacerbated a tension which had built over months, as Turkey agreed for the first time to facilitate US airstrikes, then responded to a previous bomb near the border by beginning airstrikes of their own into Syria, which seemed to focus more on the Kurdish forces than on ISIS.  Many Turks were deeply suspicious of the government's actions and motives; in the aftermath of the Ankara bombing, the opposition claimed that the government's forces of order were more interested in suppressing Kurdish political aspirations than in protecting civilians.  The government has attributed the attack to ISIS, but some were less than convinced;  political polarization has increased, and restrictions on individual liberties have continued.

It is not an overstatement to say that unlocking Turkey's capability to act effecctively and positively in the region is the key to solving the whole ISIS/Assad mess--at least with regard to Syria.  In this sense, the electoral result today could at least provide a stable outcome for the domestic environment. Turkey has been accused of playing a two-faced game, particularly during the desperate battle for the Syrian border city of Kobane between ISIS and the Kurdish forces; the accusation is true, but it simply reflects the complex realities the country faces.

Were it not for the pure evil of ISIS, Turkey would naturally gravitate more to that group, which opposes both of the nation's key foes in the region, the Kurdish nationalists and the Assad regime, the latter of which it blames entirely for the strife.  Indeed, there seemed to be an understanding between ISIS and Turkey for months leading into this past season, with Turkish hostages released and Turkey impeding others' use of its territory for attacks on ISIS. Turkey has the largest, best-trained military force in the northern Middle East; with the support of NATO, it could put ISIS out of business in a matter of months, though there would remain the problem of how to fill that power vacuum--Turkey would never do it if the result were to put Assad back in control in Syria.

In the meantime, instead of being part of the anti-ISIS coalition the US has sought to put together in the region, Turkey is pursuing its own objectives.  Foremost among them is to create safe areas within Syria and thus reduce the pressure of refugees fleeing the conflict.  They have long requested the US, and the West, to establish a no-fly zone within Syria.  It is a call that has been taken up by some, but it was always a tall order (due to the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Syrian government forces) that has just become much more complicated with the arrival in the area of the Russian air force.

Putin's "Improvocations"+
If the challenges of the US and its coalition and of Turkey were not messy enough, now Putin's Russia has inserted itself into the theater with aggressive and unpredictable actions, raising the geopolitical stakes even higher.  That Putin would line up with the Assad regime was a given; Russia has allied with the minority Alawite-dominated Assads for decades, and Syria has given Russia much-desired privileged access to the Mediterranean through its coast.  Providing lethal aid to Assad has been done more or less openly all along.  A month or so ago, though, Putin switched the focus of his mischief-making from the Ukraine border region to Syria, first stepping up the quantity of aid, then providing direct military assistance.

Putin's comments were all about defeating ISIS, but the initial bombing attacks focused on populated areas outside the control of both Assad and ISIS.  Clearly, the targets were not being chosen by the anti-ISIS coalition, but by Assad's clique:  their best chance to survive this civil war in power is to eliminate the possibility of any third force, making it a grim choice between them and the monsters of ISIS.  There was also an element of intrigue with Iran, too:  Russia joined the West in bringing Iran to agreement on its nuclear program, but has also been in the forefront, once the agreement has been concluded, to relieve sanctions there, and Iran and Russia share an interest in the survival of Assad's (anti-Sunni) regime.  Indeed, Russia launched cruise missiles from its ships in the Caspian Sea; when one of them fell off course into Iran, the Iranians did not publicly complain.

Most recently, the Russians are trying a little harder not to antagonize the West; they have met with our officials, first at a high level and then at a more technical level, to ensure their sorties will not conflict directly with our own.  The Russians are hoping to have their sanctions relieved, too; a key test will be if they can avoid actions which make the flight of refugees even worse than the present, and at the same time assist in the defeat of ISIS.  No doubt they will seek every opportunity to thumb their nose at the US, and at their ancient nemesis Turkey.

The latest news is the shocking plane crash in the Northern Sinai of a chartered plane full of Russians returning from vacation.  ISIS has claimed "credit" for this atrocity; the investigation has just begun, but the dispersal of the wreckage suggests the plane broke apart in midair, so it may not have been a mechanical failure, and pilot error would seem unlikely given the circumstances.  Once again, ISIS' insistence on violating norms of behavior may end up creating a powerful, fervent opponent when it could have avoided that.   Even the Russians and their Ukrainian stooges were discreet enough not to brag about shooting down a passenger aircraft when they did it.


+I just invented this term, which combines two words which share the same Latin root, "prov", meaning, to try:  "improvisation" and "provocation". 

Disorder in the House

Disorder in the house
There's a flaw in the system
And the fly in the ointment's gonna bring the whole thing down

The floodgates are open
We've let the demons loose
The big guns have spoken
And we've fallen for the ruse

Disorder in the house
It's a fate worse than fame
Even the Lhasa Apso seems to be ashamed....

Disorder in the house
All bets are off
I'm sprawled across the davenport of despair

Disorder in the house
I'll live with the tosses
And watch the sundown through the portiere

--Written by Warren Zevon and Jorge Calderon, 2003:  "The Wind"

I downloaded this picture from the right-wing news service Newsmax (I like to keep tabs from time to time on what is getting them all excited).  I like the wit of the reference to Julius Caesar; there was something Roman in Boehner's sacrifice, and something very civic and honorable in fixing the looming budget dilemma with the deal--which will be highly unpopular with the Tea Party membership, to which he was more than willing to offer the back of his hand.  There will be more here about analogies between ancient Rome and the US; I will just say that in the arc of the Romans' history, we are well past the fall of their Republic.

The rallying of the Republicans around Paul Ryan was predictable.  He wanted a less-than-fulltime Speakership role, and the caucus' inclination was for weakening the position of the leadership, so there was grounds for agreement.

Speaking of prediction, I caught Ryan's probability of being Speaker at a pretty good timing on predictit.org, buying shares at 34% (they're now at 95%).   I ended up on the wrong side of the Will Biden Run? teeter-totter; my last trade was for Yes; however, I was always on the No side for his winning the nomination and the Presidency, which more than made up for the loss on the speculative market of his announcement.  And, my investment in shares on positive outcomes for Hillary in 2016 (in Iowa, for the nomination, for the Presidency, and for a woman being elected President) have all appreciated nicely in recent weeks.  Finally, I got shares on Justin Trudeau becoming the next Prime Minister of Canada when they were at 20% and the race was a virtual three-way tie.  I wasn't sure then who would win, but I was fairly certain that the incumbent, Stephen Harper, would not.

No Labels!
My good friend and radio talk-show host Norm Goldman should get on the docket for this group, which seeks to bridge the partisan chasm.  It's not that he is non-partisan, but that he eschews labels like "liberal" and "conservative" (and I agree they have become totally distorted to the point of being meaningless).  We differ on "progressive", though; I think he and I both are of that persuasion, while he insists it is not a meaningful one.

Anyway, this No Labels group had its caucus in New Hampshire recently (of course; for a few months it is the center of the US political universe).  Its favorable location and opportunity to showcase one's pragmatic line-crossing (if that was the posture deemed advantageous) allowed it to get the attendance of a number of Presidential candidates:  Christie, Pataki, Graham, O'Malley (by phone), Sanders, Trump, Kasich and Webb.

A couple more interesting notes:  The co-chairs are Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman--showing that the group's core is among those rejected by, or running away from, their party's base--while the agenda also showed  participation from Kelly Ayotte, Evan Bayh, and Bill Nelson.  Ayotte is running for re-election in New Hampshire, and will need crossover votes from Indpendents and/or Democrats to win a tough battle, so she had two reasons to show up.  Nelson I can't quite figure--he is not running until 2018, but in Florida it is usually best to have crossover appeal.

The most interesting case is Bayh:  one of Indiana's Senate seats is opening in 2016 (Dan Coats is retiring), and Bayh is sitting on $10 million of campaign funds from previous elections, but his office has stated clearly that Bayh is not running for it.   My guess is that he is in touch with the Clintonistas, and they have told him he will be in consideration for the Vice Presidential nomination, to keep himself available and burnish his credentials with moderates (which have always been good). If Bayh can give Hillary a fighting chance in Indiana (which Obama won narrowly in 2008, and lost in 2012), that makes the Republicans' Electoral College map even more difficult.

I will not be watching the CNBC debate tomorrow (the World Series holds more interest for me); though some different moderators from a less-friendly network might ask questions outside of the usual Republican primary comfort zone, I'm not too interested in Trump bashing his latest straw dog. This time I imagine he will come out looking for a reason to attack Ben Carson, who will try the rope-a-dope strategy.  Whatever.

Fall Sports Preview

The baseball postseason starts tonight with the AL Wild Card game, and I have to say I am looking forward to postseason games, but without much of a dog in the hunt (due to the predictably bad season for the Cincinnati Reds).  In a season of insurgents, my spring predictions were quite bad:  by my count, I had about 3 1/2 of the 10 teams into the postseason correct (Cards, Dodgers, Pirates, and Royals, sort of).  I did spot rising tidings for the Cubs, Rangers, and Astros, all of which made the postseason, but didn't expect them to have quite so much success as to make the playoffs this year. The moves of the Mets, Yankees, and Blue Jays, I missed entirely, and I was like most in picking the favored Washington Nationals to do a lot more than they did.

