February 7, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Sarah Palin at the Tea Party

I made a point to watch (on C-SPAN) nearly all of Sarah Palin's keynote address at the Tea Party convention last night, and I thought she did a pretty good job. Anyone expecting a profound discourse on the tattered state of our body politic or on the vexing economic policy dilemmas created by the skyrocketing national debt would be disappointed, but of course hardly anyone did. What Gov. Palin did was to cover most of the contemporary "hot button" issues, and to give conservatives a reason to hope that they can capitalize on popular discontent in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Stylistically, she performed well in the first venue with a true national audience that she has faced for many months. Except for a couple awkward transitions, she remained poised, upbeat, and confident. In short, she gave every indication that she really wanted to earn the hefty ($100,000?) honorarium from the Tea Party organizers.

At frumforum.com (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett), Jonathan Kay derided Palin's speech as a "Barack-Obama put-down every 60 seconds." Well, what else would you expect? Kay provides a useful summary description of the Tea Party movement:

Tea Party organizers tend to describe their agenda with five bullet points: Less taxes, fiscal responsibility, greater liberty, state's rights, national security. But that quintet -- which also summarizes the major planks of the Republican Party -- doesn't really cover it. The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of refugees from the mainstream GOP. They rail hard against John McCain and other RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Bipartisanship -- "Koombaya politics," as its derisively called -- is dismissed as a sell-out.

That sounds exactly like some of the fratricidal nuts who have been wreaking havoc in the Republican Party here in the Shenandoah Valley. Kay observes that many Tea Partiers don't fit on the traditional left-right spectrum, and he also criticizes the "smug left-wing take on the Tea Party movement" as a bunch of racists; Janeane Garofalo often expresses such a view. That insulting stereotype is also bandied about by many moderates who want to seem sophisticated by distancing themselves from humble folk. (Obviously, I have mixed feelings on the subject.) Whether the delegates to the Tea Party Convention were able to define a common agenda in terms of concrete policy proposals remains to be seen.

Palin's speech didn't devote much time to foreign policy, which is of secondary concern to most Tea Partiers. Andrew Sullivan conjectured what kind of foreign policy Sarah Palin would have if she were elected President. He sees her support of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as a sign she is under the influence of AIPAC, and her call for a more forceful containment of Iran's nuclear ambitions as evidence she is an aspiring war-monger. "Now she is a paid-up neocon fanatic." (Hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) My response on Facebook:

Sullivan's speculation is premature, and it's a waste of time to read serious intent into anything Palin says on subjects outside her knowledge. She is as much of a blank slate, foreign policy-wise, as GW Bush was in 2000. So, whether she would actually attack Iran or support Israeli settlements depends on who she picks as foreign policy advisors.

Er, on second thought, Bush didn't pay much heed to Colin Powell or Condi Rice. So, the real question is, who would Palin pick as her "Karl Rove"?

Viguerie joins Tea Party

Once again, "grassroots" (pseudo-)conservative activist Richard Viguerie can't seem to make up his mind on whether to work within the Republican Party, or create outside organizations to challenge it. At conservativehq.com, he urged the Tea Partiers not to form a separate party "A third party would be a disaster for the cause of limited government." In December 2008, however, he said "It's critical for conservatives to also operate independently of the GOP..."

February 7, 2010 [LINK / comment]

#%@&* winter wonderland pix

After all the freezing temperatures and heavy snowfalls we have had over the past two months, the phrase "winter wonderland" acquires a rather sinister meaning, almost eliciting a profane response. Gr-r-r-r-r!! Thankfully, the sun came out today, helping to melt some of the snow and creating great photo opportunities. Between snow-shoveling shifts today, I took some time out to capture the moment on film digital memory, and just created a new photo gallery page: January-February 2010. Enjoy!

A think blanket of snow covers the trees and bushes at Belmont Terrace, in Staunton. The tracks suggest that some animal has a den in that ditch. (Click on the image to see the full-size version.)

Those who are interested in the "fractal beauty of nature" (as in Chaos theory) should take a look at the closeup photo I took of a bunch of snow crystals this morning. (I posted that photo on Facebook, as well as the News Leader Web site, but the latter is reduced in size and you can't really see the intricate detailed patterns.) Evidently the high humidity combined with the very low temperatures to create ideal conditions for crystal formation.

