Khartoum to Kabul

I just watched the classic 1966 film, "Khartoum", starring Charlton Heston as British freelance General Charles "Chinese" Gordon (and no less than Laurence Olivier as his nemesis, the Mahdi). The movie is a semi-historical epic on the sack of Khartoum in 1895, Gordon's martyrdom, and the difficulties of maintaining a far-flung, overstretched empire in that period. It's got me thinking...

How Afghanistan Can Win
I'm getting a little tired of our military geniuses telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. That kind of myopia is probably the only real similarity between the Afghan conflict and our war in Vietnam.

We can't win in Afghanistan, though we can hope to avoid getting massacred there, like the British in the 1850's, or being chased out at gunpoint, like the Soviets in 1990 (it was their Vietnam, and it was bad enough to help put the kibosh on the Soviet state).

There is really no way that the Taliban can be defeated militarily, and the sooner we realize that, the better. We can "clear and hold" more ground than we have, if we put in more troops, but the more we put in, the less likely we are to get the outcome we want. There isn't going to be a triumphant march through a flower-strewn Kabul bearing Osama Bin Laden's charred corpse, much as it might thrill us.

First of all, he's long gone from Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think he'll come back. That would appear to be Pakistan's problem now (another day's discourse). Second, while we have the best forces in the world, the Afghans are easily good enough to fight us indefinitely, if they choose to. And they will do so, if it becomes a matter of us trying to impose rule on them. Just like when the Soviets tried it.

Third, the Taliban are not the central locus of international terrorism, though they seem to be learning the modern insurgency game very well, the longer we hang around. They committed a major error when they allowed Al Qaeda to operate out of their Afghanistan--their traditional hospitality, gone wrong--and I'm quite sure they know it; it caused them to lose the 90% or so of the country they had painstakingly gained control of. They're not even nationalists, really; they are traditional tribal people with pan-Islamic dreams (like the Mahdi).

We should look at them the way Lincoln looked at the slavers in the South, prior to the secessionist wave leading to the Civil War. We should help the Karzai regime (or its successor) contain them, prevent their expansion, and they will eventually die out as the anachronism they are. Let them come back, and give them a good chunk of the country--one far from Pakistani mischief-makers, away from the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway--and put a fence around it. Nothing comes in or goes out (especially the poppies!), unless it's people leaving their antique thraldom. Inside the Taliban Autonomous Zone, though, they can teach what they want, imprison their daughters (for their own good, of course), chop off hands, whatever.

It's the only way to get peace, and that's what the Afghans want. Otherwise, this thing could drag on for decades (more). After the election gets settled, Holbrooke needs to sit down with Karzai, tell him the limits of American involvement (hint: by 2012, we've got to be below the 47,000 or so Americans we had there when Obama's administration started; this will line up very well with what Karzai wants, too), and figure out how we can make this thing work for the Afghan people.

It's Practically a Slander
The current Newsweek* has on its back page the rhetorical question,"Did Britain Wreck the World?" I call it rhetorical, though they do answer it: "By Jove, it certainly seems that way." That's sarcasm, mockery, but they go on to blame--with a seemingly straight face--the British Empire for "most of today's festering conflicts". They give seven cases: Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Nigeria. In some, those bloody Brits split up countries and caused their problems, in others they combined different ethnic groups and made them.

Look, I'm no apologist for the English (really, I'm not), but this is ridiculous. First, their meddling didn't seem to doom the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand so badly--or, if those are too distant, then look at Singapore, Malaysia, or Ireland--all countries where things were certainly mucked up by the Brits in the 20th century (like all the cases they cited), but they've been able to recover. Actually, India's done pretty well for itself since independence, considering. And I think Egypt was a British colony, too--a lot more of the time than Iraq, Sudan, or Somalia--not that it's perfect or anything. And I'm certain that there were some problems between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors when the residents of Great Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshipping trees: ever hear of David and Goliath?

The Last Empire
Thus was entitled a great set of essays by Gore Vidal, postulating a thesis of American imperialism. Now, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Veedal (as Lily Tomlin used to say it, back in the day, on Laugh In!), but I think he's got this one wrong. With all respect to him, we don't have a clue how to run an empire, never did--not nearly as well as even the British!

When you look at it, the Last Empire is actually probably about the same as the First Empire: It's China. OK, maybe today's empire is a bit more extensive, with a different capital city. I think it's pretty clear when you look at Xinjiang, Tibet, or suzerains like Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan (they wish), maybe even North Korea. It's not that hard to co-exist with the Emperor if you're not a subject: kowtow, and provide tribute. There is the thorny question of assimilation, though: what was it the Borg said (besides "resistance is futile", which certainly also applies)?

As for the US, we're too far away to be considered a part of their domain (not so with Russian Siberia, though, which could become a real problem if the current phase of Beijing engineers gives way to a more warlike imperial court). We have served to replenish the imperial treasury, so we can go on our merry way--globalization was a tactic, they played it very well, but they're really much more concerned with keeping the peace at home. No?

*They don't deserve a link for this one; besides, if they're going to be so lazy as to put out an issue dated "August 24 & 31"...

Hail the Fallen Lion

Ted Kennedy's death brings to a close one of the great careers in the Senate, one of the top ten all-time in both longevity and significance.

The Senate is an institution which is very resistant to change and to rapid results of any kind; repeated blows on the anvil are required to make anything of the hot metal piece coming from the forge. Teddy The Hammer was good at that--his legacy in the Senate is marked by consistency, persistence, and the other required element--certain re-election at will.

Kennedy had more than his share of sins to answer for: his penance was staying the course in the Senate and staying true to his causes, on which he represented his family's long-standing, orthodox liberal stances, and his resulting public image is large, gnarly, and sufficiently shiny, like one of those modern-day bronze sculptures with rough features.

Teddy was never quite at the level required for Presidential politics, as his disastrous 1980 campaign to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter showed.

As the untimely death of Mufaza in The Lion King brought danger to his heir and an unworthy immediate successor, there will be someone put into the position in haste, who will not last. The next Kennedy to occupy the seat will emerge sooner or later, we can be sure. Possibly Caroline, who seemed interested in Hillary's seat that was given to another? I think if she took the trouble to run for it, she could win, even if her residency in Massachusetts is questionable or non-existent: sort of a reverse Bobby Kennedy-into-the-Senate-from-NY maneuver.