In recent years, I have looked for the teams that were hot going into the postseason to do well--this year, there aren't any, really.  None of the postseason teams have better than a 6-4 record in their last 10 games (KC, Toronto, and Houston).  The AL teams that have done particularly well in the second half of the season are Texas and Toronto, so I would pick the winner of their series to win the league's Championship Series.

Wednesday's NL Wild Card game shapes up as one of the highlights, a do-or-die showdown of  two top starting pitchers, the Cubs' Jake Arrieta and the Pirates' Gerrit Cole, and the teams with the second- and third-best records in the major leagues.  I pick the winner of that game to defeat their divisional series opponent, the team with the best regular-season record, their divisional rival the Cards, who have struggled late in the season.  The Mets have a great young rotation, but their pitching cannot match the Dodgers' supreme 1-2 punch of Zach Greinke and Clayton Kershaw.  I expect the key will be Game 4, in New York, when the Mets will either have to go to a rookie with a bad back (Stephen Matz) or the ancient guile of Bartolo Colon, probably to save their series, and possibly against Greinke going on short rest.

My sentimental pick is the Cubs, but they are no better than 50-50 to get past their first game.  I will go with the Blue Jays vs. Dodgers in the Series, but will drop in a comment if these choices are obviated in the first round.

Basketball
The surprises of the 2014-15 regular season were the conference-topping performances of the Golden State Warriors in the West and the Atlanta Hawks in the East.  The Hawks flamed out rather badly in the playoffs, but the Warriors confirmed their status in the top flight by cruising through to the championship with surprisingly little difficulty.

Still, league watchers doing previews of this upcoming season are having trouble recognizing or accepting the Warriors' pre-eminence.  One very good reason is the restructuring of the lineup of the San Antonio Spurs, who return their veterans and their rising star Kawhi Leonard, but have also added a major piece, through the free agent signing of LaMarcus Aldridge.  In the West, there are two or three other teams with all the pieces to make a possible run, including Houston, the LA Clippers, and Oklahoma City (assuming Kevin Durant stays healthy this year).

The East race is considered to be no contest, with the Cleveland Cavaliers far in front and several possible contenders, including the Hawks, for the moderately prestigious #2 slot.  As a Chicago resident, it will be interesting to see if the Bulls can return to their previous Conference Finals form; in particular, whether Derrick Rose still has it, similarly whether Pau Gasol and rising star Jimmy Butler can meet prior standards of performance, and whether the departure of coach Thibodeau, who to my view always got overachievement from the team, though perhaps at the cost of exhaustion, will hurt them.  My former favorite team (from the '90's, basically), the New York Knicks, will remain the target of jokes and their GM Phil Jackson the subject of endless speculation, but their selection, at the #4 draft pick, of a 20-year-old 7-foot Latvian work-in-progress (Kristaps Porzingis) suggests to me that they are playing the long game, and that achieving mediocrity this year will have been a successful campaign.

I will make some NBA predictions in a follow-on comment when I have seen a bit more.

In college hoops I have to be even more reticent as the season approaches.  My co-favored team (U. of Kentucky) had an undefeated regular season, but lost in the NCAA semifinals, with their six or seven top players going pro.  Fear not, coach John Calipari and the Wildcats return with a fresh crop of prospective one-and-dones, but I will have to watch some games before I know whether they have actual possibilities to compete at the top level or are more likely (as happened one recent year) to lose in the first round of the loser tournament, the NIT.   As for the other co-favored, U. of Louisville, Rick Pitino's organization just got rocked with the disclosure that one of his assistants has been accused of pimping ho's for prospects.  I kid you not; the consequences could be very heavy.

U. of North Carolina is the preseason favorite--I would be happy with anything non-Carolinian winning the championship in my preliminary assessment.  The college regular season has become a four-month learning exercise for talented freshmen, as their coaches seek to develop the chemistry needed for a tournament run, and the players prove their professional mettle or decide to return for further schooling.

Soccer
My principal preoccupation early in the international season (the US season is in midcourse, but I don't follow it much) is the disastrously bad performance of my favorite English team.  Something is rotten in the Borough of Chelsea (leaving aside that the stadium is in Fulham and the practice grounds in the fashionable western suburb of Cobham), and the Blues got'em in a serious way so far.

Despite his leading the team to a very successful 2014-15 season (above all, Premier League champions, but also League Cup winners who had respectable F.A. Cup and Champions League seasons), the start of this season is so bad that head coach Jose Mourinho has already been targeted for a quick hook, which Chelsea in its 21st-Century supersized version has readily employed. So far, though, he has received a vote of confidence from the Board of the club--which is fine, as long as it lasts--and Mourinho has stated he will not quit, they will have to fire him.

Really, though, the team is in 16th place (out of 20) in the league, and the start of their Champions League group has not been auspicious, either.  Mourinho relied heavily--perhaps excessively--on a consistent selection of his top 11 last year (as long as they were healthy), and the team has not changed much, but all of the returnees are playing noticeably worse, so far, than they did last year. So, there is a possible charge of overuse, and I would add another, of being profligate with the talent acquired.  It is possible one could construct a team of just the players Mourinho has discarded in the two years he's been there--names such as Mata, DeBruyne, Lukaku, Cole, Schurrle, Cech, Salah, Cuadrado...--that would be better than the ones he's got; they didn't fit into his scheme of team defense.  Yet it is exactly that defense which is the problem so far; with defensemen he has been less wasteful, but his returning defenders are the ones who seem tired and slow.  To be fair, though, in today's game and in Chelsea a lot of the strategy is about the midfield maintaining control or blunting the counterattacks of the opponents, and that seems also to have been lacking.   I'd say Mourinho has until February--there will be an opportunity to fill gaps during the transfer window in January, and if he can plug holes he might be able to survive even a subpar season; if, however, they come out of that period still looking like this, it will be time for a total rethink and yet another team manager.

On the positive side, my Italian side Fiorentina is a surprise leader in Serie A.  I have followed them, somewhat inconsistently I admit, for longer than Chelsea, some thirty years, and their performance is usually like Chelsea's used to be, pre-Roman Abramovich unlimited budget days:  middle of the pack, occasionally better, generally hanging on in the top level.   Their team this year is fairly anonymous, filled with Slavs and Hispanics, but they are playing well and playing together.  The teams of the larger markets--based in Rome, Milan, Naples, and Torino--are playing quite badly so far.  I doubt this will last.

One thing to watch is the qualification for the 2016 Olympics in Rio, a contest of national teams that has gradually risen in significance.  It has some peculiar specifications, with three players allowed over the age of 25, but that is less of an impediment than it seems with the strong youth development in many nations.  The US has important games toward its qualifications coming up .

Football (The Other Kinds) 
I have seen one college game so far this year, an inspired bid by the usually-lowly Indiana Hoosiers to defeat #1-ranked Ohio State (last year's national champion).  I should root for Ohio St., which has broken the stranglehold the SEC teams have had on the top spots, but I feel the Buckeyes have just cloned the SEC formula for success.  Anyway, OSU won by holding Indiana on a series of downs inside its 10-yard line in the last minute.  Questionable but acceptable result for the #1 ranked team (the commentators were suggesting down the stretch that one loss may not disqualify OSU for the national championship playoffs, which will be four teams this year); and a moral victory for IU, which has been getting wiped out by Ohio St. in its Big 10 games as long as I can remember.

The NFL is gradually assuming the character of the WWE (pro wrestling): highly entertaining, but results without much credibility.  Cheating is rising, as are players' misdeeds, lawsuits, and, unfortunately, permanently disabling injuries, with sportsmanship totally evaporating; now we know not even the playoffs are immune. ("Deflategate")

There is also a form of football known as rugby (union, or league, I don't know which, and does it matter?) that is holding its world championship tournament now.  I know the US made the field but probably is already eliminated; I think England is out, too.  The big news was a huge upset by Japan of South Africa in the first game they played in the tourney, but I don't think they could sustain the momentum.  That about covers my knowledge of the event.

Of the Recent Moment

Papalmania
It's not hard to guess who will be Man of the Year and the US' Most Admired Person for 2015.  For six days, Pope Francis took over America; the question now will be to what extent we take what he says to our hearts.  And our heads.

He had never been to the US before, but for the most part  he had prepared well, understood his audience and the messages he wanted to deliver.  For just about anyone, Francis brought both some comfort and some challenge.  Even for the senior US Catholic clergy:  while his speeches and commentary generally followed the church's teachings, with regard to the history of pedophilia in several Catholic dioceses and the cover-ups that followed, he began by lamenting the suffering of the priesthood (!) but changed his tune and offered solace to its victims and promised resolution.

For the rest of us, those of the left got condemnations of inequality and the death penalty, and the culture of war and death and guns, along with acceptance of alternate lifestyles.  The right got firm opposition to abortion.  Everyone got encouragement to aid the refugees, to save the planet from environmental devastation, and the proposition that there is a higher calling than capitalism.  The event suggested in my mind a hypothetical visit to Rome by Jesus; hit hard and fast, but don't stick around long enough for the counterforce to catch up.