February 6, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Another day, another blizzard

What was supposed to be the "storm of the century" didn't turn out to be quite that bad here in Staunton, but it was bad enough. Coming on top of five previous significant snowfalls this winter, it is starting to cause severe psychological distress, a.k.a. "cabin fever." This is really getting old: ¡Ya basta, caramba! In certain places such as Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, they had almost three feet of snow, so I guess we shouldn't complain. I was watching the radar maps on TV today, and it looked like the snow was already gone from the Shenandoah Valley, but here it kept snowing at a fast pace until late in the afternoon. "The wind outside was frightening" (REO), but after the snow finally stopped, it warmed up enough for the parking lot to melt, at least.

I spent about an hour shoveling snow late yesterday afternoon, when there was about four inches on the ground, and headed out again in the middle of the morning today for another round of hard labor. First the sidewalks, and then the top and sides of our Jacqueline's Ford Escape. (The Hyundai can wait.) I was surprised by how wet the snow was, even though the temperatures seemed to be in the low-to-mid 20s. Must have been the wind chill factor. I paced myself while shoveling, as any prudent middle-aged person should do, and avoided any muscle strain or exhaustion. It's hard to estimate how much snow fell here, because we already had a few inches on the ground, but I figure it was about 18 inches, less than the "big blizzard" in mid-December. I must say, I was surprised by the number of people who had not thought to buy snow shovels of their own, in spite of all the recent snowfalls and the dire forecast for this weekend.

My new Facebook profile photo (not Gary Sinise): after digging snow today.

We should have known it was going to be a rough winter, when the early snowstorm surprised us on December 5. The big blizzard of December 18-19 set records, and the temperatures stayed near of below freezing for the next couple weeks, preventing the snow from melting. Two more minor snowfalls in January and one last Tuesday evening set the stage for today's "apocalypse." Here are my unofficial records for this season:

Snowfall totals (est.)

Date	Inches
Dec. 5, 2009	5
Dec. 18-19, 2009	22
Jan. 7, 2010	2
Jan. 30, 2010	6
Feb. 2, 2010	2
Feb. 5-6, 2010	18
Cumulative	55

Late this afternoon I went for a short walk to take some "winter wonderland" pictures, and will try to do so again tomorrow. I'll post some photos in the next day or two. Here's a preview:

Snow pile in front of R. E. Lee High School. Click on this image to see a larger version.

Global warming update

It's too bad that this awful winter will set back the cause of reaching a consensus on global warming, or "climate change," as some people now prefer. (Speaking of which, since our president campaigned on a theme of "hope and change," what's so bad about climate change?) Those who were true believers in the "new religion" of global warming will strain to find rationales to explain the contrary evidence, and those who denied the very possibility of global warming will now scoff. Too bad, on both accounts. Actually, North America is not alone in suffering from extremely cold weather this winter: the same is true of China, Britain, and the continent of Europe. What's worse, this trend "is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists." Read all about the worldwide "mini ice age" at the Daily Mail of London.

February 6, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Nationals prepare for 2010 season

Spring training is right around the corner, and the Washington Nationals seem to be well prepared, for once.

Second baseman Adam Kennedy, age 34, has just agreed to a contract worth $1.25 million in 2010 with a $2 million team option for 2010. Kennedy batted .289 with the Athletics last year, and is .277 lifetime; most of his career has been with the Angels. The first choice was Orlando Hudson, but he signed with the Twins, for a substantially higher salary. The addition of Kennedy to the Nationals' roster "likely means that Cristian Guzman will remain at shortstop." (Guzman says he has overcome his physical ailments and will become more mobile this year.) See MLB.com. This is yet more great news for the Nats. If someone had told me three months ago that the Nats would add Jason Marquis, Ivan Rodriguez, and Adam Kennedy to their roster in 2010, I would have said they were pulling my leg. Granted, it's hard to know what to expect from aging veterans, but we Nats fans have a lot to be hopeful for this year.

