I remembered that I posted my suggested 10-Point Program for a Barack Obama Presidency; what I was surprised to see was that I posted it way back in December, 2006 (if I'm not mistaken, before he had even announced his run for the office). It's a very ambitious agenda with a high bar of expectations, but my goals back then, and my grading below, show that I really had high expectations (and I still do). Here's a quick synopsis of what I was looking for back then, what has been accomplished--fully or partly--what remains to be done, and whether I think he should or will do anything about it.
(Here they are--the numbers are not in a particular order, but for reference):
10. Get Control of climate-changing gases - He's done one significant thing, setting up aggressive goals for improving the fuel efficiency of the U.S. motor vehicles. There is still much to do, plenty of evidence more needs to be done, and reason to doubt it will get done. Cap-and-trade is a spoiled concept, we are congenitally opposed to participation in any global agreement, and we seem committed to fracking and tar sands use. My suggestions would be to commit also to development of: 1) solar; 2) wind; 3) better batteries; and 4) recycling of animal waste for fuel. This is playing the long game, aiming at progress that will outlive his Presidency. Obama Grade (up 'til now): C.
9. Preserve our biosphere. We are losing the battle to preserve species rather quickly--the best I can suggest are various forms of natural and artificial arks. O.G.: D-
8. Rebuild our relations with the world. With a few exceptions, this has been successfully completed. Russia, China--those are countries with which we are doing our best, their political obtuseness is not our fault; Iran--we just need a clear concept and success can be obtained; the world of Islam--some improvement, more possible; Europe, other developed world allies--no problem; the underdeveloped world--see Islam. O.G.: A-
7. Visualize our children's/grandchildren's society, and the implications of that vision. I would rate this as the most urgent and most practicable area for a focus of Obama's second term. It will translate into intelligent Medicare/Social Security revisions, as well as the needed educational and infrastructure improvements. It's a topic that's a bit high-falutin' for a speech to self-absorbed American adults, but not for a commission. The grade so far really is an Incomplete, but I would have to judge rather harshly the lack of visible effort. I do think Obama's heart is in it, as shown by his frequent references to his children's future, so I realistically think he can improve his grade with a little diligent effort. O.G.: D+
6. Reform the U.N. Charter. I really want Obama to do this; now that Susan Rice isn't going anywhere else, she could focus on this and maybe make some real progress. If not now (the freedom of a second term, an internationalist President with an eye on his legacy), it will never happen. O.G.: C-
5. Get control of armaments. Even back then, my description of this objective included both nuclear non-proliferation and private weapons in Americans' hands. It's taken awhile, but Obama has now stepped up on the latter, and he's doing his best on the former. Of course, the critical near-term outcomes for both ("common-sense" new gun restrictions, successfully keeping Iran from going nuke without war) are still in doubt. O.G.: B+
4. Establish clearly the political dimensions of privacy and of permissible government intrusions into it. This is a difficult topic, and time is working against us: government's ability to snoop effectively expands, and resistance is beaten down mercilessly. Although I don't really agree with the "data must be free" philosophy, the recent case histories of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Aaron Swartz are troubling, in that all indicate the trend is for power of the State overpowering those individuals who challenge on the basis of freedom of information. If you think it through, though, those efforts do not help preserve the eroding right to privacy. What I am looking for is some restoration of limits on intrusion into people's privacy--whether they are "normal" or famous--and I'm not seeing any progress. I'm not sure Obama or his Administration are on my side, or if they have any point of view on this. On the other hand, their offenses in this area have not been massive, like the Bushite ones were. O.G.: C-
3. Provide healthcare to our people. Back then, what I was advocating would be recognizable as (optional) Medicare for All. We didn't get anything like that, but we did get the Affordable Care Act, and even that he had to spend huge amounts of political capital to ram it down the throat of the resisting Republicans. I am advocating, rather than raising the Medicare eligibility age, reducing it (to 55), which would a great step forward. I know it has no chance, but my job clearly is to advocate sense in opposition to nonsense. O.G.: B
2. Electoral reform. This is my second-highest priority for the Second Term, after #7 above. We have gone backwards since my original 10-Point Program was presented; consider that it was before the Citizens United decision, the two most expensive elections in history, and renewed efforts to suppress voters (albeit, failed ones). All is yet to be done, and Obama is in a great position to push for it, and his rare comments upon it (he made one on Election Night 2012) have been favorable. On the other hand, the Electoral College worked very well for him, and he might (mistakenly) view it as a friend. O.G.: C-
1. End the "War on Drugs" (or at least give it some focus on the more harmful ones). The latter phrase in parentheses is the operative objective, and President Obama seems to be going that way--though without expending any political capital. The key test in upcoming months will be his Attorney General's directives with regard to the new laws in Washington and Colorado permitting personal, non-medical possession of marijuana. So far, it seems to be a live and let live approach: if the states don't impinge on Federal prerogatives, he will leave them alone. That's OK, as long as it persists, as public opinion is moving the right way on this for the first time in--forever. The Colorado/Washington initiatives are the opposite of the pernicious exercise of states' exercise of their authority to which I have occasionally referred as "States Wrought". O.G.: B
My calculation of his overall grade on this course, which I will call Greatness 101, is a 2.63 average, a C (on a 5-point GPA basis). It is at least an Honors course, if not an Advanced Placement level one (in high school terms). Again, this is a measure of my strict grading against a difficult set of standards, and certainly not grading on the curve.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
January Variety Post
I am constraining myself to cover, in a single, wide-ranging posting, a number of topics which might merit more lengthy discussion. For which I would apologize profusely, but there's no time for that.
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Studying Hagelian Philosophy -
President Obama's selection of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon is the most interesting of his second-term appointments: most of them are too inside-Beltway for me to comment upon (Is CIA nominee John Brennan a torturer and murderer by proxy? I couldn't say. Do I care that the next Treasury Secretary's signature, which will be printed on currency, is a bunch of illegible loops? Not at all. ) The most interesting thing about John Kerry's selection for Secretary of State will be the scramble to follow him into his Massachusetts Senate seat, yet another high-cost battle to deny Scott Brown and make Congress ever more free of moderate Republicans.
Hagel bonded with Obama on distaste for the Iraq conflict, and those who would oppose him from the progressive side, because he's Republican or a conservative, should understand that cutting Defense spending and preventing American "stupid wars" (Obama's 2008 campaign term) will be fundamental to his value to Obama's second term. He will also be a useful contrarian voice when Obama goes around the table, as he is said consistently to do on major decisions. In his confirmation hearings, Hagel will need to walk back from immoderate statements that are too hostile to Israel, to gays, to strong economic sanctions against Iran, and I presume he will do those things to ensure his confirmation, which I then presume he will obtain. I think those who have identified Chuck Schumer (D - NY) as the key vote Hagel will need are absolutely correct, and the winning formula will be sufficient assurances to Schumer so that Schumer can pass on to key Israelis that they need not fear that a Hagelian DoD will fail to back Israel sufficiently--on anything except a foolish and dysfunctional unilateral Israeli military strike.
The Inauguration
Scheduling his second-term inauguration for Martin Luther King Day, January 21, is a classic Obama product, the combination of luck, design, and poetic justice. There is a building sense of excitement about this event, though it will be hard to match up to his first inauguration, which was one for the history books. Expect to see yet one more plea for consensus in the interest of our common interest, an appeal to some sort of Christian God to give us some sort of a break, an appeal to end our culture of mass violence (following on VP Biden's report, and which will be the most controversial aspect of his speech), and for racial justice. I don't expect to hear the words "fiscal cliff" or "debt ceiling" mentioned in the speech--they are beneath the occasion, and for that matter almost beneath him. Because the ceremony will be on a national holiday, not on NFL-owned Sunday, January 20 (I presume the statutory expectation for Jan. 20 as Inauguration Day allows for such an exception), ratings should be very good.
NFL: The Divisional Round
Speaking of NFL football owning American society, this weekend is truly the highlight of the sport's TV viewing season, as it features the top eight playoff teams (College football, take note--please!) We are halfway through it as I type, and the two most critical games were played yesterday. Both of them met up to any expectations for drama, if not for the kind of high-quality defense we might expect from the playoffs (despite all the rules designed to defeat it).
Yesterday's first game--probably the game of the year--featured the awesome confrontation of Ray Lewis, the superb linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, who dramatically announced before their first playoff game that this will be his last season, against the equally-superb resurgent quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. Manning missed all of last season with neck injuries that required multiple surgeries and could easily have ended his career, but he came back this season, as good as ever, and led his new team to the top record in the AFC. Still, because his signing came late, after national TV games were all scheduled, the Broncos were something of a mystery to viewers like me.
The Ravens have been known for their defensive prowess since their 2000 Super Bowl win; their reputation is something like the Pittsburgh Steelers', and the two teams' matchups are classics of the hard-nosed old school NFL. Their offense is underrated, though, with a strong running game behind Ray Rice and Joe Flacco, a consistent performer who has built a body of postseason experience. Combined with the emotional push that Lewis gave them, the Ravens battled evenly with Denver through a high-scoring, highlight-filled first half, then met the test in the second half to prevent Manning coming up with the big plays. The surprise of the day was repeated Bronco failures in the secondary, allowing the Ravens instead to have the long pass completions. Regulation time ended 35-35; then defense took over in the overtime, eventually giving the Ravens an edge.
I chose to skip the second key game, Packers-49ers, in favor of a movie night, but the game featured a matchup of two hot quarterbacks, Green Bay's Aaron Rodgers and San Francisco's Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick represents the new wave in offense, pioneered by Michael Vick, of a passer who can run extremely well. Along with Kaepernick, two 2012 rookies, Seattle's Russell Wilson and Washington's Robert Griffin III, are practitioners of the new approach, which presents extreme difficulties for defense preparation and execution. Kaepernick exposed the weakness of Green Bay's defense--it had a bad regular-season performance on yards given up, though better in scoring defense--with game-breaking runs. The weakness of the approach, as shown by the recent history for both Griffin and Vick, is the added danger of injury to the QB.
Today's games do not quite have the dramatic appeal of yesterday's, but they have their own story lines of interest. Each will feature one team who, like the Broncos, had a strong regular-season performance but go into their first playoff game of the season as uncertain propositions. Those teams--the #1 seeded Falcons in the NFC and the AFC #3 seeded Houston Texans--will have as their opponents teams headed by high-profile quarterbacks. Among those there is one old-school QB--Tom Brady of the Patriots--and one run-pass option QB master, Wilson. I would favor both of the big-name QB's over the unproven playoff teams, the Texans and the Falcons. Brady has been particularly hot, and it would be hard to pick against him in any game, even in favor of the Ravens or in the Super Bowl. Seattle over the Falcons, on the road, as a slight underdog and similarly unproven playoff team, is a tougher pick, but the Seahawks have made a strong late-season run. My pick for the Super Bowl: Patriots, over the 49ers.
Tennis: The New Year
The Australian Open's beginning (tonight; tomorrow Aussie time) marks the beginning of the real 2013 season (there are a couple of warm-up tourneys in Australia and the Middle East). There are major story line/quetions for each of the big 4 in men's tennis, though one of them will not be answered in Melbourne:
1) Will Novak Djokovic be unstoppable this year, or just really hard to beat?
2) How much longer can Roger Federer compete at the top level?
3) Can Andy Murray win again in a major?
Number 4 (but not in the standings) is Rafael Nadal, who is returning from knee problems, but not in the Aussie Open; will he return to his standard of excellence? The test for Nadal will really be during the clay court season in late spring, when we would expect him to be ready to challenge Djokovic and the others (if not dominate them).
In the women's game, the story will be whether Serena Williams can return to top ranking. It has been a long road back for her after her health problems (the cut on her foot, which led to a dangerous blood clot), but she has established herself, once again, as the top player when she is healthy, as she appears to be going into the new season. Victoria Azarenka and Maria Sharapova have well-established positions as the top two contenders in her absence. Serena's big sister, Venus, has to answer the question in 2013 whether she too can return to her previous top form; she has been hampered by an immune system syndrome.
Prediction: Djokovic over Murray in the men's final; Serena over Sharapova in the women's.
NHL Players: Locked Back In
I am far from a big hockey fan, and I actually was rooting against an agreement, which came just in time to save the regular season. The issue of the lockout is the usual one in the current era of professional sports: enough owners had made bad, wasteful contract commitments to outvote the ones who hadn't (and profited competitively from their better investments) and drive the players from the field (or rink, in this case). The players' union was willing to take pay cuts in the aggregate but not to allow its guaranteed contracts to be abrogated based on owner incompetency. The union's great pressure tactic is "decertification" of itself, which would allow the players to bring an antitrust suit against the league--which under those circumstances, would probably cause a historic defeat to the monopoly of the owners' "union". That court test will not happen, due to the belated agreement achieved this week. At the end of the day, the players chose living within the cartel rather than fending for themselves in the European professional leagues (or my preference, a new Canadian-centered league to challenge the "National" US-centered NHL).
NHL hockey's regular season is the weakest of the major sports--it's all about finishing in the top 8 of the conference and getting into the Stanley Cup Playoffs. This season will make that clearer than ever.
Obit Dept.
The two deceased from last month whom I would like to commemorate briefly are Ravi Shankar and Daniel Inouye. The former was much more than a fifth-, sixth-, or whatever Beatle, but he was the go-to sitarist when the performance of Indian classic music came out into the world in the late Sixties and beyond. He played with all and brought a dignified but exciting permanent addition into world music. The sitar solo had a clear influence on the guitar solo that deserves more study. He left that legacy, as well as one daughter famed for Indian classical music and one (Norah Jones) for jazzy popular composition.
Daniel Inouye was a unique character of American history. A second-generation Japanese-American who bought a ticket out of the WWII internment camps by fighting, and suffering serious injury, in Italy. He was a significant, but not dominating, figure as a junior Senator on the famous Ervin Watergate Investigation Committee of '73-'74, which led to the eventual collapse of the Nixon Administration. He continued on in the Senate for another thirty-something years, a respected, relatively non-partisan voice for liberal Democratic orthodoxy.
Built Up by Dubious Means
Two sports-related topics that I have avoided more than I might have done are the Lance Armstrong revelations in cycling, and the issue of the possible inclusion of baseball players who used performance-enhancing drugs into the Hall of Fame. Both of them have taken the form of major sporting heroes whose reputations have been degraded by allegations of cheating, allegations that have been generally (though not universally) denied by the heroes in public, but have been variously substantiated in secret investigations and leaked, though the press, to the public, and sometimes into the courts.
The collapse of Armstrong's wall of defense after years of both whispered and full-throated accusations came suddenly in the past two months. A special US cycling Anti-Doping commission investigated and found that Armstrong had not just abused the rules, but had required his teammates to do so. Some of those finally dared to voice those experiences, and Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and more. At last hearing, Armstrong, who had been a symbol of cancer recovery with his "Livestrong" campaign, is beginning an effort to rehabilitate his image, starting with a private TV "tell-all" interview. His fall has been so complete, and so definitive, that I doubt that he can be restored to any kind of commercial favor (and that's probably what matters), let alone be allowed to compete again.
