CPS vs. CTU

As a relative newcomer to the Chicago area, I've been reluctant to wade into the minefield of local politics, which are intensely complex and more than a little vicious.  Not to mention corruption, which is the norm here--not to mention it, just accept that it exists.  Things are very deep here--how deep, I don't know, because they are unfathomable.

That being said, I have to weigh in a little on the teachers' strike, because it is threatening to become an issue on the national stage and because it is so close.  Not as close as it could be, as there is no direct personal stake for me or my family members, but it is close in the sense of being not far away, close enough I can almost hear the noise.

The background story is fairly easy to describe quickly.  New Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a longer school day one of his promises when inaugurated, something very popular with most observers.  As for those most closely involved, the teachers could hardly object:  the school days were unusually short, the need of the students for more and better education blatantly obvious; I doubt the opinions of the students themselves were considered.  Anyhow, this major change in the terms of employment was absorbed fairly readily:  the Chicago Public Schools' authorities were willing to pay more, the teachers willing to work more.

After that adjustment, things should have gone smoothly.  The initial reason for the strike had to do mostly with job security, initially in the form of resistance to a change in the terms under which teachers and schools would be evaluated.  Essentially, the extremely low odds of a Chicago Public Schools teacher ever being dismissed due to ineffectiveness had to change, and evaluations based on the students' performance on standardized tests were going to be the vector of change.

Now, I have heard the objections from those who back the teachers in this dispute.  Most of them center around the fact that the teachers have many factors which are beyond their control, and to make their jobs depend on overcoming those difficulties would be unfair.  This is tough, but the facts are that students must be educated better, and there needs to be an objective standard of measurement of that progress.  It is entirely appropriate to take into account the starting point for students each year, and to make targets realistic based on those circumstances, but it will not do to say that there are no expectations.  

Somehow, there was something like a tentative agreement on the subject by the end of last week between the negotiators for the school system and the Chicago Teachers Union.  There was hope that school would start back on Monday.  But no--the Union insisted that they have time to consider the proposed deal and said they would vote on Tuesday (Monday being Rosh Hashanah).  Not too auspicious, but not a disaster.

It is at this point that Mayor Emanuel seemed to lose his bearings, seeking an injunction from the courts against the strike which would force the teachers back to work.  The argument was that state law specifically prohibits the CTU from striking on non-economic issues, and teachers' pay was not the issue. 

I don't want to argue the merits of the suit; the city has a point, but it appears the real issue is one that is at least partly economic:  a hidden agenda to close some of the schools--either the poorer-performing ones or ones that are under-attended.  Teachers would lose jobs, and then the question of the evaluations of the laid-off teachers would come into play as to whether they would ever be rehired. The CPS denies there is such an agenda, but it hardly seems improbable, and the CTU is reluctant to agree to go back to work and then get the shiv in the back.

My point is that Emanuel's move, and its timing, will undoubtedly antagonize the union, and I would be surprised if they vote to accept the agreement in the newly re-charged atmosphere.  The question now is whether the union had negotiated in good faith, and whether the city had done so.

The broader issues are whether public unions like the teachers' are something states and municipalities should tolerate--do they provide value to education or harm it, and is it appropriate to limit the right of these employees to organize?  This is an issue that is coming up time and again--recently, in Wisconsin, in Ohio, and elsewhere.  The Democrats have fairly consistently backed the right of public employees to organize, and the Republicans have looked to limit that right.  In Chicago, the pragmatic Emanuel is breaking with that stereotype, taking on the teachers; he doesn't challenge their right to organize, but is challenging the scope of what they can effectively bargain about with their employers.

There is another angle that affects the national election:  Emanuel is one of President Obama's key people, his former Chief of Staff, and a very public backer and fundraiser (up until the strike), and this is Obama's city.  It's not just that Obama is answerable for the settlement of the strike; it's that it seems that in the public eye he's responsible for everything that happens in the country (in fact, in the world, as last week's strife in the Middle East showed), in particular for that involving his people, his party, his city. 

If the strike drags on, it has the potential of upsetting the positive momentum he and the Democrats have been enjoying since the conventions.  So, I expect some discreet calls to Emanuel to cool it and settle it.  Emanuel will have to swallow the bile he apparently felt when union agreement to the settlement was not assured, and he will either drop his suit in a show of goodwill, or, if his suit should succeed Wednesday, be magnanimous in victory and offer the same terms in victory that his people negotiated last week in the bargaining stage.  If he should lose the suit, though, there will be enormous pressure on him to concede something to the CTU to get them back to the table, and then back to work.

Fall 2012 Movie Preview

I've been seeing this storyline from critics, over and over, of how TV has displaced the movies as the top dog in our visual kennel.  Generally, I don't buy it--there is more crap than ever on TV, and a higher percentage of it, too, though I will admit that there are more interesting dramatic series than previously (but less good situation comedy, variety, or live performance).  And don't even get me started about "reality" TV or the surfeit of forensic crime shows!

 I see this fall as being an extremely exciting season for film, as the good stuff comes out.   We start with a couple of supergroup-type productions with superb stories to tell.

Five Films I'm Eager to See

1)  Lincoln, (release date 11/9)- Steven Spielberg directing Daniel Day-Lewis, in the story of America's greatest President, screenplay by Doris Kearns Goodwin.  Over-under on the Academy Awards is seven. Not just that, though:  Something like this has the potential to do more than just entertain us for a couple of hours (the most one could've hoped from last year's Best Picture, The Artist).  The last days of President Lincoln is a story for the ages (ours included), one that few, if any,  have dared to dramatize.

Gala looking at the Mediterranean Sea which at a distance of 20 meters is transformed into the portrait of Abraham Lincoln (Homage to Rothko) by Salvador Dali (in the Dali Museum, St. Petersburg, Fla.) courtesy of a money bomb email from Alan Grayson.

Step back from your screen a few meters and try it.

2) Cloud Atlas - (10/26) - based on one of my absolute favorite novels of the last 20 years (and one of the pillars of this blog) by David Mitchell, starring Tom Hanks (in about six roles), Halle Berry, directed by Tom Twyker (of Run Lola Run fame) .  Produced by the Wachowskis (of Matrix fame).

To be honest, this is one that might be done better as a miniseries on TV (six-part); the stories span  hundreds of years of history, something resembling the present, and the near and distant future.  It could be a big mess, confusing even to those who already know the stories.  At least the Wachowskis won't skimp on the budget.

On the other hand, this movie may animate something along the lines of the novel's aspiration--nothing less than a change in human nature and in the way the world operates, bringing understanding to the causes, the nature, and the ultimately self-destructive result of the exploitation of others. 

3) Argo - (10/12) - A story so outrageous, it couldn't be invented, but it's one I'd never heard until word of this movie started getting out.  Six US staff and family members escaped the Iranian Embassy that day in 1979 when the militants "took America hostage".  The six were sheltered by the Canadian mission in Tehran  (note:  recently closed) ; this is the story, directed and starring Ben Affleck, of their rescue.  Lots of amazing late-'70's hair.

4)  Anna Karenina - (11/16) - OK, I saw a terrible review of it (from the previews being given for many of these movies in the Toronto Film Festival) , but I don't care--I like the idea of a remake, done as a stage treatment for film, with Keira Knightley and Jude Law.  Like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I'm drawn to it even if I'm not thinking I will like it, and it will be a much more efficient use of my time to watch it then reading it could ever be. 

5) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - (12/14)  - Some returning favorites from Lord of the Rings, like Ian McKellern as Gandalf and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Peter Jackson driving the bus, and the return of the spectacular New Zealand fantasy landscapes.  What I don't like much is that Jackson is going to take three movies to tell the story (with some incidents from other Tolkien work thrown in somehow). 

....And Ten More That I'm at Least Curious About

Hyde Park on the Hudson - (10/7) - Bill Murray dares to take on the role of FDR, with the return of the stuttering English king from The King's Speech.  Might not be great, but I want to see it; I saw the preview, and Murray's FDR-like appearance is startlingly good.

Life of Pi - (11/21) - Ang Lee dares to take on the best-selling story of a young man, a boat, and a Bengal tiger.

Django Unchained - (12/25) -  I'm not as enchanted with everything Quentin Tarantino does as some are, but Jamie Foxx in a genre-busting Western does appeal--in theory.

The Master (12/21) - There is a lot of buzz about this one; someone in Hollywood (Paul Thomas Anderson, no less) dares to bring forth a story of a Scientology-like mind-controller (someone like L.Ron Hubbard, played by the incomparable Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the post-WWII milieu in which Hubbard first made his mark.

On the Road (12/21) -  The Jack Kerouac novel, beatniks in the US in the '50's.  You can't tell me that this has never been covered before!

This Must Be the Place (11/2) - A major Sean Penn dramatic role, a retired Irish rocker coming to America on a voyage of discovery.  It's been too long since we've seen Sean challenged by a role (Milk, I'd say).

Lay the Favorite (12/7) - this is one that could be great or awful.  It's about sports betting--an excellent subject for drama--and apparently from the point of view of some women (Catherine Zeta-Jones being one, Rebecca Hall another) who meet up with a team of obsessed gamblers (Bruce Willis being one of them).  I may wait and look for more buzz before deciding to invest in a cinema ticket (as opposed to waiting and seeing it for free, which I will definitely want to do at some point, no matter how bad it may be).