Another good sign is that the Nationals and Adam Dunn are negotiating a multi-year extension to his contract, which ends after this season. Both sides appear to be in accord, and Dunn is happy in Washington, notwithstanding the awful 2009 season. See Washington Post. In Friday's Post, Dan Steinberg called attention to Adam Dunn's use of jiujitsu to enhance his agility for defensive purposes. Like Manny Ramirez, he has a reputation for being a big slugger who has mediocre fielding skills, but he seems determined to prove his worth as a first baseman, occasionally covering left field. Interestingly, the Nationals now have a surplus of Adams (Dunn and Kennedy) all of a sudden, much like they had a surplus of Ryans a few years ago: Church, Drese, Wagner, and Zimmerman.

Two weeks ago, "The Nationals came to terms with outfielder Josh Willingham, relief pitcher Jason Bergmann, and catchers Wil Nieves and Jesus Flores." They are all solid contributors to the team, and if Flores is healthy, he might end up playing as much or more as Ivan Rodriguez. Only two more Nationals players remain eligible for arbitration. See Washington Post. The catcher position is like the first base position was during spring training last year, with three contending players. Finally, the Nats front office is discussing a possible contract with former Yankee pitcher Chien-Ming Wang. Hmm-m-m!!

Even more stadium news

It turns out I left out a couple news items yesterday. (NOTE: Mike Zurawski clarified that PGE Park in Portland, which is being renovated for use as a soccer stadium, "isn't going to have baseball at all. The Portland Beavers MUST have a new stadium somewhere.")

In Miami, on the site of the former Orange Bowl, workers are in the processing of installing the tracks on top of the 150-foot high concrete columns that will support the massive, hurricane-proof retractable roof of the Marlins' future ballpark. Eight of the 12 columns have been completed thus far, and the construction project overall "is slightly more than 20 percent completed." (That is consistent with what I had estimated previously, 15%.) See MLB.com.

In Santa Clara, California, the City Clerk verified that a sufficient number of signed petitions had been submitted, which means that voters will get to decide whether to provide public funds for the construction of a San Francisco 49ers stadium in a referendum on June 8 ballot. If a majority of voters approve, preliminary work on a stadium will proceed on a plot of land near the Great America amusement park. See the San Jose Mercury News, which says the project will cost $937, but I'm pretty sure they mean $937 million. So what will become of Candlestick Park???

February 5, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Tea Party national convention

The Tea Partiers are gathering in Nashville, Tennessee for their first-ever national convention, eliciting a wide range of reactions across the country: hopeful anticipation, contemptuous derision, fear, and befuddlement. It's too bad more people don't reserve judgment and at least try to listen to what the participants are saying. According to the Washington Post, however, all is not well among the grassroots activists:

Some high-profile speakers and activist groups have canceled their appearances in protest of alleged profiteering by the convention organizers.

Attendees have paid $549 a ticket ... Some of the proceeds will cover former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's reported $100,000 fee for Saturday's keynote address.

I don't think that Ronald Reagan himself ever got paid so much for making a speech. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) were scheduled to speak, but both withdrew in protest against the way the event is being organized by teapartynation.com. Spokesman Mark Skoda, chairman of the Memphis Tea Party, said that the movement is "growing up." I sure hope so. In spite of deep differences within the movement,

the factions have largely united around a common cause: a don't-tread-on-me brand of fiscal conservatism and a belief that the government, first under President George W. Bush and now under Obama, has recklessly plunged deeper into debt and overstepped its constitutional powers. (SOURCE: WaPo)

Well, I certainly go along with that. It is not clear, however, whether and by what means the far-flung local chapters intend to aggregate their respective voices and articulate a common agenda. It will take a lot of effort to undo the image that many of the Tea Partiers tend to be on the kooky side. Obviously, I remain wary of the movement, which seems to be under some of the same unhealthy influences that have run the Republican Party into the ground over the past decade. But perhaps more uplifting voices will prevail, and they will serve a useful public purpose. After the convention is over, the question will arise as to what the movement's long-term goals are: to influence the Republican Party, to support individual candidates with whom they agree, or to lead in the formation of a third party? In the latter case, what would they call it -- the Tea Party Party?