Politically, he would be something extremely rare in American politics:  someone who is truly pro-life, across the board (though I am waiting to hear about his approach to overpopulation, or whether he thinks the planet can stand another 100 years of the traditional five-children Catholic families). No one here wishes him ill, at least not yet; but he better watch out for those back home in the Vatican whom he has been dispossessing with his reforms.

Yogi Berra
The passing of Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra, baseball Hall of Fame catcher and one of the most beloved heroes of the sport, came somewhat quietly at the age of 90.  He was the top everyday player on the Yankee team that set the all-time record for the sport with five consecutive World Series championships, and he held the major league record for homeruns by a catcher until broken by Johnny Bench.

It seemed as though Berra was characterized as some of baseball idiot savant, an impression reinforced by his tendency to provide bizarre quotes to the press.  His nickname, "Yogi", was sort of a mocking description of him as being a guru, something he seemed to accept with his characteristic good humor.  I think this was an unfair treatment, one which underrated his intelligence and overweighted his relatively uneducated skill level with the English language (he was the son of Italian immigrants).

The catcher is normally the on-field director for the defense, helping to set the positioning and signaling to the pitcher the type of pitch and location.  Later, he was the manager, and a fairly successful one, for the Yankees and the Mets. But beyond clearly having a high baseball IQ, he had also the emotional one, and, sometimes, an offbeat wisdom. From this list of 50 Berra  quotes, many of which just reveal idiomatic confusion, I selected these three which make a lot of sense to me:

30. I can see how he (Sandy Koufax) won twenty-five games. What I don’t understand is how he lost five.

44. Little League baseball is a very good thing because it keeps the parents off the streets.

17. The future ain’t what it used to be.

Berra was at the very end of his playing career when I became a baseball fan, and my lifelong aversion to the Yankees might have played out differently if I had seen him in his prime. Since then, I have developed a more nuanced view of the teams that derive their entitlement to success from having the deepest pockets, but in Berra's case, it was superior scouting which won him to the team in the first place. I do remember being offended on his behalf when he was fired as Yankee manager in 1964 after leading them to the pennant (but not winning the Series), and I think it was the Yankees' shabby treatment of him in his second round as their manager in the '80's which eventually turned him off to the club (and particularly, to George Steinbrenner).

Near-Death Experiences:  VW, Boehner, Blatter, Walker
"Defeat device"--what an ironically accurate name for the gadget which is now on the verge of destroying Volkswagen's reputation and economic future. Faced with a difficult engineering challenge for their highly-promoted "clean diesel" technology, when it was failing tests for emissions of dangerous nitrogen dioxide, it figured out how to detect the presence of a testing device and change the emission level, just for the test.  Fiendishly clever, except that it was not hidden sufficiently well, and the software driving the cheat was discovered (credit to West Virginia University).

Nothing but losers as it turns out, except possibly for VW's competitors (if it turns out that they are not also guilty of this kind of fraud).  The owners of the affected cars (11 million of them, across several brands, if we can trust VW's numbers) don't know whether they will end up with a car with diminished emissions and output or some sort of compromise, though VW alleges that they can fix the problem (apart from just removing the defeat device, which will not do the trick).  The public has been subjected to dangerous and illegal emissions, health effects unknown (but possibly litigable). The employees, the German economy and the reputation of German export products and regulators are all negatively affected, but the ones who will be hurt worst (apart from those in the management who will be revealed to be culpable, penalties for which could be major in both civil and criminal courts, in several jurisdictions) will be the shareholders.  I was astounded to see the stock rebound a couple days after the disclosure--I am guessing it was the evidence of effort by the company to support the share prices from total collapse.  To date, they have dropped about 40%, a BP-oil-spill kind of effect, but I suspect there is going to be a steady flow of new indictments, new lawsuits, that will weigh them down for several years.  

At some point, I would expect the company to recover, as this was not a pervasive problem, but one presumably limited to a team of engineers and programmers and a few management types that winked at the scam, and there will be strong support for VW regaining its feet from the German state (the local region of Lower Saxony is one of the leading shareholders).  That being said, my advice to potential investors is to wait 3-4 years, not to buy into the story too soon.  And there is a chance that VW, which spent 70 years successfully rehabilitating its image from its Nazi-era origins as a consumer-friendly, efficient mass market car producer (with significant upscale flavor through its ownership of Audi and Porsche), may end up in a negative downdraft which is permanent.  It's going to be a rough ride, for those shareholders who choose to ride it out. 

Next up, John Boehner, who chose to fall on the political sword rather than endure yet another government shutdown crisis over the question of de-funding Planned Parenthood.  I think it was just fatigue and frustration for him, and not some more complex strategy:  he had enough of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus (or whatever name they call themselves), their indiscipline and lack of realism or effectiveness.  Boehner leaves a legacy of some five years of legislative impotence for his side that so far has not been punished by the voters, and the zealots want more of the same, only somehow better.  Kevin McCarthy, the Majority Leader, is the obvious frontrunner to take the Speaker's position; he immediately put his foot in it, bragging about how the House's Benghazi hearings, prolonged endlessly and so far unrevealing, had brought down Hillary's approval ratings. To be fair, they did produce one result, the disclosure of Hillary's secret email servers, which, though little more substantial, has proven much more damaging than the Benghazi case or the hearings themselves.  The problem with his comment is that McCarthy had strayed from the approved talking points, that the hearings were an objective, non-partisan inquiry into a tragic foreign policy security failure, so a bad omen for his potential Speakership. Personally, I think the timing is perfect for a takeover by the extremists and a spectacular fiasco, a fact of which the Republican establishment figures are fully aware and will try desperately to avoid.  Meanwhile, I celebrate the fall of the House of Orange and note that the new claimant to prominence with the color, Donald Trump, is timed in synch with the seasonal change of leaf pigmentation. 

I was amazed to see that Seth Blatter is still in charge of FIFA, the international association of professional soccer.  His name reappeared amidst all the other news because of his criminal indictment, now going to trial in Switzerland, and the question of the moment is whether legendary French football hero and top FIFA official Michel Platini will be dragged into the mud with his friend Blatter.  So far, FIFA has not stepped away from their catastrophically bad decisions to award the next two World Cup tournaments to Russia and to Qatar.  Both were possibly the result of corruption: the first was defensible, but has turned out to have been poor timing; the second totally inexcusable and doomed to disastrous outcome if not unwound. 

Finally, we need to celebrate the collapse of the candidacy of Scott Walker, the Republican candidate whom we singled out for our strongest opposition some time ago.  I am grateful that the polled primary-probable electorate recognized fairly readily what I called out:  that his is a small mind, with small accomplishments and small ideas, and that no amount of politically pandering positioning could hide those facts.  My next prime target is a tougher one, a canny, unctuous and unscrupulous opportunist, Ted Cruz.  He hasn't done particularly well in the polling so far, but he has positioned himself well to suck up support for the failing Rand Paul campaign and for the leavings from Trump's eventual abandonment of his campaign cruise ship when it finally runs aground (see Schettino, Francesco).  It is important to realize that, while nothing has been won so far, neither has anything been lost, unless it is the hopes, dreams, and dollars of campaign contributors.  So if Cruz still has his, we still have him to worry about; he will be one of the last to leave the stage, I suspect.  

You may notice that I save myself from invective about the current front-runners, Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina.  My feelings about them is that they pose little threat:  they will fade, and if they shouldn't, if somehow one of them gets the nomination, the Republicans will get the comprehensive general election thrashing they will deserve. 

International Seen

Of all the many Republican debates that are coming, the one tomorrow (Sept. 16) on CNN will be the one that is most important, in the sense of being meaningful for the most important role that a potential President must perform.  The promise is that this debate will deal predominantly with foreign affairs and military policy, which are, in fact, the areas in which POTUS has direct influence (if not total control).

When it comes to domestic legislative policy, none of these candidates have anything worthwhile to say, but then, it is Congress, not the President, that legislates.  Economic policy, you could say, is above the President's pay grade:  though people seem to rate a President by how successful the economy is during his (her) Administration, the President has very little influence on  that outcome. They can do a bit on the margin, as when President Obama's administration  had to decide how large of a fiscal stimulus to advocate in 2009, but again:  it was Congress that had to pass it, and economists who had to figure out what made economic sense.  So, I really don't care too much what the Republican candidates will ever have to say about domestic policy (and what these candidates will say will certainly not be worthwhile).

In theory, there is no reason, though, why these candidates can not make important contributions to the debate over foreign and military policies--generally speaking, they are not partisan issues by their nature: though the desired military budget could be a divisive topic, a better way to think of it is whether a candidate's proposals for that spending make sense in the context of a general strategy for the US' presence and activities in the international arena.  I say "in theory", because there are limiting factors that I suspect will be evident:  the demands of the campaign may limit the time candidates have to prepare their ideas and arguments, or equally important, to understand what is going on in the world outside the US; they may have little interest in these subjects, or may believe that having mastery of them is not critical to the job of being elected; and then the worst aspect, that most of them seem to think the best strategy, at least as regards getting their party's nomination,  is to seem the most aggressively, outrageously macho, making unrealistic claims about all the hypothetical missions impossible they will achieve.  And in this, unfortunately, they may be largely correct.