My prediction just weeks ago that Kennedy and Robert Byrd would rise from their deathbeds to break cloture and secure the public option has, unfortunately, already been proved wrong. I still think their names will memorialize a piece of health-care reform legislation this year. The general thinking is that it will be the whole bill, though with the current thinking that only "reconciliation" bills on health care will get through the Senate this year (budget reconciliation, not at all reconciliations with Republicans), there may not be any single great bill, and it may be done piecemeal. I would still propose that Kennedy's name be featured on the section relating to the public option, which needs his beyond-the-grave support more than any other part.

Letter to "Prius Diary, First Anniversary Edition"

We submitted this honest assessment to the Times this morning.

When we bought our 2003 Prius (aqua blue--bring it back!), the improvement in our gas mileage would in no way pay for the increased cost. We did the math, but wanted to let our wallet speak for our support for the concept.

The hybrid technology is a significant improvement, and the ability to combine various power sources and re-use the kinetic energy from braking is something that will end up changing our world.

In the meantime, we would rate the car as a moderate success: it was not rugged enough for the bad roads here in Taos (particularly the skinny tires), and the gas mileage in town was only 35-40 mpg (the highway mileage was 55 or so, as advertised). We had one major problem in the first year, with the auxiliary battery (which starts the car and its computer systems, and is not rechargeable): after going through a gauntlet of check, re-charge, and re-check, Toyota did come through and gave us a new lithium-ion battery (value reputedly some $3000!) which fixed the problem.

We viewed our oldie hybrid as a collector's item, and one that would actually increase in value. How sad, then, when it was totalled recently in a one-car encounter with a utility pole at about 15 mph.

The federal government should renew for the Prius the credit given for other hybrids: Toyota should not be penalized for the popularity of this model.

A Bountiful Season

This has been the best growing season I've ever seen in Taos. I'd say it's true since I've first visited here fifteen years ago, though I might've missed something, but it's certainly true since we moved here in 2003.

Far and away. The late spring rains and relatively mild spring frosts have produced a bumper year for everything: first the cherries, then the apricots--my God, the apricots!--now, even the apples, pears, and plums. The Indian plums (generally inedible by humans, except boiled with lots of sugar to make jam) are everywhere--on the Pueblo lands, they're brilliantly crimson. Here in town, where there's more shade, so the sun is less than the 12 hours or so solid out in the open, they are not quite ripe yet. Peaches have been great, too, but they take more water and so mostly come from the valleys below, or from Colorado.

Nobody's complaining here--why would they? Instead, the discussion is about the meaning of this great season in the larger context, if there is one. Take, for example, the piece by Linda Kemper Fair in the Horse Fly of August 15, who shifts in mid-article as quickly as the weather changes
(practically daily, this time of year) from sunny praise of "The Divine Season" to thunder and rain and the politics of global warming.

Of course, we don't know whether this year is simply an outlier--there's plenty of reason to think so--or a harbinger of some permanent change. If we are going to get rain, and lots of it, every May/June, well, there are certainly worse fates. It would be a concern if we traded our winter snows for more reliable greening every summer, only because it would gut the ski season, and presumably thus the tourist trade, which might cut down the building of second homes and eliminate our one reliable source of income: building second homes and making real estate deals around that trade.

On the other hand, if the Upper Rio Grande changes and the downstream lands don't (there's no evidence that Santa Fe or Albuquerque is wearing the green like us), then they'll be coming up to visit us en masse in the future, the way the seem to be doing this summer. That means record traffic jams, people getting mightily annoyed with the town's lazy-fare approach to traffic management, and we'll be the new Espanola: A Town to Endure Driving Through! (start making the signs now)

Another sign of change, and not for the good, is the new football field with its shiny bleachers and colorful Astroturf (puky green, except for the Halloween-ish Taos Tigers' black and garish orange in the end zones). Personally, I can't believe the Horse Fly has come out in favor of this one, though it must be refreshing for their moribund sports department this time of year that there's actually some interest in the football team. What's the justification, anyway, besides money to spend and it's too hard to keep the grass green (or at least it used to be, before this year?)

You Cannot Keep If You Cannot Get...

...Them Honest
We are talking about the health insurance companies, of course.

Even the Republicans acknowledge that premiums for health insurance, denial of coverage for those covered, and the expansion of the cherry-picking out of people with pre-existing conditions are all out of control. Young people view health insurance as a simple rip-off, in which no care is purchased: you just pay and they take. That's why universal coverage cannot be attained until this mindset is altered, and it must be through a dramatic demonstration of People Power.

The American people are skeptical of the health care reform initiative because they are not convinced that Congress will tame the insurance companies' application of greed to the detriment of our health. That is why the "public option" is so critical: it is the test we require to see if the legislators are sincere about reform.

It is true that a system in which coverage could not be denied for any pre-existing condition, nor excessive premiums imposed, would be a very different situation than the current one, even without a competing public plan. It is difficult for us to believe, though, that such a condition could arise without there being loopholes, caveats, or fine print that would end up playing us for fools--bankrupted, or worse--once again. Our distrust is that deep.

Last Saturday The New York Times ran a fascinating editorial by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. It was fascinating to me because it captured many of the key points I made in my previous posting on this subject: "Is the Public Option Negotiable?" but it got the conclusions terribly wrong.

Points that he correctly addressed include the following:

o) The public option must be required to break even (I'd go further and say it should be required to make a modest profit, thus helping with our future Medicare funding problems);
o) Subsidies for the poor to get insurance can not be given preferentially to the public option program over the private insurers;
o) The public option program can not use the same mandated discounts that Medicare uses (this was a provision the Blue Dogs in the House insisted upon before allowing the House bill to go forward, and its absence would be a deal-killer in trying to get many doctors to participate in the program); and
o) Given these limitations, many will choose to keep the insurance they have now, the conclusion being that the public option, thus limited, would not destroy the private health insurance industry, contrary to the claims of its opponents.

Thaler asks his readers to perform a thought experiment and try to come up with some area in which the government successfully competes with private industry. He discusses the Post Office vs. the private companies UPS and FedEx (not very originally, as Obama had made a similar argument, for reasons I will never quite understand) and concludes that the government can not compete on level terms.