For more fun, see teapartyexpress.org, official site of the cross-country caravan that will start off on March 27 with a rally in Searchlight, NV (home of Sen. Harry Reid) and finish in Washington, D.C. on April 15 -- Tax Day!

Sarah Palin, superstar

I'm probably one of the few people in America who lacks a strong opinion about Sarah Palin, polarizer extraordinaire. She has great potential as a leader who can reach out to millions of disaffected people on the right side of the spectrum, but is also plagued by grave inadequacies that would require many months of remedial effort on her part. Nevertheless, with the publication of her book Going Rogue: An American Story last fall, she has become a true "superstar," not unlike Barack Obama back in January 2007. It is useful to recall that Obama "portrays his lack of experience in national politics as an asset." Palin could be excused for botching her September 2008 interview with Katie Couric due to lack of time to prepare, so soon after being tapped as John McCain's running mate, but by now she ought to have done her homework. That is why her inability to name any founding fathers other than George Washington is so troubling; watch the youtube.com and prepare to grimace in empathetic pain. At a time when the Tea Partiers are reminding us of this country's constitutional roots, that is hard to excuse. But for her adoring fans, such gaffes do not matter in the least.

Among some of the major cyber-pundits, Andrew Sullivan genuinely fears Palin, which strikes me as puzzling. Does he think the American public is so desperate and so vulnerable to sweet-talking that it will anoint her as some kind of fascist queen? I don't think so. Back in November, Sullivan reviewed Going Rogue, treating it as a postmodern literary work, "deconstructing" Sarah, as it were:

In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning.

That sounds about right to me. Elsewhere, Sullivan has pointed out Palin's recourse to "victim" status, blaming her woes on the mean old Mainstream Media. That's not a good sign of leadership, and it's another characteristic that she shares with President Obama.

One of Palin's weaknesses is "shooting from the lip," blurting out opinions without thinking about the ramifications of what she is saying. For example, she was quoted at talkingpointsmemo.com, backtracking on her warnings about "death panels":

The term death panel "should not be taken literally," says Palin. The phrase is "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.'"

Well, of course they're not going to convene panels to expressly condemn people to death. The problem is that one could easily construe her remarks to mean that the Soviet Union was not really an "evil empire." From a Republican point of view, that is darn near heresy.

Finally, just for "fair and balanced" laughs, watch Jon Stewart's (of Comedy Central "Daily Show" fame) final word on Sarah Palin at huffingtonpost.com.

What's your News IQ?

Take the Pew News IQ Quiz at pewresearch.org. I went too fast and missed one of the 12 questions, ending up at 92 percentile. Hat tip to Connie.

February 5, 2010 [LINK / comment]

The mail bag: stadium news, etc.

After a longer-than-expected hiatus due to "technical difficulties beyond my control,"
I have returned to cyberspace. (Cue Gen. MacArthur.) Leading off in my mail bag, as usual, is Mike Zurawski, who has a huge volume of news to share about baseball stadiums as well as baseball-related football stadiums.

In Chicago, they are removing the unsightly concrete exterior on the south (first base) side of Wrigley Field. The renovation is scheduled to be completed in 2014, the centennial of the beloved historic ballpark. See baseball-fever.com. (Bruce Orser brought the same item to my attention.) Well, it's about time! The exterior at Wrigley Field has never received as much attention as it should have. They are also renovating the iconic scoreboard, with the huge painted "Cubs" pennant on the back, and it is currently enclosed by scaffolding on the rear (street) side. See bleedcubbieblue.com.

In The Bronx, the escalator "pod" in left field of Yankee Stadium is being torn down. Frankly, I'm surprised they aren't making more progress in bringing the whole thing down. Opening Day is only eight weeks away! See baseball-fever.com.

In Toronto, they are getting ready to install new artificial turf at Rogers Centre. The existing playing surface, which looks like a parquet floor because of the heavy seams between the small square sections, was installed in 2005. Hopefully, the new surface will look less fake. See nationalpost.com.