The baseball/HOF controversy is complex and much broader, and it will not end anytime soon. There have been numerous court cases and Senate hearings, which have focused on alleged misdeeds of the players, and sometimes of their personal trainers or purveyors of PED's, but have obscured the silent cooperation in abuse of MLB's rulemakers and management during the period when it was was most pervasive, the late '90's and early '00s. These were the years when Babe Ruth's long-standing single-season homerun record was obliterated, first by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, then by Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron's career HR record was then topped by Bonds. All those records remain in the books, but investigations have tainted the reputations of the players: McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and pitcher Roger Clemens being the most prominent, but not the only ones.
Early indications of how the writers would view this issue came a couple years ago, when McGwire and another slugger who actually failed a drug test late in his career, Rafael Palmeiro, fell way short of the required 75% vote level in their initial eligibility for the Hall. This year came candidates of dubious reputations but with stronger credentials--Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. For Bonds and Clemens, in particular, there was an argument that they had already compiled baseball achievements worthy of enshrinement prior to the alleged use of PED's, a claim which could not be so easily made of Sosa, Palmeiro, or McGwire. This year there were also others, such as Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed any drug tests or had testimony against them, but about whom there were suspicions. Finally, there were candidates, both new candidates and holdover ones, whose statistical qualifications were not quite so outstanding but had no PED accusations against them. It was a crowded ballot with no easy decisions.
The results were all over the place, as some came close to the 75%, a number fell well short, and some got embarrassingly low vote totals, but the net result was that no one was elected. There is plenty of precedent for no one being selected, but the issue is far from settled. There are unambiguous candidates who will be elected in the next two years--Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, and Pedro Martinez--which will reduce the controversy, but the names of Bonds & Co. will remain out there, and there will eventually need to be some reckoning. I would classify the "political" positions in three groups:
- no one with any suspicion should ever get in the Hall (and those already in, if there are any, should be cast out);
- "untainted" peformance by the accused should somehow be measured and discounted by the tainted performance; and
- there will be some recognition of the widespread nature of PED use, and those with damaged reputations would be admitted with some qualifications.
Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan?
Translated, that would be "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" A famous line from the 15th-century French poet Francois Villon, riffed upon by Joseph Heller in Catch-22 as "Where are the Snowdons of yesteryear?", Yossarian referring to his lost aviator comrade.
So, where are they? That's what we want to know here in the Chicago area; the talk here being (along--not coincidentally?--with the flu, fictionally represented for us in extreme and unforgettable form by Soderbergh's movie Contagion a couple of years ago) the record length of time since the last snowfall of an inch or more--we are now over 320 days and counting. The last snow of an inch or more was, of course, last winter, and the winter ended early. There's an element of luck involved--there was a measurable snow on Dec. 20, just not an inch's worth, and other areas around here have had something like a normal share--but between this winter and last, we don't need convincing that there is a trend toward milder winters.
It could be good for Chicago--mild winters would do a lot to make it one of the most habitable cities in the country--but I can only imagine what the climate would then become for places like Houston, Atlanta, and St. Louis. Well, there's always air conditioning for them, isn't there?
Monday, January 07, 2013
The BCS Championship Thing
I will be adding more notes, but wanted to get a couple of comments and my prediction on record before the BCS championship game.
Before:
The 2013 BCS game is the dream game the BCS planners must have had in mind when they started this travesty 20 years or so ago--there might have been one or two before that were clear-cut matchups of the undisputed #1 and #2 regular season teams (Notre Dame and Alabama, this year) in the past, but not many.
The game tonight brings back memories of the classic 1973 Sugar Bowl game between the same two teams, which Notre Dame won, 24-23, with the key play being a third-down pass conversion by the Irish from deep in Notre Dame's own territory late in the fourth quarter, preserving their lead. That kind of matchup was so hard to arrange, pre-BCS, that it no doubt was in their minds to assure such a game every year--except it hasn't usually worked out that way.
In terms of the game tonight, Alabama has its usual strong team and they overcame a challenging schedule--except for the one upset loss to Texas A&M. They will defend the honor and the championship winning streak of the SEC. Notre Dame had an overachieving team this year (they were supposed to be building for the future), did accomplish several wins against major teams, and pulled out several cliff-hanging wins. Their tenacity and red-zone defense are not in doubt, but over most of the other 90 yards of the field, Alabama, which has a suprisingly impressive passing offense and a big, quick defense, will have the advantage. Prediction: Alabama 16, Notre Dame 10.
From a betting point of view, that would mean a fairly strong bet for the underdog (N.D. is getting +9.5 points) and a very strong bet for under on the over/under (line is 40.5 points).
Midway Through the 3rd Period (35-0, Alabama):
Wow, was I ever wrong! The theme of the night is "Of Monsters and Men": What I didn't quite realize was that Notre Dame's lines, both offensive and defensive, could not match up with Alabama's. I am used to that disparity when the SEC plays a team from somewhere else, but I thought that Notre Dame, with their national recruiting, could match up better.
Alabama showed the nature of the game within three minutes, driving the length of the field without missing a beat. Two bad calls in the next series of downs--one denying Notre Dame a first down on a third-down pass, the next denying them a fumble recovery on the punt--prevented an early momentum switch. Then Alabama marched down the field again and, basically, it was over.
Notre Dame's offensive execution and play-calling was poor in most of the rest of the half, and clearly their vaunted defense was not up to the task.
So, the BCS Championship once again falls short of the mark. Unlike some, I can't second-guess the choice of the teams in the game, given the circumstances. The amazing thing was that Alabama would not have even been in the game if it had not been for that dramatic set of games on Nov. 17, when the teams at the top of the standings, Oregon and Kansas State, both lost.
I will say that if these teams were playing in the four-team format that will debut next year, there might have been a better championship game. Maybe. This season has proved, once again, that the SEC is a conference at a different level--something like five of the top 10 teams were from the SEC. This makes seven in a row for the SEC, and 9 out of the 15 years. The one time the SEC has lost in the BCS thing, it was to another SEC team. Yecch.
Before:
The 2013 BCS game is the dream game the BCS planners must have had in mind when they started this travesty 20 years or so ago--there might have been one or two before that were clear-cut matchups of the undisputed #1 and #2 regular season teams (Notre Dame and Alabama, this year) in the past, but not many.
The game tonight brings back memories of the classic 1973 Sugar Bowl game between the same two teams, which Notre Dame won, 24-23, with the key play being a third-down pass conversion by the Irish from deep in Notre Dame's own territory late in the fourth quarter, preserving their lead. That kind of matchup was so hard to arrange, pre-BCS, that it no doubt was in their minds to assure such a game every year--except it hasn't usually worked out that way.
In terms of the game tonight, Alabama has its usual strong team and they overcame a challenging schedule--except for the one upset loss to Texas A&M. They will defend the honor and the championship winning streak of the SEC. Notre Dame had an overachieving team this year (they were supposed to be building for the future), did accomplish several wins against major teams, and pulled out several cliff-hanging wins. Their tenacity and red-zone defense are not in doubt, but over most of the other 90 yards of the field, Alabama, which has a suprisingly impressive passing offense and a big, quick defense, will have the advantage. Prediction: Alabama 16, Notre Dame 10.
From a betting point of view, that would mean a fairly strong bet for the underdog (N.D. is getting +9.5 points) and a very strong bet for under on the over/under (line is 40.5 points).
Midway Through the 3rd Period (35-0, Alabama):
Wow, was I ever wrong! The theme of the night is "Of Monsters and Men": What I didn't quite realize was that Notre Dame's lines, both offensive and defensive, could not match up with Alabama's. I am used to that disparity when the SEC plays a team from somewhere else, but I thought that Notre Dame, with their national recruiting, could match up better.
Alabama showed the nature of the game within three minutes, driving the length of the field without missing a beat. Two bad calls in the next series of downs--one denying Notre Dame a first down on a third-down pass, the next denying them a fumble recovery on the punt--prevented an early momentum switch. Then Alabama marched down the field again and, basically, it was over.
Notre Dame's offensive execution and play-calling was poor in most of the rest of the half, and clearly their vaunted defense was not up to the task.
So, the BCS Championship once again falls short of the mark. Unlike some, I can't second-guess the choice of the teams in the game, given the circumstances. The amazing thing was that Alabama would not have even been in the game if it had not been for that dramatic set of games on Nov. 17, when the teams at the top of the standings, Oregon and Kansas State, both lost.
I will say that if these teams were playing in the four-team format that will debut next year, there might have been a better championship game. Maybe. This season has proved, once again, that the SEC is a conference at a different level--something like five of the top 10 teams were from the SEC. This makes seven in a row for the SEC, and 9 out of the 15 years. The one time the SEC has lost in the BCS thing, it was to another SEC team. Yecch.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Slow Train Running, No Tracks?
Round 1A
In loyalty to their kind,
They cannot tolerate our mind.
In loyalty to our kind,
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!
"Crown of Creation" - Jefferson Airplane (Kantner)
Sen. Harry Reid has decided to delay the convening of the new Senate's session by a couple of weeks. I believe this is the equivalent of a "cooling-off" period, to allow the Senate to figure out how it will deal with the first issue it must solve. It is incumbent on the Senate to decide, at the very outset of the session, under what rules it will operate, so this is the opportune moment to address the possibility of some reform of the filibuster. The stage is set for an immediate partisan confrontation, but the stage lights are not yet turned on.
The current rules require a two-thirds majority to change the rules, but older rules also indicate that the rules may be set, by a simple majority, at the beginning of a Congress. Which of those requirements would prevail is but one of many uncertainties about how this very significant issue will play out.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently served as the key Congressional negotiator in the compromise producing the tax deal (see below), has laid down a line in the sand: if there are to be any hopes of future cooperation between the parties in the Senate, the 55 Democrats must not seek to set new filibuster-limiting rules by a straight party-line vote (i.e., the simple majority, rather than the two-thirds vote). The simple majority approach to changing the rules has revived discussion of a "nuclear option".
There are two sets of filibuster-reform proposals circulating, one with partisan sponsorship that is more far-reaching, and a watered-down bipartisan version designed to achieve the two-thirds majority. Neither would elminate the ability to filibuster a given bill or nomination indefinitely, but the first, through the common-sense requirement that the debate continue by actually continuing the debate, would make it impractical to do so repeatedly for all undesired legislation, as currently occurs. The second one would apparently preserve the ability to use procedural votes to block bills and nominations from proceeding to the floor.
I would prefer a negotiated solution to declaration of open war so early in the Congress, when so much still needs to be done. There is probably a compromise that can be arranged, and this delay, although not publicly acknowledged, seems designed to seek to find it. The minimum standards are agreement that individual Senators can no longer block consideration of a nominee (as is currently done), and that a single cloture petition/vote with 60 Senators can move a bill to a vote with a limited additional debate. This would preserve the "unlimited debate" concept which even some Democratic Senators would recognize, but would reduce or end abuse of Senatorial privileges and maneuvering to prevent the exercise of the will of a super-majority of 60 Senators.
The Tax Deal
In accordance with my usual practice of auditing the accuracy of the forecasts and predictions I make here, we will start by assessing the deal's key components and whether I had them right. Then, we will proceed to puncture some of the prevailing talking-head myths that have emerged since the deal was done.
The biggest surprise, the one I missed entirely, was that the deal would not include any substantial spending cuts (just enough to cover the sequestration cuts postponed for two months, so that there is no active decision that increases deficits in the deal). I did suggest, in my first effort to "talk them down from the cliff", that the decision to extend the tax cuts would be the easiest upon which to find agreement.
As the dread date drew nearer, I got more specific in my second post on the tax cut provisions I expected. (I will withhold comment on the spending cut aspects until those are actually addressed.) Here is the relevant quote, with my hindsight comments italicized:
Now, for some myths:
1) That this was not a substantial agreement--Apart from fixing the AMT and the annual Medicare adjustment, the bill set down permanent tax rates at sustainable levels. Tax code reform debates remain (they could not quickly be settled), but an issue that has been kicked around for 10 years was settled with some finality.
2) That this was a surrender by a) President Obama or b) the Republicans. The argument in each case is that Obama, or the Republicans, gave some ground on things they said publicly that they would not (Obama on the $250K increase; the Republicans that they would only agree to revenue increases if there were significant spending cuts.) Both needed to give ground to have any possible agreement on this, the most overtly partisan division in the general discussion.
3) That all the negotiating leverage now goes to a) the Republicans, or b) President Obama. The argument for a) is that, now that the threat of tax increases for the middle class is removed, the Republicans can more easily stonewall and get what they want. For b), it runs along the line that the Democrats proved that they can split the House Republicans and roll the Senate Republicans, that Speaker Boehner is weak, and that therefore the Democrats have the advantage. The Republicans have both a strategic advantage in the upcoming negotiations in their advocacy of spending cuts, which are popular with the public, and a tactical advantage in their potential ability to use the debt ceiling as a hostage forcing concessions. The Democrats have the countervailing advantage that the specific cuts the Republicans would want are generally all unpopular, and potential gamebreaker strategies that would allow them to defy the statutory debt limit through a constitutional challenge (14th amendment) or a Treasury gimmick (coining the trillion dollar coins and putting them in a vault). As for Boehner, the House of Orange continued its infamous reign, and after the various embarrassments, the Republicans have recognized that they must pull together or lose what leverage they have.
A Look Ahead
The final myth I would like to demolish is the argument that things can only get more partisan and confrontational from here. As I noted in myth 2) above, though it was easy for both sides ultimately to accept tax cuts in the guise of tax increases (or the other way around), drawing the line between the winners (with the exception of the payroll tax, the lower income taxpayers) and the losers (those over $1 million income or substantial unearned income, really) was the politically difficult compromise.
Unlike the question of tax rates for the wealthy, the decisions that remain to be made are complex, and will be difficult to conclude, but none of them divide neatly along partisan lines, really. The debt ceiling, everyone would agree, must be raised in the end. A long-term path toward reduced deficits must be achieved, and there isn't really a partisan split on pacing (momentum must increase over the 10-year planning period everyone agree upon) or the total targeted amount of deficit reduction (something like $4 trillion). There probably isn't that much disagreement along partisan lines on which tax loopholes and deductions should be closed off, though there will be specific "revenue enhancements" that specific Congresspeople will seek to preserve for favored clients: it will be important for the final outcome whether those pet perks will be preserved for any, all, or just the most powerful (my betting would be the latter).
Apart from the big ones--defense and entitlements--there will be partisan disagreements on which governmental programs should be cut, and by how much. It was in this area that the sequestration across-the-board cuts would be tempting. Simpson-Bowles identified some on a fairly non-partisan basis, and there may be general recourse to these as a means to avoid getting bogged down. Another, likely, outcome is an agreement on the quantity and timing of these cuts, and some sort of agreement on how to resolve them (in committees, perhaps?)--kickin the can, again, but over a defined field of play.
Defense will be an interesting area; the Democrats will be somewhat at war with themselves (Obama Administration militarists vs. peaceniks) and the Republicans will be of two minds (knowing that defnese cuts must be made, but, like the Democrats on social programs, uncomfortable with any specific cut). The key question--more or less cuts?--will be divisive within both parties, and I would bet on less cuts somehow winning out.
The question of investments--in infrastructure, education, energy--will be a divisive one. Republicans' talk is all about reducing spending, and they won't want to consider these, but the jobs issue and competitiveness issues remain of prime importance, and Democrats will insist that some investments, mostly in the short term, go into the mix of any broad spending program. Because this is going against the trend so strongly, I would expect that the final agreement will include no more than $100 billion of these new investments, and there will be some strings attached to them.
