I will not be able to view tomorrow's Presidential debate--prior, overriding engagement; however, the event does deserve comment and a decent preview.
The first debate is Mitt Romney's last, best chance to turn around the momentum, which, since the conventions, has been spectacularly bad for him. He was even presented with a significant September Surprise opportunity, in the form of a fairly significant foreign affairs setback (see my post on "The Benghazi Affair"), and he botched it.
Still, debating is suggested to be Romney's strong suit, and it is not particularly President Obama's. Romney has had a great deal more time to prepare--Obama's daily work as President is only somewhat relevant to the task of standing before cameras and improvising brilliant statesmanship.
Not that something like that is really required of Obama. A sufficient formula will be the usual unruffled, matter-of-fact, logical exposition that he produces in most public contexts (apart from his specialty, the political pep rally). The main thing is not to let Romney get to him; I would not be surprised to see Mitt do something like what he did with Rick Perry--crowd his space, put his hand on him, something like that, or the verbal equivalent of it. Obama must not let his distaste for Romney show as anger--something more like incredulity at Romney's awkwardness would be appropriate.
As for issues, I'm sure there will be the duel of competing tax reform/entitlement reform packages. There will be more similarity than difference in the plans, but the differences will be emphasized. Neither is likely to be able to get his plan through Congress. As for jobs, there will be competing claims through their respective plans of investment/infrastructure (Obama) and tax rate cuts/laissez faire (Romney); also neither likely to get approved, or to make a significant difference in the employment picture if it were.
I am curious as to whether two issues will come up: gun violence (the debate will be in Denver, and the massacre at the cinema in nearby Aurora might suggest a question on the topic) and the obscene level of campaign spending--both by the campaigns and by their officially non-affiliated PAC's.
As for the race, the Electoral College tally is moving slowly but definitely toward Obama. Michigan and Pennsylvania seem definitively in Obama's column, Nevada and New Hampshire are beyond the margin of error for him, and--most important of all--Ohio is close to or at that point. Romney's position in North Carolina has held--even, or with a small lead---so, if we put that state down for Romney, he projects to 206 electoral votes. With NV, NH, and OH, Obama reaches 265, with the following states still not assigned:
Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and Florida (29). Florida remains a definite toss-up; the others are all polling in Obama's favor, but by such small margins that they could reverse. Winning all five is definitely likely, which would (once again) get him to 332 EV. The over-under is in the 315-320 range, but with a wide margin of error due to the uncertain nature of Florida's votes, in particular.
Obama would only need one of the five: if they were 50-50 and the results were independent, he would have a 31-in-32 chance of winning. Neither of those statements are true, though; his chances are better than 50-50, but they are not at all independent of one another. So we're back where we started, with Romney needing a breakthrough in the first debate to reverse the momentum.
Senate Race Shift
The odds on intrade.com and 538.com* shifted dramatically in the last half of September to the level (80% chance of Democrats' holding control; technically, the intrade odds are lower, but they should include the 20% for "neither" having control, because they exclude the independents--Bernie Sanders, and the likely new Maine Senator Angus King--from the calculation) that I had suggested in late August.
I had responded specifically to the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" blunder which shifted the Missouri race against the Republicans, but also generally to trends favorable to the Democrats in several races. This has continued, or accelerated, with the races in Nevada and Indiana both looking to be great possibilities for Democratic pick-ups, but the most dramatic move has been in Wisconsin--a state I didn't even mention in late August--in which Tammy Duckworth has moved right by former Gov. Tommy Thompson into a substantial polling lead. Massachusetts and Virginia remain high-profile, impossible-to-call races, but it is now quite likely that control of the Senate may not depend on those two outcomes.
*I highly recommend taking a look at 538.com's Senate forecast map, which is a lot more interesting--great variety of colors, full of variation--than the Presidential map!
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Monday, October 01, 2012
Sports Report
Last weekend cleared up most, but not all, of the uncertainty about the remaining baseball post-season qualifiers. Detroit should clinch its division tonight, or soon enough, and Oakland and St.Louis are in position to lock up their playoff spots in each league. The identity of the 10 teams making it into the post-season would then be finalized.
The past few days have been very hard on my preseason picks, with the Brewers, Phillies, and D'backs all eliminated over the weekend and the Rays and Angels set up to be eliminated. These were all worthy teams in terms of talent that came on strong (especially Tampa Bay), but too late. That will leave me with only five correct postseason teams out of the ten: the Yanks, Reds, Braves, Tigers, and Rangers.
