I've been a fan of Bloggingheads for a coupla years now, after I read Robert Wright's book Nonzero (interesting but idiosyncratic evolutionary psychology tract). In the beginning it was a ramshackle affair with a coupla posts per week. By now they've thickened the number of regular commentators to the point where now I skip most of the discussions, whereas I used to devour every installment.
This week Glenn Loury and John McWhorter discuss the first presidential debate and continue their running fascination with Obama. Though both are generally conservative thinkers, they both like Obama largely for the transformative possibilities of his potential presidency. This is not their first conversation and they've mentioned numerous times their combination of pride and distress at the first major black candidate. The distress is the notion that Obama is perceived as merely flesh but not blood. That the left will use him, the right will distort him and the man will be left behind searching for himself. They both genuinely like Obama (and McCain for that matter) as a man, as a thinker, and fear that if he is merely a 'black man' then his historical impact won't truly reach its culmination. I don't disagree but I would suggest that 4 (or 8) years in Washington is a long, long time and to sit here and ponder what will become of the next president is more fruitless than determining who will win the Rose Bowl 3 months from now. The slings and arrows are waiting, I guarantee, but of their nature we know not.
I was also struck by their observation that McCain and Obama both refused to look at each other throughout the debate. They speculate as to why: McWhorter suggests that Obama will come off as a browbeating intellectual if he unleashes himself on this tongue-tied old man and McCain will be perceived as racist if his facial expression isn't at all times properly modulated. Loury suggests instead it is the natural contempt these men feel for each other and I'd never really thought about it before but I sense that contempt. By now presidential candidates are career politicians who respect each other enough to be civil within the proper spheres. But these two probably are so far apart philosophically that they really do sense the other is a grand mistake waiting to happen. Loury thinks McCain can only see Obama (as I do) as an upstart much too early into the fray--and wouldn't Obama see McCain (as I do) as a tired old white man? I would also suggest that they are senators and senators treat each other with such a startlingly collegial air--the rules of the Senate are exceedingly polite--that to see each other as true combatants is probably a state they're not accustomed to.
Incidentally I think the grand transformation of an Obama presidency wouldn't come from Obama himself, who would be treated just like any other political figure soon enough. He'd get the honeymoon period of any president, say 6-8 months, and then the long knives will come out for him just like the other 42 white dudes that got there before him. The real transformation would be seeing those two little girls growing up in the White House. After 4 years they'd be near college age, another 4 they'd be getting on with their lives. America will be enchanted by them. The racial undertones will be softened not by political bickering--where the undertones get exaggerated--but by the family that awaits the man back home.
Good conversation.
Glen Loury & John McWhorter at Bloggingheads.TV
Monday, September 29, 2008
NCAA Football
My pre-season prediction for the BCS Championship was Florida over USC. Uh, that's out. Not impossible for USC to claw their way back in but I'd say Florida has too much competition in the SEC to climb out of this hole.
I watched most of Ole Miss's victory over Florida and I gotta say Florida's offensive line did not fare so well. I think I'm inclined to credit Mississippi's ferocious pass rush but Florida will be playing stiffer defenses than this so it’s a disheartening loss for Gator fans. And Southern Cal shows up for the big games but doesn't show up for the lowly squads they face along the way. They play down to their opponent instead of staying disciplined and playing the best they can week after week. It’s the classic over-confidence of those with too much talent.
One of my darkhorses to be there at the end of the year was Wisconsin. I thought if they could slip past the Buckeyes then they'd have a shot at going undefeated and make their case. But they couldn't hold a big lead to a shoddy Michigan team so they're pretty much done. (I was perhaps too impressed with their nice win at Fresno State) I was not surprised at Alabama's victory over Georgia, but I was surprised at just how dominating they were. I was never so impressed with Georgia, never understood the ballyhooing they received early on, but I didn't think Alabama was ready to deliver a beatdown on the road like that. Another game I watched a lot of was Auburn over Tennessee. Pretty boring match. Two stout defenses against two piddly offenses. Man, the Vols look fuckin' awful this year, that offense moves like a glacier. Surprised Phil Fulmer is still wearing orange.
SEC and Big 12 still have a lot of cannibalizing ahead of them, much too early to see the finish line from here.