Finally, the question of entitlements, once again, and again I refer you to "Talking Them Down Off the Cliff--Part 2", in which I suggest the logical outcome for each of the three principal areas--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (a fourth would be veterans' benefits, but I would suggest they will be inviolate throughout the debate, as they probably hsould be). Here, I would say, the pressure will be most squarely on the Democrats, who will have a difficult time sustaining a position that no cuts need be made. I'm not certain they will do so, nor that it is fully in their political interest to do so: certainly it is a position that is, in the long run, indefensible.
I give some credit to David Lauter, writing in the L.A. Times (and the Chicago Tribune, where I saw it), for identifying the key divide (on Medicare and Social Security) as being the young vs. the old, and for pointing out the contradictions within the parties. The Democrats rely increasingly on the support of the young, while the position against cuts associated with their party is viewed as favoritism to the old (really, the Baby Boomers, as the seniors will not be touched, both parties seem to agree). The Republicans, the opposite. It will be in both parties' interest to contort their positions so that those perceptions are modified, and to me, that means a compromise. And, as I've said before, that means increasing the retirement age slightly on Social Security (and not on Medicare; rather the opposite), and backing away from Obama's alleged willingness to reduce the cost of living multiplier on it. On Medicare, the solution needs to be both increase in payments (means-tested) and, listening to the consensus of medical professionals, shifting from fees based on quantity of service toward fees based on the value of those services to individual patients.
In loyalty to their kind,
They cannot tolerate our mind.
In loyalty to our kind,
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!
"Crown of Creation" - Jefferson Airplane (Kantner)
Sen. Harry Reid has decided to delay the convening of the new Senate's session by a couple of weeks. I believe this is the equivalent of a "cooling-off" period, to allow the Senate to figure out how it will deal with the first issue it must solve. It is incumbent on the Senate to decide, at the very outset of the session, under what rules it will operate, so this is the opportune moment to address the possibility of some reform of the filibuster. The stage is set for an immediate partisan confrontation, but the stage lights are not yet turned on.
The current rules require a two-thirds majority to change the rules, but older rules also indicate that the rules may be set, by a simple majority, at the beginning of a Congress. Which of those requirements would prevail is but one of many uncertainties about how this very significant issue will play out.
Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently served as the key Congressional negotiator in the compromise producing the tax deal (see below), has laid down a line in the sand: if there are to be any hopes of future cooperation between the parties in the Senate, the 55 Democrats must not seek to set new filibuster-limiting rules by a straight party-line vote (i.e., the simple majority, rather than the two-thirds vote). The simple majority approach to changing the rules has revived discussion of a "nuclear option".
There are two sets of filibuster-reform proposals circulating, one with partisan sponsorship that is more far-reaching, and a watered-down bipartisan version designed to achieve the two-thirds majority. Neither would elminate the ability to filibuster a given bill or nomination indefinitely, but the first, through the common-sense requirement that the debate continue by actually continuing the debate, would make it impractical to do so repeatedly for all undesired legislation, as currently occurs. The second one would apparently preserve the ability to use procedural votes to block bills and nominations from proceeding to the floor.
I would prefer a negotiated solution to declaration of open war so early in the Congress, when so much still needs to be done. There is probably a compromise that can be arranged, and this delay, although not publicly acknowledged, seems designed to seek to find it. The minimum standards are agreement that individual Senators can no longer block consideration of a nominee (as is currently done), and that a single cloture petition/vote with 60 Senators can move a bill to a vote with a limited additional debate. This would preserve the "unlimited debate" concept which even some Democratic Senators would recognize, but would reduce or end abuse of Senatorial privileges and maneuvering to prevent the exercise of the will of a super-majority of 60 Senators.
The Tax Deal
In accordance with my usual practice of auditing the accuracy of the forecasts and predictions I make here, we will start by assessing the deal's key components and whether I had them right. Then, we will proceed to puncture some of the prevailing talking-head myths that have emerged since the deal was done.
The biggest surprise, the one I missed entirely, was that the deal would not include any substantial spending cuts (just enough to cover the sequestration cuts postponed for two months, so that there is no active decision that increases deficits in the deal). I did suggest, in my first effort to "talk them down from the cliff", that the decision to extend the tax cuts would be the easiest upon which to find agreement.
As the dread date drew nearer, I got more specific in my second post on the tax cut provisions I expected. (I will withhold comment on the spending cut aspects until those are actually addressed.) Here is the relevant quote, with my hindsight comments italicized:
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; (wrong! there's only one, though the $400K cut was a compromise along the lines I anticipated) I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. (all correct) The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout. (Yes, that really happened, probably the most disappointing aspect of the deal for me, but something that I would blame on the Democrats in Congress rather than the Administration. )Two other auditing points from the latter post: I did anticipate that the tax agreement would get passed just after year-end, so that it would be a "tax reduction" for most people. I predicted $1 trillion in total revenue increases, but there were only $600 billion in the agreement. President Obama is well aware of the fact that revenue reform is only half-completed, and has made a point of saying that he is expecting further revenue increases in the future to go with anticipated spending cuts--I will stick to my estimate, with $400 billion more coming through closing of loopholes and reduction of the range of deductions.
Now, for some myths:
1) That this was not a substantial agreement--Apart from fixing the AMT and the annual Medicare adjustment, the bill set down permanent tax rates at sustainable levels. Tax code reform debates remain (they could not quickly be settled), but an issue that has been kicked around for 10 years was settled with some finality.
2) That this was a surrender by a) President Obama or b) the Republicans. The argument in each case is that Obama, or the Republicans, gave some ground on things they said publicly that they would not (Obama on the $250K increase; the Republicans that they would only agree to revenue increases if there were significant spending cuts.) Both needed to give ground to have any possible agreement on this, the most overtly partisan division in the general discussion.
3) That all the negotiating leverage now goes to a) the Republicans, or b) President Obama. The argument for a) is that, now that the threat of tax increases for the middle class is removed, the Republicans can more easily stonewall and get what they want. For b), it runs along the line that the Democrats proved that they can split the House Republicans and roll the Senate Republicans, that Speaker Boehner is weak, and that therefore the Democrats have the advantage. The Republicans have both a strategic advantage in the upcoming negotiations in their advocacy of spending cuts, which are popular with the public, and a tactical advantage in their potential ability to use the debt ceiling as a hostage forcing concessions. The Democrats have the countervailing advantage that the specific cuts the Republicans would want are generally all unpopular, and potential gamebreaker strategies that would allow them to defy the statutory debt limit through a constitutional challenge (14th amendment) or a Treasury gimmick (coining the trillion dollar coins and putting them in a vault). As for Boehner, the House of Orange continued its infamous reign, and after the various embarrassments, the Republicans have recognized that they must pull together or lose what leverage they have.
A Look Ahead
The final myth I would like to demolish is the argument that things can only get more partisan and confrontational from here. As I noted in myth 2) above, though it was easy for both sides ultimately to accept tax cuts in the guise of tax increases (or the other way around), drawing the line between the winners (with the exception of the payroll tax, the lower income taxpayers) and the losers (those over $1 million income or substantial unearned income, really) was the politically difficult compromise.
Unlike the question of tax rates for the wealthy, the decisions that remain to be made are complex, and will be difficult to conclude, but none of them divide neatly along partisan lines, really. The debt ceiling, everyone would agree, must be raised in the end. A long-term path toward reduced deficits must be achieved, and there isn't really a partisan split on pacing (momentum must increase over the 10-year planning period everyone agree upon) or the total targeted amount of deficit reduction (something like $4 trillion). There probably isn't that much disagreement along partisan lines on which tax loopholes and deductions should be closed off, though there will be specific "revenue enhancements" that specific Congresspeople will seek to preserve for favored clients: it will be important for the final outcome whether those pet perks will be preserved for any, all, or just the most powerful (my betting would be the latter).
Apart from the big ones--defense and entitlements--there will be partisan disagreements on which governmental programs should be cut, and by how much. It was in this area that the sequestration across-the-board cuts would be tempting. Simpson-Bowles identified some on a fairly non-partisan basis, and there may be general recourse to these as a means to avoid getting bogged down. Another, likely, outcome is an agreement on the quantity and timing of these cuts, and some sort of agreement on how to resolve them (in committees, perhaps?)--kickin the can, again, but over a defined field of play.
Defense will be an interesting area; the Democrats will be somewhat at war with themselves (Obama Administration militarists vs. peaceniks) and the Republicans will be of two minds (knowing that defnese cuts must be made, but, like the Democrats on social programs, uncomfortable with any specific cut). The key question--more or less cuts?--will be divisive within both parties, and I would bet on less cuts somehow winning out.
The question of investments--in infrastructure, education, energy--will be a divisive one. Republicans' talk is all about reducing spending, and they won't want to consider these, but the jobs issue and competitiveness issues remain of prime importance, and Democrats will insist that some investments, mostly in the short term, go into the mix of any broad spending program. Because this is going against the trend so strongly, I would expect that the final agreement will include no more than $100 billion of these new investments, and there will be some strings attached to them.
Finally, the question of entitlements, once again, and again I refer you to "Talking Them Down Off the Cliff--Part 2", in which I suggest the logical outcome for each of the three principal areas--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security (a fourth would be veterans' benefits, but I would suggest they will be inviolate throughout the debate, as they probably hsould be). Here, I would say, the pressure will be most squarely on the Democrats, who will have a difficult time sustaining a position that no cuts need be made. I'm not certain they will do so, nor that it is fully in their political interest to do so: certainly it is a position that is, in the long run, indefensible.
I give some credit to David Lauter, writing in the L.A. Times (and the Chicago Tribune, where I saw it), for identifying the key divide (on Medicare and Social Security) as being the young vs. the old, and for pointing out the contradictions within the parties. The Democrats rely increasingly on the support of the young, while the position against cuts associated with their party is viewed as favoritism to the old (really, the Baby Boomers, as the seniors will not be touched, both parties seem to agree). The Republicans, the opposite. It will be in both parties' interest to contort their positions so that those perceptions are modified, and to me, that means a compromise. And, as I've said before, that means increasing the retirement age slightly on Social Security (and not on Medicare; rather the opposite), and backing away from Obama's alleged willingness to reduce the cost of living multiplier on it. On Medicare, the solution needs to be both increase in payments (means-tested) and, listening to the consensus of medical professionals, shifting from fees based on quantity of service toward fees based on the value of those services to individual patients.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
My Movie Picks for 2012
First, the limitations:
Movies I haven't seen but might like to see (even if they have no chance to crack my top 10)--italicized numbers are to indicate the ranking in the top 25 by 2012 box office, according to imdb.com:
5 Skyfall; 10 Lorax; 11 Men in Black 3; 14 Snow White & the Huntsman; 21 Magic Mike (O.K., I'm not really interested); Anna Karenina; Life of Pi; Looper (now in DVD); Hyde Park on the Hudson; Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Not Fade Away.
Major movies not eligible for consideration, as they have not been released generally in 2012 ("Exclusive Engagements" to allow Oscar consideration definitely do not qualify in my book):
Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, Promised Land.
Honorable Mention:
These are movies that I consider to be flawed in major ways, but I respect them as decent efforts, worthy of viewing:
The Master, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Dark Knight Rises Again, Hope Springs, and The Ides of March.
And Now...
#10 - Brave (#7 box office) - Gets my vote for best animated feature. Fun, and with some socially redeeming value, as well.
#9 - Silver Linings Playbook - In a weaker year, I would seriously consider it as a Best Picture candidate (say, if it had been released in 2011, it would be comparable in quality to "The Descendants", a movie with which it has some similarity. Descendants was my choice in the final run-up to Oscar last year.)
#8 - Moonrise Kingdom - See comments for "Silver Linings Playbook" above. It has the additional handicap of being released in the middle of the year, from an Oscars perspective. Kind of a silly movie, fundamentally (is it advocating teenagers make life-changing romantic engagement?); very strong ensemble acting.
#7 - Avengers (#1) - Had all the elements for success--big stars, big effects, a complex story, and most crucially, built up some of the relatively minor characters (e.g., Captain America, Iron Man) with successful movies featuring them. Scarlett Johanson, The Hulk, didn't need much build-up. A good, wild ride.
#6 - Hunger Games - (#3) - Speaking as a non-reader of the trilogy, I thought it stood up well on its own as entertainment. I also observed that it satisfied the reading devotees, so in that regard it outdid the likes of The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (the latter of which, I'm pleased to say, I did not see).
#5 - 21 Jump Street (#16) - Again, I was no fan of the TV show, maybe saw it once or twice. I thought the movie was pretty hilarious, and to me, it was surprising it didn't do better box office.
#4 - Les Miserables - The dark horse for Oscar awards, in my humble opinion: unlike Zero Dark 30, which I expect to get many nominations and few awards, I think this one will come up the aisle with 3-4 statuettes (cleverly, they added an original song; could easily win sound editing (if not a technological achievement award, as well), best supporting actress, makeup, costumes, set design, and will be in the running for best actor, direction--though Tom Hooper did win in 2011). The best movie musical I've seen in several years.
#3 - Argo (#24) - In a lesser year, would be a top contender for Oscars; it may still win one or two (Alan Arkin would be the best bet but has won Best Supporting Actor before). Credit to Ben Affleck for recognizing and executing upon a naturally great story.
#2 - Cloud Atlas - It's being overlooked for everything except its visual effects. It has the defects of not being topical or having classical focus. Its making is a milestone achievement, in my view; I'm hoping its lack of success won't prevent the making of other David Mitchell novels--my suggestion for the next would be The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
#1 - Lincoln (#23) - Entertainment value is only "Good", but educational value is superior, technical achievement superior, redeeming social value off the charts. The only movie I can compare it to is "Gandhi", and I would say it had a better script, equal star performance, similar quality of indelible images.
My Oscar Picks (Limited, as Above)
These are what I would advocate today; I reserve the right to change my view, and certainly about what I think will win.
Best Picture - Lincoln
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Supporting Actor - Robert DeNiro (S.L.P.)
Best Supporting Actress - Ann Hathaway (Les Miz)
Best Director - Ben Affleck (Argo)-- that may be a long shot. This is the toughest call , with an extremely strong field, but of the major contenders, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Hooper, and Kathryn Bigelow have all won it, so that leaves the two Andersons, David O. Russell, and Affleck.
Best Original Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson (The Master) - though I think Mark Boal may end up as the favorite for 0D30.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Tony Kushner (Lincoln). It had better be!
Best Foreign Language - Amour or The Intouchables, whichever gets the nomination from France.
Best Song - Suddenly (Les Miz) --I'd bet on Adele for Skyfall, though.
Best Score - John Williams (Lincoln) - Always a good bet.
Costumes - Lincoln
Makeup - Les Miz
Cinematography - Lincoln (Zero Dark 30?)
Best Editing - Lincoln (Life of Pi?)
Best Art Direction - Lincoln
Sound Editing - Les Miz
Visual Effects - Avengers (I think that's more realistic than Cloud Atlas, which everyone has already forgotten. Alas!)
Movies I haven't seen but might like to see (even if they have no chance to crack my top 10)--italicized numbers are to indicate the ranking in the top 25 by 2012 box office, according to imdb.com:
5 Skyfall; 10 Lorax; 11 Men in Black 3; 14 Snow White & the Huntsman; 21 Magic Mike (O.K., I'm not really interested); Anna Karenina; Life of Pi; Looper (now in DVD); Hyde Park on the Hudson; Perks of Being a Wallflower; and Not Fade Away.