In Fremont (located in California, for you folks in Rio Linda ), hopes are rising once again that the Oakland Athletics may yet build a stadium in their city. It would be built on the site of the soon-to-be-closed Nummi automobile plant (a joint venture of two ill-fated corporations, Toyota and GM), fairly close to a new BART station. Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman is promoting the idea, and they recently held a public rally to support bring the A's to town. See ktvu.com. I'm still skeptical of Fremont, and I'm sure that the San Jose alternative site is lucrative enough that they could pay off the Giants for their "territorial rights."

In Portland, PGE park is being converted into a soccer stadium, at a cost of 31 million dollars. That means it will be less baseball-friendly than before, which makes the idea of using it as a temporary venue for a possibly MLB expansion franchise less likely. The Beavers minor league (AAA) franchise may even leave Portland. See bizjournals.com.

On the north side of Miami, where Super Bowl XLIV is about to be held, people are objecting to the proposed use of public funds to put a roof on Joe Robbie / Pro Player / Dolphins / Dolphin / Land Shark / Sun Life Stadium. See fieldofschemes.com, which notes that they would have to host the Super Bowl for the next 20 years in a row to make money on the deal. As for the stadium itself, "[T]he blueprint includes tearing out the lower bowl of the stadium to add 3,000 prime seats and moving the spectator area closer to the field." See miamiherald.com.

It's a similar problem faced by the San Diego Chargers at Qualcomm Stadium, whose lower seating bowl is too low for many fans to see the field. Chargers will remain in San Diego for a least another season, as they try to put pressure on the city to build them a new stadium. They still might move back to their original home in L.A., however. See nctimes.com.

In Minnesota, there is talk of using Federal government "stimulus" funds ("Build America Bonds") to build a new football stadium for the Vikings in the suburbs. The town of Dayton, in western Hennepin County, is a leading candidate. Governor Pawlenty has suggested using the lottery to pay for such a stadium. See startribune.com and startribune.com. I still think the Vikings and the Chargers can afford to wait another few years at least.

In East Rutherford, New Jersey, demolition of Giants Stadium has started, and it should be complete by late May, when the new stadium will be inaugurated with a Bon Jovi concert. Will someone find Jimmy Hoffa's remains in one of the concrete slabs? See associatedcontent.com.

Thanks as always to Mike for keeping me "on my toes," and for keeping all of us better informed.

And, in other mail...

Bruce Orser sent me some newspaper archives and other very useful historical information about Griffith Stadium, old Yankee Stadium, and even Washington Park in Brooklyn. Major league thanks are due to Bruce as well.

Wes Kahn wrote to ask me some probing questions about various old ballparks: "First, let me pay you the highest compliments one can give for producing without a doubt the best ballpark website in the world. Your diagrams have supplied countless hours of hot stove entertainment for several years." I certainly appreciate the kind sentiments, and will try my best to address the questions he raises.

Mike Wagner is nearly finished writing a book about Yankee Stadium (to be called Babe's Place), and wanted authoritative numbers on the early dimensions for it, so I was happy to oblige.

Chris Moffatt reminded me that I needed to do update the Anomalous stadiums page to include Champion Stadium, where the Tampa Bay Devil Rays played a few games a couple years ago. Done! I also need to do a diagram for it, however. Stephen Poppe never fails to remind of that nagging "chore."

John Grace sent me a link to a page with some great photos of Safeco Field being used for football, as well as for soccer: ysbp.com. It looks familiar, and I may have seen that before.

Finally, a note from Hugh Harris that arrived today: "Just found your site. As a lover of old baseball stadiums, I want to thank you for the wonderful site!!!!"

January 30, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Flood strands tourists in Peru

Because of recent heavy rains which have caused massive flooding and mudslides in the Andes Mountains, tourists visiting Machu Picchu have been stranded for over a week, and at least seven people have died. The government sent in military helicopters (thirteen of them) to evacuate those who wanted to leave, and they finally have completed their mission, making 268 flights back to the city of Cuzco, about 30 miles away. It was a truly massive undertaking. A state of emergency was declared in the departments (provinces) of Cuzco and Apurimac. There are very few roads in that region because of the extremely rough terrain, and the only way into the town of Aguascalientes (located about a mile from the mountain-top archeological site) is a single railroad line. Until mud has been cleared away and repairs have be made, that rail line will remain closed. See CNN.com.