I watched most of Ole Miss's victory over Florida and I gotta say Florida's offensive line did not fare so well. I think I'm inclined to credit Mississippi's ferocious pass rush but Florida will be playing stiffer defenses than this so it’s a disheartening loss for Gator fans. And Southern Cal shows up for the big games but doesn't show up for the lowly squads they face along the way. They play down to their opponent instead of staying disciplined and playing the best they can week after week. It’s the classic over-confidence of those with too much talent.
One of my darkhorses to be there at the end of the year was Wisconsin. I thought if they could slip past the Buckeyes then they'd have a shot at going undefeated and make their case. But they couldn't hold a big lead to a shoddy Michigan team so they're pretty much done. (I was perhaps too impressed with their nice win at Fresno State) I was not surprised at Alabama's victory over Georgia, but I was surprised at just how dominating they were. I was never so impressed with Georgia, never understood the ballyhooing they received early on, but I didn't think Alabama was ready to deliver a beatdown on the road like that. Another game I watched a lot of was Auburn over Tennessee. Pretty boring match. Two stout defenses against two piddly offenses. Man, the Vols look fuckin' awful this year, that offense moves like a glacier. Surprised Phil Fulmer is still wearing orange.
SEC and Big 12 still have a lot of cannibalizing ahead of them, much too early to see the finish line from here.
Obama-McCain #1
Granted I was hammered in a bar while watching the debate but I didn't see anything new or different out of these guys. It was just another campaign stop really, nothing terribly unpredictable or nuanced about their positions. (And was it all foreign policy? It seemed like all they talked about was Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan)
We never needed timetables in Iraq because timetables are already built in all over the place: the Special Forces Agreement routinely expires (12.31.8 is the next deadline), as do all the spending bills of Congress. So if timetables are so worthwhile then I would suggest you've got plenty to build around already. If timetables were anything more than empty politico-speak then some industrious Congressman would seize on this and wield some power. But its just talk for the cable news shows and not a real consideration anyway, so 'nuff said. The real question in Iraq is can these people create a real political structure whereby voices may be heard without resorting to car bombs. Cornwallis surrendered in 1781, it was another 6 years before George Washington became president--and its not like there were any other candidates! Political formation takes lots and lots of time and all we can do is bolster security so that political factions may replace violent factions. I think it can be done and I think it is a worthwhile goal (and always was).
Afghanistan is a worthless hunk of desert. Loading in to fight people that want to fight back is all well and good but the idea that we need Afghanistan within our sphere of influence is pretty ludicrous. The 'War on Terror' may be just standard American agitprop--and after the bang up job we did on Poverty and Drugs, who would ever want to stop fighting wars?--but it is worth recalling that we're not the only ones fighting it. I think Afghanistan is an excellent opportunity to configure a whole new NATO alliance: let a coalition force fight the good fight if it be so righteous. Otherwise I'd rather scale back Afghanistan and stay the course in Iraq, though conventional wisdom suggests the opposite is underway.
As for talking with Iran, I'm all for talking to everyone all the time. In fact, I can't imagine a scenario whereby the greatest nation on earth (re: USA) should ever suspend conversation with anyone. Our ability to trade and aid is precisely what makes us the greatest nation on earth and how could we ever maintain that position by cutting off markets and allies? Our embargo of Cuba has done nothing to help the people of Cuba or, in the long run, the state of Cuba. It was a foolish policy in 1961 and we've allowed ourselves to be stuck with it rather than letting our relationship evolve. So how do we benefit by freezing Iran out? We don't. I doubt Iran benefits from it too much either, except that they are free to lead a new non-aligned movement but that's a dubious opportunity.
The problem with Iran is we're constantly considering Ahmadenijad when he's not the one running the country! They call him 'president', he shows up at the press conferences and utters anti-zionist rhetoric but the Ayatollah is the boss and his cadre holds the real power within Iran. So why even acknowledge Ahmadenijad? The danger of Obama's position is that you're negotiating with a guy with no power; the danger of McCain's position is that Iran is as frozen out as we can possibly make them, so how does ignoring them change anything? Iran is a great nation and a great people, it wasn't that long ago that they were our main ally in the Middle East and, I think, we should strive to make them our ally again. I don't really trust either Obama or McCain to achieve that objective (especially since it appears that I'm the only one that has that objective).