West of Memphis (12/25) - I am a little reluctant to wade into this documentary, sponsored by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame), which analyzes a notorious case of apparent injustice in a murder trial of three individuals in Arkansas.  The case is controversial, also the movie, which has a backstory of some feuding with another series of documentaries on the subject called Paradise Lost, and I don't want to go there, but I do want to understand the case and have it presented in an interesting way--which is what I hear of this film.

Looper (9/28) -  I think the premise is ridiculous (time traveler who must go in the future to kill his future self):  theoretically impossible (to go into the future and come back), and why would you do it (kill your future self)?  But (from the preview I saw), it seems to introduce a rather profound theme:  what our older self would advise our younger self, if only we could. 

Silver Linings Playbook (11/21) - An offbeat comedy by David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, the underrated Three Kings) and starring Jennifer Lawrence.  I will give it a try, no matter what others may say.

The Benghazi Affair

The news of the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by armed militants, which destroyed the building and killed the US ambassador and three others, hit close to home for me.  I was fairly close to joining the Foreign Service at one point, and my thoughts were along the lines of "There but for the grace..."

The militants exploited the opportunity of protests by Islamists against the Internet release of a trailer for a low-budget film called "The Innocence of Muslims" by an anti-Muslim (apparently an Egyptian Coptic Christian--the Coptics have had recent strife with Islamists there).  It appears to be a thoroughly disgusting film, for which the actors have reported that all the dialogue they had filmed had been dubbed out and replaced with inflammatory language added by the filmmaker.  Apparently the film suggests the prophet Muhammad was a homosexual, a child molester, some other stuff--thoroughly scurrilous.

The first protests had been in Cairo, Egypt, with the ones in Benghazi soon afterward (since then, there was another dangerous protest in Yemen, and other protests elsewhere).  The besieged embassy in Cairo released a statement aimed at calming the riotous crowd apologizing for any offense and disassociating the US from the film.

Mitt Romney wasted no time at all in politicizing the affair, releasing a statement in the middle of the night in response to the Cairo release, to the effect that the Obama Administration was appeasing Islamic radicals. Romney's clumsy attack missed the mark and violated rules of responsibile US Presidential politics, which require serious candidates to avoid bringing active national security issues into political debate.  He has been heavily criticized by a variety of folks, including most of the press and even some Republicans.  Some have said this was a tipping point for his candidacy, which is slipping rapidly away from any status as a credible challenge to Obama.

I would disagree in a couple of regards.  First, his clumsiness, ignorance, and inadequacy to deal with delicate diplomatic issues is already well established, so this is nothing new.  I am not one who supports suppression of all partisan political discussion of foreign affairs, especially for Presidential candidates, though Romney's take on the incident was deficient. His challenge is slipping, but it's not because of this: I don't think most Americans will even take note of this brouhaha. 

The Real Issues
Putting the campaign considerations on the side, I think there are two legitimate topics for discussion raised by these incidents. 

The first is the status of those countries in the Middle East which have had their governments disrupted or overthrown by the Arab Spring.  The fact that the worst incidents occurred in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, all countries whose leadership has been forced out by upheavals in the past two years, is no coincidence at all.  The militants' attack on Benghazi was coordinated and heavily armed; it shows every sign of being conducted by al-Qaeda, or some similar extremist group.  The weakness of the central governments and the tenuous state of security in these countries has provided an opening for extremists to operate. 

We can (and do) demand better security for our embassies from the host countries, but really it falls to us to provide adequate security--which clearly was not present in Benghazi.  Al-Qaeda wouldn't try something like this in Baghdad:  We have enough troops stationed at our embassy to counterattack and destroy the attackers, while the instigators in Benghazi apparently ceased their assault when US reinforcements showed up and blended back into the (chaotic) scenery. 

There is also legitimate ground to debate, or criticize, the US role in the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments; to argue against the result, though, is implicitly to prefer the previous rule of the tyrants Mubarak and Qadhafi--something that few would suggest. Still, one could argue that, having contributed to the current instability, we should be doing more to prevent the infiltration into these countries of armed extremists.  Libya, in particular, remains overly well-armed in the aftermath of a civil war, and its fragile (but generally friendly) government needs our support.

The second point for discussion is whether the US really wants to provide safe haven for blasphemers, something we have clearly done in this case.  This guy who made the film would never dare do it in Egypt; he's taking advantage of our safety and the uncensored media here to produce inflammatory, foul filth.  OK, we have plenty of obscenity produced legally here all the time, and that's a different question, but we must consider whether we want to be the source of more stuff like this.

The answer, I think, is that we do have to say (after Voltaire) to our citizens who would do this sort of thing--"We  disapprove this 'art', but we will defend to the death your right to produce it."  If the producer of this particular piece of garbage is here on some sort of visa, though, he should be deported back to Egypt, where he will receive his due.  If our laws don't provide for any distinction between citizens' free expression and that of those whose visits we are tolerating, then they should. (There is clearly a difference between this thing and the work of, say, Salman Rushdie, who was also condemned as a blasphemer in some parts, and whom we have also hosted some of the time.  We need to find a way to make the distinction, as it pertains to cultural refugees.) And, we should recognize there will be more "blasphemy" coming out of our fertile culture, and we should expect and plan for more strong reactions.  With increased, armed American military defending our embassies and consulates in vulnerable locations.

Conventions in the Rear-View Mirror

To put it briefly, the Democratic and Republican conventions were not a game-changer in the Presidential race.  President Obama had favorable momentum going into them, and should have it coming out of them.  His narrow popular vote edge in national polls (among likely voters) conceals a more substantial lead in electoral votes.

Is There a Story Here?
The news value of the national conventions has dropped in recent electoral cycles:  There are few surprises, the messages are managed.  Not even much new information, really.  I saw three storylines which dominated much of the discussion during the conventions themselves:
1) Paul Ryan as serial liar?  His speech's effect was severely undercut by several factually-challenged statements.  Ryan's job as VP candidate for the challengers will be as attack dog; he will have to be more selective, though, in the charges he accepts into his speeches.  More generally, Ryan's status as a leading light in John Boehner's House of Orange was not something the Republicans cared to celebrate.
2) the Democrats' second thoughts on their platform:  The original draft had two "mistakes"--removal of the Deist reference to American workers' "God-given potential" and to Jerusalem as the real capital of Israel.  These were errors of political formulaic expression, not of policy:  the international community has not recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, because it is the subject of (theoretically) ongoing negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Palestinians, and neither has the U.S. government--through both Republican and Democratic administrations.  As for where our "potential" comes from, the delegates (and Obama behind them) decided to offend the atheists instead of failing to nod to the believers--a traditional stance, and not very controversial.  The tempest in the teapot was that some delegates booed the amendments' adoption by voice vote; the platform is a very moderate, inoffensive document and these changes--hypocritical though they may be--fit right in.
3) The Battle of the Spouses' Speeches:  The argument was over who was better, but I think that was misplaced:  They aren't running against each other, and both came across very well. Ann Romney had a more difficult task, to humanize her husband, but expectations were lower for her.  Michelle Obama is a practiced, skilled speaker with a fairly simple theme--he's still the same guy as ever.  And, of course, she nailed it.

Who Zoomed Who More?
Like the phony debate over the better spouse speech, there was much phony discussion about who among the Democrats gave the best of the many good speeches:  John Kerry zinged the Republicans' follies, Michelle provided warm and fuzzy feelings, Joe Biden gave an effective pitch.  Most observers gave the edge, though,  to former President Bill Clinton, who provided an extensive, point-by-point argument (not a "brief", by any means) for a second term.  Speaking from the perspective of one who has been there, and using language which spoke directly to voters, neither over their heads nor insulting their intelligence, Clinton went deep, long and convincingly for the man who defeated his wife in the bitter 2008 nomination campaign.  Clinton deserves all the credit he has gotten for his statesmanlike performance; perhaps not all the (bipartisan!) adulation and nostalgically enhanced memory of his administration.

Personally, I always find Clinton too long-winded, and this speech was no exception.  I thought Biden deserved better treatment, and I preferred Elizabeth Warren's combative warmup for Clinton (though programmatically a little out of synch with his centrist policy preferences).   Anyway, those who opt for one performance or another are missing the point:  the convention's main speeches were set up to provide a complete experience, filling in all the background and major details for the finale.