Major movies not eligible for consideration, as they have not been released generally in 2012 ("Exclusive Engagements" to allow Oscar consideration definitely do not qualify in my book):
Zero Dark Thirty, The Impossible, Promised Land.
Honorable Mention:
These are movies that I consider to be flawed in major ways, but I respect them as decent efforts, worthy of viewing:
The Master, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Dark Knight Rises Again, Hope Springs, and The Ides of March.
And Now...
#10 - Brave (#7 box office) - Gets my vote for best animated feature. Fun, and with some socially redeeming value, as well.
#9 - Silver Linings Playbook - In a weaker year, I would seriously consider it as a Best Picture candidate (say, if it had been released in 2011, it would be comparable in quality to "The Descendants", a movie with which it has some similarity. Descendants was my choice in the final run-up to Oscar last year.)
#8 - Moonrise Kingdom - See comments for "Silver Linings Playbook" above. It has the additional handicap of being released in the middle of the year, from an Oscars perspective. Kind of a silly movie, fundamentally (is it advocating teenagers make life-changing romantic engagement?); very strong ensemble acting.
#7 - Avengers (#1) - Had all the elements for success--big stars, big effects, a complex story, and most crucially, built up some of the relatively minor characters (e.g., Captain America, Iron Man) with successful movies featuring them. Scarlett Johanson, The Hulk, didn't need much build-up. A good, wild ride.
#6 - Hunger Games - (#3) - Speaking as a non-reader of the trilogy, I thought it stood up well on its own as entertainment. I also observed that it satisfied the reading devotees, so in that regard it outdid the likes of The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (the latter of which, I'm pleased to say, I did not see).
#5 - 21 Jump Street (#16) - Again, I was no fan of the TV show, maybe saw it once or twice. I thought the movie was pretty hilarious, and to me, it was surprising it didn't do better box office.
#4 - Les Miserables - The dark horse for Oscar awards, in my humble opinion: unlike Zero Dark 30, which I expect to get many nominations and few awards, I think this one will come up the aisle with 3-4 statuettes (cleverly, they added an original song; could easily win sound editing (if not a technological achievement award, as well), best supporting actress, makeup, costumes, set design, and will be in the running for best actor, direction--though Tom Hooper did win in 2011). The best movie musical I've seen in several years.
#3 - Argo (#24) - In a lesser year, would be a top contender for Oscars; it may still win one or two (Alan Arkin would be the best bet but has won Best Supporting Actor before). Credit to Ben Affleck for recognizing and executing upon a naturally great story.
#2 - Cloud Atlas - It's being overlooked for everything except its visual effects. It has the defects of not being topical or having classical focus. Its making is a milestone achievement, in my view; I'm hoping its lack of success won't prevent the making of other David Mitchell novels--my suggestion for the next would be The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
#1 - Lincoln (#23) - Entertainment value is only "Good", but educational value is superior, technical achievement superior, redeeming social value off the charts. The only movie I can compare it to is "Gandhi", and I would say it had a better script, equal star performance, similar quality of indelible images.
My Oscar Picks (Limited, as Above)
These are what I would advocate today; I reserve the right to change my view, and certainly about what I think will win.
Best Picture - Lincoln
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
Best Supporting Actor - Robert DeNiro (S.L.P.)
Best Supporting Actress - Ann Hathaway (Les Miz)
Best Director - Ben Affleck (Argo)-- that may be a long shot. This is the toughest call , with an extremely strong field, but of the major contenders, Spielberg, Ang Lee, Hooper, and Kathryn Bigelow have all won it, so that leaves the two Andersons, David O. Russell, and Affleck.
Best Original Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson (The Master) - though I think Mark Boal may end up as the favorite for 0D30.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Tony Kushner (Lincoln). It had better be!
Best Foreign Language - Amour or The Intouchables, whichever gets the nomination from France.
Best Song - Suddenly (Les Miz) --I'd bet on Adele for Skyfall, though.
Best Score - John Williams (Lincoln) - Always a good bet.
Costumes - Lincoln
Makeup - Les Miz
Cinematography - Lincoln (Zero Dark 30?)
Best Editing - Lincoln (Life of Pi?)
Best Art Direction - Lincoln
Sound Editing - Les Miz
Visual Effects - Avengers (I think that's more realistic than Cloud Atlas, which everyone has already forgotten. Alas!)
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Short-term stock market quote
There is one, abbreviated trading day left in 2012, and the question of the moment is what will happen tomorrow with the financial markets. The negotiations with the fiscal cliff have not gone well, so there is doubt now both for the immediate term (what will happen in the remainder of the lame duck session, which ends January 3) and for the short term (the two weeks or so following)--particularly, if there is no substantial agreement and the tax bite happens with initial 2013 paychecks to Americans. There will be a virulent public reaction if that happens, and the deal will get done.
Most of what I have to say about the fiscal cliff, what I think will happen, and what will happen, I have already said (or at least typed). The one new element, and it was a strong ingredient leading to the current form of stalemate, was a realization by the Republicans that letting the end of the year occur without agreement would allow them to achieve the necessary result of allowing wealthy individuals' taxes to rise without having to vote for it. This translated into a broad unwillingness for Republican Congressmen to back Speaker Boehner's disingenuous attempt at a show of strength (the so-called Plan B, raising taxes for just the wealthiest). The lame duck Congress could still get a shot at voting to reduce tax rates for the many without having to vote for an increase for anyone; it might not satisfy Grover Norquist, but would be eminently defensible before their party's voters. On the other hand, if there are no tough votes to be made, they could just as easily be made in the next Congress.
Anyway, we go into the last trading day of 2012 without an agreement (it's highly unlikely, but not impossible, that one could be sprung before 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow). The markets have stopped believing so much in the eventual deal and started trading more on the absence of any current one; as a result the Dow Jones Index has dropped six of the last seven trading days--but so far, only about 3% since the 19th, to about 12,938.
The Markets on The Market
On intrade.com, struggling along though impeded by the website's decision to enforce more limitations on American participants (their positions have been closed out in recent days, though there are supposed to be new markets available to them), there are markets for the Dow ending at various levels: the key ones are over 13000, 12750, and 12500 (the odds outside that range are pretty much 100% or 0%, with the exception of the bet of a rebound over 13250, which has been purchased at a 5% chance by some contrarian). The 13000 bet has been a big loser for bullish bettors, dropping from 80% or so two weeks ago (well up from the 50-60% it ran for much of the year) to 20% by end of week, and now trading at about 10%. Of course, 13,000 would need only a slight increase (less than 0.5%) from the current level.
So, the consensus is for a drop, I'd say, but how big? The fact that there's only half a day of trading is not much of a limitation on the trading range, as the Dow could easily drop hundreds of points in minutes, or even at the very start of the day's trading. It just means there is less time in the trading day for some news, which would probably be positive, to affect trading. So, how much is the failure to agree priced in to current valuations? A drop to 12,750, about 1.5%, is a moderately-large one day change: the last trading is at 73.1% (as of 10:20 Central), but there is a huge gap between the bid value (in the 70's) and the asked value (97% or so), so this market has a very volatile future tomorrow, as those who may hold positions will seek to end them. A similar story holds for the market on the Dow finishing over 12,500--that would require a drop of some 3.5%, or as much as the total retreat of the last two weeks, but a bit of end-day panic could easily achieve it. The current quote on that one is at 99.7%, but that is misleading because the prior trades were in the low 90's. The highest bids are mid-90, and there are a lot more shares available at 99.7%--the seller has clearly cornered that market and is trying to take profits without risking a nervous Dec. 31.
Maybe more interesting than the short-term stock markets is what the bond markets think of the current madhouse. One piece of gossip I can offer is that Mohammed El-Erian, top dog at PIMCO, was taking a flight out of D.C. to L.A. yesterday--I saw him at Dulles Airport as I was waiting to catch a different flight. This would suggest no panic or news is expected, though of course time and distance mean less in today's society. If the bond market begins to lose confidence in the U.S., though, it will be a bigger threat to the economy than bad consumer confidence or a drop in the stock markets. That will not happen until mid-January, at the earliest, so there is still some time to avoid calamity.
Most of what I have to say about the fiscal cliff, what I think will happen, and what will happen, I have already said (or at least typed). The one new element, and it was a strong ingredient leading to the current form of stalemate, was a realization by the Republicans that letting the end of the year occur without agreement would allow them to achieve the necessary result of allowing wealthy individuals' taxes to rise without having to vote for it. This translated into a broad unwillingness for Republican Congressmen to back Speaker Boehner's disingenuous attempt at a show of strength (the so-called Plan B, raising taxes for just the wealthiest). The lame duck Congress could still get a shot at voting to reduce tax rates for the many without having to vote for an increase for anyone; it might not satisfy Grover Norquist, but would be eminently defensible before their party's voters. On the other hand, if there are no tough votes to be made, they could just as easily be made in the next Congress.
Anyway, we go into the last trading day of 2012 without an agreement (it's highly unlikely, but not impossible, that one could be sprung before 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow). The markets have stopped believing so much in the eventual deal and started trading more on the absence of any current one; as a result the Dow Jones Index has dropped six of the last seven trading days--but so far, only about 3% since the 19th, to about 12,938.
The Markets on The Market
On intrade.com, struggling along though impeded by the website's decision to enforce more limitations on American participants (their positions have been closed out in recent days, though there are supposed to be new markets available to them), there are markets for the Dow ending at various levels: the key ones are over 13000, 12750, and 12500 (the odds outside that range are pretty much 100% or 0%, with the exception of the bet of a rebound over 13250, which has been purchased at a 5% chance by some contrarian). The 13000 bet has been a big loser for bullish bettors, dropping from 80% or so two weeks ago (well up from the 50-60% it ran for much of the year) to 20% by end of week, and now trading at about 10%. Of course, 13,000 would need only a slight increase (less than 0.5%) from the current level.
So, the consensus is for a drop, I'd say, but how big? The fact that there's only half a day of trading is not much of a limitation on the trading range, as the Dow could easily drop hundreds of points in minutes, or even at the very start of the day's trading. It just means there is less time in the trading day for some news, which would probably be positive, to affect trading. So, how much is the failure to agree priced in to current valuations? A drop to 12,750, about 1.5%, is a moderately-large one day change: the last trading is at 73.1% (as of 10:20 Central), but there is a huge gap between the bid value (in the 70's) and the asked value (97% or so), so this market has a very volatile future tomorrow, as those who may hold positions will seek to end them. A similar story holds for the market on the Dow finishing over 12,500--that would require a drop of some 3.5%, or as much as the total retreat of the last two weeks, but a bit of end-day panic could easily achieve it. The current quote on that one is at 99.7%, but that is misleading because the prior trades were in the low 90's. The highest bids are mid-90, and there are a lot more shares available at 99.7%--the seller has clearly cornered that market and is trying to take profits without risking a nervous Dec. 31.
Maybe more interesting than the short-term stock markets is what the bond markets think of the current madhouse. One piece of gossip I can offer is that Mohammed El-Erian, top dog at PIMCO, was taking a flight out of D.C. to L.A. yesterday--I saw him at Dulles Airport as I was waiting to catch a different flight. This would suggest no panic or news is expected, though of course time and distance mean less in today's society. If the bond market begins to lose confidence in the U.S., though, it will be a bigger threat to the economy than bad consumer confidence or a drop in the stock markets. That will not happen until mid-January, at the earliest, so there is still some time to avoid calamity.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Will It Be Different This Time?
I don't like repeating myself (he repeated), so I've kept mum so far about the Newtown, CT massacre in the elementary school and the gun issues. Please see my post called "The Usual",after the massacre in Aurora, CO, in which I predicted several aspects of the current controversy--not that it required a crystal ball or anything.
There are a couple of things that are different this time--the crime so senseless, horrendous and inhuman, the election so over, the utter insanity of taking out one's frustrations on first graders. I will say this: President Obama did have the courage to speak out--forcefully--this time, and damn the consequences. The NRA had to think it over, let the heat of the moment die a little, before they made "their contribution" to the debate. And the best they could think of was to put armed guards in every school? That is the epitome of throwing up one's hands and giving in to madness.
Apart from "the usual" suggestions, which are more obvious than usual in this case--no semi-automatic weapons or assault guns, close the gun show loophole and prosecute the online gun dealers who defy the laws, develop a database of mentally disturbed people who cannot buy guns--here's a new suggestion: Guns can have devices which limit their use to the authorized buyers; they won't work for anyone else. It could be based on palm prints, fingerprints, or retinal scan. Prohibit the manufacture or importation of the current, unsafe guns, and begin steps to incentivize people to replace their old ones with safe ones. It's radical, I know, but radical solutions need to be proposed. In 50 or 100 years, perhaps, we will actually be a civilized society, instead of a half-civilized, half-mad one.
As far as policing the schools, that is a job for the police--not school administrators, teachers, or private rent-a-cops. A simple solution is to have a mini-police station within shouting distance of public schools, which are increasingly clumped in shared campuses. So far, the epidemic of madness hasn't hit private schools so much, so it is a good time to consider what is/will be necessary for private schools to protect themselves. Much as I hate the militarization of education (enough in our lives is militarized already), we can't just accept that schools will be unsafe with millions--and I mean it--of unqualified (and I don't mean just untrained) gun-holders out there.
There are a couple of things that are different this time--the crime so senseless, horrendous and inhuman, the election so over, the utter insanity of taking out one's frustrations on first graders. I will say this: President Obama did have the courage to speak out--forcefully--this time, and damn the consequences. The NRA had to think it over, let the heat of the moment die a little, before they made "their contribution" to the debate. And the best they could think of was to put armed guards in every school? That is the epitome of throwing up one's hands and giving in to madness.
Apart from "the usual" suggestions, which are more obvious than usual in this case--no semi-automatic weapons or assault guns, close the gun show loophole and prosecute the online gun dealers who defy the laws, develop a database of mentally disturbed people who cannot buy guns--here's a new suggestion: Guns can have devices which limit their use to the authorized buyers; they won't work for anyone else. It could be based on palm prints, fingerprints, or retinal scan. Prohibit the manufacture or importation of the current, unsafe guns, and begin steps to incentivize people to replace their old ones with safe ones. It's radical, I know, but radical solutions need to be proposed. In 50 or 100 years, perhaps, we will actually be a civilized society, instead of a half-civilized, half-mad one.
As far as policing the schools, that is a job for the police--not school administrators, teachers, or private rent-a-cops. A simple solution is to have a mini-police station within shouting distance of public schools, which are increasingly clumped in shared campuses. So far, the epidemic of madness hasn't hit private schools so much, so it is a good time to consider what is/will be necessary for private schools to protect themselves. Much as I hate the militarization of education (enough in our lives is militarized already), we can't just accept that schools will be unsafe with millions--and I mean it--of unqualified (and I don't mean just untrained) gun-holders out there.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
121212 Concert
This is the last of its kind: there won't be a 13/13/13, for obvious reasons (not to mention the outside chance that the world as we know it ends next Friday). As for the benefit concert, I wouldn't say that this is the last--it still seems to be working as a project. I love the way this musical community comes together for an event such as this. One can be cynical and say, "Why don't they just give a couple of million dollars, instead of performing?" That person doesn't understand that they are giving of what is most dear to them, their talent and their time. There is a trade-off, though: most of them have a professional agenda, and it's definitely good publicity--in this case it applies particularly to Billy Joel.