Obama's position that 'we shouldn't have started the war to begin with' is a fine biscuit for the audience but it is nothing like a strategy for the future. McCain's position that everything is fine doesn't show any sense of what we've learned from the successes and failures so far. I'm not terribly excited by either of these guys and this debate didn't change anything for me.
We never needed timetables in Iraq because timetables are already built in all over the place: the Special Forces Agreement routinely expires (12.31.8 is the next deadline), as do all the spending bills of Congress. So if timetables are so worthwhile then I would suggest you've got plenty to build around already. If timetables were anything more than empty politico-speak then some industrious Congressman would seize on this and wield some power. But its just talk for the cable news shows and not a real consideration anyway, so 'nuff said. The real question in Iraq is can these people create a real political structure whereby voices may be heard without resorting to car bombs. Cornwallis surrendered in 1781, it was another 6 years before George Washington became president--and its not like there were any other candidates! Political formation takes lots and lots of time and all we can do is bolster security so that political factions may replace violent factions. I think it can be done and I think it is a worthwhile goal (and always was).
Afghanistan is a worthless hunk of desert. Loading in to fight people that want to fight back is all well and good but the idea that we need Afghanistan within our sphere of influence is pretty ludicrous. The 'War on Terror' may be just standard American agitprop--and after the bang up job we did on Poverty and Drugs, who would ever want to stop fighting wars?--but it is worth recalling that we're not the only ones fighting it. I think Afghanistan is an excellent opportunity to configure a whole new NATO alliance: let a coalition force fight the good fight if it be so righteous. Otherwise I'd rather scale back Afghanistan and stay the course in Iraq, though conventional wisdom suggests the opposite is underway.
As for talking with Iran, I'm all for talking to everyone all the time. In fact, I can't imagine a scenario whereby the greatest nation on earth (re: USA) should ever suspend conversation with anyone. Our ability to trade and aid is precisely what makes us the greatest nation on earth and how could we ever maintain that position by cutting off markets and allies? Our embargo of Cuba has done nothing to help the people of Cuba or, in the long run, the state of Cuba. It was a foolish policy in 1961 and we've allowed ourselves to be stuck with it rather than letting our relationship evolve. So how do we benefit by freezing Iran out? We don't. I doubt Iran benefits from it too much either, except that they are free to lead a new non-aligned movement but that's a dubious opportunity.
The problem with Iran is we're constantly considering Ahmadenijad when he's not the one running the country! They call him 'president', he shows up at the press conferences and utters anti-zionist rhetoric but the Ayatollah is the boss and his cadre holds the real power within Iran. So why even acknowledge Ahmadenijad? The danger of Obama's position is that you're negotiating with a guy with no power; the danger of McCain's position is that Iran is as frozen out as we can possibly make them, so how does ignoring them change anything? Iran is a great nation and a great people, it wasn't that long ago that they were our main ally in the Middle East and, I think, we should strive to make them our ally again. I don't really trust either Obama or McCain to achieve that objective (especially since it appears that I'm the only one that has that objective).
Obama's position that 'we shouldn't have started the war to begin with' is a fine biscuit for the audience but it is nothing like a strategy for the future. McCain's position that everything is fine doesn't show any sense of what we've learned from the successes and failures so far. I'm not terribly excited by either of these guys and this debate didn't change anything for me.
Russell 2000 (Sep 19-26)
......... 753.74 (9.19.8) ...................... 704.79 (9.26.8)......
............................-48.95 for the week.......................
............................-48.95 for the week.......................
This week's economic events
Sep. 22-26
Existing Home Sales Aug (4.91M)
Crude Inventories 09/20 (-1520K)
Durable Orders Aug (-4.5%)
Initial Claims 09/20 (493K)
New Home Sales Aug (460K)
Chain Deflator-Final Q2 (1.1%)
GDP-Final Q2 (2.8%)
Mich Sentiment-Rev. Sep (70.3)
Existing Home Sales Aug (4.91M)
Crude Inventories 09/20 (-1520K)
Durable Orders Aug (-4.5%)
Initial Claims 09/20 (493K)
New Home Sales Aug (460K)
Chain Deflator-Final Q2 (1.1%)
GDP-Final Q2 (2.8%)
Mich Sentiment-Rev. Sep (70.3)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Who's up for lunch?