The Tilt of Our Returning Champion Jouster
Which brings us to President Obama's speech.  Reactions have generally tended to two extremes:  either totally unimpressed with the lack of soaring rhetoric, inspiration, or even specific policies, or on the other extreme, a terrific speech worthy of his best performances.  My own opinion is mixed:  He did what he needed to do, what he and his campaign wanted him to do, but I wanted more.  It takes a bit longer to explain my dissatisfactions than my satisfactions with the speech.
Dislikes:
1) His Specifics Limited Him:  I can understand the reasons why Obama should not make great promises at this time, but some of the promises he did make concern me. Obama is well aware of the debt limit and budget negotiations coming up just after his election, but his speech's promises box him into a difficult negotiation strategy.  He promised on the one hand to cut deficits by $4 trillion dollars, but on the other hand he put the mortgage deduction, entitlement benefits, and the middle-class tax break all off limits.  As both he and Clinton said about the Paul Ryan budget, "the arithmetic" doesn't add up for his approach--reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, plus non-entitlement discretionary spending cuts won't get there.  The deal he will have to make, assuming his re-election:  prolong the tax cuts--rich and poor--for just another year or two, substitute targeted defense cuts for the across-the-board ones, and phase in additional payroll taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid in 2-3 years (when, hopefully, the recovery will be stronger).
2) He did not appeal to disaffected Republican moderates:  I guess that was supposed to be Clinton's task, but, just as the Republicans made overt appeal to disappointed Democrats, there are millions of moderate--or even moderately conservative--Republicans who are disenchanted with the extreme tack taken by the national Republican party.  While I buy the argument--one that you rarely hear, but most political operatives would admit--that there are few likely voters who do not have at least some leaning already to one side or the other of our intensely divided politics, Obama's policies and political stance is truly moderate enough that he can make a bid for those who have not drunk the Tea Party Kool-Aid, with its denial of science, false conservative intrusion into our privacy, and voodoo economics. He did not really do so; neither did any other Democratic speaker, with the exception of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
3)He made no appeal for the need to win back Congress: I believe strongly that Obama has a small but stable lead that he will most likely retain, but it will avail Obama little in his second term if he lacks control of both houses of Congress.  He says it's not all about him, he may be feeling outspent, and surely those down the ticket will benefit from turnout in support of his re-election, and finally he is likely to support the Congressional candidates more once he's sure he's going to be re-elected, but he needs to get out in front of that objective more:  his message must be, "If you support me, you need also to go out and vote for, work for, and financially support the Senate and House candidates running where you live.  Otherwise, what change can we accomplish together?"

Likes:
1) He showed humility: I was a little worried when he stated, early on, "Things are different. I am the President." (and you're not!) But he built the key theme of his speech about how he needs us--"You give me hope"--and he quoted the greatest of all Americans, Lincoln, in citing his many failings and his need to pray for help. He admitted his shortcomings without showing weakness.
2) He touted his foreign/military policy successes: Not just that--and his administration has a great deal to brag about--he got in a couple of well-aimed digs at the weaknesses of Romney-Ryan in that area.  The Democrats have gained the appearance of the party of responsible governance, the steady hand guiding the ship of state; in large measure they have the Bushites and the Tea Party to thank for that, but also they are starting to build a history of better guidance of state affairs and, for that matter, better performance in the stock markets and in job growth (something Clinton hit upon most effectively).
3) He drew upon his community organizer and religious revival experience:  Obama's campaign leadership is staking their hopes for the endgame not on buying votes with saturation levels of TV ads in the key markets of the swing states, but on a furious get-out-the-vote campaign. The whole tone of his speech aimed at this strategy.

And Coming Up Fast into Our Windshield...
One thing I'm fairly happy about is that the electoral campaign seems to be going by quickly, without a lot of movement.  The margins--and I am relying here primarily upon 538.com for the detailed analysis of the state-by-state probabilities--are holding, or slightly increasing.  Right now, in Nate's analysis (which looks at current polling margins, historical tendencies in the state, and the likelihood based on electoral history of a margin of the current size being erased), there is exactly one state (North Carolina) in which the probability of one candidate (or the other) winning is less than 60%--and that is now quoted at 58.4% (for Romney).  Between 60-70%, there is one state (Florida, at 65.5% for Obama).  There are four states between 70-80%:  Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio (!), all with the odds in Obama's favor; and there are several states between 80-90% probability:  Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, and Montana in Romney's favor, and New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Nevada in Obama's favor.  All the rest are at 90% or more in one candidate's favor, and thus should be considered near to sure things. The electoral vote with these most likely results would be 332-206 Obama, the same as in my post on the subject two months ago. 

Still, the debates could turn the momentum, and I would say that Gov. Romney, who is a strong debater, is likely to "win" one or more of those debates; however, based on what I have seen, Obama seems likely to take advantage of Romney any time the discussion strays from Romney's organizational acumen or a President's alleged capability to manage the economy.  There is little else that could turn things from the rather solidified bases of support--and I discount the likelihood that a Vice-Presidential debate could do it.  Some sort of terrible gaffe by Obama that reveals that he really doesn't care about the middle-class, white people, brown people, or women, maybe.

And now the Democrats' Turn....

The convention will be full of piety to Democratic party values, with some interesting speakers.  You can see the list here; the schedule will eventually be posted there.  I have seen high touting of the merits of the keynote speaker, Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, about whom I know very little.  Congressman John Lewis is one of the most emotionally compelling speakers, in the manner of Rev. Martin Luther King, so feel yourself fortunate if you happen to catch his.

It will be interesting to see if Joe Biden puts his foot in it--I doubt he will stray from his script, but there is always an element of risk when Biden speaks. Biden has a bit of an edge in the sense that the other two people I would consider to be early major candidates for 2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are not on the list of announced speakers, so he should do his best to look future-Presidential.  It's not that Madame Secretary's too busy, as far as I know, or that Cabinet secretaries are not allowed: Interior Secretary Salazar and HHS Secretary Sebelius are on the list.  I do expect to see HRC on the dais when her husband wraps up his speech (and I hope he can keep it to the scheduled length).

There is really only one important speech in the week, though, President Obama's.  He is truly a great speaker, and I expect his rhetorical gifts to be fully present in a speech that he will largely compose.  I do have some advice for him (and here I echo the wise suggestions of Donna Brazile and Matthew Dowd--yes, that Matthew Dowd, Republican political adviser, whom I saw agreeing--amazingly--on George Stephanopoulos this week):  Do not dwell on the past failures of the Bushites; you can mention, but do not spend much time, on the shortcomings of this House or Congress more generally, the insanity of the national Republicans, or the Tea Party movement, and how they have hindered the public policy of the last two years (others will do plenty of that).  Instead, do spend a large percentage of the time recounting the successes of the first administration,* then move to the programs left to do, the future, and what you will do.  Obama must give people a handful of good reasons, ones that people will understand, for them to vote to give him another term.

I think Obama and his people know this, and I expect he will do no less.



*Apart from the Affordable Care Act, taking out Osama and a number of other nasty folks, ending "don't ask, don't tell", implementing key provisions of the Dream Act through Executive order, rebuilding America's standing in the world, exiting the Iraq War and setting the plans to exit the one in Afghanistan, he should not be afraid to say that the worst was avoided in our exit from the Great Crater, and that jobs have been added for some 30 months in a row.  That last one will give way to a good transition to what must still be done.

Closing Time

I didn't watch all of tonight's Republi-Con finale--I found Venus Williams' tennis match with Angelique Kerber to be much more dramatic, certainly with more potential to surprise continually, but I saw enough.

Tuesday's convention lineup was much more interesting: a suggestion that, though the conventioneers were pretty much monochromatic (if you call white a color) and old, they do have some upcoming leaders with diverse backgrounds--though not much variety in what they said. Last night, I kept a promise to myself not to watch a minute of it.


First, tonight's set-up guys:  

Marco Rubio:  He looked like the 12-year-old head of the local chapter of Young Republicans.  What he said was OK, I guess. When he grows up, he could be a serious contender.

Clint Eastwood (the lefty brought in to face one batter):  For his performance tonight, he remains Unforgiven.  What he had to say was pretty lame, but the way he delivered it?  Even lamer.

The Closer:  A good presentation, I'd say.  He showed the requisite emotion, did seem into it.  Part I:  Bathos.  Part II:  Blather.  His main theme was an appeal to those disappointed with Obama's administration.  My main thought:  If they are disappointed now, they will be positively in despair after four years (Please, O Angel Moroni, don't let it be eight!) of this guy.

Romney is one part Dubya--his policy proposals are entirely warmed-over Bushism; he just humors the Tea Party guys but he's not one of them--and one part Tricky Dick Nixon.  He is willing to say or do whatever it takes to get what he wants.

Meanwhile, Rolling Stone is breaking a story, by Tim Dickinson and based on research of FDIC records through the Freedom of Information Act, of how Romney bilked the banks (and the FDIC, when one of the bank creditors folded up) to rescue Bain Capital in the early '90's when it was in danger of going bankrupt.  The irony of the story is amazing:  Romney got the bailout that he opposed for the auto companies.  No doubt RS' version is one-sided, but I think there will be some new 'splaining, duckin' and dodgin', as the facts of this ugly episode are reviewed.

I realize, though, that I have not given Mitt enough credit.  There was one thing last night that truly impressed me:  the suit jacket that Romney was wearing.  The color of that still sticks in my mind--if you have a chance to see any replay of his speech, please take a good look at that jacket and its color.  If you can tell me the precise word for the color, I will cite you and give you my thanks, for my vocabulary of colors fails me.  It was blue, yes, but that does not do it justice.  It was not the usual "navy blue", more or less approximating the field in the background for the stars on the Stars and Stripes, that a typical US politician would wear when doing the loyal red, white, and blue outfit.  Romney was doing that, but the blue....it had elements of the crystalline sea-blue of the Grotto Azurro, maybe of a star sapphire.  One thing for sure:  It was a high-quality, $10K kind of suit jacket.