As telethons go, this was definitely a good one, though it skews a bit old and white. Nobody seems to be policing the clock--some performers go extremely long, while others show restraint--I guess they don't have anywhere to go later.
The censor with his finger on the button had a busy night repeatedly cutting the seven words not allowed on TV!
Brief Reviews of the Talent
Bruce Springsteen--I came in during the middle. B.S. in good form from his recent touring, did "Born to Run" and that can't be bad. B
Roger Waters -- He's touring with "The Wall", so had his light show going. Included some "Dark Side"; "Comfortably Numb" with Eddie Vetter was a real highlight. A-
Bon Jovi--tolerable; at least did "Dead or Alive", their best song. Paid back the invite Bruce gave him during his set. B-
Eric Clapton - The best overall set of the night: "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out" (acoustic); "Got to Get Better in a Little While"- great choice for the night; "Crossroads". The small band with just bass and drums with E.C. worked really well; a good change from some of the oversized ensembles. A
Rolling Stones - some crappy new song--not even the good one, "Gloom and Doom", which would've been kind of appropriate; "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Jagger has enough energy, had a couple of good wisecracks ("now NY has to come and help if it rains in London", "best collection ever of old British rockers") and it's good they showed, but basically a cameo. Keith must finally be on his last legs, performance-wise; Charlie Watts (the drummer--an original Stone), on the other hand, looks about 10 years younger than Jagger/Richards or Ronnie Wood. C
Alicia Keys--basically an improvised song or two. I liked it; it was heartfelt. B
The Who - they're touring now, so they've got their light show, too. Opened with "Who Are You"--always a good one that shows off their distinctive strengths: dynamics, lyrics, good use of prerecorded bits to augment their playing. Roger's voice is mighty shaky, and Pete's is gone. "The Beach (a/k/a Bell Boy)" - good choice - the clip of Keith Moon singing is both a sweet touch and incredibly stagy. "Pinball Wizard"--what can I say, except that it's a must-see for anyone? "See Me, Feel Me"--the best finale song, no? "Baba O'Riley" - probably not necessary, but always a popular one. "Love, Reign O'er Me". What's this last (acoustic) song - "Have some Tea With Me"? I'm very grateful that Pete Townshend is still making the effort; I hope those waiting for Kanye, Foo Fighters, or Chris Martin aren't too dismayed, because The 'Oo did go awfully long; I'd say that was basically the second set of their live performance, with encores. A
Kanye West - good that he came and performed for all the white folks, presumably mostly rich white folks, in the audience. Obviously not his usual crowd who knows all the words, but it was an interesting performance. Gotta like the reference to King Crimson ('21st century schizoid man"). Definitely an eccentric and intelligent dude; but what's with the skirt? B
Billy Joel - I've heard this was his idea--he's the Bob Geldof of the current age; it will do some good for his career, as there's a whole generation that has not heard of him. He starts with a complete song, with all the bells and whistles, written especially for the occasion: I'll call it "I've Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway"--a good line. I'll say this for him: He does have a prolific pen, good piano skills. "I'm Moving Out"; "I'm In a New York State of Mind". "In the Middle of the Night". "You May be Right". "Only the Good Die Young." I guess if it's his show, he gets to go long, too. He is a very old-fashioned performer; basically '50's style doo wop and crooning. B+
Chris Martin - Wearing a suit and tie? "Viva La Vida" (acoustic guitar)- my favorite Coldplay song, a tough way to perform it. Brings out Michael Stipe of R.E.M., who's suddenly looking very old--is he well? Martin oozes talent, he sounds like he has a cold. They do "Losing My Religion". Last song is "Us Against the World" (I had to look it up), with Martin switching to piano. A
Dave Grohl - The Foo Fighters guitarist is playing drums, as he did with Nirvana, with Nirvana bass player Chris Novoselic, Paul McCartney on bottleneck slide, and another guitarist, and they play a Nirvana-like song. An interesting novelty. B-
Paul McCartney - Looks like Sir Paul's got a real band behind him, but the song selection is a bit deficient. His face is much too young to be 70-something: Is he Botoxing? "Helter Skelter"; some new song ("Let Me Go There"?); some Wings song; brings out Diana Krall for another new one: "What If it Rains" (or is it "My Valentine"?)--this one written for his wife, Nancy, I'm thinking she's number 4. "Blackbird"--I didn't know it had political connotations about the civil rights movement until this moment, as it's surely not obvious, but not inconceivable, either. (Maybe it's part of his standard shtick; I know he likes to do this song live.) B-
Alicia Keys does a song called "New York" to close it.
Presenters and some comments thereof: Billy Crystal (some provocative political jokes)--testimonial for Long Beach, Adam Sandler (good example of the corny, funny song caricatures he used to do on SNL--"Hallelujah"), Jimmy Fallon--all excited, Chelsea Clinton--she was never introduced--she sounds just like her Mom; Puff Daddy and Olivia Wilde (also not introduced)--an incredible story of the hospital evacuated (didn't catch the name), Jon Stewart--Seaside Heights, Stephen Colbert--his jokes' tone seemed a little off, Steve Buscemi--good to see him relatively normal, not in role--First Responders, Chris Rock--Staten Island; Seth Myers and Bobby Moynihan- Bobby's "drunk uncle" from SNL, it's not one of their better gigs. Jake Gyllenhall - also Long Beach (wild hair/beard look; is it for a role?); Blake Lively--lovely girl--Fairfield, CT. Brian Williams - on a lot, as always charming, cool, with his amazingly asymmetrical face. Jason Sudeikis, Katie Holmes - Red Hook. Red Hook's tape got bumped for an ad--Ion channel finally they got tired of waiting to put on their WWE. After a few minutes of searching, I found the continuation on AMC--bless them!--during "Helter Skelter" with Paul and his band. So I don't know if I missed any music...
The charities: I do appreciate what they are doing, and they make a good case that the people need help. I like that they have been suggesting that some things will not be built back the way they used to be; in some cases it's just not the smart thing to do.
The Sponsors: Chase, Samsung, Delta. No doubt there are considerable expenses--the venue, the stage setting, the TV production. I wonder if they are paying any of the artists. That's enough of a plug for them.
My highlights (in order): 1) Eric Clapton's set; 2) Chris Martin with Michael Stipe; 3) Eddie Vetter with Roger Waters; 4) The Who--especially the songs from "Tommy".
Good that the Nirvana guys got together (and some credit to Dave Grohl--it's probably hard to go back to drums after you've been the front man/guitarist), but I'd say they need to work on more material before they are ready for the killer revival (if they have any desire at all to do that).
As telethons go, this was definitely a good one, though it skews a bit old and white. Nobody seems to be policing the clock--some performers go extremely long, while others show restraint--I guess they don't have anywhere to go later.
The censor with his finger on the button had a busy night repeatedly cutting the seven words not allowed on TV!
Brief Reviews of the Talent
Bruce Springsteen--I came in during the middle. B.S. in good form from his recent touring, did "Born to Run" and that can't be bad. B
Roger Waters -- He's touring with "The Wall", so had his light show going. Included some "Dark Side"; "Comfortably Numb" with Eddie Vetter was a real highlight. A-
Bon Jovi--tolerable; at least did "Dead or Alive", their best song. Paid back the invite Bruce gave him during his set. B-
Eric Clapton - The best overall set of the night: "Nobody Knows You When You're Down and Out" (acoustic); "Got to Get Better in a Little While"- great choice for the night; "Crossroads". The small band with just bass and drums with E.C. worked really well; a good change from some of the oversized ensembles. A
Rolling Stones - some crappy new song--not even the good one, "Gloom and Doom", which would've been kind of appropriate; "Jumpin' Jack Flash." Jagger has enough energy, had a couple of good wisecracks ("now NY has to come and help if it rains in London", "best collection ever of old British rockers") and it's good they showed, but basically a cameo. Keith must finally be on his last legs, performance-wise; Charlie Watts (the drummer--an original Stone), on the other hand, looks about 10 years younger than Jagger/Richards or Ronnie Wood. C
Alicia Keys--basically an improvised song or two. I liked it; it was heartfelt. B
The Who - they're touring now, so they've got their light show, too. Opened with "Who Are You"--always a good one that shows off their distinctive strengths: dynamics, lyrics, good use of prerecorded bits to augment their playing. Roger's voice is mighty shaky, and Pete's is gone. "The Beach (a/k/a Bell Boy)" - good choice - the clip of Keith Moon singing is both a sweet touch and incredibly stagy. "Pinball Wizard"--what can I say, except that it's a must-see for anyone? "See Me, Feel Me"--the best finale song, no? "Baba O'Riley" - probably not necessary, but always a popular one. "Love, Reign O'er Me". What's this last (acoustic) song - "Have some Tea With Me"? I'm very grateful that Pete Townshend is still making the effort; I hope those waiting for Kanye, Foo Fighters, or Chris Martin aren't too dismayed, because The 'Oo did go awfully long; I'd say that was basically the second set of their live performance, with encores. A
Kanye West - good that he came and performed for all the white folks, presumably mostly rich white folks, in the audience. Obviously not his usual crowd who knows all the words, but it was an interesting performance. Gotta like the reference to King Crimson ('21st century schizoid man"). Definitely an eccentric and intelligent dude; but what's with the skirt? B
Billy Joel - I've heard this was his idea--he's the Bob Geldof of the current age; it will do some good for his career, as there's a whole generation that has not heard of him. He starts with a complete song, with all the bells and whistles, written especially for the occasion: I'll call it "I've Seen the Lights Go Out on Broadway"--a good line. I'll say this for him: He does have a prolific pen, good piano skills. "I'm Moving Out"; "I'm In a New York State of Mind". "In the Middle of the Night". "You May be Right". "Only the Good Die Young." I guess if it's his show, he gets to go long, too. He is a very old-fashioned performer; basically '50's style doo wop and crooning. B+
Chris Martin - Wearing a suit and tie? "Viva La Vida" (acoustic guitar)- my favorite Coldplay song, a tough way to perform it. Brings out Michael Stipe of R.E.M., who's suddenly looking very old--is he well? Martin oozes talent, he sounds like he has a cold. They do "Losing My Religion". Last song is "Us Against the World" (I had to look it up), with Martin switching to piano. A
Dave Grohl - The Foo Fighters guitarist is playing drums, as he did with Nirvana, with Nirvana bass player Chris Novoselic, Paul McCartney on bottleneck slide, and another guitarist, and they play a Nirvana-like song. An interesting novelty. B-
Paul McCartney - Looks like Sir Paul's got a real band behind him, but the song selection is a bit deficient. His face is much too young to be 70-something: Is he Botoxing? "Helter Skelter"; some new song ("Let Me Go There"?); some Wings song; brings out Diana Krall for another new one: "What If it Rains" (or is it "My Valentine"?)--this one written for his wife, Nancy, I'm thinking she's number 4. "Blackbird"--I didn't know it had political connotations about the civil rights movement until this moment, as it's surely not obvious, but not inconceivable, either. (Maybe it's part of his standard shtick; I know he likes to do this song live.) B-
Alicia Keys does a song called "New York" to close it.
Presenters and some comments thereof: Billy Crystal (some provocative political jokes)--testimonial for Long Beach, Adam Sandler (good example of the corny, funny song caricatures he used to do on SNL--"Hallelujah"), Jimmy Fallon--all excited, Chelsea Clinton--she was never introduced--she sounds just like her Mom; Puff Daddy and Olivia Wilde (also not introduced)--an incredible story of the hospital evacuated (didn't catch the name), Jon Stewart--Seaside Heights, Stephen Colbert--his jokes' tone seemed a little off, Steve Buscemi--good to see him relatively normal, not in role--First Responders, Chris Rock--Staten Island; Seth Myers and Bobby Moynihan- Bobby's "drunk uncle" from SNL, it's not one of their better gigs. Jake Gyllenhall - also Long Beach (wild hair/beard look; is it for a role?); Blake Lively--lovely girl--Fairfield, CT. Brian Williams - on a lot, as always charming, cool, with his amazingly asymmetrical face. Jason Sudeikis, Katie Holmes - Red Hook. Red Hook's tape got bumped for an ad--Ion channel finally they got tired of waiting to put on their WWE. After a few minutes of searching, I found the continuation on AMC--bless them!--during "Helter Skelter" with Paul and his band. So I don't know if I missed any music...
The charities: I do appreciate what they are doing, and they make a good case that the people need help. I like that they have been suggesting that some things will not be built back the way they used to be; in some cases it's just not the smart thing to do.
The Sponsors: Chase, Samsung, Delta. No doubt there are considerable expenses--the venue, the stage setting, the TV production. I wonder if they are paying any of the artists. That's enough of a plug for them.
My highlights (in order): 1) Eric Clapton's set; 2) Chris Martin with Michael Stipe; 3) Eddie Vetter with Roger Waters; 4) The Who--especially the songs from "Tommy".
Good that the Nirvana guys got together (and some credit to Dave Grohl--it's probably hard to go back to drums after you've been the front man/guitarist), but I'd say they need to work on more material before they are ready for the killer revival (if they have any desire at all to do that).
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Talking Them Down from the Cliff....Pt. 2
We will post the third part when the deal is finally concluded, at which time we will reckon the meaningful winners and losers…and those in Washington, too.
The public posturing by the President and his supporters on the one hand, and by the Congressional Republicans on the other hand, has moved little since the initial positions taken just after the election’s results became clear. If anything, the lines drawn in the sand for their positions on taxes, the key element of this phase of the negotiations, have been dug more deeply, which will make them harder to cross. Both sides also seem to be saying that President Obama and Speaker Boehner have not yet begun face-to-face negotiations: Obama is saying that they will begin when the Republicans agree to the tax increases on the most wealthy, while Boehner, who has agreed to revenue increases but not tax rate increases, is looking for the President to put “real spending cuts”—by which he means cuts to the cost of entitlement programs—on the table before meaningful negotiations can begin.
Despite the gap in public, and even the lack of any acknowledged behind-the-scenes direct negotiations, there is movement in some of the positions and even optimism about the outcome. So far, Wall Street and the markets show no sign of alarm. It is by no means certain that any agreement will be reached by the end of the year, when the automatic end of tax cuts and beginning of sequestration begin, but there is no panic about that, because after that, the pressure to conclude a deal will rise sharply, and there is confidence on all sides that it will then get done.
The reckoning is that the President and the Democrats have most of the advantage: Obama's election win is still fresh (and the margin has grown as the counting completes) and the fall-back costs of failure to agree are deemed greater for the Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans may not feel the same way, though, as no agreement would mean the fastest reduction in the deficit, so if they get the upper hand with Boehner we could be in a stalemate next month which resembles the current National Hockey League lockout: no agreement, no negotiations, continuing erosion of the brand (in this case, of the U.S. dollar). As we pointed out in our previous post, Boehner needs to thread the needle in a deal which can convince 50-75 Republican Congressmen to come with him and not cause the other 160-180 ones to vote him out of his leadership position. The key difference between 2011 and now is that the conservative Republicans (and their lobbyist godfather, Grover Norquist) seem to have authorized Boehner to go ahead and make a deal which they will not support, in the interests of avoiding a generalized tax increase for which they would suffer severe political consequences.