Fortunately, the ruins of Machu Picchu itself have not been damaged by all the rain, but 4,689 homes in the region have been destroyed. See La Republica, which reports that 1,460 people were evacuated. I expect, however, that Machu Picchu will be closed to tourists for as long as it takes to repair all the trails among the various parts of that ancient "lost city." Many Peruvians say they cannot recall such an intense, devastating rain storm in their country, and this will no doubt add fuel to the fire of the debate over global climate change.

Jacqueline and I traveled to Machu Picchu a few years ago, and our hotel was right along the river, so I assume it has suffered heavy damage, at least. Click on the adjacent photo montage to see a gallery of photos from our trip there.

And you thought we had bad weather here in the U.S.A.! Today's snowstorm has dumped about six inches of white stuff in this part of the Shenandoah Valley.

January 29, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Obama: "We can do it together"

In what appeared to be a magnanimous gesture of outreach to his opponents in his State of the Union Address on Wednesday night, President Obama offered to seek common ground with the Republicans in Congress. What struck me about the speech, however, was the jarring dissonance between the conciliatory words he read from his teleprompter and the smug, condescending attitude evinced by his facial expressions. At a time when a more prudent leader might have displayed more sober acknowledgment of his own past mistakes, as dramatized by recent electoral setbacks, Obama just couldn't resist needling the Republicans. Perhaps he was trying to ease tensions with a little light-hearted humor, but his forced grin suggested he was deeply angry at them. A little more humility and/or a little less jesting would have gone a long way. Here are some of the speech highlights, taken from the transcript at whitehouse.gov, followed by my "fair and balanced" comments:

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight.

The President started off on the right foot, at least, using his phenomenal grace and charm to try to lift the spirits of the downtrodden nation. He fulfilled that presidential duty quite well. Then he went on to the core economic issues:

And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary.

Likewise, he used a good opportunity to emphasize what the two parties agree on, and the root canal analogy may be apt -- if the bailouts ultimately achieve their goals to make the pain worth enduring, that is. But when Obama claimed to acting without regard to political consequences or poll numbers, his credibility started to wear thin. Then he talked about how to get that money back:

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

True enough, sadly. Those banks accepted the money, and now they are semi-socialized wards of the state. As for his stimulus programs, widely criticized as ineffective, the President remained steadfastly upbeat:

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.

Here Obama is treading on very thin factual ice: estimates of the effects of policy on aggregate employment are notoriously unreliable, because of the complex interactions in our economic system, and in this case there are widespread reports that local officials were obliged to inflate the job figures they reported back to the government.

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

It is hard to avoid the impression that he was mocking his Republican opponents for refusing to believe in the True Religion of Global Warming. It certainly didn't win over any new converts to Obama's brand of bipartisanship from the Republican side of the aisle. It was a virtual carbon copy of Sen. Tim Wirth's famous remark in 1988, when he was accompanied by Al Gore. (See the "Global warming update" section of this piece below.) On a more positive note, the President made a big pitch for foreign trade, resisting calls for protectionism:

We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

Then he went on to education, one of those issues where almost everyone agrees, it seems:

Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. ... [Hence the need to] make college more affordable. ... [But we also should forgive college debts] because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

Huh??? Is the glaring contradiction between those two statements not obvious to everyone? Or at least obvious to everyone with a high school education? Why on earth should we push more people into college if there is not a solid expectation that it will pay off for them in the long run? Next the President addressed the most difficult issue of all, the centerpiece of his rise to power, and quite possibly the reason for his decline.