Romney definitely looks the part.  Beyond that, he is "a suit" par excellence!  He may be an empty suit, but what a suit!

As Life Goes on, Heedless...

...of the nonsense at the Republi-Con in Tampa, let's pretend in this post that it isn't even happening.  Not too hard, for me anyway.

2012 Election Update
We'll try to keep this relatively short, as only certain, identifiable things have changed since my last political posting, in the wake of Paul Ryan's selection as VP candidate.   I will ignore any possibility of a convention-based bounce; there may be a small one for the Republicans, but there may also be a small one for Democrats which may cancel it. 

Apart from that, the big hope for Romney is some kind of performance in the debates (along with Ryan's) that will convince swing voters to trust these guys; so far their campaign, including the post-Ryan selection weeks, has not done it.  Recent polling is showing some of the swing states to be closer than before; in my opinion, this is not the movement of swing voters but improvement in the commitment level of Republican-leaning voters in those states.  My main evidence is that the national polling gap in favor of Obama has held, but the Republicans are doing better in the polling organizations' assessment of "likely voters".  The challenge for the Democrats in the general election campaign is to make the eventual voter results resemble more the registered voter polls.  (I saw a reference to a poll result that Obama has a large lead among non-voters; interesting, but useless, information!)

The map has not changed, though:  Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota remain out of reach for the Republicans; Florida is the Republicans' necessary but not sufficient toss-up state; Romney has a small lead in NC, but Obama continues to hold narrow leads in all the other closely-contested ones (IA, NH, CO, NV, OH, VA, and WI) .  Romney winning just FL and NC among these states would give Obama a fairly comfortable 303-235 Electoral vote margin.

Republicans' Senate:  Akin to Lose It

Todd Akin's benighted comments about rape have provoked a whole new round of news reporting showing the extreme positions the Republicans have had, and continue to have, with regard to abortion.  This distraction has hurt Romney, and may give the Democrats new hope in the battle for control of the House of Representatives.  It certainly has given them new hope toward retaining control of the Senate; Akin, who won a close three-way Missouri Republican Senate primary against two more moderate candidates, has basically put himself on the long-odds side of a race, against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, that he otherwise would have been favorred to win. (I gave money to McCaskill for the first time the day after the primary, because that gave me hope she could win--now I'm feeling vindicated in that judgment, though of course my contributions are a pittance in the scale of the big-money TV wars going on.)

A probable shift of one seat changes the calculus substantially:   By my calculations, assuming the huge money sloshing for Republican candidates in Florida, Connecticut and Ohio can't move those races against favored incumbents, and giving the Republicans credit for likely (but not certain) pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota, the Republicans would need to win five of these seven political contests: 

1.   Montana--Jon Tester fighting an uphill battle to retain his Democratic seat;
2.   Indiana-- Dick Lugar's Republican seat is a possible flip to Democrats, who nominated a moderate (Joe Donnelly) to run against a Tea Party extremist (Richard Mourdock);
3.  Massachusetts--I would now rate Scott Brown a slight favorite to retain his Republican seat over Elizabeth Warren;
4.  Nevada--Republican appointee Heller is now a slight favorite to hold the seat against Shelley Berkley;
5.  Virginia--The closest race of all, the Democrats trying to defend Jim Webb's seat--it's impossible to pick a winner between Republican George ("Macaca") Allen and Tim Kaine;
6. Missouri--The aforementioned Akin taking the seat of Sen. McCaskill (it could still happen, even with the general and total repudiation of Akin by his national party);
7.  and, either the Republicans win the Vice Presidency of the US (to break a Senate tie), or the battle to win the soul, and, more importantly, the vote on leadership control, of the probable Maine winner, independent Angus King (taking Republican Olympia Snowe's seat), or win the Maine seat outright.

My odds:  60-40 Republicans on 1, 3, 4; 50-50 on 2, 5; 30-70 against them on 6, 7; with the odds for an upset in FL, CT, OH, NE, and ND cancelling out.  I felt compelled to do the math and calculate the odds on that result (Republicans winning five or more of the above contests):  Assuming my odds, and that the events' results are independent of one another (a strong assumption), the chances of the Republicans' winning control of the Senate are (only) 19.5%. Akin's gaffe moved the chances downward by 25-30%, and that's without considering its impact on races other than Missouri's.

Armstrong Obit

Enough of that stuff.  I commemorate the life and heroism of Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on the moon (that we know of, anyway).  The moon landings were a prodigious accomplishment, unthinkable today given the quality of computers back then:  two parts engineering, one part pure guts.

Of course we know today that there was little to be gained there except the honor, the prestige, and the competitive drive to get there before the Soviets (I guess they weren't really very close, or maybe they just gave up after they lost the race).   Perhaps that was obvious then, too, but Armstrong and his gang never questioned any of their objectives. 

Armstrong loathed the fame and basically hid out for the rest of his life.  In that sense, I think one could say that he won his battle with celebrity.

I was at Capulin National Monument (northeastern New Mexico) on July 20, 1969, camping with my family.  We managed to find a workable black-and-white TV arrangement for the moonwalk (I don't think color would've added much, beyond the stars and stripes).  I remember my father talking about the radio show he listened to as a child, with the tag line, "Jack Armstrong--the All-American Boy!"

Speaking of dead, and Armstrong, how about Lance Armstrong?  I will give him this--they never proved a thing against him.  Faced with a lengthening list of those willing to bear witness against him, though (and, if I'm not mistaken, dealing with his partner Sheryl Crow's illness), he did a public version of nolo contendere, giving in to the perception of guilt.  As far as I'm concerned, even if he did cheat, he earned all those millions--he worked his ball off.  (Sorry!)

Foo'ball

All football seems to be starting at about the same time:  the NFL and college this coming weekend, the European soccer leagues the weekend before last (just the US pro soccer league is out of synch, but I find their decision not to play with just shorts in the wintertime to have more merit than the Europeans' plan).  Really briefly:

College: USC has rebuilt its college program after being hit hard for violations after the departure of Coach Carroll to the NFL.  A team other than the SEC being favored is a novelty, but I'm skeptical--Alabama and LSU should be about as good as they have been every other recent season.  I promise to write absolutely nothing about the postseason of college football this year--a total print boycott.

NFL:  Eli Manning shut everybody up, but good (including me!), by leading the Giants to another Super Bowl victory over the Patriots.   There is no way I am going to predict anything this year, but I admit to being curious how my new local team will do, especially against their archrival the Green Bay Packers, against whom I've had a thing for close to 50 years.  Go Bears.

English Premier League: The prevailing assumption is that it will be a battle between the team that dramatically won in the last minutes of the final game last year, Manchester City, and its crosstown rival, Manchester United.  United filled a big gap by buying Arsenal's best player, Robin van Persie--probably a guy who belongs there--but is off to a fairly slow start. 

Instead, my team Chelsea, who finished fifth last year, has the early lead.  Having finally won its European Championship (I don't think there will be another one anytime soon), Chelsea should focus firmly on the League, because I think they could do it.  Chelsea will need to play it smart, as many of their key players are getting old--like John Terry, Michael Essien, Frank Lampard--so they will need to somehow conserve them for important league games, while doing justice to their Champions League title in those games.  I say it would be smart to bow out relatively early, like in the round of 16, and to go with heavy doses of reserves/second-teamers (they have a lot of them) in games for the FA Cup and League Cup. That's what (MU coach) Alex Ferguson does, and though I despise him with a passion, he's right to do it:  with the schedule the top teams have, you have to prioritize or you lose out on everything. Chelsea used up a decade's worth of European good luck (offsetting a decade of bad luck) last year; they should focus on grinding out another Premier League title this year.

Basketball
It's time to go negative again vs. the Lakers, with one caveat:  I want to get a basketball jersey with "15" and "World Peace" on it, even if the LAL get the proceeds.  This deal--in which they got Dwight Howard and didn't even have to give up Pau Gasol--reminds me of the shenanigans which led to Magic Johnson being drafted onto their team in the '80's.   This decade, it will probably have to be Lakers vs. Heat (instead of vs. Celtics), once again forcing me to choose between unacceptable alternatives.  I will be rooting for Anyone But Miami in the East and Anyone But Lakers in the West, then for Miami if it comes down to those two.  I expect Andrew Bynum to disappoint tremendously in Philly, but I like the Nuggets' pickup of Iguodala.  The Orlando Magic?  For to laugh--see ya; buh-bye.  They totally blew the Howard negotiations, from start to finish; they can blame it on Howard, or on Superman or Batman, for all I care.

Baseball
I don't want to get too cocky, but there's a decent chance I will end up with eight of the ten playoff teams correct, and an outside shot (depending on the Angels making a late surge) at nine.  The only one I definitely got wrong was having the Phillies instead of Washington.  There is still substantial doubt about several of the others; in particular, the Tigers have continued to disappoint while the White Sox have continued to disappoint my expectation that they would disappoint.