Still, I think this debate could be a valid exercise, one which could demonstrate to viewers of all political persuasions which candidates are not unthinkable in the job. For, if they can do an adequate job of leading the country in its exercise of the critical leadership roles which can hardly be avoided in this era, the rest of it matters much less:  the checks and balances in the other areas will operate. We need only to look at the failed presidency of George W. Bush to understand that the inverse of this statement is true.

With this preface/rant in mind, let's go over some of the critical facts which candidates should have digested in order to make some kind of respectable showing tomorrow.

Germany's Brief, Shining Moment
Though the deaths due to negligent or criminal refugee smuggling operations have been in the thousands in 2015, they did not get the world's attention until two recent incidents.  The first was a truck full of dead people found just inside the Austrian border with Hungary a couple weeks ago; the second was the image of the dead 3-year-old taken from the water's edge near a popular Turkish beach resort.  Maybe it was the racial identify of these victims (middle-class Arabs, as opposed to the predominantly African victims of failed crossings from Libya to Italy which went on for months, with little reaction from the world community), but for whatever reason, the world suddenly became aware that the Syrian refugee problem, which has been building up like a pressure cooker for four years, was ready to blow open.

Germany's heroic response was simply to acknowledge the rules which are supposed to operate in the European Union:  political refugees are to be taken in, with an evaluation of the validity of their claim to refugee status at the earliest opportunity.  Economic migrants are a different matter, subject to the member countries' policies, capacity to absorb them, with criteria favoring the potential economic contribution of the migrants allowed.  Angela Merkel's leadership allowed  a happy resolution to the impasse which had developed at the train station in Budapest, Hungary, a country that clearly was not following the EU rules.  For this, Germany deserves great credit, probably the greatest moment since the unforgettable days when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

Wading into Mess--
('opotamia, as coined by Stewart, Jon)
The problem with Syria is that almost all the 4 million people who have fled from that country could claim political refugee status, in that their return--to the wrong part of the country, at the wrong time--would mean their likely persecution and possible death. The country is a gigantic mess and nowhere is really safe.  Thus, unfortunately, Germany is rapidly coming to the same conclusion that other countries, less welcoming or less observant of the rules, drew instinctively:  an Open Door policy can not be maintained, because word gets out and only makes worse the smuggling issue and quantitiy of refugees on the move.

I suspect that the Republican candidates will all have arrived at the same conclusion, whether it is through the route of economic fear of immigrants, distrust of Muslims (though that might permit advocating acceptance of some of the non-Muslim Syrians), or simply the dynamics of a volatile situation.  The answer must be found, somehow, in the policy toward the multi-sided, complex, brutal battles raging in Syria (and Iraq), and that is where the full variety of their levels of preparation or sophistication will be demonstrated.

The extreme low end--which may not at all be the least popular--would be some variety of "just bomb them all into submission".  I will be looking for the response to two particular recent developments: Russia ramping up its assistance to the minority recognized governmental regime headed by Bashir Assad, and Turkey (finally) entering the battle theater, attacking both ISIS and their most determined enemies, the Kurds.

These are complex problems for American policy:  the Russians are working actively on behalf of the leading opponent of our foremost enemy (and target of our air attacks); the Turks activism has included a critical aid to us, its NATO ally, which had been withheld previously:  use of the Incirlik air base in Turkey which will greatly simplify our anti-ISIS air efforts.  Turkey has previously conditioned aid on agreeing to a no-fly policy restricting Assad's near-genocidal air attacks on its opponents, something highly defensible from a humanistic point of view but that would greatly increase the risk to American airmen.  Further, Turkey has pursued its Kurdish opponents--forces we, and the world, rallied morally behind in the recent desperate struggle for the town of Kobane--with at least as much vigor as ISIS, and for transparent motives of domestic self-interest.   President Erdogan's authorization of attacks on Kurds, though ostensibly in retaliation for terroristic assaults by affiliated groups within Turkey, appears to have the motivation of finding a way to disqualify, or hamper, the electoral participation of the Kurds' (legal) political wing in upcoming elections, new elections Erdogan called after his party lost control of Parliament due to the entry into it (after reaching a threshold level of 10% of the popular votes) of the same Kurdish party.

These variations--Turkey and Russia's changing involvement--are the critical ones in my view, because Turkey's military is capable of being a game-changer:  it could potentially defeat ISIS by itself in a matter of months, if it chose to do so; while Russia has demonstrated great capacity for disruption (in Syria, and also in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Crimea...)  There is also a question of prioritization:  recently, the US has prioritized containment of ISIS, with resolution of Assad's regime (through the policy of ending it) on the back-burner.   The "third force"--not ISIS, not Assad--has not yet materialized in a meaningful way.  So, given the urgency of the refugee problem, do the candidates have anything useful to suggest to solve both problems in a reasonable timeframe? Anyway, we will see what, if anything, the candidates can come up with on these difficult topics--it would be somewhat impressive and  sufficiently astute just to show some understanding of President Obama's posture on them and contrast their own opinions to his.

Other Questions of Significance That May Arise
(I wil send these to CNN in case they are looking for good questions to ask)
World markets have been spooked recently, particularly by the drop in Chinese companies' valuations.  What should US' monetary policy response be, and with what objectives for world markets?

Our neighbor and largest trading partner Canada is heading toward elections which are currently a virtual three-way tie.  If you were President now, how would you resolve the Keystone pipeline issue in a way which would not disrupt their internal politics?

It now appears Congress will not pass a resolution to express disapproval of the multi-lateral Iran nuclear deal.  Given that it will now begin to  take effect, what's your next step?

What is your stance toward North Korea's nuclear weapons, which that country has recently claimed are ready to be used to attack any country?  What about your stance toward Israel's unacknowledged nuclear weapons?

Do you agree with the International Monetary Fund's expressed opinion that Greece's refinancing of its debt needs to include a some recognition of losses by its creditors in order to make it feasible for them to repay them?

The Long-Term Game Plan

The truth is that I have had the same model in my mind for 25 years of where American national politics should be headed, a realignment that would allow us finally to get past the 50-50 partisan deadlock which our current format will not permit us to break.  Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, but maybe saying it out loud will make it happen now--the conditions seem ripe to me.

First, the endpoint:  a 3-party system with, let's call them:  The Constitutionalists (Tea Party, Libertarians, and Isolationists), the non-ideological Middle Party (Blue Dog DINO's, moderate Republicans, Trumpocrats, and Trilateralists), and the Real Democrats (Sanders/Warren wing Progressives).   That Middle Party might be the natural party of governance, but they would need the assistance of the Real Democrats or the Constitutionalists for certain purposes.

To get there, the first essential step is the weakening of the Republican party:  they are taking care of that themselves (with the help of the interloper Trump).  Hillary Clinton gets it started with a solid Electoral College win in 2016 and brings with her a small Senate majority, reducing the Republicans majority in the House.  A good term for Hillary (despite losing control of the senate in 2018), she announces she's sick of it all and endorses a promising young (but not too young) successor, and the Democrats smash the Republicans' stranglehold on the statehouses in 2020, setting up a turnover of control in the House (after redistricting).   Then the Democrats can start to cannibalize themselves, which would be the logical next step--it probably wouldn't take more than 6-8 years, so the evolution could be complete by 2028.

I actually think such a setup would make most everyone happier:  purists like me and the Constitutionalists would have parties they could wholeheartedly support (I would be happy among the Real Democrats, for most elections).  They would not be irrelevant; while the moderates, who are also very dissatisfied with the partisan polarization, would be much happier and could get down to BAU.

Getting There
The first steps, for 2016, are not really that challenging, assuming Her Royal Clintonness is up to the task.  In the Senate, the Republicans have to play defense; the Democrats have to gain a net of four seats (with Democrats remaining in the White House, and their VP presiding in the Senate as needed), and there are plenty of opportunities.  The best two are in Wisconsin, with Russ Feingold favored to win back his seat, and in Illinois, where the Democratic majority should prevail--with war hero Tammy Duckworth--over the slippery Mark Kirk.   Next is Florida, assuming Marco Rubio does not bail on his Presidential campaign and to run for re-election, and there are good opportunities in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.  The trick, for the Democrats, will be that they cannot afford any slippage, so the races in Nevada, in which Harry Reid will be stepping aside, and Colorado will be critical to hold.  Then there is the need to avoid a political fiasco in North Dakota, a Democratic seat which Heidi Heitkamp won somewhat flukily in 2012; she will be tempted to abandon her seat rather than lose it in 2018 and run for something else, like governor, which would make the seat a likely Republican pick-up in a special election.

With regard to the House, the cards are stacked against the Democrats; even with a wave election, which I do believe is possible, probably they could gain 20 seats or so and make it close, which would be useful for some legislative tasks.  The big realignment would have to wait for another favorable outcome in 2020 (4 Presidential elections in a row for the Democrats would surely be definitive for a break-up of the national Republicans), and some heavy-handed maneuvering in the states.  In the meantime, some tough Senate seats won by the Democrats in 2012 will be highly vulnerable in 2018 should the GOP get it together for a last-chance power drive.