First, I will admit most companies choose UPS or FedEx "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight", as the ads say. That's OK if you have a big enough budget, but most people can stand for the package to take a couple of days, and then the Post Office is much cheaper. (At least around here.) Proving what, exactly?

Or take another example, flood insurance for the home. There are actually two, non-competing types of flood insurance: the one for properties that will never be flooded--you can get private insurance for those--and the one for places that have a history of flooding, or are on barrier islands. That one you'll only get through the Federal program--the private guys won't touch it. I don't want to get into the policy implications, which are absolutely awful, but it just goes to show: private insurance is for those who don't need it, or will pay extra. When you're talking about health insurance, those rules don't apply. The flood is coming for all of us, and it's not just the rich who need protection.

OK, Thaler admits, there is Medicare, a Federal program that competes quite successfully, but that has different rules, and the public option will have marketing and administrative costs that are different. Actually, that's where the captive insurance company AIG should come into play, with its huge distribution resources, but I'm not sure the world is ready for that one--an insurance company so much in hock to the government it would betray its own industry lobbying strategy!?

Thaler draws the conclusion that the public option is "neither necessary nor sufficient" for health care reform. He has that half right: it really isn't sufficient, but it is necessary, even if he's correct that not that many will take it up. (Initially, anyway.) He advises Republicans to go along with it, if it is sufficiently limited, and Democrats to let it go: I'd say neither are going to take that advice, which is something he should know with his professed knowledge of economics and behavioral science.

It's the PUBLIC Option, Stupid
This can only be settled in one way: publicly. The six Finance Committee senators have to develop a "fair" framework for a public option to compete, that title of the bill has to come to a vote in the Senate, and we will take names: who's with us, and who's with the insurance companies? I don't think a single Democrat would dare to vote against it, and the sixty votes would be found: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd will somehow make it to the floor to vote for that one, and the public option will be renamed the Kennedy-Byrd Plan in honor of their fortitude. It will, eventually, be successful, and the Republicans will be despised, or ignored, for having opposed it so single-mindedly (or nearly so).

I think the Republicans among the Six probably have figured this out, so they have had to dig in their feet to keep anything like a public option coming out of committee. They must not be allowed to succeed.

Like it or not, Obamadmin, this will be the litmus test to see if there is still something that can be called Change We Can Believe In. Or even Change In Which We Can Believe!

The Times in Their Labyrinth

Clearly, we can and will lose many of our local newspapers in coming years. We will regret the loss of jobs, but surely not the reduction of trees so we can read about more car crashes, cops-and-robbers, and human interest/disaster stories. Besides which, all those ugly non-news items will still be out there on YouTube or something.

We can envision a future where there will be five national printed newspapers: some kind of Washington Post/Politico amalgam for the policy wonks; The Wall Street Journal for the wealthy and wannabe-rich Republicans; some kind of L.A.Times/Variety/Billboard amalgam for the entertainment elite and wannabe-famous; the USA Today for ordinary folks, and the Times for the intelligentsia. The Times' problem is that it will remain something of an ivory tower, under frequent attack, isolated...

...But still indispensable. We'd like to review three recent cases in which the Times proved its value once again as the serious paper of record:

Case 1--Barack Obama's op-ed on the health care debate Sunday: It is not that he said anything new or original in it; it was basically the stump speech he has been delivering in recent weeks. He was entirely silent on the key topic of the moment, the "public option" (see my previous post). But there is his argument, undoctored and without commentary, for those too busy to have paid attention previously. Best of all, especially for those folks, there is the cute label at the bottom, in italics: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States." OK for putting that on record!

Case 2--Also in Sunday's paper, a long study--entitled "Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?"--of a brilliant man and his method of predicting future outcomes of complex human coalitions with dynamic, quantitative game-theory methods.

Although clearly he would dismiss me as a practitioner of rank speculation and whimsy (see our post), even worse as an insignificant, non-commercial practitioner, I claim Bueno de Mesquita as a kindred spirit. He has immaculately dressed up what I often try to do on this blog--carefully examining the key players, their desired outcomes, and their ability to effect the same, and then coming up with a most likely scenario--and he has sold it for big money to the CIA and other big-time clients, and he claims the track record to back it up. At the least, he's a role model.

By the way, his prediction is that Iran will move all the way to be fully ready to explode a bomb--then stop. I would endorse that prediction: the best result for Iran is not having the bomb--which will backfire against them, which violates everything its leaders have repeatedly stated--but showing they can do it, on brief notice, if they decide they do need it.

Case 3--In the next 48 hours (as we write on August 19), Afghanistan is having a Presidential election. The outcome, at one level, seems fairly certain--the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, should win, either with 50%+ of the votes in the first round, or in a runoff against his top opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Times has used this event, though--which we can only hope will come off with a minimum of violence, and with a maximum of integrity as compared with the similar, recent event in Iran--as the occasion to educate us all about this complex, hopeless country in which we are investing so much while knowing so little.

A lengthy article in last Sunday's Times Magazine, "President Karzai in his Labyrinth", is an indictment of Karzai's administration as being ineffective, hopelessly compromised with its tolerance of warlordism, corrupted by the opium trade, and Karzai personally as being oblivious, complacent, and far too isolated.

I went on record a long time ago about President Karzai: I felt that we (the US, and the anti-Taliban world in general) were extremely fortunate in finding Karzai and arranging for him to be put into his position. I still feel that way. Karzai is personally uncorrupted, incredibly courageous, sincerely concerned for his people, and determined to see his government victorious and surviving this long battle against the Taliban in order to preserve its legitimacy and as much of his people's freedoms as possible. He will win because he is clearly the symbol of the Pashtun majority's desire for a unified Afghan state, and the Afghanis will be unhappy with him because their state is such a mess.

Of course, Karzai is trapped in a difficult security situation: how many assassination attempts has he survived? (answer: plenty) When he leaves his capital, his life depends on these warlords he has to tolerate, first because he doesn't have the power to supplant them (the current ferocious battle for Helmand Province seems clearly the result of trying to do so there) and secondly because he's been told to tolerate them by his American military/economic backers.

A second Times article published more recently featured the third-most prominent of the many candidates in the election, Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister in Karzai's government but now a severe critic. It just showed that there are other prominent, educated Pashtun candidates, ones we might prefer except for the fact that they have even less of a power base or popular support, and just how difficult it would be for anyone else to do Karzai's job. Ghani's support is estimated at about 5%, so he's unlikely even to be close to making it into a runoff election if there were to be one.