Anyone gonna be in Louisville Friday morning? 'Cause I'll be there. My boy Nassim Taleb is in town for the Idea Festival and although he's a decidedly clumsy public speaker, I can't wait to hear how he rails on this on-going bail out. I just know he'll have some choice words. And I'm sticking around for Teller. His Macbeth drew rave reviews for its unique staging, I'm curious to hear what he has to say or if he has any future plans.
Idea Festival Sep 25-28
Idea Festival Sep 25-28
USA 16.5-12.5 Europe
I really dug the Ryder Cup--I even got my housemate to watch it and he hates all things sports related (well, TV related, to be accurate). But he hates foreigners and was able to get into on that level. Hey, the beauty of international sports competition (like diplomacy, the arts and the global economy) is that it diminishes ever so slightly the need to trot out tank divisions to solve our disagreements. Call me Pollyanna, but soccer hooligans are better than massive standing armies of underprivileged farmboys.
Everything about the style of play is different from the regular PGA season and that's just fucking awesome. The multiple styles of play changing from day to day, the fist-pumping and crowd-whooping is cool and the team atmosphere is all good. I like the PGA but it's devolved into seeing whether Tiger will finish 1st or 2nd. Here each match builds into something larger and its such a rarity.
Commentators questioned whether this team could succeed without Tiger but I would suggest they're better off. They could do without Mickelson too. The Ryder Cup is about those steady guys that do the job and avoid the highs and lows. Check out Tiger's record: over the course of a 4 day tourney he tends to have one day when he pummels everyone but the other 3 days tend to be average or even below average. And we've seen with a guy like Kenny Perry that the best Ryder Cup players are the ones who see this competition as the pinnacle of their careers. Tiger has nothing to win or lose by playing Ryder-style. His legacy is determined by how many Majors he can take, not international competition.
I must admit I rooted for the Kentucky boys and Holmes and Perry acquitted themselves admirably. My only nit to pick: I would've preferred seeing Rocco Mediate on the team as opposed to Stewart Cink or Steve Stricker. Not to diss Cink or Stricker, I thought Rocco's remarkable staredown with Tiger at the US earned him a spot.
Everything about the style of play is different from the regular PGA season and that's just fucking awesome. The multiple styles of play changing from day to day, the fist-pumping and crowd-whooping is cool and the team atmosphere is all good. I like the PGA but it's devolved into seeing whether Tiger will finish 1st or 2nd. Here each match builds into something larger and its such a rarity.
Commentators questioned whether this team could succeed without Tiger but I would suggest they're better off. They could do without Mickelson too. The Ryder Cup is about those steady guys that do the job and avoid the highs and lows. Check out Tiger's record: over the course of a 4 day tourney he tends to have one day when he pummels everyone but the other 3 days tend to be average or even below average. And we've seen with a guy like Kenny Perry that the best Ryder Cup players are the ones who see this competition as the pinnacle of their careers. Tiger has nothing to win or lose by playing Ryder-style. His legacy is determined by how many Majors he can take, not international competition.
I must admit I rooted for the Kentucky boys and Holmes and Perry acquitted themselves admirably. My only nit to pick: I would've preferred seeing Rocco Mediate on the team as opposed to Stewart Cink or Steve Stricker. Not to diss Cink or Stricker, I thought Rocco's remarkable staredown with Tiger at the US earned him a spot.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Russell 2000 (Sep 12-19)
......... 720.26 (9.12.8) ...................... 753.74 (9.19.8)......
............................+33.48 for the week..............................