Act I, Scene 5 - Nuggets among the Sludge

Predictit.org
I begin with my new hobby/obsession:  the website Predictit.org.  It allows one to "make predictions" (i.e., bet), with real money, as the site maintains "markets" on a variety of election outcomes, which range from the next month's  poll results on the favorability rating for President Obama, to the outcomes of the major contests in the 2016 elections, to specific primary results, and even to outcomes outside the US ("will Greece exit the Euro in 2015", "will the next U.N. Secretary-General be a woman").

The site seeks to fill the niche of Intrade.com, which was shut down by the government (and is now in a court case with it) because it was too much a gambling site and not enough a free market for free speech prediction.  Predictit.org assures the website visitor it that it has been reviewed by the US government, is legal for Americans to participate, and enforces a strict limit on positions in a given market ($850).  Which is considerably more of my own money than I am willing to stake on a single hunch or prediction.  I am following the approach I use with casinos:  purchase a nominal amount of chips, don't bet too much on any one outcome, and try to maximize the entertainment value.

One motive I have for mentioning this is that I would like to get more participants.  Quite a lot of the markets are dead or close to it, though that does not prevent some rapid whipsaw moves, such as the question "Will Carly Fiorina be included in the next debate?"  That one was settling in at about a 10% probability for a Yes outcome (despite the fact that it was almost mathematically impossible with the rules CNN had in effect), until the news came that CNN was changing the rules--it flipped from 10% to 95% overnight.  Right now the market that is very sensitive to daily news updates is the question of whether Obama will veto a bill from Congress to express its disapproval of the Iran nuclear deal.  It all revolves on whether the White House and opponents of the bill can muster 41 votes to filibuster the bill until September 17, and the count of votes is coming down to the wire.

One area that seems to be easy money, though I am stepping into it cautiously, is the bidding on the Republican who will get the nomination. There are 20 possible candidates listed--all the announced ones, except Jim Gilmore, plus Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, and Susana Martinez.  What caught my curiosity is that the current market prices for the Yes propositions for all 20 add up to 220%; therefore, there must be money to be made betting against them.  One has to take into account the 10% of profits the website keeps, and the fact that one of them, presumably, will win it, but the "Just Bet No" strategy seems--unlike the Republican poll leader--not to be a likely loser.

Speaking of the Wherever Man, the Predictit.org market is struggling with the question whether to take his chances seriously or not--from the comments and the various bids, there are two schools of thought, which makes a market--I'm on the No side.  Right now, Trump is in second, just ahead of Marco Rubio, but a fair distance behind the betting favorite, Jeb Bush.  The rest of the top 11 correspond to those who will be in the CNN debate, in the following order, after Rubio:  Carson, Kasich, Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul, Christie, Huckabee.  I can't argue with the rank order too much (once one accepts the argument for Bush on top and Trump second), but the point estimates are all too high.  Except one of them, the one that will prove to be the winner, and while I have my opinion which that is, so do all the other participants have their betting favorites, and that's what seems to be keeping the bids so high.

Preview of Upcoming Scenes
I am now ready to predict the course of the first phase of the Republican primaries (they should be one of the main topics for Act II, Scenes 1 and 2).    I sometimes try to calm my fellow Americans who are freaking about The National Embarrassment Which Is Trump's Candidacy, pointing out that no real damage has been done yet; he doesn't have a single vote.  Nevertheless, I anticipate that Trump will probably win both of the whiter-than-white, entitled (with an outsized sense of their own importance) electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire with 25-30% of the vote.  He will start to get some bad news in South Carolina and Nevada, as his spiel starts to get stale, and the voters get turned off.  The so-called "SEC primary" on March 1 will bring a couple of others up to his level or above, which will set up the race for a decisive confrontation in the winner-take-all primary in Florida March 15:  Bush, Trump, and Rubio.  The winner in that one will be the front-runner for the busy final phase of primaries, though it does not mean, this time around when there may still be so many candidates (due to the dynamics driven by the variety of big-money sponsorships) and so much uncertainty, that the front-runner will win this time (that will be Act II, Scenes 2 and 3).

Though I am far from convinced that anything of world-historical importance has happened or will happen in the Republican nomination race, I have to admit that its entertainment value is high.  CNN made a smart move to change its rules and weight more heavily the more recent polls, thus bringing Fiorina into the next debate (but somehow not excluding anyone).  Everyone saluted the increased interest; nobody seemed to have a problem with it.  Fiorina will add some variety to the debate pool, but I think she should be fairly easy to make look bad, with her somewhat unsuccessful track record.
By contrast to her, and to Trump, is the very successful political neophyte Ben Carson, the new Flavor of the Month.  I will avoid patronizing or politically incorrect comment on Carson except to say I am amazed at how much support he has gotten with very little publicity.  His comments on the Fox debate stage suggest he has a lot of smarts, a dose of good manners, and common sense,  until he gets onto the topic of political ideology, when he says idiotic things.  It will be a good test whether he can hold his own in the foreign-affairs-focused CNN debate format, though if he is a quick study, he might make provincial lightweights like Walker (and Trump) look silly.  The foreign-affairs topic will be tricky for these Republicans, who have to mix sufficient macho (or macha) aggressiveness without scaring people--even Republicans are war-weary.   The phrase we should expect to hear most will be "...to keep Americans at home safe".

The Other Race
At the end of the day, the safe bet is that the Democratic race will provide Hillary Clinton with a sufficient, but not excessive, level of difficulty, which will require her to pay attention, develop her arguments and refurbish her debating skills. I don't really agree with Martin O'Malley, who is hungry for free media, that more than six debates should be needed.  At this point I see nothing which should derail her from winning the nomination and, ultimately, handing the exhausted nominee of a weakened Republican party a sharp defeat in the general election.  For that reason, I anticipate giving her my full endorsement.

But not just yet.  It's not Bernie Sanders that is holding me back--I thoroughly appreciate his Jesse-Jackson-in-1988-like run; he is producing the political planks for the party, the forward-thinking arguments which are likely to be debated for the next 10-20 years before they are finally enacted.  I would be glad to give Bernie a grassroots-style donation or two in a couple of months (though I am trying to keep from giving any contributions to any individual candidates until 2016) if it will be useful at that point to keep him going, but let's admit it--he is not electable in a general election (unless in that long-shot three-way with Trump running as an independent, in spite of his phony pledge), and therefore, should never be nominated.

It's not Joe Biden--I mean, not really.  Again, I like Joe Biden, always have, though sometimes he has disappointed me (for example, he really bought into that law 'n order fad in the late '80's with the mandatory sentencing and all, from which we are still suffering, both in real life and in network TV programming).  Still, he has been a persistent, steady warrior, mostly for good, and is generally trustworthy (though he needs to watch his overly tactile inclinations).  His age doesn't really bother me, either, if he is able to take on the rigors of a Presidential campaign.  He's drawing out his deliberations, waiting to see if Hillary's campaign will self-destruct, and while he can afford to wait awhile yet, passing up final dates maybe for a couple of early primaries he would be unlikely to win anway, the whole thing is resolving itself extremely slowly, and he will have to either risk it or give it up by end of October.

He's a-biding his time (while Clinton's abiding the hours, with Huma Abedin keeping Clinton's watch for her), waiting to see if Hillary can handle this email kerfuffle, a somewhat silly Something to Torture Hillary About topic that she hasn't been able to put away. There seems to be no criminal intent, no real harm done, a lot of flaws in our government's information security regime exposed, but it's a dripping kind of torture that seems to be preventing her campaign from getting into gear.  It's still up to (or down to) HRC; is she up to the job of running effectively for it?

But it's still very early; I still say nothing has happened yet--in either race.  As dramas go, this one is slow to build, but there's a lot of colorful costumes and snappy dialogue.

Indignation, Indiscretion, Immigration and Inspiration

Everyone seems to have something to be angry about these days, whether it is justified or not. I have very little sympathy for the whining of the American electorate, which can't stand the representatives they have chosen.  Their voting patterns over the past 10 years or so have been following the recipe for the perfect political logjam, and this they have achieved.  I have a little more sympathy for the downtrodden who can't get a living wage: as I indicated recently, it is a difficult problem, but one that deserves sustained attention and policy change--and for the families of those whose children have been mowed down by out-of-control cops and criminal gang behavior.

As for me, my whine of the moment--lesser in scale, I admit--is against Verizon, which has emerged from the chaotic scramble following the breakup of the AT&T monopoly 30 years ago as the top dog in the cellular "space".  I will admit they have the most extensive coverage, but I will assert that their service quality is the worst.  They have overcharged my daughter some $92 on her prepaid phone through their own error and are so far unwilling to make good on it.  Therefore, faced with their intransigence, I am beginning a campaign to denigrate them at every opportunity.  I doubt you will have any sympathy, unless you have suffered from their special combination of incompetence and indifference; if so, please comment here!

No Hiding Place
This is the title of one of Elvis Costello's best songs of the last decade (from the album "Momofuku", before he decided to follow his wife's career path and try to become a lounge singer).  It is the most recent example of the style he (and Bob Dylan) have successfully used in their careers, which I call the "second-person accusative".  "You...(unnamed) did all these bad things, and I'm exposing you before everyone".  In the case of this Elvis song, it's somebody who made some anonymous attacks of a slanderous nature against Elvis' stage persona  (or the real-life Declan McManus, or possibly some character he is adapting only for the song) and thinks he/she can avoid responsibility for the bad-mouthing.