The bottom line is that Karzai will win but, in the best case, it will not help much. Afghanistan clearly shows the limitations of what one person--even with sterling qualities, unlimited energy, and the best intentions--can do without adequate support (Barack Obama may end up also showing that, but that will be for another day's argument). Karzai will be empowered to stay in office for a couple more years (assuming he can dodge the future assassination attempts), then he can start negotiating, a la al-Maliki in Iraq, for the foreigners to go under the best terms possible.

Do I need to spell out the similarities between Hamid Karzai and the New York Times?

Obama and the U.N. General Assembly

Credo asked me to vote among five choices on the question, "What message should President Obama deliver to the world at the UN General Assembly?"
Choices were: Security; Climate Change; Millennium Development Goals; Treaties; Multilateralism.
Then, they provided a forum for me to comment on Facebook.
Here's my comment:

I think that Obama will and should mention the climate change goals--the U.S. legislation, weak as it may be, and leadership at the Copenhagen conference in developing new worldwide objectives and policies. More important, though, and more likely to be underplayed in his speech is that he feature the Millennium Development objectives, so that's what I voted for.

I'd like to suggest something else of enduring importance, one that specifically concerns the U.N. as an organization and does not get much attention here in the U.S.: the need for general reform of the U.N. Charter, and specifically to expand the Security Council. The U.S. should go on record as favoring the expansion of the Security Council by four seats: permanent ones for Brazil, India, and Japan, as well as one to be shared in alternate years by Germany and Turkey. Most ambitiously, he should suggest the notion that the Security Council move to Jerusalem (!) and pledge a battalion of U.S. Marines to defend its security. That would be a Wow! moment the world would never forget.

Finally, if he believes in it, Obama should declare his personal support for a new, democratically-elected assembly to replace the UNESCO organization. Constituencies for this new body should be set up to cross national boundaries, consider ethnic group representation, and the quality of electoral participation should be monitored by a new Electoral Supervision Agency;the U.N. should, for the first time, assist the world in moving toward participatory democracy.

I'm sure that's more than Credo asked for; more than Obama would want to hear; and more than my compatriots would sign up for. But, there it is: what I think he should say.

Sen. Bingaman's Secret Mission

Our state's veteran Senator Jeff Bingaman is in a privileged position in key committees. Right now, he's one of the six Finance Committee members who have been meeting daily to try to work out a bipartisan version of the health bill.

So, why is it that in his most recent update to his constituents he only talks about the health pork he's obtained for us, and not his vital role in bringing health care reform to all of us?

The suspicion rises that it's because he's busy selling us out, and the liberal mobilization groups have been agitating for me to call and put pressure on him.

Following up, I checked his website for his position on health care It turns out that he has a fairly orthodox liberal position on the health care reform bill, and is strongly in favor of the public option (unlike the other two Dems in the secret panel, Committee Chairman Baucus--reputedly the Senator receiving the most contributions from the insurance industry--and "give us co-ops or give us death" Kent Conrad).

What is he up to, and why doesn't he come clean to us about it? If I were him, I'd be seriously thinking about walking out and denouncing the effort as a fraud being perpetrated on the American people.

I'm sure he's just trying to get the best, most probable, favorable outcome, but I don't think that crew is going to allow it to come out.





http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090619-01.cfm

Why I Love Ricola

This was posted on the I Love Ricola Facebook site, accessed through ilovericola.com:

Live Longer & Happier with Ricola Pearls!

Cigarette smoking cessation programs give lots of attention to nicotine addiction, and how to break or supplant that. My experience with them, however, is that they overlook other key aspects of smoking and its effects, and that omission makes it harder to quit successfully.

I have to give my consumption of Ricola Pearls much of the credit for successfully quitting smoking some 15 years ago--ever since, I gratefully buy them whenever and wherever I can.

First, there's what the shrinks call the "oral fixation". The smoking quitter needs--wants--something to take its place. Ricola Pearls gave me that satisfaction--without sugar, without messy substitutes like chewing gum.

There is an even more important benefit that I got from the Pearls, one many fear to mention. Smoking is a powerful laxative, and the quitter often suffers from severe constipation. Pearls' gentle laxative properties helped immeasurably.

P.S. Also with airlandings!

The site severely limited the number of characters in my post. I would add: 1) Ricola Pearls are now very hard to find in the US, outside of the NYC area, but are plentiful in the bodegas of East Asia; and 2) the bit about landings is that chewing the Pearls (also known as "Breath Mints", but crucially, the ones without sugar that are semi-soft) helps equalize pressure in the ears as one rides in a plane landing, and then afterwards to recover full hearing in the airport and thereafter.

Finally, the post did have a commercial motive--there's some sort of prize offered--but it is entirely true, and there's no financial reward here on the blog, of course.

What We Are Not, and What We Are

This is the piece I need to do, about once a year, in which I take a close look at what we're trying to do here, and why. We need to set ground rules for ourselves--which we'll try not to break unless we give notice--and keep ourselves motivated and our dear readers' expectations managed..

We Are Not the News
The main problem with trying to do news here is that we don't have the time to provide immediate, fact-checked reporting. We will take our time, think once or twice, research as much as we need to do to feel right about what we're writing, and do exactly as much editing as we want. So don't expect me to be all over the latest event.

Much less are we going to be a local news reporter; we have too little appreciation for the trade, and much too much respect for the local powers of retribution. Crime and punishment, real estate development, and the tourism trade are three subjects we cannot abide, and that will eliminate 90% of any local stories, anyway. As for the others, they're probably in litigation, or else, in the case of the scandal called our public schools, I have no information beyond what's in the local newspaper.

We Are Not In Anyone's PocketWe aren't offered, nor are we taking, any ads, any sponsorship of any kind. We can endorse people, policies, artistic endeavors, articles, or sports teams for that matter, but we'll do it because that's what we want, not because of any binding agreements or requirements. We aren't getting paid.

We Ain't the Elements of Style
I always hated Strunk and White, and this is part of my revenge. Yes, there are typos here and there, and passive voice, and sentence fragments. We're trying to write like people talk (not "as people talk")--OK, how educated people talk. The typos have increased, no doubt, as we moved from desktop with large monitor to the Dell Inspiron Mini (see if you can guess when!) It's a small price to pay, though, as I see it, which is with the laptop perched on my lap, feet up, in the easy chair, in front of the TV: I'll spend a lot more time with the blog, so hopefully a net benefit to all.