Dealing Out the New, New Cards
How then is the emerging deal shaping up? This is where it gets very fuzzy, but some guesses may still be made. The Speaker offered $800 billion in additional revenues over ten years; Obama's proposal was $1.6 trillion. Splitting the difference would be $1.2 trillion, and that's certainly a likely figure. It also is the amount that had been tentatively agreed by Obama and Boehner two years ago, before Boehner got his negotiating legs cut out from under him by his caucus. Essentially, that would be Boehner's $800 billion in reduced "tax expenditures" plus Obama's $400 billion in tax rate increases for the wealthy. Somehow, this seems too easy; I would guess instead the revenue increase number will be cut back to $1 trillion, with somewhat less than the above figures both in the tax rate increases and in the deductions eliminated. This will allow both sides to claim a measure of victory, as it's always easier to get agreement on reducing tax increases than going the other way, and it will provide more room for phasing in tax increases gradually during this continuing period of vulnerability for the economy.
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout.
There will be a few hundred billion in cuts in discretionary expenses (Obama's Federal departments have been harvesting and storing them up for this purpose), and I'm looking for a couple hundred billion of new defense/security/intelligence cuts, as well (though not so much, or so blunt, as the sequestration cuts). There were already some cuts achieved in previous negotiations; those will be counted in the total of the final agreement. There will also be a very small amount of additional investments and aid to states in the final package, and some sort of agreement to fix the debt ceiling through 2014. The package of specific deficit reductions that will be announced--and it will come together quickly once the progress starts, somewhere in the calendar range of Dec. 26-Jan. 15--will be a bit small, in the range of $2.5-3.0 trillion, but it will include, on top of that, an agreement to find more from the big entitlement programs and from closing loopholes in the tax code. That amount will be small, but increasing, over the 10-year timeline that everyone has agreed to view, and will bring the total up to $4 trillion, enough--without including rapid economic growth into the calculations--to bring the deficit down but not eliminate it.
This will bring the second difficult aspect of this agreement, finding the formula that compels Congress and the President to accomplish this last trillion without specifying the details now. The specifics will take months, possibly the entire session of Congress, to work out. I will be very surprised if there is any agreement about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in either the lame-duck session or the initial months of the new Congress, and, to be frank, it would be unwise to try to revise the tax code in a hurry. Still, the staff groups are able to put a number around reasonable savings that would result from the process, and that will be the final slide in the Power Point presentation--that, and the fiscal handcuffing that would result if the special bipartisan groups to be formed cannot reach a result. I'm guessing it would be some sort of automatic additional increase in tax rates across the board, something everyone would seek to avoid.
I'm Entitled (to Spout Off, Anyway); How About You?
Now, to close, a few comments about the most knotty of all the problems, the question of what to do about the entitlements.
Social Security is the one with the least urgent problem; essentially the challenge is to maintain a large-enough surplus in the trust fund so that the program will never be a burden on the national debt, which until now it has not. The trust fund--which is a separate account from the overall Federal budget, but doesn't really have money stored away in Ft. Knox or anything--would begin to run an annual deficit in a few years, and if there are no changes, it would be depleted in 15 years or so, and after that full funding of it would begin to add to the deficit. All that is needed is to change the trajectory a little, and we would get safely past the most difficult years of our demographic challenge, the ones when the ratio of workers to retirees is lowest, until about 2050, and then it would essentially be self-funding indefinitely into the future. The pieties about holding the retirement age for Social Security are hypocritical; the resistance against reducing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) in it is not. People think that the age 65 for retirement is inviolate, but they are wrong; this was already changed in the famous deal made in the Eighties by Reagan and Tip O'Neill. It's gradually increasing, to 67 for full benefits (of course, one can retire earlier and get less); it could be adjusted a bit more over the next decade or two, and we'd be home free. The COLA is seductively attractive, in that it saves a ton of money over the long term, but that also means that the value of the benefit would be shrinking, and it's already very low.
Medicare is the largest problem in numerical terms, and in the sense that the current trajectory is going to bankrupt the program soonest. The Affordable Care Act, the infamous Obamacare of political demagoguery of all sides, has had a significant effect improving the finances of the program, but not nearly enough. The remedies which are usually proposed--increasing the age of eligibility, or reducing the benefits (the latter, in the wolf in sheep's clothing form of the Paul Ryan-proposed voucher program)--are the wrong ones. Reducing benefits--any way that you do it--means bankrupting more seniors; increasing the eligibility age actually just makes the economic dynamics worse. The best solution is actually the opposite: lowering the eligibility age, making it available to people 55 and older! Because their health costs are lower than older folks, bringing them into the program would improve the economics of the program. If we think of it as a business, raising the eligibility age focuses the program more on the unprofitable customers, expanding it brings in more profitable customers, improving the operating leverage. Of course, there would be no requirement for fifty-something-ers to buy in, but some would do so (those getting the worst deal from the private insurers), and employers would find it attractive to participate for their older employees (something which should be allowed through the reform). Instead of creating a death spiral for Medicare, expanding would create a virtuous cycle which, combined with changing it from fee-for-services to fee-for-customers, focusing on prevention and maintenance, could end up making the whole thing workable in the long run--and eliminating decades more of debates about whether the health insurance industry needs the challenge of "the public option", which otherwise is not going to go away.
I actually think Medicaid is the most difficult problem of the three to solve. Mostly Medicaid is about the assistance to states to provide for health services for those who can not afford health insurance, so its viability is challenged both by the dire state of the states' budgets and the rising costs of health. Already, many states are cutting their rolls of eligible people by fiat; soon, the horror stories will begin to pile up in those states. It's going to get worse, and some kind of Federal program to improve minimum standards for states will be worthless unless it is accompanied by an increase in funding--and the pressure will all be in the other direction. I have no proposed solution for the present, except that we must insist on holding the line against cuts and holding states responsible for the health of their poorest and the effectiveness of how the money is spent. Eventually, once other problems get addressed (Federal deficits, state revenues, the economy, health costs), we will come back to this one, and hopefully there will not be too great a cost in the meantime.
The public posturing by the President and his supporters on the one hand, and by the Congressional Republicans on the other hand, has moved little since the initial positions taken just after the election’s results became clear. If anything, the lines drawn in the sand for their positions on taxes, the key element of this phase of the negotiations, have been dug more deeply, which will make them harder to cross. Both sides also seem to be saying that President Obama and Speaker Boehner have not yet begun face-to-face negotiations: Obama is saying that they will begin when the Republicans agree to the tax increases on the most wealthy, while Boehner, who has agreed to revenue increases but not tax rate increases, is looking for the President to put “real spending cuts”—by which he means cuts to the cost of entitlement programs—on the table before meaningful negotiations can begin.
Despite the gap in public, and even the lack of any acknowledged behind-the-scenes direct negotiations, there is movement in some of the positions and even optimism about the outcome. So far, Wall Street and the markets show no sign of alarm. It is by no means certain that any agreement will be reached by the end of the year, when the automatic end of tax cuts and beginning of sequestration begin, but there is no panic about that, because after that, the pressure to conclude a deal will rise sharply, and there is confidence on all sides that it will then get done.
The reckoning is that the President and the Democrats have most of the advantage: Obama's election win is still fresh (and the margin has grown as the counting completes) and the fall-back costs of failure to agree are deemed greater for the Republicans. The Tea Party Republicans may not feel the same way, though, as no agreement would mean the fastest reduction in the deficit, so if they get the upper hand with Boehner we could be in a stalemate next month which resembles the current National Hockey League lockout: no agreement, no negotiations, continuing erosion of the brand (in this case, of the U.S. dollar). As we pointed out in our previous post, Boehner needs to thread the needle in a deal which can convince 50-75 Republican Congressmen to come with him and not cause the other 160-180 ones to vote him out of his leadership position. The key difference between 2011 and now is that the conservative Republicans (and their lobbyist godfather, Grover Norquist) seem to have authorized Boehner to go ahead and make a deal which they will not support, in the interests of avoiding a generalized tax increase for which they would suffer severe political consequences.
Dealing Out the New, New Cards
How then is the emerging deal shaping up? This is where it gets very fuzzy, but some guesses may still be made. The Speaker offered $800 billion in additional revenues over ten years; Obama's proposal was $1.6 trillion. Splitting the difference would be $1.2 trillion, and that's certainly a likely figure. It also is the amount that had been tentatively agreed by Obama and Boehner two years ago, before Boehner got his negotiating legs cut out from under him by his caucus. Essentially, that would be Boehner's $800 billion in reduced "tax expenditures" plus Obama's $400 billion in tax rate increases for the wealthy. Somehow, this seems too easy; I would guess instead the revenue increase number will be cut back to $1 trillion, with somewhat less than the above figures both in the tax rate increases and in the deductions eliminated. This will allow both sides to claim a measure of victory, as it's always easier to get agreement on reducing tax increases than going the other way, and it will provide more room for phasing in tax increases gradually during this continuing period of vulnerability for the economy.
I'm looking for two gradations in the higher income rates, one for those with income over $1 million and one for $250K - $1 million; I'm looking for the proposed deduction cuts to be smoothed out to reduce the impact on moderate taxpayers, for a substantial shift in the income level when the infamous Alternative Minimum Tax begins to apply, and for tax rates on capital gains and dividends to be increased but to have a top rate lower than the marginal rate for the highest income ranges. The surprising thing is that both sides seem ready to throw the payroll tax reduction "holiday" of the past couple of years under the bus; this is surprising because the economy's recovery is still relatively weak, but the payroll tax cut is one that, by general agreement, can not be extended indefinitely (the money is needed to support the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, which are shrinking); I thought it would be phased out over the next two years, but both sides seem to need to tote that money up for the promised savings they want to tout.
There will be a few hundred billion in cuts in discretionary expenses (Obama's Federal departments have been harvesting and storing them up for this purpose), and I'm looking for a couple hundred billion of new defense/security/intelligence cuts, as well (though not so much, or so blunt, as the sequestration cuts). There were already some cuts achieved in previous negotiations; those will be counted in the total of the final agreement. There will also be a very small amount of additional investments and aid to states in the final package, and some sort of agreement to fix the debt ceiling through 2014. The package of specific deficit reductions that will be announced--and it will come together quickly once the progress starts, somewhere in the calendar range of Dec. 26-Jan. 15--will be a bit small, in the range of $2.5-3.0 trillion, but it will include, on top of that, an agreement to find more from the big entitlement programs and from closing loopholes in the tax code. That amount will be small, but increasing, over the 10-year timeline that everyone has agreed to view, and will bring the total up to $4 trillion, enough--without including rapid economic growth into the calculations--to bring the deficit down but not eliminate it.
This will bring the second difficult aspect of this agreement, finding the formula that compels Congress and the President to accomplish this last trillion without specifying the details now. The specifics will take months, possibly the entire session of Congress, to work out. I will be very surprised if there is any agreement about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security in either the lame-duck session or the initial months of the new Congress, and, to be frank, it would be unwise to try to revise the tax code in a hurry. Still, the staff groups are able to put a number around reasonable savings that would result from the process, and that will be the final slide in the Power Point presentation--that, and the fiscal handcuffing that would result if the special bipartisan groups to be formed cannot reach a result. I'm guessing it would be some sort of automatic additional increase in tax rates across the board, something everyone would seek to avoid.
I'm Entitled (to Spout Off, Anyway); How About You?
Now, to close, a few comments about the most knotty of all the problems, the question of what to do about the entitlements.
Social Security is the one with the least urgent problem; essentially the challenge is to maintain a large-enough surplus in the trust fund so that the program will never be a burden on the national debt, which until now it has not. The trust fund--which is a separate account from the overall Federal budget, but doesn't really have money stored away in Ft. Knox or anything--would begin to run an annual deficit in a few years, and if there are no changes, it would be depleted in 15 years or so, and after that full funding of it would begin to add to the deficit. All that is needed is to change the trajectory a little, and we would get safely past the most difficult years of our demographic challenge, the ones when the ratio of workers to retirees is lowest, until about 2050, and then it would essentially be self-funding indefinitely into the future. The pieties about holding the retirement age for Social Security are hypocritical; the resistance against reducing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) in it is not. People think that the age 65 for retirement is inviolate, but they are wrong; this was already changed in the famous deal made in the Eighties by Reagan and Tip O'Neill. It's gradually increasing, to 67 for full benefits (of course, one can retire earlier and get less); it could be adjusted a bit more over the next decade or two, and we'd be home free. The COLA is seductively attractive, in that it saves a ton of money over the long term, but that also means that the value of the benefit would be shrinking, and it's already very low.
Medicare is the largest problem in numerical terms, and in the sense that the current trajectory is going to bankrupt the program soonest. The Affordable Care Act, the infamous Obamacare of political demagoguery of all sides, has had a significant effect improving the finances of the program, but not nearly enough. The remedies which are usually proposed--increasing the age of eligibility, or reducing the benefits (the latter, in the wolf in sheep's clothing form of the Paul Ryan-proposed voucher program)--are the wrong ones. Reducing benefits--any way that you do it--means bankrupting more seniors; increasing the eligibility age actually just makes the economic dynamics worse. The best solution is actually the opposite: lowering the eligibility age, making it available to people 55 and older! Because their health costs are lower than older folks, bringing them into the program would improve the economics of the program. If we think of it as a business, raising the eligibility age focuses the program more on the unprofitable customers, expanding it brings in more profitable customers, improving the operating leverage. Of course, there would be no requirement for fifty-something-ers to buy in, but some would do so (those getting the worst deal from the private insurers), and employers would find it attractive to participate for their older employees (something which should be allowed through the reform). Instead of creating a death spiral for Medicare, expanding would create a virtuous cycle which, combined with changing it from fee-for-services to fee-for-customers, focusing on prevention and maintenance, could end up making the whole thing workable in the long run--and eliminating decades more of debates about whether the health insurance industry needs the challenge of "the public option", which otherwise is not going to go away.
I actually think Medicaid is the most difficult problem of the three to solve. Mostly Medicaid is about the assistance to states to provide for health services for those who can not afford health insurance, so its viability is challenged both by the dire state of the states' budgets and the rising costs of health. Already, many states are cutting their rolls of eligible people by fiat; soon, the horror stories will begin to pile up in those states. It's going to get worse, and some kind of Federal program to improve minimum standards for states will be worthless unless it is accompanied by an increase in funding--and the pressure will all be in the other direction. I have no proposed solution for the present, except that we must insist on holding the line against cuts and holding states responsible for the health of their poorest and the effectiveness of how the money is spent. Eventually, once other problems get addressed (Federal deficits, state revenues, the economy, health costs), we will come back to this one, and hopefully there will not be too great a cost in the meantime.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Authenticity in the Movies
The title may seem antithetical--going to the movies is one of the classic escapist forms of entertainment, a chance to leave the world behind and concentrate on the flickering screen in a darkened room--but the quality of genuineness is one of the key qualities which identify a well-made film, and the environment--high-intensity attention, extreme magnification--makes inauthenticity apparent.
I'm going to focus here on regular feature films, as distinguished from the documentaries, which are a distinguished art form, one I wouldn't claim to be qualified to criticize, and one with very different entertainment value. So, what I'm talking about are the made-up stories, or stories re-told, historical fiction, or the re-creation of human events.