One battle with the outcome not yet indicated is for the AL East division chmpion, vs. the other AL wild card, between Baltimore and New York. This is clearly an important outcome--the winner of what is generally considered the best division in baseball must be considered a top contender for the pennant, while the loser of the contest will have an uphill struggle to make it to the championship series.
Or so it has been designed, anyway: One big piece of the plan was that the play-in game between the two wild cards, which will deplete the winning team of its best starter (one would expect each team should be able to schedule it so its ace goes in the single game, unless the race for the slot goes down to the final days) ; then, the survivor gets the team with the best record, which will have a day of rest and home-field advantage.
The problem is that the battle for the last spots is intense, and the survivor will be a hot, if tired, opponent for the team with the best record. That is why I'm half-hoping that the Reds end up with the second-best record, instead of first. I think I would rather they face the Giants (with home-field advantage) than the survivor of the Braves-Cards (or Braves-Dodgers, if somehow LA makes it). That goes against the intended wisdom; we shall see in the next couple of years how it plays out, but recent history advises to be wary of the wild cards.
The seedings in the AL are not at all finalized--besides NY-Baltimore, Texas and Oakland are playing a series which could cause them to flip positions, as well. The one team in the AL postseason which knows its spot--Detroit, as the #3 seeded division winner--would be my pick for the league championship (they were my preseason pick for the world championship), I like their combination of starters, hiters, and bullpen.
In the NL, I have to pick the Reds for personal reasons, and I think they have as good a shot as any. If the Braves win their one-game matchup, though, they would be the team I would fear most. I have to think that the Nationals, like the Orioles in the AL, are likely to underperform in the postseason due to their relative youth and lack of postseason experience. The Giants and the Cards both have recent World Championships, but I feel that they used up their supply of good luck in those victories. So, I'll go with Reds-Tigers in the World Series; we'll reassess in a couple of weeks if that doesn't happen and predict the winner if it does.
Ryder Cup Epic Fail
Yielding to my proven ineptness, I gave up golf a few years ago, but I have had enough experience with the game to have some sense of the mind-numbing, tremor-inducing pressure the Ryder Cup players experienced on Sunday. So, I won't criticize the American team's play or its tactics; I will point out that actually Europe has a greater population to draw upon than the US (though maybe less golf-playing men), because I can't think of any other excuses.
I will say that, while golf is normally the second most boring sport ever shown on TV (just ahead of bowling, and poker is not a sport), this was compelling TV viewing. The number of different close matches being played simultaneously was unique, from my limited golf-watching experience, and there was a lot at stake (in golf terms). And what a beautiful course, and a beautiful day for it!
The Scabs Were not the Refs
The fourth weekend of NFL play held an escalating tide of missed calls and erroneous rule interpretations, all dutifully revealed by the TV networks' in-house rule geeks. This was capped by a howler on Monday night, when the two refs ruled differently on a game-ending Hail Mary pass that was either a win-clinching interception by the Packer defensive back or a winning touchdown catch by the Seattle wide receiver. The referee whose ruling prevailed had the worst angle and got it wrong (somehow, this scoring play was not reviewable); the Packers left the field rather than allowing the point after to be played.
That fiasco sent the owners into a hurried re-think; rather than gaining mastery over the complex NFL rules, the new referees were becoming a story with major negatives for the league (to be fair, the broadcasters did not shy from criticism). So, within 48 hours, there were concessions that couldn't be made in the previous 48 days, and the referees' union was offered a satisfactory contract for its employees. The replacement referees were put back on the street, or refereeing high school games, or whatever.
I think this lockout of the regular referees was clearly a bad tactic by the NFL; the complexity of the rules to be enforced has increased dramatically, driven by intention to protect the quarterbacks and receivers, bearers of the exciting game that attracts viewership, and to facilitate instant replay (adds a few commercial breaks to each telecast). It's challenging enough to expect full-time professionals to understand all the subtleties, and too much for short-timers to pick up.
Speaking of scab owners, the NHL seems not to have learned from its previous near-death experience and has once again locked out its players.
The past few days have been very hard on my preseason picks, with the Brewers, Phillies, and D'backs all eliminated over the weekend and the Rays and Angels set up to be eliminated. These were all worthy teams in terms of talent that came on strong (especially Tampa Bay), but too late. That will leave me with only five correct postseason teams out of the ten: the Yanks, Reds, Braves, Tigers, and Rangers.