These Are Our Politics
I remember shooting the breeze late one work evening (would've been about 1994) with Hamid Biglari (physicist of Afghan background, turned finance guru)*--for some reason he asked me to characterize my politics, and I said "Utopian Progressive". He thought that was pretty amusing--first, that a guy in banking could be so far from the mainstream, second that I would admit it.

I supported the re-branding of liberals as "progressives" in later years: they needed to get rid of that late-19th-century ball-and-chain. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them in my camp, though. What we share, hopefully, is an understanding that the arc of human destiny is away from the struggle-then-die mode which has characterized most peoples' lives for most of our history (and prehistory), toward something presumably better for more of us, more of the time.

Our politics are, and intend always to be in this blog, guided by three principles: internationalist, futurist, and humanist. With regard to the first, it's not about globalization of trade--which may be a useful tool for development, but is not the objective in itself. We aim to take the broad view, the long view, and to put the course of the collective project of humanity above all else. Feel free to hold me to this.

Yes, we're one of those big, nasty "secular humanists" your pastor may have warned you about. Hey now baby, get into my big black car/ I wanna just show you/ What my politics are.
"Politician", from Cream: Goodbye

We Are a Monthly of Informed Speculation and Whimsy
That mission statement should be pretty much self-explanatory. The blog contents are ordered by month; what's posted intra-month is provisional. After the month is over (plus a couple of days), I generally won't go back and change what's out there (if I do, I'll put it in a comment).

We Have a Record, but We're Not Breaking Any
Our goals are fairly modest: express ourselves on the subjects we choose, clarify our thinking, hopefully persuade a few people around the margins. We welcome dialogue, though few have chosen to sully the pristine contents of our pages with their inputs. In particular, we'd love for readers to point out our past errors--and correct analysis and predictions, if any--and any inconsistencies. We may try a bit more self-promotion in other forums to try to bring in more readers, but just doing this blog is pretty heavy promotion of self, as it is.


*Shameless namedropping, yes: Last I heard, Biglari was the head of McKinsey's financial practice, but this was his first consultancy project. I praise his success, and hope he hasn't gotten himself into too much trouble these days.

Make It So: Oh-Ten

The other day I spotted a Talking Head referring to both "Oh-nine and oh-ten". A minute or two later, he had another opportunity to say it, but caught himself and said, paraphrasing here, "oh-nine and two-thousand-ten", awkwardly. Clearly, he had become aware in the intervening moments of his error and wanted to say it the right way.

I think he had it right the first time. All that debate we used to have about whether this decade would be referred to as the "oughts" or "zeroes" or whatever has subsided in favor of the "O's"--this is the "O Decade", as last year's election should have made abundantly clear.

So, "o-eight", "o-nine", "o-ten"--I like it, but why stop there?--"o-eleven", and so on until we get to twenty. I dig it.

After all, it's not a mistake: if you take the initial 2 for granted, it's a legitimate way of looking at the date--a long term view that goes beyond a mere century as the frame of reference. After all, we are going to need to refer to the carbon dioxide level of "oh-seventy" for quite a while (after we have to put back our net global reduction targets from "ofifty" (my preferred spelling).

3 Bad Sprots Puns

45 Straight: A Burly Mark

The new major league record of 15 consecutive innings' worth of pitching perfection this week was a great accomplishment for a perfectly accomplished pitcher. Mark Buehrle has long been recognized as having superstar talent, and this record is clear evidence of that (with a word from D. Wise--he certainly had something to say about it--notwithstanding).

Anything over the 38 or so that Harvey Haddix achieved in the not-quite-perfect 13-inning loss in 1959 is amazing to me. Buehrle has something more to show in the record book, a solid, asterisk-less perfect game last week in a key game against the Detroit Tigers. The consecutive batters retired record is one of natural appeal which has never gotten much attention, until now.

Suit Yourself

That's what Michael Phelps should say to the swimming world, and take a break until the ban on the new cheat suits takes effect--it will be next year, the suits of swimming-dom are saying right now. Phelps has been taunted for taking a pass on the new, extra-buoyant and unnatural swimming attire going round the World Championships. The result of the new suits, which take inordinately long to prepare, have proven beyond doubt how critical suit buoyancy can be to world-class performance, where success and abject failure are divided by tenths of seconds, or less.

This world championships has had literally incredible numbers of world records. Not proof in themselves of unfairness, but several of the records have come from folks coming out of nowhere at the championship level in the new suits.

This looks to be a near-obvious asterisk situation; clearly the international swimming institution (I've read it's called FINA, though that means nothing to me--I thought that was a nearly-extinct Italian gasoline brand) got sandbagged and will have to do so some serious backtracking. Buoyancy is soon going to be one of those performance characteristics governed directly, like carburetion in auto racing.

Phelps should finish the meet, then take a break, and see how things play out. At this point, he has much more to offer the sport than it him. He's been penalized for excessive fame recently; now he must allow himself to be penalized for his loyalty to his sponsoring brand.

Sam Shows 'Er Form

We watched the first two sets of the Samantha Stosur ("Sam") vs. Serena Williams match, then went to dinner. Stosur was rocking the best serve I've seen from a woman: wicked low kick serve, delivered from an incredible angle behind her head, with well-hidden direction. Serena looked disgusted with her game, rusty, low in energy. Still, the commentators all emphasized how--in this type of match, implicitly--Serena pulls them out with fire and intimidation, even when her quality of tennis suffers. They also commented how the outcome of her matches is always about Serena's quality of play--when she's on her game, there's no one who can beat her (well, maybe Venus or Maria--Shaparova).

I guess of the two contradictory fatuous observations, the second one was operable today. Serena lost 6-2 in the third, which is at least consistent with the theory that she can't lose when on her game. She was certainly off, in this first of the US Open prep series, but Stosur is now officially a contender. I just hope she's legit (no performance enhancement by illicit means), as her improvement seems almost too great.

As for the men, going into this series of US hardcourt matches Andy Roddick has to be considered a co-favorite with Federer and Nadal--even if Rafa is fully back by the US Open.