[B]y now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

So he's basing public policy on anecdotal evidence? That makes no sense at all -- especially given his track record of avoiding tough choices. (See above.) I'm not saying that compassion should have no part in policy, simply that it should be subordinated to a rational assessment of likely costs, benefits, and issues of equity. But Obama persists in ignoring critics and treats this issue as an overriding moral imperative:

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Then he turned to the uncomfortable reality that the government's financial footing is shaky at best, making such ambitious reforms very difficult to carry out. The President recounted the economic emergency measures undertaken by his predecessor in the final months of his term, and outlined a new, more realistic approach to fiscal policy:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

The problem is, of course, that discretionary spending is only about one-sixth of the total Federal budget, and it is going to take a huge amount of belt-tightening to make much of a difference. The only way to restore fiscal sanity is to make radical reform in those three big entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (As any economically aware person should know, adding a new Federal entitlement such as health care at a time when existing entitlements are leading us toward national bankruptcy is sheer folly.) And as Jay Leno noted last night, the average cash-strapped American family just uses their Visa card anyway. Hello, China? Would Obama or the Democratic leaders dare to do that? Not bloody likely. That, of course, is why he proposed a "bipartisan fiscal commission" to make the tough choices out of the public spotlight, behind closed doors:

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.

As I stated last week, "creating a legislative agency by executive fiat is a flagrant violation of the whole principle of separation of powers." Once again, Obama is determined to do things his own way, no matter what the Constitution says.

... we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. *

* Emphasis added; that closely resembles the title of a book my father wrote: The Government We Deserve. More trouble came when the President took on a controversial legal issue (the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, decided just last week) and issued a shockingly blunt repudiation of the Supreme Court, whose members were seated just a few feet in front of him:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.

TV cameras showed Associate Justice Samuel Alito scowling after Obama said that, and mouthing the words "That's not true." Evidently Alito shares the same opinion of Obama that Rep. Joe Wilson expressed last September: "You lie!" Seriously, though, that was one of the most painful moments in the entire speech -- the President of the United States directly challenging the validity of a Supreme Court ruling that was just made. Such an overt verbal criticism of the highest court in such a dignified setting is almost unprecedented in U.S. history, and constitutes a monumental act of disrespect -- "due deference" notwithstanding. In today's Washington Post, my former colleague at Sweet Briar College, Dr. Barbara Perry, was quoted as saying, "I did think it was an unfortunate display for both branches. ... I'll leave the individuals aside."

Having insulted the judicial branch, Obama went on to lament the partisan divide in Washington, saying he "will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics." (???) Then he spent a few obligatory minutes on foreign policy, culminating with a warning to the theocratic government in Iran, which is busy figuring out how to making nuclear bombs:

And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.

To shore up support among the activists who put him into office, Obama declared that he would seek legislation to end all remaining restrictions on gays serving in the military, and to ensure equal pay for women. Neither of those initiatives will come easily, however. Clearly, President Obama remains frustrated that everything is not going according to plan:

I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone.

Well, those sky-high expectations were exactly why millions of people voted for you in the first place! Notably absent from Obama's speech was any mention of his far-reaching goal of "transforming the nation." (See March 1, 2009.) In sum, the President has his work cut out for him as he tries to re-calibrate his agenda to fit the world of objective reality, so as to reduce the inevitable popular disappointment to a tolerable level. That readjustment will be a truly monumental undertaking in itself.

I happened to hear Rush Limbaugh's take on the speech on Thursday afternoon, and it was about as brutal as you might expect: He sees Obama as a petulant, narcissistic man-child who can barely contain his rage at those who refuse to follow him. I don't think I would go that far, and it will take years of study by psychologists and historians to come up with a clear assessment of Obama's character and personality. Limbaugh did make an interesting observation, however: unlike most past presidents, Obama never really stopped to characterize the state of the union overall, other than to lament the continuing economic hardships.

McDonnell's response

Less than two weeks after his inauguration, Gov. Bob McDonnell was chosen to give the Republican response, and he measured up fully, in terms of style, poise, and substance. Unlike past responses by opposition leaders, this speech was given before a joint session of the Virginia General Assembly, with other invited guests. Here is what I consider the highlight of his speech, from soturesponse.com

Top-down one-size fits all decision making should not replace the personal choices of free people in a free market, nor undermine the proper role of state and local governments in our system of federalism. As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.

Well put! Before the speech, Virginia Democratic Chairman Dick Cranwell said, "My view is, this governor ought to be at home taking care of Virginia," seeming to forget the many out-of-state trips taken by former Governor Tim Kaine on behalf of the Democratic Party. (See Washington Post.) Actually, McDonnell was at home, in Richmond, and the point of his speech was precisely to take care of Virginia's own business, minimizing outside interference.