It also would seem to describe well the feelings of those victimized sinners who signed into the Ashley Madison site, in search of a presumably adulterous hook-up, but now have been publicly exposed as such.  My advice is to brazen it out and deny everything that is unproven.  Signing up for the website in itself is no sin; just what you might have done afterward.   And you government employees who signed on with your work email addresses:  admit the sin of stupidity (unless you think someone else did it under your name, which is certainly possible), while expressing shock that the site wasn't blocked by your Internet servers.  That's certainly what my employer would've done, most probably did.  Or, you could always claim you were doing research--that will probably be the excuse for some exposed journalists. Personally, I deny ever having even heard of the site until this disclosure of the hack, nor would I have had any interest in it or its presumed mission.

Speaking of the sin of stupidity, that is the most that I think Hillary Clinton should admit with regard to the endlessly unrevealing Emailgate story.  From what I can glean, Hillary's move to handle her work emails (as Secretary of State) and personal emails with her own secured server violated some policy that came along sometime when she was in that office, but was not originally a violation.  It was done for her convenience; I imagine using the work email in a secure fashion would have been quite inconvenient in some of the hundred or so countries she went to on the job.  There is no evidence that she knowingly disclosed classified information improperly; those who comment about how the Obama Administration has persecuted/prosecuted many for violations of info security policy ignore the fact that they did exactly that.  Otherwise, what we are talking about would have been (at the time when she was still in office) a wrist-slap type offense:  several years after the term of service, it's not even that.

I have heard several self-righteous newsies talking about how it demonstrates Hillary's sense of entitlement, that it, and her reactions to the "scandal", show she's not like the rest of us regular folks. Well, that's right, she's not.  She was the Secretary of State, and her convenience is a high priority to the American people, so that she can do her enormously important, complex, and demanding job effectively.  Which she did.  I'm pretty sure that I, and the great majority of Americans, will agree that this is no big deal when the final reports are issued--and that is what I want, some report with finality from those who investigate.   (I forgot to mention that the paranoids who control this stuff reflexively classify all information way too highly, whereas they show much less ability to protect our supposedly secure databases from hacking.)

Trump's Card is Dehumanization
And his key strategy is imprecision.  After a very effective month of avoiding all policy positions and pushing himself to the top of the Republican moshpile with a most potent mix of put-downs, braggadocio, and offensive language, his campaign actually came forward with a policy statement, on his signature topic of immigration, which backed up his claim to owning the strongest, most extensive and radical set of proposals of any of them.  His program included advocacy of extreme, unrealistic actions like massive deportation, confiscation of undocumented workers' funds, denying or cancelling the residency of citizenship of their children born here, somehow convincing Mexico to build an impenetrable wall along our border at their own expense, and even proposals to break the legal H1b visa program (which brings in skilled foreign workers at employers' request), but also some legitimate criticism of that H1b program, as well as advocating stronger controls and penalties for employers who take on undocumented workers--the latter of which is the only measure which would really make any difference with the problem.  If there is a problem; the fact is that, though people don't recognize it,  the undocumented are moving out as least as fast as new ones are coming in.

I have some experience with H1b (submitting documents for applicants for the program).  The argument that H1b jobs can be something of a trap for those who have them--because change of job could end the work permit for the holders--has some validity.  The proposal to raise the minimum pay level for such jobs makes some sense, actually; jobs which have requirements which make them impossible to fill with US applicants--that is the formal requirement--should be well-paid.  The argument that these jobs, mostly technical ones, could be filled with unemployed people is highly farfetched and impractical--yes, they could be filled that way, but not well.  At bottom, it is just another nativist appeal to the generally fallacious argument that immigrants are taking our jobs, and an opportunity to antagonize another minority group--in this case, Asian-Americans, who are the principal beneficiaries of the program.

I've also gotten involved in some discussion about the assertion by the Trump campaign that a constitutional amendment is not needed to end so-called "birthright citizenship", which automatically grants US citizenship to most babies born in US territory.  I read all the arguments--there is a case that the longstanding policy could be reversed by simple legislation, but I would say it is an extreme longshot--unless the new President can pack the Supreme Court with a couple more reactionary activists (of the ilk of Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and I'm not even sure they would go that far).  I say, let's put the proposed constitutional amendment out there and begin the debate:  it's not clear that the current policy is wise going forward, but removing it would create a number of problems.  So, let's begin the beguine;  it is certainly not the central problem.

In today's talk show reviews, Trump was very sparing on any details about how he could possibly achieve his program (because he could not), suggesting just that he would get some great managers who could make it all possible.  That's called assembling the Cabinet, and every President does it:  not a very original idea.  He magnifies the problem, in terms of the numbers of people and the effects, next claims the government has no idea who or where the people are, then expects the government to effectively--somehow--round up and deport them all.  It's incoherent. I don't criticize the reporters for following the story with slavish admiration, as it is a story of interest.  What is missing is any discussion of what it would actually mean if Donald Trump were the President:  for example, how could he govern without providing favor to his extensive business interests?

The Democrats have the advantage of being able to dismiss all of it; the Republicans have to address Trump's extreme contrary positions which uncomfortably resemble their own party's.  They are faced with a lose-lose choice for the nomination battle and for the general election, as Trump continues to ravage their party's chances.  That's why I want to see Trump continue to run as long as possible..."wherever".  Trump is, for me, The Wherever Man. (I would hope I don't need to explain the reference.)

Ending on Some Positive Notes
I want to mention  four.  First, the three Americans (and one Briton) who subdued an armed individual apparently intent on creating a massacre on a high-speed train in Europe.  And doing it without being armed themselves, taking great risk to tackle, disarm, and incapacitate him.  They are deserving of all the accolades that I am sure will be forthcoming to them.

The second one may be a bit silly, but related to a phenomenon of which I was unaware--alas, until its unfortunate conclusion.  This was the death of "Batman of Route 29"--the one in Maryland.  A man with some extra funds and time on his hands tricked up his Lamborghini as a Batmobile, dressed the part, and went around doing good--for example visiting children's hospitals. The other day, his vehicle had some issue, he stopped on the highway in a somewhat unsafe way, and someone plowed into his car and killed him.  You can read his story further here.

Third is the courage of our great ex-President Jimmy Carter.  Carter taught me some hard lessons about having exccessively high expectations of what is possible from a Presidency which have helped me to understand and appreciate better the current Administration.  Though he wasn't my original first choice (Fred Harris, maybe?), I was happy to support him in the general election in my first voting experience, in the heady days of 1976;  I was foolish to desert him (for Independent John Anderson's candidacy) in 1980.  I won't say it wasn't a bitter experience for Carter, but he has been exemplary in how he has used the status of the office he held in the following 35 years to speak his mind, advocate for unpopular positions when necessary, and to accomplish great things through his charitable organization.  Best wishes for President Carter in his difficult medical battle.

Finally, I note the passing of one of the most impressive American political minds of the 20th century, Julian Bond.  I would say that I never heard him take a position on a policy that wasn't extremely well-informed, rational, eloquent, and possessed of the highest moral value.   Later on his career, I sometimes wondered what had become of him, but it seems that he was always out there, always saying the right things.  I salute his legacy.

World Without Work, Amen

The point of departure for this post is a welcome article in the July Atlantic entitled, "A World Without Work".  Typically for this magazine, the cover story reference to it--"Technology will soon erase millions of jobs. Could that be a good thing? THE END OF WORK"--is a provocative exaggeration for a much more  thoughtful essay about the gradual disappearance of regular jobs, and what may replace them, particularly what could replace the hours which will be freed.  This is the lead article for their annual "Ideas Issue".

The theme of the article, with which I unambiguously agree, is that the centrality of the workplace in our lives is going to be changed in the decades to come, and that is going to cause massive changes in the fabric of our society, about which we had better start thinking.  The timing of the article, in a period in which net jobs have been increasing steadily and the official unemployment rate dropping, is a bit odd, but as I have been advised a few times in the corporate environment, "better to do the restructuring when times are good".

The principal observations made by the author, Derek Thompson, are that in the current evolutionary trends of our economy:

1. labor no longer drives the creation of economic value (take that, Karl Marx!); 
2. improvement in software is now making it possible to eliminate a wider variety of jobs, including white-collar ones; and 
3. working-age men, young and old, are going through prolonged periods of unemployment or underemployment.  

Note that the last point refers specifically to males, as I suspect the trend of working women is very different.  Also, in spite of the heading "world without work", the scope of this essay is limited to the American labor economy.  The author, Derek Thompson, backs the above arguments with sufficient facts and then tries to examine their implications for our society.

He chose to focus his study on Youngstown, Ohio, which had massive job layoffs stemming from the closing of the Jones & Laughlin steel mill in the 1970's; the selection of Youngstown allowed him to look at the longer-term implications and how the culture of the small city adapted to the change.  He found that the lack of work created permanent negative disruption in the social fabric, the local economy, and the psychology of the residents.  On the positive side, he found reason for hope in the creative efforts with which people make ends meet, and in a discarded foundry re-purposed for the use of people pursuing interests in various crafts.   Another area of possible future development could be increased creativity in the leisure area.  Unfortunately, he states (referring to survey data) that the jobless spend their freed-up time sleeping or watching TV.  Much in the personal response to joblessness depends on whether the prior employment was "just a job", part of a career development path, or a personal calling, but for any of the three, in our current society prolonged joblessness is emotionally devastating.