Obama the Hamiltonian

The birthers are raving lunatics and mostly driven by racist or xenophobic motives, but I will give them credit for one thing, and that is giving me a nod toward the identity of the best historical predecessor to Obama I've found yet. I'm speaking of Alexander Hamilton, known primarily as the first Secretary of the Treasury (and for being on the $10).*

Apart from the tenner, Hamilton is given short shrift in modern American history, because he was never President and because a duel with Aaron Burr cut short his life/career. However, he was a Founding Father of the first order, Washington's most trusted lieutenant (both in government and in the Continental Army), and a major participant in the Federalist Papers, which were the critical public (if anonymous) debate in the process of the passage of the Constitution by the states (note the need for such in the current health care debate).

Obama's approach is certainly Hamiltonian in his view of the Federal government as the public sponsor of the private banking system, of an active central government (as opposed to the states' rights view which predominated at the time, or to a pure libertarian/conservative view of the central government's role, today's chief opposing philosophy to the Obamaian). Further, Hamilton is considered the most poised, articulate, and clever speaker and writer of his age (which is saying something, with Jefferson in the picture), just as Obama may be today.

We don't know that much about a Hamiltonian mode of governing, though, because of the lack of any Hamilton Administration. It wasn't the duel, really, that kept Hamilton from the White House (particularly in 1796, when Washington exited); it was the Constitution. The sentence governing citizenship and eligibility for America's top office was specifically crafted to exclude Hamilton, who had many enemies.

Hamilton became an American citizen, and was as loyal as any other, but he wss born a British subject in the West Indies. And everyone knew it; that's why the Presidency is limited to natural-born citizens. That phrase, about which there is considerable confusion, means that the person must have been a citizen at birth, not becoming one by means of naturalization. That means Arnold Schwarzenegger is out, unless he can get a Constitutional amendment.

Obama, of course, was born in Hawaii, which had just become a state. (Even if Hawaii hadn't--become a state yet, that is--being born in a US Territory is good enough: as per the case of John McCain, no less).**

There isn't really any debate about Obama's being a natural-born citizen. It's just that the artificially-birthed controversy about it reminded me of the Hamilton Exclusion.


*Other American historical figures for whom one can make plausible arguments for similarities in key respects with Obama include Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Andrew Jackson, and, of course, Lincoln.

** For the factoid that McCain was born in the Canal Zone--US territory at the time, though no more, I must thank my friend Muhammad Cohen (and see his blog, and novel, Hong Kong on Air, hopefully coming soon to a theater near you).

We Have Survived Armageddon!

I discovered the Good News this morning. One of the TH on CNBC referred to a notion that the S&P's global low may may have been set in March at 666 and the technical implications of that. He was saying it without irony or giving it epecial importance--no raised eyebrow--but I definitely didn't hear it that way.


I encourage all to look at it this way: the Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled! The license plate number of the Beast that ran over us was "666 S&P". I didn't see which state was on the plate, though.

Eating Through Asia, Pt. 1: Meals

Hong Kong--
Yuen Kee Seafood, Wellington St.


Thailand--

Bali--Sarong,

Singapore--Xing.

Is the Public Option Negotiable?

This is the question of the moment in the health care debate, though everywhere I look the people in Congress seem to have it all wrong.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed it thusly: the bills coming from Committee have it; Obama wants it; we can pass a bill with it. Blue Dogs notwithstanding, she's probably right about that, though all would view her position as being the bluster that it was.
CNN's Jon King pressed her on it, and she basically said, "No."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took it on forcefully. It seemed to him to be a genuine bipartisan moment.

As a parable, I suppose, he trotted out the Ford plant in his home base of Louisville.* They unfairly have to compete with reorganized GM, he said, because GMAC is subsidized by the government and Ford's finance arm is not. Not only that, he harnessed the trotter with "well, most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance coverage". So, "No."

Blue Dogs are worried that their blue Democrat constituents manning the phones for the insurance companies are going to lose their jobs as the result of unfair competition with a Federal public option "takeover". So, they're leaning hard toward "No Way!"

Finally, in Sunday's New York Times (link in title) there is very thorough editorial review of what we can expect from health care reform. In the entire length of the article, though, there is no mention of "public option". Their analysis comes directly from the meetings of a bipartisan Gang of Six (three Dems, three Republicans) who are meeting daily to come up with a legislative proposal which can get through the Senate. They have already looked at the question of the moment and come to the conclusion, "Not this Time", and the Times bought into that enough that they didn't even mention it. Shame on them for the duck.


I have to say that each group has it all wrong.

First, with regard to the guy who's Really Blue and Really a Dog, McConnell, and leaving aside the question of why Ford doesn't try to take advantage of that banking opportunity on behalf of its shareholders, I'd have to point out that many of those satisfied folks in the poll are benefitting from public offerings from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration. Take those folks out from the poll and the favorability rating for people's current health insurance is probably worse than 50-50 (or 40-40, if you will).

Pelosi is wrong if she really thinks that an unfair competition can be imposed on the public by the government. Such an attempt would end up getting slammed in the courts, as with "busing to achieve racial balance" if we remember that disaster. She can lead the House to the public pool, but she can't make Congress drink this initial version of the option coming from House committees--it will have to be watered down.

The Blue Dogs are going to have to accept a change to the status quo; even the insurance companies are very aware of that. They seem to be willing to go as far as giving up that wonderful question, "Have you ever been denied coverage?" which saves them so much money.

Unfortunately, their clients (the real ones--the big health care conglomerates) have spent the last 15 years, the ones since ClintonCare failed to come to a vote, competing on cherry-picking and on finding ways to repeatedly raise premiums and deductibles. There is a popular support for the attempt to "Keep Them Honest" that will emerge as we go deeper into the effort to discern the popular will during the legislative break month coming up.

The Correct Answer: "Yes"

There has to be a public option--it is one of the key promises of the Obama campaign, it will be a critical measure of his success, and it will be absolutely required by his core support group. No plan can be acceptable without it, though one that fudges a bit on the requirement--like Kent Conrad's Cooperative approach--may be tempting. (But Blue Cross/Blue Shield has been tried and found wanting.)

The terms of competition between the public and the privates are not fixed in stone, though. The minimum expectation is that the public route will break even after set-up costs and excluding assistance to poor applicants who can prove they can only afford part of the cost.