It's not just whether a film is realistic, though that is an element of what I'm trying to analyze. Like published fiction, the audience has agreed provisionally to suspend disbelief for the duration of the experience, so it doesn't have to be quite real. Artistically, though, breaking stereotypes and going beyond stock characters and situations--"making it real", as they say in hiphop society-- have periodically been sources of renewal for movies, revitalizing the genres when the rules that govern them become too confining. That's an aspiration, not a universal one in film, but a creditable one.
So, granted we are talking about the movies' artificial world, what I'm expecting from a well-made production is the avoidance of fakery. This adds greatly to the cost of making films, but it is generally money well spent, in that the ticket-buying public expects a convincing simulation of reality. It is for this reason that movie productions go "on location"--sometimes to the place where the story is set, but, if not, to a place that, in key characteristics, resembles it sufficiently.
Seeking the Really Fake
Now, I want to discuss two exceptions to the general principle of seeking the best possible imitation of what is real. One is the intentional inclusion of anachronism, or of something--a prop, a location--that obviously does not fit the scene. This is a risky strategy and not advisable except for humorous or satiric pupose; there are few other cases in which it would make sense for movie creators to call attention to the fact that they have chosen not to make their art the most convincing they could.
To give an example from Cloud Atlas, a film I consider generally very commendable, one aspect that has been criticized has been excessive or poor use of makeup. I have only seen the film once--sadly, it has disappeared far too quickly in this season of rapid-fire releases--but there is one scene in which I would agree with that criticism: in the formal dinner scene which concludes the 1847 episode, two characters clearly stood out unfavorably: Halle Berry and Doona Bae made up in whiteface. There are reasons that was done--to complete the concept that the principal cast members would appear in all six episodes--but in this particular case it creates a jarring reaction, a rejection of the scene as being less than what it should be.
The other exception to the strategy I would note is the transformation of film into theater, placing the action on a stage. Blurring the boundary of reality with artifice through use of the motif of the play within the play, or the film being made within the film, is in itself beyond questioning because of the success it has found: it can create an ironic tone to comment on the nature of drama or of life itself, as its use often seeks to pose a profound comment on the fundamental relationship between drama and real life. Think of Hamlet, 8 1/2, or, to cite dramatic use of a play in a film, Barton Fink. Reduction of a movie to a play, though, is a more problematic technique, one that has been attempted (and sharply criticized) in the new release of Anna Karenina. I want to see the movie, and I hope I will enjoy it, but it seems to me to be a wrong-headed approach to the work of the great Russian novelist Tolstoy and his use of the great panorama of his vast country--perhaps it's an attempt to capture the claustrophobia of the heroine's situation. I have seen other movies that have tried this approach; I can't think of any that have been successful doing it (Synecdoche, New York, anyone? I can't say I've managed to watch it, though I've tried). This minimalistic technique basically is an artistic statement rejecting the desirability, maybe even the possibility, of a realistic approach; as I say, I don't get it.
Another film genre I can't "get" is the musical, whether comic, dramatic, or pure song-and-dance. Pure opera has something to say for itself, as it posits a figurative musical reality which represents the essence of the mundane prosaic one, but all those stories where the dialogue stops and the characters break into song, or song-and-dance, are just too absurd for me to accept, even if the singing isn't dubbed and the music somehow fits the story. (Music soundtracks in movies are another topic, and one that I can't criticize effectively; I will say that an effective musical soundtrack must either enhance the storytelling by reflecting the interior emotions of the characters--addressing one of the great weaknesses of movies vs. books--or be totally lost within it, subtly framing the dialogue or action.) West Side Story is an example of the kind of disjointed fakey reality that bothers me; even though made with superior production, it is a fake that is only partly redeemed by the classical beauty of its Romeo and Juliet story and a little bit--not much, mind you--of reality intruding into the movie's artificial New York City of longing and songing. The new movie version of Les Miserables seeks to somehow make musical drama more realistic through hand-held camera work--adding a stylistic veneer of realism to a fakey form of rendering the original gritty, historically-based real-life drama.
When Unreality Needs Little Excuse
Science fiction is a special case, in that, for most of it, there is no objective reality to which the movie's created reality can be compared (an exception would be prehistoric drama--something like 1,000,000 B.C.--and its unfortunate tendency to have unintentional anachronism). In science fiction, the test of authenticity is usually whether--given the scenario--the action, the visual effects, and the dialogue are convincingly real. In this regard, the Cloud Atlas scenes from a futuristic Korea ("Corporea", in the book) are a highlight of the film. Avatar had, to me, several ludicrous premises to its story having to do with unrealistic aspects of a human society capable of interstellar travel, but once immersed in it, the look and feel--and the stubborn atavism of many of the human characters--were effective and believable. About Blade Runner, one could say much of the same: the whole notion of the androids created and living beyond human contact with built-in expiration dates seemed unrealistic, but if one accepted that, much of the behavior, the earthbound environment, the neo-noir storytelling, all made so much sense. Fantasy movies enjoy the same freedom of divorce from reality, but the same strictures of being true to their rules of engagement, thus the success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings in faithfully re-creating its unreal world.
But then there are the stories that are just too far over the top, whether science fiction or just totally unrelated to any world we know or could know. The ones that, if one of them could only have happened, would have been the most amazing event in the history of humanity, greater in magnitude, import, and all-out achievement than the Bible's Greatest Story Ever Told. Their stories are legion--think of almost any Will Smith movie of recent years (I am Legend, Independence Day, Hancock, even his Wild Wild West), Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Bond, etc. Bond movies at least have the cover story of secrecy as to why these incredible exploits are unknown to us in the real world. In other words, I have a little trouble taking this kind of pure escapism seriously, which is why I love a movie like District 9, which uses a fake documentary style and incredible events to poke fun at the genre. Then there are the horror stories, the splatter flicks, vampires, zombies, etc. which fundamentally rely upon being totally unrealistic for their entertainment value: if they had any component that seemed at all realistic, they would be unendurable.
Even Better than the Real Thing
Finally, though, there are the movies that strive to tell real stories, and to do it in a way that feels real. In this, we allow the director the artistic license to enhance reality, because it makes the storytelling tolerably interesting, as long as the condensation of the storyline does not distort it excessively. Argo is a very interesting story based on a real, little-known caper, and most of it was well told. The locations--in Turkey, not Iran--seemed realistic, there is plenty of authenticity in the story, and even much of the Hollywood angle has its truth to it. Unfortunately, the movie goes off the rails at its climax, with an unrealistic car-chasing-plane scene which has no fundamental basis in the true story.
As much as I criticize Steven Spielberg for his emotional manipulation and his willingness to engage in escapist fantasy (E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones), he is a master of the art of telling true stories in a convincing way. In this regard, I cite Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, and Schindler's List, and now I have to say that he has outdone himself with Lincoln. With the assistance of extensive research, a superb screenplay by Tony Kushner, and a brilliant cast, headed by a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis so great that, like War Secretary Edwin Stanton's comment upon the moment of Lincoln's death, it "now...belongs to the ages", Spielberg has told a story that fools the viewer into the feeling that it is the real thing in every way. With Spielbergian manipulative power, he swept me into the world of 1865 Washington D.C. from the first scene to the end. Only when I saw it a second time could I see the artistry of his craft, and I encourage all to view it--repeatedly.
I refer to my previous prediction that the over-under bet for Oscars for the movie is seven. For me, that Lincoln should win Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Picture are absolute certainty, no matter what the competition may be; I'd say it should also contend for 5-10 more: Supporting Actor (David Straitharn or Tommy Lee Jones, if they don't cancel each other's chances out), Best Actress (Sally Field should be nominated, at least), Best Director (maybe not), Music, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, Film Editing, and Makeup.
There is, however, a movie that is rumored to have a real chance of topping Lincoln for Best Picture. * It's the only thing that could beat the real thing, a true story of great importance like that in Lincoln: a story about something real, important, and, better for box office, contemporary, but enhanced way beyond what is real for the purpose of storytelling. I'm referring to Zero Dark Thirty, in which Kathryn Bigelow apparently has once again shown the talent for doing just what she accomplished so well in The Hurt Locker, now applied to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The inverse of my description of horror films above, the intensity of Hurt Locker is beyond what can be endured, except that it has that moral urgency which comes from that relevance. Not being in the privileged fraternity of movie critics or insiders, I haven't seen it, but I think the Oscar race for Best Picture could end up being a classic battle between what is real, but old, and what is now, but even more than real.
*And it's about even with Lincoln in the odds on Intrade--which recently decided to boot off systematically all the illegal American accounts it used to wink at. I hope I can at least still get on--they claim they will have a new, legal form for Americans to participate.
I'm going to focus here on regular feature films, as distinguished from the documentaries, which are a distinguished art form, one I wouldn't claim to be qualified to criticize, and one with very different entertainment value. So, what I'm talking about are the made-up stories, or stories re-told, historical fiction, or the re-creation of human events.
It's not just whether a film is realistic, though that is an element of what I'm trying to analyze. Like published fiction, the audience has agreed provisionally to suspend disbelief for the duration of the experience, so it doesn't have to be quite real. Artistically, though, breaking stereotypes and going beyond stock characters and situations--"making it real", as they say in hiphop society-- have periodically been sources of renewal for movies, revitalizing the genres when the rules that govern them become too confining. That's an aspiration, not a universal one in film, but a creditable one.
So, granted we are talking about the movies' artificial world, what I'm expecting from a well-made production is the avoidance of fakery. This adds greatly to the cost of making films, but it is generally money well spent, in that the ticket-buying public expects a convincing simulation of reality. It is for this reason that movie productions go "on location"--sometimes to the place where the story is set, but, if not, to a place that, in key characteristics, resembles it sufficiently.
Seeking the Really Fake
Now, I want to discuss two exceptions to the general principle of seeking the best possible imitation of what is real. One is the intentional inclusion of anachronism, or of something--a prop, a location--that obviously does not fit the scene. This is a risky strategy and not advisable except for humorous or satiric pupose; there are few other cases in which it would make sense for movie creators to call attention to the fact that they have chosen not to make their art the most convincing they could.
To give an example from Cloud Atlas, a film I consider generally very commendable, one aspect that has been criticized has been excessive or poor use of makeup. I have only seen the film once--sadly, it has disappeared far too quickly in this season of rapid-fire releases--but there is one scene in which I would agree with that criticism: in the formal dinner scene which concludes the 1847 episode, two characters clearly stood out unfavorably: Halle Berry and Doona Bae made up in whiteface. There are reasons that was done--to complete the concept that the principal cast members would appear in all six episodes--but in this particular case it creates a jarring reaction, a rejection of the scene as being less than what it should be.
The other exception to the strategy I would note is the transformation of film into theater, placing the action on a stage. Blurring the boundary of reality with artifice through use of the motif of the play within the play, or the film being made within the film, is in itself beyond questioning because of the success it has found: it can create an ironic tone to comment on the nature of drama or of life itself, as its use often seeks to pose a profound comment on the fundamental relationship between drama and real life. Think of Hamlet, 8 1/2, or, to cite dramatic use of a play in a film, Barton Fink. Reduction of a movie to a play, though, is a more problematic technique, one that has been attempted (and sharply criticized) in the new release of Anna Karenina. I want to see the movie, and I hope I will enjoy it, but it seems to me to be a wrong-headed approach to the work of the great Russian novelist Tolstoy and his use of the great panorama of his vast country--perhaps it's an attempt to capture the claustrophobia of the heroine's situation. I have seen other movies that have tried this approach; I can't think of any that have been successful doing it (Synecdoche, New York, anyone? I can't say I've managed to watch it, though I've tried). This minimalistic technique basically is an artistic statement rejecting the desirability, maybe even the possibility, of a realistic approach; as I say, I don't get it.
Another film genre I can't "get" is the musical, whether comic, dramatic, or pure song-and-dance. Pure opera has something to say for itself, as it posits a figurative musical reality which represents the essence of the mundane prosaic one, but all those stories where the dialogue stops and the characters break into song, or song-and-dance, are just too absurd for me to accept, even if the singing isn't dubbed and the music somehow fits the story. (Music soundtracks in movies are another topic, and one that I can't criticize effectively; I will say that an effective musical soundtrack must either enhance the storytelling by reflecting the interior emotions of the characters--addressing one of the great weaknesses of movies vs. books--or be totally lost within it, subtly framing the dialogue or action.) West Side Story is an example of the kind of disjointed fakey reality that bothers me; even though made with superior production, it is a fake that is only partly redeemed by the classical beauty of its Romeo and Juliet story and a little bit--not much, mind you--of reality intruding into the movie's artificial New York City of longing and songing. The new movie version of Les Miserables seeks to somehow make musical drama more realistic through hand-held camera work--adding a stylistic veneer of realism to a fakey form of rendering the original gritty, historically-based real-life drama.
When Unreality Needs Little Excuse
Science fiction is a special case, in that, for most of it, there is no objective reality to which the movie's created reality can be compared (an exception would be prehistoric drama--something like 1,000,000 B.C.--and its unfortunate tendency to have unintentional anachronism). In science fiction, the test of authenticity is usually whether--given the scenario--the action, the visual effects, and the dialogue are convincingly real. In this regard, the Cloud Atlas scenes from a futuristic Korea ("Corporea", in the book) are a highlight of the film. Avatar had, to me, several ludicrous premises to its story having to do with unrealistic aspects of a human society capable of interstellar travel, but once immersed in it, the look and feel--and the stubborn atavism of many of the human characters--were effective and believable. About Blade Runner, one could say much of the same: the whole notion of the androids created and living beyond human contact with built-in expiration dates seemed unrealistic, but if one accepted that, much of the behavior, the earthbound environment, the neo-noir storytelling, all made so much sense. Fantasy movies enjoy the same freedom of divorce from reality, but the same strictures of being true to their rules of engagement, thus the success of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings in faithfully re-creating its unreal world.
But then there are the stories that are just too far over the top, whether science fiction or just totally unrelated to any world we know or could know. The ones that, if one of them could only have happened, would have been the most amazing event in the history of humanity, greater in magnitude, import, and all-out achievement than the Bible's Greatest Story Ever Told. Their stories are legion--think of almost any Will Smith movie of recent years (I am Legend, Independence Day, Hancock, even his Wild Wild West), Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Bond, etc. Bond movies at least have the cover story of secrecy as to why these incredible exploits are unknown to us in the real world. In other words, I have a little trouble taking this kind of pure escapism seriously, which is why I love a movie like District 9, which uses a fake documentary style and incredible events to poke fun at the genre. Then there are the horror stories, the splatter flicks, vampires, zombies, etc. which fundamentally rely upon being totally unrealistic for their entertainment value: if they had any component that seemed at all realistic, they would be unendurable.
Even Better than the Real Thing
Finally, though, there are the movies that strive to tell real stories, and to do it in a way that feels real. In this, we allow the director the artistic license to enhance reality, because it makes the storytelling tolerably interesting, as long as the condensation of the storyline does not distort it excessively. Argo is a very interesting story based on a real, little-known caper, and most of it was well told. The locations--in Turkey, not Iran--seemed realistic, there is plenty of authenticity in the story, and even much of the Hollywood angle has its truth to it. Unfortunately, the movie goes off the rails at its climax, with an unrealistic car-chasing-plane scene which has no fundamental basis in the true story.