This week's economic events
Sep 15-19
NY Empire State Index Sep (-7.4)
Capacity Utilization Aug (78.7%)
Industrial Production Aug (-1.1%)
Core CPI Aug (0.2%)
CPI Aug (-0.1%)
Net Foreign Purchases Jul ($6.1B)
FOMC Policy Statement (Left rates at 2%)
Building Permits Aug (854K)
Housing Starts Aug (895K)
Crude Inventories 09/13 (-6328K)
Initial Claims 09/13 (455K)
Leading Indicators Aug (-0.5%)
Philadelphia Fed Sep (3.8)
NY Empire State Index Sep (-7.4)
Capacity Utilization Aug (78.7%)
Industrial Production Aug (-1.1%)
Core CPI Aug (0.2%)
CPI Aug (-0.1%)
Net Foreign Purchases Jul ($6.1B)
FOMC Policy Statement (Left rates at 2%)
Building Permits Aug (854K)
Housing Starts Aug (895K)
Crude Inventories 09/13 (-6328K)
Initial Claims 09/13 (455K)
Leading Indicators Aug (-0.5%)
Philadelphia Fed Sep (3.8)
US Open
Federer over Murray in the final was a straight-up ass-whippin', a sacrifice left at the altar of Roger Federer's bruised ego. He was ready to win in Wimbledon and Nadal came along and played the match of his life--perhaps the finest match ever in the history of the sport. So New York became the spot of his resurrection. Nadal's knees and ankles just don't hold up on the mean New York asphalt (Sydney too I presume) and he was ripe for an upset. I think he'll compete again in all 4 majors next year. Off hand, I like him at Wimbledon and the US, as per usual. Perhaps he's over the hill but beyond Nadal who is out there that will vanquish him from the top of the heap? He just dusted off Djokovic and Murray and its hard to imagine Roddick, Blake, Davydenko challenging him. He may be slipping but he's still got a ways to go to 3rd place.
Murray besting Nadal was the match of the tourney. Murray expertly used his length and amazing (Mickelson in his prime trickery) return shots to wear down Nadal. Murray was able to track down every ball and Nadal just couldn't. As my friend Toddger pointed out: Nadal never looks tired, he always looks fresh and pumped up. But by the 4th set against Murray he was bending over, huffing and puffing like Al Bundy. I've been waiting for Murray to step up for a while now (he was my dark horse at Australia 2008, lost in the quarters I think). Interesting to see whether his game will continue to grow.
I was a little bummed by Jankovic 's poor showing against Serena. I like Venus but Serena gets on my nerves and I wanted to see someone make her play some gritty tennis. And when Jankovic went up a break early on, I thought we might have a match. But that faded pretty quick and the rout was on. She got thumped like a Buckeye.
The other match that sucked me in was Djokovic beating Andy Roddick. Roddick can only play when his life absolutely depends on it so he digs himself a hole and then can never quite figure out how to get back in the match. He had it, man, he was serving for the 4th set and in the 5th it’s a wide open game again. But he blew it, no other way to say it, he had it in his hand and it skipped away like a little bunny. Roddick needs to be like the guy in the R-rated movie one of these days. He always had more desire than Agassi but he just never had the street smarts to survive. Too bad, he was looking pretty strong until he looked over and saw Djokovic waiting on the other side.
Murray besting Nadal was the match of the tourney. Murray expertly used his length and amazing (Mickelson in his prime trickery) return shots to wear down Nadal. Murray was able to track down every ball and Nadal just couldn't. As my friend Toddger pointed out: Nadal never looks tired, he always looks fresh and pumped up. But by the 4th set against Murray he was bending over, huffing and puffing like Al Bundy. I've been waiting for Murray to step up for a while now (he was my dark horse at Australia 2008, lost in the quarters I think). Interesting to see whether his game will continue to grow.
I was a little bummed by Jankovic 's poor showing against Serena. I like Venus but Serena gets on my nerves and I wanted to see someone make her play some gritty tennis. And when Jankovic went up a break early on, I thought we might have a match. But that faded pretty quick and the rout was on. She got thumped like a Buckeye.
The other match that sucked me in was Djokovic beating Andy Roddick. Roddick can only play when his life absolutely depends on it so he digs himself a hole and then can never quite figure out how to get back in the match. He had it, man, he was serving for the 4th set and in the 5th it’s a wide open game again. But he blew it, no other way to say it, he had it in his hand and it skipped away like a little bunny. Roddick needs to be like the guy in the R-rated movie one of these days. He always had more desire than Agassi but he just never had the street smarts to survive. Too bad, he was looking pretty strong until he looked over and saw Djokovic waiting on the other side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)