One could require a higher standard, such that the public plan produces a Return on Equity (ROE) of 8-10%, adjusting the capital and fees for the program to meet targets, which would become the health care policy equivalent of M2 money growth.

Also, though, the terms of competition should be structured so that the private insurers have an equal or better shot at getting public health insurance assistance dollars, which should not been given preferentially to the public option program.


*Mine, too! I should look into the Chinese character set that would exactly replicate the locals' "Lu-i-vl" pronunciation. It would give them (the Chinese reader preparing for a trade mission) so much cachet when they come to Ford, bringing capital, if they had the pronunciation down just so.

But What Would Mr. Pynchon Say?

Un-plugging "Unplugging Philco"

This alt-reality satire, written by Jim Knipfer and published this year, posits an American society gone wrong after a poorly-understood attack on the Homeland (Tupelo, Mississippi, to be exact) known as The Horribleness. The attack, perpetrated supposedly by Australians, becomes the justification for all manner of intrusions on privacy and re-structuring of the economy.

The story focuses on Wally Philco, a low-level Corporate Tool working for some insurance company, living out a loveless, childless marriage, and increasingly disenchanted by the impositions of the outside world on his anonymous existence. Philco ultimately goes the extra mile to go off-grid, under the eyes of Big Brother in the heart of Brooklyn, and joins a mysterious group of subversives called the Unpluggers.

This caricature of post-9/11 society and the reaction to domestic terrorism gives Knipfer a free platform to denounce or satirize his pet peeves, which include:
0) mandatory peeing into a cup for your employer--Philco chose refusing this request as his route to get fired;
1) cellphones plugged into one's ears;
2) pop-up ads;
3) hidden cameras;
4) public patriotic events;
5) political correctness enforcement;
6) phony Prohibition;
7) de-personalization through ID numbers; and most strongly,
8) aggressive mothers pushing their baby carriages and running over anyone who won't get out of their way.

As you can see, his complaints range from totally justified to extreme exaggeration. Sometimes a bit too obvious, UPP (we only give one free plug) has a plot closely patterned after Orwell's "1984" and pays overt homage to Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano".

Knipfer chose to tell the story mostly, but not exclusively, from the perspective of Everyman Philco (he uses brand names for people as a satiric perspective on the commercialization of all aspects of postmodern life). Philco is a bit narcissistic, though brave, and more than a bit oblivious to detail. In centering the narrative on Philco's limited perceptions, he avoids going more deeply into some of the interesting characters he creates, most prominently his recruiter into the Unpluggers, Johnny Faro (the character--a Norwegian imitating a cowboy?--has got to be modeled on someone--Marion Morrison? Thomas Pynchon? --but we never find out), and the seductive agent Cornelia Bain and her rich uncle, "The Colonel".

We are fortunate in that we don't have to guess Thomas Pynchon's take on UPP, as he provided a blurb for the paperback cover, which I quote in its entirety:

Mr. Knipfel...brings to fiction the welcome gifts which distinguished his previous books--the authenticity, the narrative exuberance, the integrity of his cheerfully undeluded American voice.

We'll skip the question of the ellipsis in the first sentence, and what was left out. The description--particularly the "narrative exuberance" bit--sounds like Pynchon plugging Pynchon. All credit to Knipfer for getting "Unplugging" plugged, though.

Knipfer takes an ultimately libertarian, neo-Luddite, but pessimistic stance toward the gadgets which are progressively enslaving us. Pynchon's take on King Ludd and his followers, as discussed (but not much resolved) in his 1984 essay "Is It OK to be a Luddite?" (New York Times Book Review, 28 October 1984, pp. 1, 40-41.), is clearly sympathetic, though Pynchon himself is coming from a different place: Luddites are a phenomenon, like the science behind technology, or the events we try to interpret through history, or high art, or popular media (he gives high praise in the essay to postwar sci-fi), and all provide tragicomic grist for the endlessly turning mill.


Git Chaney, Episode 1

A detective story set in early 1920's Teapot Dome Wyoming in which Irish ex-footballer Berick O'Bama tracks down that cowboy rascal Jeremiah "Git" Chaney, bringing him to justice for disparaging public comments about the Lady V., Mrs. Joseph Wilson.

O'Bama's Teutonic investigator, Erick Holter, reaches dead ends when it comes to reports of dragging suspicious-lookin' furriners on the end of ropes tied to his horse, to accusations of setting his henchmen to watching innocent civilians down at the land title company, and researching the motivation possibly behind some kind of dubious hunting accident. The Wilsons, though, who blocked Chaney's prospectors from staking out a possible yellowcake mine, were turned out from job and home when Git got his banker to foreclose on their mortgage.

"We can tolerate some forward business dealin'", O'Bama explained. "But going after a lady, that just ain't right."

Blurbs for Pynchon Works

V. , 1963--"Pynchon...establishes key themes of modern dialectics of Force and Counterforce, Entropy and Revival, forcing an effort to connect the dots between the globe's hidden focal points in search of the roots of 20th-century drama through an inexplicable conspiracy. In other words, modern History is explored through a tragicomic novel."

The Crying of Lot 49, 1965--"Pynchon...posits a hidden struggle between sacred and profane forces coming to a possible head in the mind of a clueless divorced SoCal housewife exposed to hints of colossal ripples in the society's tectonics. In this short work, medieval revenge drama, postal monopolies, and rock music are intimations of something which may or may not provide hope and/or instability to our settled world."

Gravity's Rainbow, 1973--"Pynchon...babbles with profound coherence about the unseen forces on both sides of the curtain falling on the endgame of World War II and forming the Postwar world he grew up in. The problems of ballistic missiles provide a metaphor for the variable but constrained possible arcs of human civilization. High political drama and popular culture intersect in a metaphorical destiny that finds us unavoidably, just as the V-2's seek out our antihero Tyrone Slothrop."

Slow Learner, 1984--"Pynchon's...riffs on themes of degeneration and regeneration on the extremes of society, where the interesting stuff happens. This collection of early short stories shows the boil of talent and erudition which would bubble over in his novels."

Vineland, 1990--"Pynchon...builds a tale of the betrayal and disillusion of Nixonian repression and reaction on a micro scale among the hardcore Counterculture refugees of Northern California's forests. The archenemy's dramatic and cartoonish fall to Earth allows regeneration to replace degeneration of all types."