One area of interest in the postseason coming up quickly will be the performance of the four wild cards.  Reacting to the success in recent years of wild cards, both an attractive broadening of the pennant races, and an issue due to the relative underperformance of division winners, MLB's owners and commissioner decided to add an extra wild card in each league, but to handicap both wild cards with an unfavorable schedule.  They rushed the change in, a one-game play-in game, followed immediately by a series with a home-field disadvantage. I won't predict anything until I know the matchups, and even then, I won't feel confident.  Of course, I will be forced to pick the Reds (even if I don't believe it) if they do indeed win their division.

Tennis
This year's U.S. Open looks to be very interesting.  Roger Federer comes in very strongly, looking to avenge his tough loss in the semifinals last year; Rafael Nadal is sitting it out, and Novak Djokovic has not been playing his best. So, my picks would be 1) Federer; and 2) Andy Murray, who just broke through with a big win in the Olympics singles competition.

As for the women, Serena Williams is a big favorite to make the final through a relatively weak half of the draw.  The sentimental pick to face her would be Kim Clijsters, who has announced this would be her last tournament before retiring.  Clijsters has a tough half of the draw to get through, but she has a long winning streak in this tournament.  Serena lost a controversial final to Clijsters a couple of years ago, so she's looking for revenge, too.  The way she's playing, I can't see anyone--Kvitova or Azarenka are other likely finals' opponents--beating her, but there could be an injury or some sort of emotional blow-up.

Republi-Con Preview

Don't Go There
The best news for all concerned came from the weather--God speaking directly to us?--when the threat of Hurricane Isaac hitting the Tampa area led the Republicans' convention planners to cancel Monday's activities.  There wasn't much on there, anyway; the national networks weren't even going to carry it.  Now Tuesday could still be threatened by the storm, but the Republicans plan to go forward with that day's schedule come hell or high water--or both.  

In thinking about what I could recommend to my dear reader for their viewing of the convention, initially I drew a blank.  Congressman/VP nominee Paul Ryan's speech could be interesting if he were to be allowed to say what he really thought the country should be doing, but he will certainly be limited to endorsing the Romney non-plan, so I would strike that off my list. Given the party platform, there could be some entertainment appeal in watching Tea party birdbrains give some sort of freak show about the platform, but I think that sort of thing will be minimized (no Sarah Palin, for example; Todd Akin will probably be warned to keep his distance from TV interviewers, though what they can threaten him with is unclear).  Ron Paul (with Ryan, the two have two first-name surnames, a total of three first names, many ideas in common, and no chance of ever cooperating on anything due to their diverse constutencies, age groups, and levels of ambition) may be allowed into the arena, but he won't be permitted to speak or have his name placed into nomination, so nothing there.  

Could-Watch TV  

Here's what I'm left with:  four possibilities.  I recommend you watch no more than three of these, a total of about three hours.  Like Fox News, more than the recommended dose can lead to insanity.  If you find yourself at home, with no obligations for Tuesday-Thursday, do not under any circumstances leave the TV on all day, or your friends may find you drooling or worse.  
1)  Mitt's acceptance speech:  It will be corny, probably bile-inducing, but I admit some curiosity.  Romney fans are looking for him to re-brand himself, show himself to be the warm, personable human being they claim he is, as opposed to the clammed-up robot that he has presented in his campaign.  I am dubious about the likelihood of that approach working for him. He also has the potential opportunity to present some ideas for the future, which I see being the best possible approach for him.  If he harps too much about the failures of the current administration, I will turn it off, regardless.  
2) Chris Christie's keynote speech:  This is his audition for the 2016 nomination if/when Romney doesn't win (or in the unlikely event that he decides not to run for re-election).  Actually, Christie's best and only hope is that Romney doesn't win; if for some reason Mitt were dead, incapacitated, or (least likely) decided his full ambitions were satisfied by one term in office, Ryan would be the clear favorite.  Christie's opportunity will come if the rightward swing in the party is repudiated this year; he knows it, we know it, so the trick will be to get that across to the American people while appearing to endorse the current thread of party groupthink.  
3) Marco Rubio's nominating speech for Romney: I think this was a pretty good idea for the party planners.  Rubio's a guy who would like everyone to know him better, and that feeling may be reciprocated in the public.  Instead of plugging himself, he can show himself to be a good team player.  And, it could be the start of a late-inning play to try to take back some Hispanic votes (especially in super-critical Florida) before it's too late.  
4)  Ann Romney's speech: This is probably the single most interesting aspect of the convention.  Ms. Romney is broadly considered a Stepford wife (reference to obscure '70's movie--with even more obscure 2004 remake!--about suburban wives who were replaced by robots, with nobody noticing the switch), and I think the characterization is unfair.  She is a good, loyal Mormon wife, which means cheerfully accepting baby-making house slave roles, but I believe she has a good head on her shoulders.  This is an opportunity for her to show what she can do with it, as well as being a convention curiosity item--and perhaps it may be a gauntlet thrown down to First Lady Michelle Obama, who might feel she has to respond with her own speech in a couple of weeks.  I'm guessing Ann's results will not compel Michelle to act, and she will choose to try to stay above it all (her clear preference), but we will see.  

Actually, though I have no great interest in the RepubliCon proceedings, these potential highlights I've named may hold greater interest than most of the Democratic convention coming up.  It may be an even greater challenge for the Dems to come up with something interesting then.    

Olympics Postview

As the London Olympics recede in the rear-view mirror, it's a good time to reflect before moving on to more pressing matters.

The Title IX Olympics
In terms of overall medal performance in the 2012 Summer Olympics, the most visible, significant result was the outstanding performance of American women.  Much attention was given to the US' medal leading total, and to the 40 gold medals; little was given to the fact that women won 29 of those gold medals.  With the exception of swimming and diving, the American women outpaced the men in terms of the results in sport after sport.  Some examples:  gymnastics: women 3 golds, men a couple of bronze medals; volleyball: women a gold and two silvers, men nothing; soccer: women gold, men didn't qualify; track relay races:  women two golds, men two silvers; tennis: women two golds, men one (Bryan brothers).  Both teams won gold in basketball, but the women's performance was considerably more dominant than the men's (which wasn't bad at all).

The point is not to demean the men's performance, just to point out that the US women stood out above their competition in a way the men did not.  In terms of a reason why, I concluded that this is the payoff for some thirty years of Title IX requirements that women's sports get as much money as men's.  Over time, this has provided the basis, in a wide variety of sports, for American women to develop world-leading talent. In men's sports, on the other hand, the money--facilities, coaches, and scholarships--mostly goes to the big revenue generators, basketball and football, with sports like track and field, or soccer, or tennis getting the leavings in most colleges.

(I mentioned this to a colleague, who told me that NPR had made the same characterization as my subhead title, but I came up with it independently, so I stick with it--without shame.)


Top Results - Of the five big possible stories I previewed, clearly the biggest for me was #5, the strong performance of American women; I think the performances of the women's soccer team and gymnastics team stand out.  #4, Phelps vs. Lochte, was basically a one-week story, hyped to the hilt, though the Phelps record over all his Olympic appearances will remain a monument to his willingness to endure--the training, the pressure, the media attention--and to the excessive number of medals awarded in swimming.  #3, the diverse nature of post Cold War Olympics success, was certainly there, without too much fuss, though.  #2, the potential for a USA men's basketball defeat, was also there:  both Spain and Lithuania (the latter, in a group non-elimination game) had divined the formula to beat the US, they just couldn't pull it off.  In the end, it was the depth of the USA squad--which meant that a foul-laden war of attrition worked in our favor--and the sterling qualities of LeBron James which brought home the gold and saved them all embarrassment.  #1, the British being unhospitable cheaters, did not happen:  somewhat to my amazement, the British did extremely well (compared to recent Olympics results) but there was little complaint about it.  The only instance I can recall was when their hotshot moviestar diver was given an extra chance on one of his dives when he fluffed it and complained of photography flashes getting in his eyes.  The diver, Tom Daley, got a bronze medal, which probably annoyed the Chinese diving team, but they didn't make a public fuss.

In terms of individual or team performances, I want to mention (15-year old) Katie Lydecky again (800m swimming gold);  Usain Bolt's redemption (three gold medals, an unprecedented repeat in the 200/100m races) and Muhammad Ali-style self-anointment as "a legend", the Russian men's volleyball team's gold medal in which they came from two sets down--and launched a potential superstar, their 7-foot-2 spiker Dmitri Muserskiy; and the unexpected re-emergence of the USA's competitiveness in middle distance running, which was itself upstaged by British 10k/5k gold medalist Mohammed ("Mo") Farah.  Mo, born a Somali, was probably the biggest star of the whole sports show from the British point of view.

Coverage gripes - Fortunately the memory of the bad taste the NBC prime time telecasts give me is receding, too.  The whole "we know who won, we're not going to tell you" smirking tone just makes me crazy.  They did have a bunch of stuff on live during the day, but it was all stuff that was guaranteed not to be worthy of prime time, for which the content is heavily edited, and badly edited, old news.  I don't need to say more, do I? If I need complain more, let me sum it up in two words:  Bob Costas.