One battle with the outcome not yet indicated is for the AL East division chmpion, vs. the other AL wild card, between Baltimore and New York. This is clearly an important outcome--the winner of what is generally considered the best division in baseball must be considered a top contender for the pennant, while the loser of the contest will have an uphill struggle to make it to the championship series.
Or so it has been designed, anyway: One big piece of the plan was that the play-in game between the two wild cards, which will deplete the winning team of its best starter (one would expect each team should be able to schedule it so its ace goes in the single game, unless the race for the slot goes down to the final days) ; then, the survivor gets the team with the best record, which will have a day of rest and home-field advantage.
The problem is that the battle for the last spots is intense, and the survivor will be a hot, if tired, opponent for the team with the best record. That is why I'm half-hoping that the Reds end up with the second-best record, instead of first. I think I would rather they face the Giants (with home-field advantage) than the survivor of the Braves-Cards (or Braves-Dodgers, if somehow LA makes it). That goes against the intended wisdom; we shall see in the next couple of years how it plays out, but recent history advises to be wary of the wild cards.
The seedings in the AL are not at all finalized--besides NY-Baltimore, Texas and Oakland are playing a series which could cause them to flip positions, as well. The one team in the AL postseason which knows its spot--Detroit, as the #3 seeded division winner--would be my pick for the league championship (they were my preseason pick for the world championship), I like their combination of starters, hiters, and bullpen.
In the NL, I have to pick the Reds for personal reasons, and I think they have as good a shot as any. If the Braves win their one-game matchup, though, they would be the team I would fear most. I have to think that the Nationals, like the Orioles in the AL, are likely to underperform in the postseason due to their relative youth and lack of postseason experience. The Giants and the Cards both have recent World Championships, but I feel that they used up their supply of good luck in those victories. So, I'll go with Reds-Tigers in the World Series; we'll reassess in a couple of weeks if that doesn't happen and predict the winner if it does.
Ryder Cup Epic Fail
Yielding to my proven ineptness, I gave up golf a few years ago, but I have had enough experience with the game to have some sense of the mind-numbing, tremor-inducing pressure the Ryder Cup players experienced on Sunday. So, I won't criticize the American team's play or its tactics; I will point out that actually Europe has a greater population to draw upon than the US (though maybe less golf-playing men), because I can't think of any other excuses.
I will say that, while golf is normally the second most boring sport ever shown on TV (just ahead of bowling, and poker is not a sport), this was compelling TV viewing. The number of different close matches being played simultaneously was unique, from my limited golf-watching experience, and there was a lot at stake (in golf terms). And what a beautiful course, and a beautiful day for it!
The Scabs Were not the Refs
The fourth weekend of NFL play held an escalating tide of missed calls and erroneous rule interpretations, all dutifully revealed by the TV networks' in-house rule geeks. This was capped by a howler on Monday night, when the two refs ruled differently on a game-ending Hail Mary pass that was either a win-clinching interception by the Packer defensive back or a winning touchdown catch by the Seattle wide receiver. The referee whose ruling prevailed had the worst angle and got it wrong (somehow, this scoring play was not reviewable); the Packers left the field rather than allowing the point after to be played.
That fiasco sent the owners into a hurried re-think; rather than gaining mastery over the complex NFL rules, the new referees were becoming a story with major negatives for the league (to be fair, the broadcasters did not shy from criticism). So, within 48 hours, there were concessions that couldn't be made in the previous 48 days, and the referees' union was offered a satisfactory contract for its employees. The replacement referees were put back on the street, or refereeing high school games, or whatever.
I think this lockout of the regular referees was clearly a bad tactic by the NFL; the complexity of the rules to be enforced has increased dramatically, driven by intention to protect the quarterbacks and receivers, bearers of the exciting game that attracts viewership, and to facilitate instant replay (adds a few commercial breaks to each telecast). It's challenging enough to expect full-time professionals to understand all the subtleties, and too much for short-timers to pick up.
Speaking of scab owners, the NHL seems not to have learned from its previous near-death experience and has once again locked out its players.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Elections, Contributions, and Me
One story that upset me deeply--I saw it on TV, but couldn't tell you where anymore--was an interview with a woman who runs a food bank, a nonprofit that provides free food to the poorest of Americans. She complained that every four years, contributions to her organization drop sharply, and that this year was the worst yet, to the point where she was in danger of having to cease operations.