Thompson addresses two other critical key points in his analysis.  One he refers to as the old "Luddite fallacy", that technology will eliminate jobs, which has been somewhat of a false wolf cry in the past. This time the reduction in the demand for labor seems real to him (and to me, as well), though he backs off from the extrene claims proposed in his essay's title, or in the opinions of some experts, that we are entering a "post-work" society.  The other is that in American society, there are the over-employed and the under-employed (and the constantly imperiled under-utilized, where the job losses will always occur, due to the rational activity of employers).  Salaried employees are working longer hours, while the ranks of those who have to settle for less than full-time employment continue to increase.  

There is considerable merit in his discussion of government's role in the transition in the American economy to a society with less requirement for full employment (defined as full-time work for all who want it). He notes the effort in the German economy to promote job-sharing, where more employees work shorter hours,  suggests the possibility of a guaranteed minimum income to be paid for by changes in the taxation policy (he specifically suggests changes to the capital gains tax), and then, most usefully, points to some areas where government could encourage greater employment, such as in care for the growing ranks of elderly people. 

From my reading, the author's own point of view emerges in the next-to-last paragraph: 

When I think about the role that work plays in people’s self-esteem—particularly in America—the prospect of a no-work future seems hopeless. There is no universal basic income that can prevent the civic ruin of a country built on a handful of workers permanently subsidizing the idleness of tens of millions of people. But a future of less work still holds a glint of hope, because the necessity of salaried jobs now prevents so many from seeking immersive activities that they enjoy.

Here I find myself in complete agreement with the author, as I suggested in my 2010 post "More Jobs--How About Less Work?", which was a reprint of a post I wrote in 1994, then offered in the old eRaider.com site a few years later.   It has taken awhile, but someone in a mainstream publication has finally backed my radical notion that those politicians who claim to be able to create millions of new jobs (see current Presidential campaign) are promoting a futile exercise, and that the policy question of the era is how to restructure our society so that there is a more just distribution of work.  (The inequality of wealth issue, which you occasionally do hear about--though not in a Republican debate sponsored by Fox News--is an aftereffect of this problem.)

Ultimately, instead of the work Have's and Have-Not's, I think the objective is an economic system that makes it possible for those whose primary interests are outside the workplace to put in hours sufficient for their necessities, while those who are enduring apprenticeship for the sake of their career development, those who start businesses to realize their dream, and those who pursue socially beneficial calls for the devotion of their efforts can all be accommodated. Many would choose the security of a predictable income and retirement benefits proportionate to that income, while others would choose the path of greater risk and reward.

The item I have pointed to in recent years as an immediate issue is the problem of health care for the part-time worker. Obamacare has not helped particularly with this:  the cutoff at 30 hours for a "full-time worker" whom an employer must provide with access to healthcare (or pay a fine, if they have enough of them) will tend, over time, to add more part-time workers to the economy, ones who will have to pay for healthcare they can barely afford, and less full-time workers for whom employers need to contribute toward healthcare benefits.  The solution I would propose would be a carrot, rather than a stick: give employers an incentive to include part-time workers in their healthcare offerings. Part-time workers would benefit enormously from this--they might be able to cut back on that second, or third, part-time job if their "primary" part-time employer made healthcare benefits available--and that would make more work available for others.  For employers, a well-calibrated incentive would make them more indifferent to these categories of employees, with a better division of labor and ultimately reducing outsourcing while improving productivity.

I also like President Obama's recent proposal to raise substantially the income level at which salaried workers would no longer be "exempt" from the benefit of overtime wages.  This will benefit lower-salaried workers, make more work available to more people, and improve quality of life.  It is an adequate substitute for the weakness of unions in this particular area; when they were stronger, they were able to obtain overtime pay for their membership.

On the other hand, comments like Jeb Bush's that "Americans just need to work longer hours" to grow the economy are not helpful, or practical.  It would be one thing if he had a plan to give the underemployed a more equal distribution of labor, but I don't see that. Finally, I differ with those who advocate policies based on their potential for creating jobs that are unnecessary (like military weapons development, or building oil pipelines)--it's waste, and unsustainable, a losing battle.  At best, government-sponsored make-work jobs are a short-term palliative during macroeconomic recessions, and they will never address the long-term undersupply of work with our current socioeconomic structure.

2016 Political Drama: Act I, Scene 4--the Comic Relief

The Stage is already crowded; biggest Clown Car of all enters in, honking furiously.  A masked figure dressed as a troll, with pursed lips and flaming bouffant hairdo, pops up, spewing invective in all directions.   The crowd laughs, groans, sighs--the Clown points in every direction, dishing out insults. The other clowns slink off to the corner of the stage, muttering angrily. 

Donald Trump is a showman, a media-savvy, wealthy blowhard with no scruples and no visible agenda. He has set a new standard for making a splashy entrance and gaining the short-term surge in the polls:  This is how it is done, amateurs. Several other Republican candidates have had their turns, this year as they did in 2012, but his was bigger. (He got me to say, "his was bigger"--Mission Accomplished!)  

Has he proved his point, or is there something left to do?  He will surely stick around through the first debate next month--will he use it to announce his new reality TV program?  It may be too big an ask to get actual voters or caucus-goers to select his name from among the list of more worthy candidates--those with actual governmental experience, some sort of political programs, a modicum of respectability. 

So far, though, he is hitting all the right notes to attract support from certain groups of Republicans: those who felt their last two Presidential candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney, let them down by failing to be conservative enough.  Those who can blame the weakness of the job market on the undocumented Mexican migrants (or even on the legal immigrants).  Those who think the problem with government is insufficient business experience among politicians. Those who know nothing about the political issues but know that they are sick of professional politicians running the country. Those who despise the professional news media because of their elitism, their insider games and liberal tendencies.  Rush Limbaugh (who fits into most of those categories).

Every day Trump is a candidate, Hillary Clinton breathes easier because she can avoid the media circus and quietly move forward with her campaign.  Every day he remains in the race, the other Republican candidates who engage with him are subject to rude putdowns.  Every day he remains in the race, the Republicans' brand becomes more associated with his brand, which will not help them in the future with the 60 percent or more of American adults who disapprove of it.

The Republican establishment candidates are rightfully wary of the Trump effect; in the clever words of a Eugene Robinson column title (in the Washington Post), "Trump is a Farce to be Reckoned With" for them.  They need somehow to shun him without offending him too much.  The only thing worse for the Republicans in the Presidential general election than his effect on their ultimate candidate (who will not be Trump) would be if he pulls out and announces as a general election candidate running as an independent.  I am grateful for the poll by Langer Research for ABC News     which showed that Hillary Clinton's lead over Jeb Bush nationally went from 50-44 in a two-way matchup to 46-30 if Trump were to run as a third-party candidate (drawing 20% support).

My rough calculations off those figures:  2% don't know in all cases; 4% goes from Hillary to Trump, 12% from Bush to Trump, 2% from Bush to don't know (can't decide between Bush and Trump), and 4% goes from don't know to Trump (finally a non-politician they can support!)  That last 4% doesn't matter, as neither HRC nor the Jebster could get them, the 2% Republican don't knows end up going back to Bush (probably more). but the real point--something I think would be real--is the 8% net pickup in the margin that Hillary gets in those switching from the parties and wasting their vote. Even if it were only half that much, it would make the difference between a close race and a landslide win. So, we who are looking for the Democratic landslide win in 2016 (ever more likely, in my view) can only hope Trump and the Republican party regulars can't make peace and he goes out there to make them pay. He can do it, so he may.

For me, the most likely scenario is for Trump to pull out after "he's made his point"--whatever that is, probably after winning a primary somewhere, before he has actually to develop a set of meaningful policy positions--and there is one candidate who has already planned to be on the stage at that time: Ted Cruz.  Cruz has singularly come out in support of Trump's outrageous positions attacking Mexican immigrants, and while he disagreed on the blunt, insensitive assessment Trump made of McCain's Vietnam war experience as a POW, Cruz stands more with Trump than McCain.   Cruz is an opportunist, even more than Trump, who is just a shill and a

Deal...or No Deal?

I do miss the Howie Mandel gameshow (old episodes may be found on the GameShow channel), with the low-ball bids from the invisible Banker, the 30 gorgeous models with briefcases, the contestants buffeted by family, the crowd, the odds.  There is a show on the Italian TV network called "Affari Tuoi" (I'd translate it as "It's Your Affair", in the sense of "your business") which utilizes many of the same features, but with hand-picked folks from the various regions of the country (a sprinkling of the local beauties, but some quite the opposite) with lockboxes in place of the models with briefcases. 

This is the moment of the Big Deals, of reckoning with three cases of serious moral hazard.  Later will be the time when those deals fall apart.