This is probably the place to mention the opening and closing ceremonies.  It is fortunate I like British music so much; otherwise, I would have found them intolerable.  These are always the occasion of excessive bragging by the home country; the British do have a lot to brag about in their history, but compared to Beijing or Sydney, for instance, there was little consideration of any kind of bright and shining future.  Isn't there one?

Flying Forward to Rio--I'm hoping NBC will try a different approach in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.  Brazil is 2 hours ahead of Eastern time, I believe, which will give them the chance to turn around results with only slight delay--for example, they could begin the telecast of something like gymnastics before it ended for that day.  Maybe even show something live in prime time, guys?

Brazil is a bold choice indeed to host an Olympics.  It continues a trend--which I consider a favorable one, as long as they don't follow my preference to hold it always in Athens and eliminate the national organizations--to feature emerging nations willing to take on the big challenge.  Rio, 2016 is a worthy follower on the examples of Tokyo, 1964; Seoul, 1988; Sydney, 2000; and Beijing, 2008.  They will have to do a lot of work to clean the city and its slums up for international inspection, but it is a big, spread-out city which will provide plenty of opportunity for urban renewal in spectacular vistas.

2020 selection is coming up soon, and the finalists are Tokyo, Madrid, and Istanbul.  The betting favorite is Tokyo, which needs something to gear up its economy, but the same argument is somehow used against Madrid, and I cannot agree with that.  Now, Istanbul would be an exciting choice and continue the Brazil line of thinking, but Turkey has been granted the European soccer championship that year and there is a rule (which I consider a stupid one) against both of those occurring in the same year, so they'd have to give it up to get the Olympics.  The Turks are big-time soccer enthusiasts, so they may be happier without the Olympics, for now.  So, I'm thinking Spain may get the surprise nod:  it probably depends on largesse (read: money) doled out for lavish functions and lavish IOC functionaries, and that might appear the best (read: cheapest) investment yet for German Eurodollars.

Continental medal standings
Rather than giving any ink at all to the unofficial--but much too real and important--national medal standings (in my opinion, the clear winner was The Former Soviet Union, though you won't hear that perspective from anyone else, ever!), I've been following the standings by continent and my hypothesis that Europe dominates it.  Here is a compelling reason to make the European Union sovereign; it would take over the top of the Olympics standings!

Here are my extremely unofficial final tabulations:
Europe* 97 Gold 108 Silver 110 Bronze (315 Total)
Asia*    68 Gold  65 Silver    71 Bronze  (204 total)
North America+  61 Gold 47 Silver 58 Bronze (166 total)
Australia/Oceania  12 Gold 19 Silver 17  Bronze (48 total)
Africa  11 Gold 12 Silver 11 Bronze (34 total)
South America 6 Gold 9 Silver 15 Bronze (30 total)

My conclusion is that Brazil and the rest of South American should be expected to pick up the pace and aim at fourth place in continental performance in 2016.

*Does not count any former Soviet Union.  The breakdown of the FSU (by the way, total 47 Gold 44 Silver 73 Bronze, or 164 medals, vs. the US 46-29-29=104) is as follows:
Russia 24 Gold 25 Silver 33 Bronze (82 total)
FSU in Europe 12 Gold 12 Silver 20 Bronze (44 total)
FSU in Asia (including Caucusus) 11 Gold 7 Silver 20 Bronze (38 total).

It would be a highly technical, and totally unnecessary, effort to allocate Russia's medals by continent based on their winners' homes or hometowns.  Even if all of Russia is considered Asia, Europe wins, 359-324, or in gold medals 109-103.
+ Includes the Caribbean.

Paul Ryan's Express *

Mitt Romney finally made his choice for the VP slot on his ticket, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  I think it was one of the best choices he could make under the circumstances:  Ryan is just a conservative white guy, but at least he's not one of the boring ones.  Ryan is a rising star in the right-wing camp, a young thought leader who speaks clearly and has advocated principles which many in the country will applaud:  restructuring entitlements now, reducing discretionary spending, cuts in the tax rates.  Romney's credentials with the party's right wing members were suspect--this will enhance them and motivate them. 

Ryan also seems like a decent person, sincere and respectful.  There's no need to attack him personally; one good thing about the choice is that it will help focus the campaign on ideas and issues, instead of personal attacks.  In that sense, it is a possible gamechanger.  Romney needed to change the dynamic of the campaign, which had turned sharply against him in the last month or so. It was getting away from him fast, so I give him credit for being willing to take a chance to break out of the box--rich, out of touch, gaming the tax code for his own benefit--that he was rapidly being framed into.

Unfortunately, I don't think Ryan will do that much good for Romney, and running for VP on a ticket that is probably going to lose is not going to do that much for Ryan's career. Instead of positioning Romney as a moderate in his party and thus making his appeal to the middle--the pivot to the center we have been expecting from the general election campaign--Ryan will plant Romney more firmly on the right.  Ryan may help Romney win Wisconsin, a state that, after the Gov. Walker recall fracas, had a highly-motivated Republican base and looked competitive to me, but Romney can win Wisconsin and will still lose the election if he doesn't win two of the three critical swing states:  Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

As for Ryan, while he's running to get a back office in the Executive suite, he better watch that he doesn't lose his House seat.  I don't think VP/President was where he wanted to go next; Speaker of the House would have made more sense as a middle-term ambition.  If/when Romney-Ryan loses, particularly if it's not close, Ryan may end up taking a lot of the blame for losing the swing voters. As for the Republican party, this year's primary campaign showed how weak their pool of top leaders is; Ryan vaults into the front and center of that picture, though it may be that the party has hitched its future to an unpopular set of principles that may be a political loser.

*Obscure reference to a WWII Allies "terrorism" film--hijacking a Nazi train--called "Von Ryan's Express" (1965) which starred Frank Sinatra,  Trevor Howard, and Raffaele Carra. Like it or not, though the bus may be Romney's, he's now riding on Ryan's express, and Ryan's policy positions will be central to the debate and to the results of this year's election. 

Gore Vidal

The passing a couple days ago of one of the great battlers of 20th-century American literature, Gore Vidal, deserves comment from me, as I was a major fan of much of his writing.

I read several of his historical novels, always finding them entertaining and well-researched.  Vidal was a permanent expatriate for the last couple decades of his life, but he was, in his way, a patriot of this country.  He was a veteran of World War II, and a student of American history.  He was not so fond of what America had become, but what it symbolized, the potential of what America brought to the global political table that was new and promising. These themes were evident in novels such as 1876, Lincoln, and Empire, in which he examined, from the point of view of (largely) unknown participants close to the action, the principles that made America great, on the one hand, and their violation in key historical events  (Empire was about the Spanish-American war; 1876 the incredible election that year;  the other, of course, the Presidency of Lincoln). 

Burr was a more ambitious effort, told from the point of view of Aaron Burr; for Vidal, Burr was the Founding Father whose role history had neglected, and his novel corrects it somewhat, focusing in particular on Burr's prominent role in the Revolutionary War, his leadership (along with Thomas Jefferson) of the anti-Federalists, and his central role in the disastrous Electoral College constitutional crisis in the Presidential election of 1800.  If Vidal wanted to make Burr loved, though, it was not an effort that could succeed.  Burr was a soldier of fortune, a schemer, like Benedict Arnold; in fact, in his later days, Burr was lucky not to have been executed for treason. Finally, of course, Burr was the rival and sworn enemy of Alexander Hamilton, and the one who ultimately killed Hamilton in a duel--the reasons for which were only suggested (Hamilton spreading rumors of Burr's having an incestuous relationship with his daughter).  For me, Vidal identified with Burr as an insider/outsider who was rejected by the elements of "proper society" where he (Vidal/Burr) believed that he belonged.

My favorite of his historical novels, though, was Creation, something quite different.  What Vidal was trying to get at was explaining the movement creating new religions, which occurred independently in several different parts of Europe and Asia in roughly the sixth century B.C.  It was told from the point of view of a Zoroastrian, the first monotheistic religion, which developed in Persia, who visited both to the West and the East and found a ferment about the basic questions which religions sought to answer.  A very important philosophical inquiry, in the form of an engaging adventure story.

I loved reading his essays.  His themes were consistent, almost repetitive:  anti-war, anti-imperialist, seeking and finding conspiracies of evil intent,  politicians (of both parties) taking advantage of the naive and poorly informed.  It was his style which made them worthwhile:  he was a polemicist who would never give ground, who utilized all the rhetorical tools, including satire, ad hominem attacks, logic, and ridicule, to great effect.

I was a little less interested in his social commentary; for one thing, he wasn't too close to American society, being a patrician by birth and an expatriate by choice.  He was bisexual, tending toward same-sex; he was discriminated against, people tried to humiliate him for it, but he was not a spokesman for sexual freedom--at least not directly.  Of course, he did write Myra Breckinridge, a farce about sex change, which was pretty far outside the lines of "normality" at its time, but it wasn't all that entertaining:  its main appeal is the unique pairing of two sexpots from different generations--Raquel Welch and Mae West--in the same movie.