She attributed it to the problem that her contributors' limited discretionary dollars were being sucked into the gaping maw of this year's election campaigns (my wording), and I have no doubt that she is right. This overload of campaign spending is a development that is bad for all--even Mitt Romney would say that private contributions to charity are a public benefit and need to continue. As for me, I know that her point applies to me--my contributions to private charities have dropped off sharply, that being partly a function of my deficient cash flow, but also that I am channeling my benevolent impulses in these months into (probably fruitless) campaign contributions.
I sometimes see articles by Democratic-leaning individuals patting themselves and their chosen party on the back for the party's platform stance and the inclination of many of its candidates to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and then drawing distinctions with the Republicans who are fueling their campaigns with well-hidden, big-money Super PAC donors. I don't like those articles, whether true or not: This is not a partisan issue. Even a moment's consideration would reveal that a constitutional amendment in the US can not be passed on a partisan basis--it needs two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures (or a constitutionl convention, if you want to get technical). There is no way that the Democrats, or Democrats plus Independents plus minor-party backers, are ever going to get close to that kind of dominance nationally--if they did, there would be such a power monopoly that they wouldn't even need to spend on campaigns. This is not a talking point to try to get more Democrats elected; it is critical to the future of our democracy that we change this system, and that it begin immediately after this election ends. Unfortunately, it can't really begin any sooner.
It is absolutely essential that Republicans, too, see the futility of continuing to have campaigns funded in this excessive, wasteful, regressive fashion. One way they could see it, I will admit, would be if the Republicans put their faith in huge TV spending and it fails, and they figure out that there has to be a better, more effective way. Another, better, way is if the winning Republican candidates realize that what they just went through was something that a) they never want to do again; and b) they don't want their opponents or successors to go through, either.
It's false that no one benefits from the current system, though. A few groups that probably gain: the TV channel owners, ad agencies willing to produce sleazy campaign ads, the telemarketing companies that can put people on the phones dialing for dollars. Maybe some others: there have been some interesting articles to the effect that Sheldon Adelson's expected value for his $100 million or so contributions would be positive if his candidate has better than 20-1 odds of winning the election (he did, but now I'm not so sure).
The rest of us, though, are losers, and I'm particularly thinking of the small-time contributors, like me, who are conned into giving because of some media-report deadline, or scare tactics about a poll that shows their candidate about to lose, or about a poll that shows that their underdog candidate has a chance, after all, or even the one-in-a-Lotto chance that if I give money I'll get chosen to have dinner with the President and the First Lady. Or the equivalent for the Nominated Suit and his Trophy Babymaker. I'm pretty sick of all of it, and I imagine my counterpart on the other side is, too.
Spending My Hard Earned Contribution Buck Wisely...
That would be a change, as I realize looking at my "act blue" contribution history. Mostly I have given to false-hopers and easy winners. Can I change my ways?
My record-keeping is pretty bad; I can see some contributions, but not what prompted them. It suggests to me that my pattern is the equivalent of impulse-buying, and probably the results are no better.
I have given two or three times to the President's campaign ("ofay", I call "Obama for America"; I wonder if his team has absorbed the irony of that monicker); again, I can't really tell you what moved me to respond in those cases out of the hundreds of appeals I have received. One was for a bumper sticker that said "Obama!" (with an upside-down exclamation point before it--I have no idea how to produce that character on this keyboard) ; I don't think any of them saved the world, or any lives, or even his campaign.
Here are a few more I've been able to dig up:
- One contribution to the national Democratic party; I was moved to do it by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's name-drop of Gabby Gifford (the former Arizona Congresswoman nearly assassinated by Jared Loughner). Debbie actually has the right to drop Giffords' name, and I knew that: she just had better not overuse the privilege.
- The contribution I made to Claire McCaskill's campaign for re-election as Missouri Senator, the day after Todd Akin got the nomination. I still feel pretty good about that one.
- $25 for Emily's List; I can't remember why anymore. I'm not crazy about E.L., as they only provide support to (pro-choice) women, but I could do worse, I guess.
- $5 to Ilya Sheyman, Congressional candidate around here. Loser.
- $10 for the Gov. Walker recall campaign. Loser.
- $25 for Ann McLane Kuster, Congressional candidate in New Hampshire. We'll see; I think she's favored to win now, but hopefully not so easily that my contribution was meaningless. I believe one of my fairly-distant relatives (father's cousin) is one of her key political backers.
- $50 to the DSCC. That was last year, probably a reasonable move in that I knew there would be tough sledding for the Democrats to keep control of the Senate, but WAY TOO EARLY--what was I thinking?