Mason & Dixon, 1997--"Pynchon...ironically locates the Great American Novel (Founding Father edition) in the tales and adventures of two British technologists of the mid-18th century. The great surveying project of drawing a straight line to eliminate any border issues between Catholic, slave-owning Maryland and free, Quaker-sponsored Pennsylvania becomes an allegory for the reduction of this nearly limitless land and its nearly limitless potential into plots (and counter-plots). Rollicking adventure and greater character development, especially of the eponymous heroes, make for the most enjoyable lesson yet from our voluble Zen Master."

Against the Day, 2007--"Pynchon...challenges once again our willingness to suspend resolution for 1000+ pages, and then inevitably to accept something less than clarity. As with his first novel, the foundations of the 20th-century are the subject, though the locus is now more exclusively American Turf."

Inherent Vice, August 2009--"Pynchon...returns to the Sixties Motherlode for a new tale of Emergent Counterculture. Pure pleasure seems to be the objective, and the page count is reduced to a manageable 384, giving all of us who haven't quite finished Against the Day an enjoyable excuse for diversion and distraction. This appears to be the story Pynchon has chosen for conversion to a screenplay and movie by the Coen Brothers".

I wish.

Earnings are a Mirage

As I write just before the opening of the markets for Monday, July 27, I have to say: the rally based on current earnings reports can not last very long. I hesitate to comment through the blog unless there is a very strong reason.

The way I see it, the lift in earnings due to temporary effects has been even larger than expected by analysts. They knew they would be sizable-to-huge, but they've even been better than that.

This is a double negative in terms of longer-term values: one because it will create higher expectations that are certain not to be realized, and one because it seems to reflect a more serious issue: the failure to put enough money away for future problems.

This is (has been) the time to recognize any likely negative downstream issues and provide for them. I would reward, rather than penalize, those organizations which are demonstrably taking advantage of short-term bumps to increase bad debt provisions.

1989

Earlier this month, Time Magazine had a special Double Issue entitled 1989: 20 Years ago, the World Changed. It featured some recollections from journalists present at some of the key events of that year, particularly Adi Ignatius at Tienanmen and Anne McElvoy in East Berlin when the Wall came down.

I endorse wholeheartedly the concept of the issue, and commend some additional inclusions less obviously centered around 1989: a profile of Gorbachev's state of play then (glasnost, two years before the Soviet Union's collapse), a key meeting of Nelson Mandela and South African President DeKlerk (a year before Mandela's release), the Dalai Lama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (announced or awarded that year?--doesn't say), key developments in Pakistan, the Internet, Japan's economic bubble about to burst, the debut of The Simpsons (the regular program, in December, not the shorts from Tracey Ullman Show). This wider view of "1989" is reasonable.

I feel the issue shortchanged all the other developments of Eastern Europe, though: Poland's successful challenge to the Soviets, the Velvet Revolution in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and the climax of the year's activities, the spectacular rebellion near year-end in Romania (one mention for each, really).

In terms of popular music, I thought the feature was weak: 1989 was during a bit of a pause as the British New Wave of the '80's receded and Seattle's grunge was just getting going. They would've done well to point out how Berlin's example provided inspiration to U2 for their greatest album, "Achtung, Baby!", which was written in post-Wallfall Berlin and released a year or two later. The point, to me, is that popular music both can inspire political change and feed off it: it doesn't need to be contemporaneous with it to be related in an important way.

'89 vs. '68?

The issue closed with a provocative piece by Martin Ivens, of Britain's Times. He made a Generation X-bssed argument for '89 being more important than 1968, the favored reference point for today's dominant Boomers. It included a cute graphic showing that '68' turned upside down is '89' and labeled each reading with "The Year that Changed the World".

A good, tendentious piece, that I would largely agree with: the changes of '89 were real, immediate, and long-lasting, whereas the movements of1968 (centered around anti-Vietnam protest and similar youthful rebellion in Paris, Italy, and London) never achieved most of their objectives, more far-reaching and profound though they may have been.

On the other hand, though '89 had some miraculous political developments and led directly to the end of the Cold War in a couple of years--a stunningly surprising outcome, like the end of apartheid which also followed soon after--the momentum was not sustained. Though it was such a surprise at the time, '89-91 didn't lead to any clear understanding of where we were or what we should do, though Saddam provided direction with his invasion of Kuwait.

So much for the "peace dividend" or change in the world as it should become.

As I've suggested above, '68 and '89 are each shorthand for a period of a few years in which dramatic events occurred in rapid succession, though not necessarily limited in duration to that single year. They each headed a period of crucial 20th-century changes ranking just under the World Wars in importance.

'68/'89 From a Middling Equidistance
As one who turned 18 in '74, I could experience both key dates at a safe distance, without too much generational bias or immediate pressure to throw myself into the fray(s). My youthful peak was more pacific, and the key event sequence of my times was Nixon/Watergate/Carter/Reagan/Worst Recession Since the Great Depression Before This One.

That 1974-82 period was Formative in a personal sense (turned me off to active political involvement, pushed me out into a career), 'and in contrast to the '68-'72 Tornado and the '89-'92 End of History not too significant in terms of world history.

Which leads me to the present, and the possibility that the biggest watershed year of our lifetimes might actually prove to be 2008. One can hope.

Obama and Medvedev

They seemed to have had a successful initial direct meeting ("summit" might be a little inaccurate). They share a lot of common interests: keeping Putin out of it, keeping China, Iran, and India off-balance and receptive to their separate influences, threatening North Korea, keeping natural gas prices down.

Some kind of progress on strategic arms reduction will be necessary for Obama's program to protect what's left of nuclear nonproliferation, and I think Medvedev will work with him on that. Hopefully, a clear understanding of the missile defense issue was achieved: the Russians consider it a joke but a bargaining chip of symbolic importance to them, the US is willing to give it up if success is attained in preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

I doubt that the formula for Georgia and the Ukraine has been found yet, though. Including them in NATO is unacceptably close to an encirclement/containment strategy for Russia (the Baltic States don't matter), while the US will find it necessary to remain supporters of those two countries' aspirations to remain something other than just former-Soviet states.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has the tough job of negotiating with India on greenhouse gases--I'm thinking some sort of biofuel project is the way out of the room. China will be easier, I think--a deal on "clean coal" development--which will be a huge benefit to the future No. 1 and 2 economies if successful.