One thing I do in my obituaries of celebrities is to discuss the role of their fame in their life.  Vidal's peak of fame came in the late '60's, after his vitriolic encounters with William F. Buckley, Jr, when both were brought on as TV commentators for the 1968 Democratic convention.  Buckley called him a "queer" and threatened him with violence, Vidal called Buckley a Nazi.  Vidal got a (deserved) reputation from that in the American public as cranky, prickly; this was called out in the famous Lily Tomlin sketches on "Laugh-In" in which she played an unctuous, but ignorant, phone company representative ("Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" she would ask) calling "Mr. Veedle" about his problems with his phone service.  Vidal was already someone who lived more in Italy than the USA, but this was not the kind of notoriety he wanted (though I believe he was a good sport, and did some cameo appearances on the show).  His search for privacy, I believe, led him permanently abroad, and he gradually faded from public view--except in certain circles.  He maintained a good literary reputation, though, politically, he was far from acceptable.

I will give him personal credit--although I had already formulated the term "Bushite", I first saw it in print (outside my blog) when reading an essay of his in The Last Empire--written in 2000!  He was referring to the insubstantial political philosophy of  "Bushism", and did not draw out the colloquial, defecatory allusion which I also favor.  

Olympics Preview

What will be the top sporting story of the 2012 Olympics?  It's not an easy question; I will give five possible views that I see being likely to emerge, and where I think it will end up.

5) The American women (and especially the gymnastics team)--I think the big USA story this time could be the overall competitive leadership, and frequent dominance, of American women in major sports.  In basketball, there will be no doubt, soccer should be a good story, track and field appears unusually strong, Serena Williams should have an Olympic triumph of definitive nature, and gymnastics looks primed for a US breakout performance.  What I am less certain about is the expectations we should have/may have in swimming and diving, which by contrast could highlight--

4) Michael Phelps vs. Ryan Lochte.  This will be the story that the network will beat us over the head with, and it shows the possibility of being as truly dramatic as Phelps' successful quest for eight gold medals in the Beijing Olympics.  There's no question that Phelps will show up, time after time, so the pressure, and the opportunity, is all upon Lochte.  If he can bring real, consistent danger of toppling Phelps a bit, he will make a huge name for himself.  

3) The multiplicity of countries bearing world-leading talent.  Although Americans are competitive in a wide range of sports,  the story may be more about all the events in which we didn't win this time, entirely due to the quality, and breadth, of the competition. There will be a strong Chinese performance in a number of skill sports (table tennis being the clearest example), the Japanese will have their moments, and the Australians will find some areas in which they can excel.  Do not overlook the significance of the Jamaican sprinters and the Ethiopian and Kenyan distance runners. When it comes to sports like weightlifting, fencing, boxing, wrestling, the winners come from all over. Europeans (and we can define them as competitors from European Union states, plus former Soviet ones) will win more medals than any other continent's, I'll wager. Above all, this will be the United Kingdom's opportunity to show what they can do, with large-scale funding and commitment. This multinational storyline will be showcased from the beginning on network TV, starting with the opening ceremony, and it could stick.

2)  The USA Men's Basketball Team--It would become a really big story if USA did not win the championship; I haven't seen the odds quoted, but I would guess that the chances are about 1 in 3 that it will happen--it's hardly farfetched.  There was a lot of talk in the last month about how this team was as good as the Magic/Michael/Bird Dream Team of 1992.  This squad has no need to be timid about its level of talent, and I don't even think it will be a big problem how the team develops.  The threat to certain victory is the quality of the opposition, particularly from Spain and Argentina.  Besides some NBA-star level talent, these teams have players well-suited to the Olympics game, which I would describe as "rough big men who can hit from the outside".

The USA team, for all its flair, scoring ability, and strength, does not have that kind of player beyond LeBron James; a lot of the pressure will be on him, and it will be another big downer on LBJ's current good vibe if the team falls short.  The game which is most likely to work against us is to clog it up, play dirty-- (besides lots of grabbing underneath, diving, groaning), and rely on good ball-handling and some timely outside shooting.  Timely means high percentage 3-pointers off plays underneath, and preventing turnover-driven fast breaks.  If the USA gets into trouble, you will know it when they need for some reason to rely on Chris Paul as point guard and pre-rookie Anthony Davis as shot-blocker.  That would mean the LeBron/Carmelo/Kobe/Kevin Durant shooting gallery has failed to produce the easy victory,  and it's getting dangerous.

1)  The English are big, fat cheaters.  I viewed the Olympics on British TV's in the year 2000.  I recommend the experience of watching the Olympics on something-other-than-American TV, once in their lifetime, to all Americans (I'll even count watching the Winter Olympics).  It broadens the mind. One thing I noticed during that experience, time after time, was the excitement, followed by the disappointment, of hearing the local competitors finishing fourth.  (In America, they would low-play such results in prime time.)  The British love to compete, and they show up to do so in basically every sport, but they are particularly dying to win, and they are thinking this might be the time to do it.  I see them lining up every possible advantage this time--all within the rules, mind you. It is entirely normal that the host country gain a higher share of the medals than it usually does; I am talking about something more substantial in result, and about a pattern of just nosing out everyone this time, getting that little edge in the scoring, or whatever.  And that becoming a perception that a lot of countries get, and some of the teams going a bit public with that feeling.

So, I don't know what that countdown was all about, but for me, the biggest story will be 2)--partly because I will have more access to TV in the last week of the competition; in US event coverage, I would guess the biggest story in general coverage (from the US, at least) will be 4), though it should be 5) or 3).   Do I think the English are "big, fat cheaters"?  Definitely not, though I do predict it will be discussed: There will be, as Pink Floyd might have described it, "a lot of it about".

The Olympics and Affairs Among Nations
Most of us lived through the Cold War politicization of the Olympics--particularly the Summer Olympics--as USA vs. USSR, so the concept of Olympics as symbolic carriers of nationalistic destiny should not be unfamiliar.  In fact, it has been present almost since the earliest days and, despite being so contrary to the concept of the original Greek Olympics, the peculiar nation-state focus of the Olympics remains the greatest drawback to an exceptional global event.

It is no accident that the modern-day Olympics organization as a contest of states basically was an Anglo-French project which the Americans picked up quite easily and quickly.  History tells us that the basic concept of the modern nation-state was developed first by the French, then, after the Spanish experiment of global empire flamed to glory and consumed itself, was perfected by the British.  The Americans drew upon the Europeans' initial innovations and drew them out and broadened them (the Aussies use a similar approach, but do not have quite the population base of the USA).  The British and French states used the advantages their precocious national development gave thm in the forms of superior industry and organization to conquer most of the world, but the torch passed.

The Olympic history follows that pattern, but it moved more quickly, and the "power" spread more broadly.  The English and French have receded from the front ranks as it became US-USSR, with the East German and Cuba variations, and now China emerges as a leader.  The French may need to wait for another shot (I would be particularly interested to see their take on this year's event, to see whether the jealousy oozes out), but this is the English (or British, to be accurate) chance to re-establish itself; they aim to be the international sport beauty pageant's version of "Queen for a Day" this year.

In terms of international/Olympic relationships, I don't want to dwell too much on Mitt Romney's rude crashing of the party; the Summer Olympics bring innumerable visitors of all types who must be tolerated--it's simply the price you pay for hosting. Romney's actions speak for themselves, and they speak quite clearly that he is a novice in international affairs with no sense of finesse whatsoever.

A River Runs Through It
When looking at a map of the event locations (I like this one best), two things are particularly noticeable about the venues: First is the huge, transformative development of the Olympic Village, with the Olympic Stadium, in East London.  The selection of the most rundown section of the city to be the locus of construction, creation of permanent value, and jobs, was a particular accomplishment that I think goes to the credit of the Labor governments headed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.   It will be interesting to see how close those two are to the event itself, whether their role in securing the bid (Lord Coe--the Olympic middle-distance runner and loyal member of the current ruling party--will get most of the credit for that) and doing the planning will be recognized.

The second is the ingenious use of London landmarks for events all around town.  The main axis along which so many of them lie near is the Thames River and its West-to-East sweep through the heart of the city.  I'm particularly impressed by such decisions as the inclusion of the Triathlon event itself (to be held in Hyde Park), the Mall and Hampton Court Palace (for Road cycling, which, with British Tour de France winner Bradley Wiggins competing, could be the single event which draws the greatest interest from locals), Wimbledon for tennis, Wembley for "football", Lord's Cricket Ground for archery (well, if they couldn't get the addition of cricket...), and the "North Greenwich (O2) Arena" a/k/a the Millennium Dome for rhythmic gymnastics and the basketball finals.
As is often the case with London, the nearest bridge is the landmark reference point for most of the events.  The Olympic Village itself is one exception, as it's removed some miles from the Thames, but the planning of the village has emphasized a stream, the River Lea (also known as the Lee), which runs through its center and on down to the Thames.  I believe that its reclamation was another major accomplishment in the planning.  

With those locales, getting around could be a lot of fun.  OK, not so much fun going to Wembley, but if you are visiting and remember one simple rule, it could be all right:  do not, under any conditions and no matter what they say, drive your car to any Olympic venue!  Find another way to get there:  train (best), underground or bus (if you've got all day), walk (if you're near--distances can be very long), taxi (for a bit of color), or something along the river, if you can find it.