As much as I criticize Steven Spielberg for his emotional manipulation and his willingness to engage in escapist fantasy (E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones), he is a master of the art of telling true stories in a convincing way. In this regard, I cite Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, and Schindler's List, and now I have to say that he has outdone himself with Lincoln. With the assistance of extensive research, a superb screenplay by Tony Kushner, and a brilliant cast, headed by a performance by Daniel Day-Lewis so great that, like War Secretary Edwin Stanton's comment upon the moment of Lincoln's death, it "now...belongs to the ages", Spielberg has told a story that fools the viewer into the feeling that it is the real thing in every way. With Spielbergian manipulative power, he swept me into the world of 1865 Washington D.C. from the first scene to the end. Only when I saw it a second time could I see the artistry of his craft, and I encourage all to view it--repeatedly.
I refer to my previous prediction that the over-under bet for Oscars for the movie is seven. For me, that Lincoln should win Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Picture are absolute certainty, no matter what the competition may be; I'd say it should also contend for 5-10 more: Supporting Actor (David Straitharn or Tommy Lee Jones, if they don't cancel each other's chances out), Best Actress (Sally Field should be nominated, at least), Best Director (maybe not), Music, Cinematography, Art Direction, Costumes, Film Editing, and Makeup.
There is, however, a movie that is rumored to have a real chance of topping Lincoln for Best Picture. * It's the only thing that could beat the real thing, a true story of great importance like that in Lincoln: a story about something real, important, and, better for box office, contemporary, but enhanced way beyond what is real for the purpose of storytelling. I'm referring to Zero Dark Thirty, in which Kathryn Bigelow apparently has once again shown the talent for doing just what she accomplished so well in The Hurt Locker, now applied to the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The inverse of my description of horror films above, the intensity of Hurt Locker is beyond what can be endured, except that it has that moral urgency which comes from that relevance. Not being in the privileged fraternity of movie critics or insiders, I haven't seen it, but I think the Oscar race for Best Picture could end up being a classic battle between what is real, but old, and what is now, but even more than real.
*And it's about even with Lincoln in the odds on Intrade--which recently decided to boot off systematically all the illegal American accounts it used to wink at. I hope I can at least still get on--they claim they will have a new, legal form for Americans to participate.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The November Spblorg
Before we got totally distracted by the looming election, our last post on sports left off just before the beginning of the baseball playoffs. Our Reds incredibly failed to convert on a two-game lead over the Giants with three home games, providing just the boost the San Franciscans needed to go on and win the pennant and the world championship. My preseason pick, the Detroit Tigers, also went down meekly before the Giants; their key failure was somehow losing the first game of the World Series when they had the world's best pitcher, Justin Verlander, and faced retread #4 starter Barry Zito. Congratulations to the Giants--and their smoke and mirrors!
We are excited about the new college and NBA basketball seasons, we will ignore the absence once again of NHL games, and we are somewhat dismayed by Chelsea's recent form in Premier and Champions League play, but, inevitably, this time of year we have to talk about football (American) a little. I am watching more games this year and enjoying them more, though I have more than a few complaints about what I'm seeing.
The Luck of the Irish
I was preparing to write the article I usually prepare this time of year about how the BCS screwed up, once again, and how their championship game would be unfair to someone. In this year's case, it appeared to be Notre Dame. With Kansas State and Oregon unbeaten and clearly ranked 1-2, and Notre Dame and Alabama (the best team, in spite of their upset loss the previous week to Texas A&M) destined to be outside looking in on the BCS biggie, it appeared the expansion of the championship to four teams, announced earlier this fall, was going to be a year too late.
What I did not expect--what no one expected--was that Saturday night both K-State and Oregon would fall from the ranks of the unbeaten. Kansas St. was thoroughly trounced by an eager Baylor team, while Stanford proved that, while the Cardinal can't quite maintain the consistency needed for a top ranking, it can beat anybody on a given day.
So, Notre Dame--which is unbeaten, has played some tough teams but has had more than its share of narrow, even lucky, wins against teams both good and bad--is now the only major college team that is undefeated and bowl-eligible (Ohio State has chosen to take its postseason ban this year), and would look to play (and probably get beaten by) Alabama in the championship game. One hurdle remains for each: Notre Dame must defeat their perennial nemesis, USC, and Alabama will need to win its SEC championship game (against Georgia or Florida).
USC has had a very difficult season, falling from a high early season ranking, and most recently being shown up by crosstown rival UCLA, and their star quarterback Matt Barkley will not be playing vs. Notre Dame, but I would not exclude the possibility of a win by the Trojans. They will be at home, and Notre Dame has often come up short against USC, especially when they really needed to win. As for Alabama, usually they look like world-beaters, but they did not that day (at home!) against Texas A&M, a team that has just moved into the SEC and has a tangled history with Alabama, having to do with various sainted coaches like Bear Bryant who started out there. It looks like the beginning of a great, renewed rivalry.
A&M's move into the SEC is hardly the worst of the new conference shake-out moves; look at the Big East, which will have a Western division entirely made up of schools west of the Mississippi, or the Big 10, which now has 14 teams (so which are the small 4, I wonder?) committed to it, due to adding Midwestern powerhouses Rutgers and Maryland. The Big 12 (formerly the Big 8) is down to 10, so it loses its prized conference championship. Notre Dame has committed to the ACC for everything except football, though it will play five games a year against ACC teams (should be better for their record than tough games with teams like Michigan and Michigan State). It's hard to tell which conferences are gaining and which are losing out, really: I think the Pac-12 and SEC are doing well, but I'm not sure about the rest. The Big 10 might seem to be doing well, but between postseason bans for its best teams (Ohio State and Penn State) and switching around, they will have one of the worst representatives in a BCS spot reserved for their league. A pox on all of them!
NFL: Who's Left Standing, Conscious?
Comments about "the product": I see an arms race between a desperate effort to use rules to protect quarterbacks from blind-side hits and defenses getting better and better at all-out pass rush. I see the evolution of fumbles from ballcarriers dropping the ball to defensive strategies which feature "tacklers" who don't tackle but punch at the midsection of the ballcarriers to try to loosen their hold so they can rip the ball out of their hands. The efforts to try to reduce the damage from concussions look more like trying to reduce future lawsuit damages than anything resembling real concern for safety and health. The most important game situation these days is often the judgement of the official in the replay booth looking at the super-slow motion to figure out whether the ball was completely ripped out of the rusher's arms before his knee touched the ground.
Still, despite the developing problems with the product and the feeling that the whole enterprise is doomed, interest remains high. There is both enough parity to make the outcome of almost any game in doubt before it starts, but there is also enough quality that some teams rise above mediocrity. There will be some new teams in the playoffs (49ers and Texans would be the current favorites to meet in the Super Bowl) and plenty of familiar faces as well (Green Bay, New Orleans have overcome poor early-season records and look dangerous, while Peyton Manning has re-emerged with Denver). Ratings should be good.
We are excited about the new college and NBA basketball seasons, we will ignore the absence once again of NHL games, and we are somewhat dismayed by Chelsea's recent form in Premier and Champions League play, but, inevitably, this time of year we have to talk about football (American) a little. I am watching more games this year and enjoying them more, though I have more than a few complaints about what I'm seeing.
The Luck of the Irish
I was preparing to write the article I usually prepare this time of year about how the BCS screwed up, once again, and how their championship game would be unfair to someone. In this year's case, it appeared to be Notre Dame. With Kansas State and Oregon unbeaten and clearly ranked 1-2, and Notre Dame and Alabama (the best team, in spite of their upset loss the previous week to Texas A&M) destined to be outside looking in on the BCS biggie, it appeared the expansion of the championship to four teams, announced earlier this fall, was going to be a year too late.
What I did not expect--what no one expected--was that Saturday night both K-State and Oregon would fall from the ranks of the unbeaten. Kansas St. was thoroughly trounced by an eager Baylor team, while Stanford proved that, while the Cardinal can't quite maintain the consistency needed for a top ranking, it can beat anybody on a given day.
So, Notre Dame--which is unbeaten, has played some tough teams but has had more than its share of narrow, even lucky, wins against teams both good and bad--is now the only major college team that is undefeated and bowl-eligible (Ohio State has chosen to take its postseason ban this year), and would look to play (and probably get beaten by) Alabama in the championship game. One hurdle remains for each: Notre Dame must defeat their perennial nemesis, USC, and Alabama will need to win its SEC championship game (against Georgia or Florida).
USC has had a very difficult season, falling from a high early season ranking, and most recently being shown up by crosstown rival UCLA, and their star quarterback Matt Barkley will not be playing vs. Notre Dame, but I would not exclude the possibility of a win by the Trojans. They will be at home, and Notre Dame has often come up short against USC, especially when they really needed to win. As for Alabama, usually they look like world-beaters, but they did not that day (at home!) against Texas A&M, a team that has just moved into the SEC and has a tangled history with Alabama, having to do with various sainted coaches like Bear Bryant who started out there. It looks like the beginning of a great, renewed rivalry.
A&M's move into the SEC is hardly the worst of the new conference shake-out moves; look at the Big East, which will have a Western division entirely made up of schools west of the Mississippi, or the Big 10, which now has 14 teams (so which are the small 4, I wonder?) committed to it, due to adding Midwestern powerhouses Rutgers and Maryland. The Big 12 (formerly the Big 8) is down to 10, so it loses its prized conference championship. Notre Dame has committed to the ACC for everything except football, though it will play five games a year against ACC teams (should be better for their record than tough games with teams like Michigan and Michigan State). It's hard to tell which conferences are gaining and which are losing out, really: I think the Pac-12 and SEC are doing well, but I'm not sure about the rest. The Big 10 might seem to be doing well, but between postseason bans for its best teams (Ohio State and Penn State) and switching around, they will have one of the worst representatives in a BCS spot reserved for their league. A pox on all of them!
NFL: Who's Left Standing, Conscious?
Comments about "the product": I see an arms race between a desperate effort to use rules to protect quarterbacks from blind-side hits and defenses getting better and better at all-out pass rush. I see the evolution of fumbles from ballcarriers dropping the ball to defensive strategies which feature "tacklers" who don't tackle but punch at the midsection of the ballcarriers to try to loosen their hold so they can rip the ball out of their hands. The efforts to try to reduce the damage from concussions look more like trying to reduce future lawsuit damages than anything resembling real concern for safety and health. The most important game situation these days is often the judgement of the official in the replay booth looking at the super-slow motion to figure out whether the ball was completely ripped out of the rusher's arms before his knee touched the ground.
Still, despite the developing problems with the product and the feeling that the whole enterprise is doomed, interest remains high. There is both enough parity to make the outcome of almost any game in doubt before it starts, but there is also enough quality that some teams rise above mediocrity. There will be some new teams in the playoffs (49ers and Texans would be the current favorites to meet in the Super Bowl) and plenty of familiar faces as well (Green Bay, New Orleans have overcome poor early-season records and look dangerous, while Peyton Manning has re-emerged with Denver). Ratings should be good.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Israel Hamas: Round X
The renewal of hostilities between Israel and Hamas, the bosses of the largely ungoverned Gaza territory, adds to the difficulty of a complex, intractable situation. Israel has put up with indiscriminate Hamas-sponsored rocket attacks on their homeland for too long. President Obama has tried to respond constructively--in particular, he has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to try to seek a cease-fire. Obama is probably grateful to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for holding off until the election was over.
As for Netanyahu, no doubt the offensive will provide a little extra boost to his party's performance in upcoming Likud elections, though he already seemed to be headed for re-election. The Israeli military has had a good amount of time to prepare a set of targets for a limited campaign of shock and awe; there is no need to go forward with the actual threatened ground invasion, which would be counterproductive.
It is beyond the Israelis' power to eliminate Hamas from Gaza, much as they would like to do that. Hamas has deep roots in the suffering populace, and the more Israel demonizes them, the more the people will support them. The real danger to Hamas was continuation of the peace under the unfavorable conditions that prevail there, because it makes clear the limitations of their self-governance under the current scheme.
There are many other players with a stake in this game, though. The Israel-Hamas confrontation marginalizes the Al Fatah leadership which controls the West Bank, at least for the time being. Their big production, arranging for the U.N. General Assembly to recognize them as the representatives of a sovereign state, will not have the desired effect--focusing the world's attention on their bid for statehood--when their rivals are in active resistance against the Israelis. Egypt's new President Morsi has to back Hamas, which like his own party is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by providing them humanitarian aid, at the least, but he must also strive for peace or lose the backing of the US, which provides billions of aid annually and has no doubt put continuation of that aid at stake on his cooperation.
The new regional powerhouse, Turkey, also has the capability to become involved, as they have relations with both parties. The Turks seem to have a role in all of the Mideast's issues, and they would no doubt like the world's attention to move from Israel-Hamas back to addressing the problems of Syria, as the civil war there affects Turkey much more directly.
I am optimistic that all this mess will lead somewhere, which is more than can be said for the stale impasse of the last couple of years. The US will need to find a new emissary: Secretary Clinton wants out and looks tired. Israel actually has a potential Palestinian party with which it could negotiate in the current Al Fatah leadership, though it has been reluctant to engage (the Israelis say, "we have been willing to negotiate without preconditions", but don't seem to have actually made any effort to do so). I feel that Hamas may agree to allow Egypt to represent them in direct negotiations with Al Fatah, and then with Israel. Bad as this current situation is, it at least broke up the stasis of the last couple of years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/assassinate-first-invade-later.html
As for Netanyahu, no doubt the offensive will provide a little extra boost to his party's performance in upcoming Likud elections, though he already seemed to be headed for re-election. The Israeli military has had a good amount of time to prepare a set of targets for a limited campaign of shock and awe; there is no need to go forward with the actual threatened ground invasion, which would be counterproductive.
It is beyond the Israelis' power to eliminate Hamas from Gaza, much as they would like to do that. Hamas has deep roots in the suffering populace, and the more Israel demonizes them, the more the people will support them. The real danger to Hamas was continuation of the peace under the unfavorable conditions that prevail there, because it makes clear the limitations of their self-governance under the current scheme.
There are many other players with a stake in this game, though. The Israel-Hamas confrontation marginalizes the Al Fatah leadership which controls the West Bank, at least for the time being. Their big production, arranging for the U.N. General Assembly to recognize them as the representatives of a sovereign state, will not have the desired effect--focusing the world's attention on their bid for statehood--when their rivals are in active resistance against the Israelis. Egypt's new President Morsi has to back Hamas, which like his own party is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by providing them humanitarian aid, at the least, but he must also strive for peace or lose the backing of the US, which provides billions of aid annually and has no doubt put continuation of that aid at stake on his cooperation.
The new regional powerhouse, Turkey, also has the capability to become involved, as they have relations with both parties. The Turks seem to have a role in all of the Mideast's issues, and they would no doubt like the world's attention to move from Israel-Hamas back to addressing the problems of Syria, as the civil war there affects Turkey much more directly.
I am optimistic that all this mess will lead somewhere, which is more than can be said for the stale impasse of the last couple of years. The US will need to find a new emissary: Secretary Clinton wants out and looks tired. Israel actually has a potential Palestinian party with which it could negotiate in the current Al Fatah leadership, though it has been reluctant to engage (the Israelis say, "we have been willing to negotiate without preconditions", but don't seem to have actually made any effort to do so). I feel that Hamas may agree to allow Egypt to represent them in direct negotiations with Al Fatah, and then with Israel. Bad as this current situation is, it at least broke up the stasis of the last couple of years.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/assassinate-first-invade-later.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