First, the Iran nuclear weapons deal.  It seems that most of the red lines were overcome--I did not hear how the controversy on arms trading on conventional arms with Iran came out (one of the principal parties to the negotiation--Russia--was against continuing the ban); one way or the other, I figure it will happen, and it is probably exponentially harder to monitor successfully than nuclear arms development.

I see lots of reasons to support the agreement, and not many to oppose it.  For me, it is a starting point for encouraging Iran to be a positive contributor to the world community, and this is even more important than whether or not they want to complete a nuclear device.  We already have the worst state in the world--North Korea--as one of the nuclear club, and one in Iran's neighborhood--Israel--is an unacknowledged member. (Which makes Israel's hardline opposition somewhat hypocritical;  yes, they can argue that they should be the only country in the region to have nuclear weapons, that they are the most reliable--except when it comes to admitting their nuclear weapons program--that they are our allies, etc.  Doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree with that argument.)

President Obama has said he will veto any attempt to block the deal, and that means something important, that Congress (or even the Senate) does not have to pass anything in a positive sense to approve the deal.  I wouldn't count on its occurring.   We can expect Iran to do everything in its power to work around the limits of the deal's reach, so the extra time setting up obstacles to that happening were well worth the time spent.  I would not expect Iran to renege on the deal, at least until Khamenei and the current President, Rouhani, are out of the picture.

Second, the Greece/Eurozone deal.  The 'no' on the the Greek referendum obviously didn't count for much with Greece's counterparties, who extracted a deal worse for the Greeks than the one the plebiscite rejected.  It is such a bad deal that Greek Prime Minister Tsipras has already disavowed the reforms which he is asking his Parliament to approve.  This is a deal that is doomed to fail; everyone tacitly sees that.  The Germans seem to have extracted some promises so that it will cost the Greeks when they fail; their policy has been a brutal, vindictive one that bodes ill for the Eurozone, and everyone else will notice that.  So, the discussion will probably move from the fate of Greece in the Euro to a restructuring of the deal to provide more sovereignty--probably in the form of some safety valves--for the rest of the members, who can see that what happened to Greece will eventually happen to them.

My short-term prediction:  Greece's Parliament does not have the votes to approve the package by the due date of midnight tonight (Europe time).  Tsipras will wait for a vote until he can count a sufficient number of 'yes' votes (many of which will have to come from outside his government coalition).  Then the Europeans will be in the position Greece was in--take it or leave it.  My guess is they will not take it, with the behavioral evidence being releasing funds to reopen the banks, and the discussion will resume again next week.  The shock to the markets (outside Greece) progressively becomes less, so the focus may turn back to what is best for Greece, which was certainly not the case in the marathon negotiations over the weekend.

Third deal--yet to be consummated--concerns Puerto Rico and a number of its state functions for which it can not pay the bills.  P.R. would like to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy to reorganize its debts, but that action was specifically prohibited by the latest U.S. Bankruptcy Act a few years ago. The US government has stated firmly that there will be no "bailout", meaning appropriation of funds to cover the losses of the boricuan creditors.  The creditors refuse the idea of any new legislation to allow PR to declare bankruptcy--the applicability of which to debts created without that recourse would certainly be challenged in the courts.  They have a point; the pricing of the loans to Puerto Rico would have considered the fact that the territory could not resort to bankruptcy to discharge the debts, but there has always been the risk of default, and that has increased, to the creditors' detriment. The resolution I foresee would be a refinancing of the territory's debts, with higher interest rates, and some sort of guarantee on (at least some of) the new debts from the US government.

The one positive that seems to be emerging from this problem is that it will focus the US Congress on the economic issues of the territory and on consideration of its future.  I visited Puerto Rico frequently for business some 25 years ago, and it looks like very little has changed--except that there continues to be a talent drain of the best puertorriquenos to the US, one that is totally legal migration: it's not even immigration, and Donald Trump can do nothing about it (although I am sure he employs many of them in his enterprises).

I find it most interesting that Jeb Bush has come out  during his campaign in support of relief for Puerto Rico, up to and including statehood for the territory.   He alone of the Republican Presidential candidates (including nominal Hispanics Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz) has a strategy to try to gain Hispanic political support.  I  reviewed the somewhat paradoxical politics of the question of Puerto Rico statehood long ago:  the local party affiliated with the national Republican party is pro-statehood, while the one associated with the Democrats is in favor of continuing the status quo (indefinitely?) as a "commonwealth" territory, which is viewed by a plurality of Puerto Ricans as the best of both worlds, with regard to the US;  it gets tax benefits and investment money with less obligations.  This may be changing, though, as the current deal seems to be souring there.

The national Republicans might also reconsider their position if a vote on statehood actually approached, as it would seem unlikely that the state would go red in national elections just because of their support for statehood:  I would suspect the Puerto Rican statehood party would also suspect a trick.  One certain result if Puerto Rico became a state; Mississippi would be promoted out of  last place in most state tables of quality of life.  So that might be one state's delegation that could support the proposal.

'Europe' and 'Exit' are Words Invented by the Greeks....

...while "Grexit" and "Euro" are neologisms for which they bear no blame nor have any interest.

Explaining the referendum to be held tomorrow for the Greek voters is complicated, comparable to the games being played recently in Congress with the fast-track proposal for the trade deals.  On its surface, the Greeks are asked to approve (with a 'yes' vote) the final terms offered by the creditors to the Greek government, or (with a 'no' vote) to refuse them.  But a 'yes' is not quite a 'yes' to those terms, nor is a 'no' necessarily a refusal of an agreement to terms very much like them. The referendum itself is of questionable legality; it probably would not be binding on the Greek government, and certainly not on the creditors.  It should be viewed as a plebiscite, very much like a confidence vote on the Greek government's handling of the crisis.

Greek Prime Minister Tsipras has said he and his government would resign if the vote goes in favor of the proposition--that is, to accept the final offer of the creditors. Given that, I cannot agree with the argument, which I have heard, that Tsipras' best hope is for a 'yes' vote, which would (according to that logic) empower his government to agree to terms and settle the crisis. He, though, has been clear in his appeal to the Greek people:  vote 'no' if you are with us.

Despite the appeal to national pride in Tsipras' call for the referendum and the popular victory that his party won just a few months ago, it is by no means certain that Tsipras' side will prevail in the referendum.  For one thing, though it won a parliamentary victory as the leading party,  his Syriza party had less than 40% of the votes, and its unity has been strained by the turmoil.

A 'yes' vote would presumably lead to the fall of the government, though it is unclear what would replace it.  It is also unclear whether the terms offered by the creditors would still be on offer, as the Greek government has defaulted since then on a massive payment due to the International Monetary Fund.  The terms of surrender--acceptance of continued "austerity" in the government budget-- might be even more disadvantageous, and those on offer were bad enough for the prospects of the Greek economy.

Syriza's appeal, beyond its strong base among the youth, would be specifically to pensioners, or those near to retirement age.  The terms which ultimately caused the failure of the talks were on the restructuring of pensions:  Syriza sought to defend the pensions from further cuts, while agreeing to some reforms (such as eligibility criteria).  Like several other European societies, retirees are a large and growing portion of the Greek populace.

The Greek voters have only the choice between bad outcomes--to simplify, 'yes' would lead to depression, and 'no' to economic chaos, as Greece's continued participation in the Eurozone is now in serious doubt.  Withdrawal from the euro and reintroduction of the drachma would be painful in any case, but could be catastrophic if it were sudden and not properly planned.  In particular, those who have any wealth in Greek banks or investments would likely suffer huge losses from the revaluation of assets, while productive investment could be hampered for decades.

The Greek government insists that a 'no' vote will empower it to re-negotiate terms of refinancing its debts--its leaders do not have the declared intention, as yet, to withdraw from the euro or from the European Community.  I do not see this outcome as likely, though.  It should have been possible for an agreement to have been reached, considering the costs to either side of failure (presumably, continued Greek defaults will cost European creditors, which are now mostly governments, billions). The failure occurred because both sides considered their own positions to be strong, and thus they did not need to make the necessary concessions.  These conditions will still seem to be true (barring a majority vote for 'yes', i.e. surrender to the dictated terms), whether or not it will be the case. A 'no' vote is not going to change the creditors' minds; it would only convince them that the Greeks are not worthy of their forbearance and that economic divorce is inevitable.

My counsel, under the circumstances, would be for the Greek voter to vote 'no', accepting the possible exit from the Euro (which Greece should never have been allowed to enter, in the first place).  The Greek government would remain in place, and it would then have a series of tasks to work through: to plan a progressive exit from the Euro along with the reintroduction of the drachma in an orderly fashion, and to negotiate the terms of continuance within the European Union, on a basis similar to that enjoyed by several other countries in the EU that have retained their national currencies and a greater degree of control over their domestic economies (such as Great Britain and Sweden).  

I expect that will be possible, in spite of the fact that the Greek government will be sorely tempted to continue to come up short on payments to their European creditors, unless they are granted some relief. The longer-run issue will be whether the Greek disease will be contained, and not spread to other Southern European economies, and whether the stress on the Euro will have major downstream effects on the Eurozone and on the EU as a whole.  Meanwhile, Greece's message to Europe is that the Euro operation is being run for the benefit of the Germans (and possibly a few others), but not for the general benefit of Europeans, and that is a message that will resonate in a number of other countries.