I'm going to be curious how the two-wheeled conveyances--bicycle and motorcycle--play out in this context.  Bicycling has become a large-scale endeavor in London, for very good reasons, so if the bikes can be secured properly, it could be a very good experience to ride to the scene.  Motorcycles are the ones that really have the potential for a breakthrough; literally, they are the only things that can break through some of the traffic jams, so they will be the vehicle of choice for support units (and potentially for high-ranking passengers, in urgent situations).

The other thing about London, of course, is to be prepared for rain to occur at any time.

Just Can't Leave It Alone

It's only been three weeks since my last comprehensive election post, but the news in recent weeks has increased in level of interest, and I see movement that may prove to be decisive. 

President Obama and his allies may be outspent, but their ads seem to be carrying more weight, to be cutting more deeply.  The framing of Mitt Romney as a rich exploiter has occurred, without much fanfare, and it may be very difficult to undo.  Romney and his allies cried "Unfair!", but this is an election, not tiddlywinks, and Obama's team plays for keeps.  Lest anyone forget, the combination of Obama the candidate and Axelrod/Plouffe as campaign directors produced the most stunningly successful results in the history of all electoral campaigns in 2008--taking a little-known first-term Senator, and a mixed-race black to boot, all the way to a substantial electoral college victory, and those folks are all back, in full force.  If nothing else, Romney and his allies should realize by now that they are playing in the major leagues, and they will need to raise their game, which has been all duck-and-dodge since clinching the Republican nomination.

Romney's problems, which seem surprisingly insoluble, center on two issues. First is the mendacious position that he "retired retroactively" from Bain Capital in 2002, so is not responsible for the unseemly activities (outsourcing/downsizing) which that organization completed in the 1999-2002 period, when he was still CEO and sole shareholder of the company.  The quote comes from Ed Gillespie, a prominent Republican spokesman on one of the talk shows, and I would say it was more "retired radioactively", because Romney's Bain tie is now glowing with danger.  The second is his refusal to release more than a year or two of his tax returns; it is not a legal issue, and I doubt that his earlier returns, once revealed (as they probably will be, one way or another), will show any illegalities.  It's more that it fits into the picture being formed of Romney as a 1-percenter, a guy who has profited during our lost decade of economic stagnation through the worst kind of unproductive, but lucrative, trickle-up cashing in and has stashed it all away in innumerable tax dodges.  One can only guess that the reason he can't talk his way out of his difficulties is because there is too much truth behind the accusations.

Romney will still have chances to put the ball back into Obama's court:  he can undermine the level of support from those leaning toward the incumbent through attack ads (just what Obama & Co. have done recently, though Romney's haven't quite hit the mark yet), and he may be able to exploit certain issues that will work against Obama from the point of view of true independent voters through ads, speeches, debates.   To name a few names, "Fast and Furious" (guns), "Solyndra" (government waste), Barclay's (individuals in the English bank informed Tresury Secy. Geithner about the company's complicity in efforts to fix the price of the critical Libor benchmark rate too low in 2008, but he took no steps to end it), and "Occupy"/ "Medical Marijuana" (some of Obama's unsavory fellow travelers); these themes could resonate with conservative white swing voters and put Obama on the defensive.

In the meantime, though, my sense is stronger than before that Obama holds a lead, particularly in the Electoral College, that is just as likely to grow as to shrink.  His rating vs. Romney's on intrade.com has moved up to about 58-38, with about 4% for various chaotic outcomes.

The Other, Very Important Stuff
I continue to believe that the most significant outcome of this election will be a broad, non-partisan rejection of the unlimited spending on negative campaign ads, and the corrupting and poisonous effect all the fundraising has on our political environment. The movement that excites me most is a push for the Fair Elections Act (which would provide effective public financing of Federal campaigns), combined with a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.  I urge that voters demand a Norquist-type pledge from the candidates to support these changes.

Meanwhile, the most suspenseful national electoral contest of the year, the battle for control of the Senate, appears to be taking a turn in the Republicans' favor.  In general, the problem is that the Democrats have to play defense in too many states, and they have too few chances to pick up seats. Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Virginia are all states in which the Democrats' chances of holding their seats are 50-50 or worse, and there are several more in which the Republicans can mount a credible threat, while there are really only two states (Nevada and Massachusetts) in which there is a good likelihood of picking up a seat (and one more--Indiana--in which they have an outside shot at it). In Nevada, that chance is fading with the Democratic candidate, Rep. Shelley Berkley, fending off ethics allegations. Recent polling results indicate that two seats the Democrats absolutely must hold, Ohio (Sherrod Brown) and Florida (Bill Nelson), are not looking safe under heavy Republican spending pressure.

In terms of the Intrade.com quotes for the nine different possible outcomes in Washington (Dem vs. Republican control of President/Senate/House, with Independents caucusing with the parties for control counting in the results--the ninth is some sort of chaos in which one or more of the outcomes is unclear), the two outcomes considered most probable are a Republican sweep (30% likelihood) and Democrats holding the Presidency and the Senate but not the House (29%). The one on the rise, though, going up from 17.5% to 20% in the last two weeks is a Democratic President but Republican control of both houses of Congress. At this point, that would be the one on which I would put my money.
The final subject I want to bring up is the shaggy-dog story of Romney's search for a running mate. There was a strong rumor last week that he would name that person early, to break up the negative buzz about his plutocratic ways, but that was unfounded. Instead, Romney is taking a short international tour and will try to reset the general election campaign upon his return. The two leading candidates in the "veepstakes" are midwestern brothers in boredom, Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman. My longer-shot pick would be another Midwestern white guy, the slightly-less-boring Paul Ryan, who would bring some interest to the issues debate (though it would not assist Romney's pivot to the center); the real game-changer would be the presentation of a revitalized Marco Rubio candidacy as a strong bid to capture Florida, without which Romney's campaign is doomed.

To summarize, my dear reader, it's basically about three states: Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, and the Presidential and Senate races in those three. If the Democrats sweep the six contests it will be a good--or great--result; if the Republicans sweep them, it will be a huge result (though technically it may still be very possible for Romney to lose the election even if he takes all three, I'd suggest that other states--like Iowa, or Colorado, or New Hampshire, or one of the upper Midwest--would also be coming along in that case, enough for him to win). The most likely outcome will be a split decision in those six, which won't be a great result for anyone, including the American people.

The Usual

The suspect in the killing of 12 people at a Colorado screening of the new Batman movie had colored his hair red and told police he was "the Joker," according to a federal law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation. Police say James Holmes, 24, was dressed in protective gear and set off two devices of some kind before firing from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two handguns recovered. A source said Holmes carried a magazine capable of holding more than 100 rounds and that his guns were purchased legally in the past six months.
Watch the latest now on CNN TV and follow updates on CNN's mobile apps and http://cnn.com/thisjustin. Anderson  Cooper will anchor "AC360" from Colorado tonight at 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET. --CNN 

"Watch new blood on the 18-inch screen....The corpse is a new personality....Each day new dead."  Gang of Four

President Obama's visit to Aurora (and the other comments/visitations by other high and mighty folks) doesn't do a thing for me.  Of course, I'm not the victim. or a family member of a victim of the latest lunatic gun freak--maybe it does something for those poor individuals, but I doubt it.

Not to be cynical, but Obama isn't going to say anything which will rile up the gun owners, at least until after the election.  He's got some misguided notion that some of those who are single-issue opponents of any and all gun restriction are somehow going to vote for him.  It's true that his grade as President, from the point of view of the Brady Center, the one group willing to stand up and oppose indiscriminate sale of guns all over the country, is a flat "F"--which means he's done nothing to restrict guns, everything that he could do to support their sale--but, really?  Obama?  I don't think so.

After the election, when the next (inevitable) crazed lunatic with his cache of automatic weapons, infinite supply of ammunition, and whatever else he (I was going to say "he/she", but I will say that there has never been a gun-toting lunatic mass-killing woman, credit be to thy gender) can amass pops up and blows away a few or a few dozen innocent unarmed civilians, what will Obama say then, I wonder?  Will he have the guts to stand up and say "Enough!"  Will anyone in high office have the guts?  Again, I doubt it,  but in the meantime, I'd bet that paranoid gun nuts all over the country are stocking up (once again) right now, just in case.

What is needed is the equivalent of a credit bureau for guns--it doesn't have to be run by the Federal government, but it needs to have full participation--by law--of all gun dealers, gun show participants, and private sellers.  A nut case pops up--buying too much of the wrong weapons, with the wrong frequency, in the wrong places--he gets the equivalent of the "full cavity search, no-fly" treatment.   That would be my solution, along with reinstating rules found in all other civilized countries (or I should say, all civilized countries?)  that civilians may not bear arms in public without a license.  That's asking far too much, I know.

It seems that everyone is resigned to the fact that there will always be these odious, hate-filled, insane monsters that will emerge every so often in American society (it's running about once a year, if the minimum standard is double-figure deaths), and they will kill until someone brings them down, and nothing will or should be done to stop them. or at least make it more difficult for them to assemble their arsenals of insanity.  I have not given up to that extent yet.