- $20 to the DCCC (Congressional Campaign Committee). This is a good idea, if you trust them to make good strategic decisions about which campaigns to support. I would argue that it's much too complicated to try and assess all the Congressional races and which deserve a contribution, so picking one's spots wisely would mean just contributing to races that have a particular personal interest. Sort of like the difference between buying an Exchange-traded fund and a specific stock.
- My Act Blue records also reveal the following, most of which I have no memory of whatsoever:
Unless things change dramatically, I'm not giving any more to the President's campaign. I have changed my mind a bit about it, in a positive way--they are promising to use the money to build grassroots support and turnout, instead of throwing it down the TV hole, and I do believe them, but that is one campaign that will have enough support (even if outspent) to win. That strategy also means that I should not give money to Tim Kaine in Virginia (even though he's in a close race), Sherrod Brown in Ohio (though he's one of the best out there, and in a competitive race), or Bill Nelson in Florida: Let's just assume that Obama's campaign is going to be spending like crazy in those three states for turnout, and that these Democratic Senate candidates' boats will be fully floated by it.
The one specific race I'm thinking I may blow a few bucks yet is the Congressional challenger for Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin (name to be added later--I heard him speak once, and I thought he was pretty good, a viable opponent in a swing district). I declared Ryan my enemy a year ago when he targeted people my age to lose their Medicare benefits (though there was some ambiguity about exactly which birthdate and younger would get the raw end of the deal); although I am a year older now, and his proposal still promises full benefits to people "55 and over" (so I would, hypothetically, be safe), I am not ready to forgive and forget.
She attributed it to the problem that her contributors' limited discretionary dollars were being sucked into the gaping maw of this year's election campaigns (my wording), and I have no doubt that she is right. This overload of campaign spending is a development that is bad for all--even Mitt Romney would say that private contributions to charity are a public benefit and need to continue. As for me, I know that her point applies to me--my contributions to private charities have dropped off sharply, that being partly a function of my deficient cash flow, but also that I am channeling my benevolent impulses in these months into (probably fruitless) campaign contributions.
I sometimes see articles by Democratic-leaning individuals patting themselves and their chosen party on the back for the party's platform stance and the inclination of many of its candidates to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and then drawing distinctions with the Republicans who are fueling their campaigns with well-hidden, big-money Super PAC donors. I don't like those articles, whether true or not: This is not a partisan issue. Even a moment's consideration would reveal that a constitutional amendment in the US can not be passed on a partisan basis--it needs two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures (or a constitutionl convention, if you want to get technical). There is no way that the Democrats, or Democrats plus Independents plus minor-party backers, are ever going to get close to that kind of dominance nationally--if they did, there would be such a power monopoly that they wouldn't even need to spend on campaigns. This is not a talking point to try to get more Democrats elected; it is critical to the future of our democracy that we change this system, and that it begin immediately after this election ends. Unfortunately, it can't really begin any sooner.
It is absolutely essential that Republicans, too, see the futility of continuing to have campaigns funded in this excessive, wasteful, regressive fashion. One way they could see it, I will admit, would be if the Republicans put their faith in huge TV spending and it fails, and they figure out that there has to be a better, more effective way. Another, better, way is if the winning Republican candidates realize that what they just went through was something that a) they never want to do again; and b) they don't want their opponents or successors to go through, either.
It's false that no one benefits from the current system, though. A few groups that probably gain: the TV channel owners, ad agencies willing to produce sleazy campaign ads, the telemarketing companies that can put people on the phones dialing for dollars. Maybe some others: there have been some interesting articles to the effect that Sheldon Adelson's expected value for his $100 million or so contributions would be positive if his candidate has better than 20-1 odds of winning the election (he did, but now I'm not so sure).
The rest of us, though, are losers, and I'm particularly thinking of the small-time contributors, like me, who are conned into giving because of some media-report deadline, or scare tactics about a poll that shows their candidate about to lose, or about a poll that shows that their underdog candidate has a chance, after all, or even the one-in-a-Lotto chance that if I give money I'll get chosen to have dinner with the President and the First Lady. Or the equivalent for the Nominated Suit and his Trophy Babymaker. I'm pretty sick of all of it, and I imagine my counterpart on the other side is, too.
Spending My Hard Earned Contribution Buck Wisely...
That would be a change, as I realize looking at my "act blue" contribution history. Mostly I have given to false-hopers and easy winners. Can I change my ways?
My record-keeping is pretty bad; I can see some contributions, but not what prompted them. It suggests to me that my pattern is the equivalent of impulse-buying, and probably the results are no better.
I have given two or three times to the President's campaign ("ofay", I call "Obama for America"; I wonder if his team has absorbed the irony of that monicker); again, I can't really tell you what moved me to respond in those cases out of the hundreds of appeals I have received. One was for a bumper sticker that said "Obama!" (with an upside-down exclamation point before it--I have no idea how to produce that character on this keyboard) ; I don't think any of them saved the world, or any lives, or even his campaign.
Here are a few more I've been able to dig up:
- One contribution to the national Democratic party; I was moved to do it by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's name-drop of Gabby Gifford (the former Arizona Congresswoman nearly assassinated by Jared Loughner). Debbie actually has the right to drop Giffords' name, and I knew that: she just had better not overuse the privilege.
- The contribution I made to Claire McCaskill's campaign for re-election as Missouri Senator, the day after Todd Akin got the nomination. I still feel pretty good about that one.
- $25 for Emily's List; I can't remember why anymore. I'm not crazy about E.L., as they only provide support to (pro-choice) women, but I could do worse, I guess.
- $5 to Ilya Sheyman, Congressional candidate around here. Loser.
- $10 for the Gov. Walker recall campaign. Loser.
- $25 for Ann McLane Kuster, Congressional candidate in New Hampshire. We'll see; I think she's favored to win now, but hopefully not so easily that my contribution was meaningless. I believe one of my fairly-distant relatives (father's cousin) is one of her key political backers.
- $50 to the DSCC. That was last year, probably a reasonable move in that I knew there would be tough sledding for the Democrats to keep control of the Senate, but WAY TOO EARLY--what was I thinking?
- $20 to the DCCC (Congressional Campaign Committee). This is a good idea, if you trust them to make good strategic decisions about which campaigns to support. I would argue that it's much too complicated to try and assess all the Congressional races and which deserve a contribution, so picking one's spots wisely would mean just contributing to races that have a particular personal interest. Sort of like the difference between buying an Exchange-traded fund and a specific stock.
- My Act Blue records also reveal the following, most of which I have no memory of whatsoever:
- Eric Griego (New Mexico congressional primary candidate). Loser. It's really bad strategy to give to primary candidates, I've decided, unless it's to prevent the Devil himself from getting a nomination.
- Colleen Hanabusa (Hawaii Congresswoman). She should win easily--bad investment.
- Martin Heinrich (New Mexico Senate candidate). He's pulling away from his opponent--not such a great one.
- $20 to Joe Donnelly (Indiana Senate candidate)--Donnelly has been sending out emails lately pointing out that Nate Silver (of 538.com) has said that a contribution to Donnelly has eight times better chance of affecting the future control of the Senate than one to Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Senate candidate)--this, although both are in extremely tight races. It must have to do with the amount of money being spent in the two races, not the price per vote bought, or the amount of Senate votes each would get if elected (=1). It's pretty snarky of Donnelly, but I'll grant that he's measurably better than his opponent (an extremist Tea-bagger, Richard Mourdock) and in a close race that he can win.
Unless things change dramatically, I'm not giving any more to the President's campaign. I have changed my mind a bit about it, in a positive way--they are promising to use the money to build grassroots support and turnout, instead of throwing it down the TV hole, and I do believe them, but that is one campaign that will have enough support (even if outspent) to win. That strategy also means that I should not give money to Tim Kaine in Virginia (even though he's in a close race), Sherrod Brown in Ohio (though he's one of the best out there, and in a competitive race), or Bill Nelson in Florida: Let's just assume that Obama's campaign is going to be spending like crazy in those three states for turnout, and that these Democratic Senate candidates' boats will be fully floated by it.
The one specific race I'm thinking I may blow a few bucks yet is the Congressional challenger for Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin (name to be added later--I heard him speak once, and I thought he was pretty good, a viable opponent in a swing district). I declared Ryan my enemy a year ago when he targeted people my age to lose their Medicare benefits (though there was some ambiguity about exactly which birthdate and younger would get the raw end of the deal); although I am a year older now, and his proposal still promises full benefits to people "55 and over" (so I would, hypothetically, be safe), I am not ready to forgive and forget.
Monday, September 17, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, September 03, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
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!
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!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
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:
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.
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:
- Montana--Jon Tester fighting an uphill battle to retain his Democratic seat;
- 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);
- Massachusetts--I would now rate Scott Brown a slight favorite to retain his Republican seat over Elizabeth Warren;
- Nevada--Republican appointee Heller is now a slight favorite to hold the seat against Shelley Berkley;
- 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;
- 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);
- 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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, August 24, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, August 03, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