Global warming update

President Obama's statement about global warming sounded familiar, and after some checking I realized that it was an eerily close match to Sen. Tim Wirth's famous remark in 1988 (when he was accompanied by Al Gore):

Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

(SOURCE: "Planet Gore" at nationalreview.com; Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. at theatlantic.com; and a similar quote from 1990 in Science under Siege by Michael Fumento) That can't be purely coincidental, can it?

And to bring this farcical saga up to date, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed a new (2009) book by British author Keith Farnish, Time's Up, which calls on environmental activists to engage in widespread sabotage aiming at the destruction of industrial civilization, as the only way to stop global warming. (!!!???) I guess this means that the exploration of space by humans will soon come to an end. For more, see Prison Planet.

January 27, 2010 [LINK / comment]

iPad: Apple does it again!

With Apple, you can never tell for sure how much of the hype is real, so today's big announcement of the iPad by Steve Jobs needs to be weighed against hands-on experience. No matter, if it even comes close to delivering on the promise, it will be worth the $499 price. Jacqueline and I are now arguing which of us is going to buy it first! If I understand correctly, however, the product will not be available in retail stores for 60 more days, and even that depends on approval from the Federal Communications Commission. See apple.com

Always up-to-the-minute with current pop culture trends, Doonesbury has been making fun of the new gizmo all week, recalling the similar satirical slams against Apple's hand-held device from the 1990s, before Steve Jobs returned. (What was that thing called?)

Memory upgrade

Coincidentally, I upgraded the memory in my iMac this evening, from the original 1 gigabyte of RAM to 3 gigabytes. Fortunately, inserting the RAM card into the slot underneath my iMac wasn't as hard as when I upgraded the memory on my old (2001) iMac. To my consternation, the first couple times I booted up I got error messages, but everything seems OK now. My productivity at home has lagged lately, because I am always running several applications at once, each of which has several windows open. (For my Mail program, there are dozens of unanswered message windows open! ) I also purchased Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard," which requires additional RAM, so now I can install it.

January 27, 2010 [LINK / comment]

They got the Wall Street blues

Even as Republicans are beside themselves with joy in the wake of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts last week, most economic indicators remain bleak, and investor confidence is flagging. In spite of renewed hopes in the GOP that the free enterprise system can still be saved, there's a lousy mood on Wall Street -- an interesting psychological contrast that bears pondering.

So far, the White House seems to be reacting to last week's defeat by adopting an even more populist rhetorical approach, bashing wealthy bankers for causing the nation's problems. There's more than a little truth in that, but still it's a risky road to take because it makes it hard to sustain a prudent course in economic policy. It will be interesting to see whether the President continues to use such crowd-pleasing words in his State of the Union Address later this evening.

In practice, however, Obama seems to be quite cautious, preferring to keep current government officials in place, as long as they have proven that they are "team players," not prone to spilling the beans about the bad underlying conditions. In that sense, Ben Bernanke is the perfect choice to remain as head of the Federal Reserve Bank, notwithstanding the fact that he has an abysmal record in overseeing the nation's financial system. But it seems that Washington elites on both sides of the aisle are circling the wagons to protect one of their own, and it now appears that the Senate will probably confirm him for a second term. Senator Max Baucus (D-MO), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will vote to confirm Bernanke for a second term, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) will vote against him. Ironically, MoveOn.org opposes Bernanke, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favors him. See the Washington Post. I have heard Bernanke testify any number of times, and while he may know what he's talking about, he just does not convey the firm sense of determination to fix glaring defects in our economy. He does not do well in the critical financial task of "moral suasion."

Another sign of the stay-the-course approach is that President Obama has recruited a former Reagan-era official, Paul Volcker, to sell a proposed new bank regulation system. The proposed "Volcker Rule" is an attempt to deal with the problem of banks that are "too big to fail." (Volcker was first nominated to chair the Federal Reserve Board by President Carter in 1979, and played a central role in defeating the menace of inflation during the 1980s, but he never got enough credit for it.) "Volcker's plan restricts "banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers." (For example, hedge funds.) It would also limit bank consolidation, one of the prime examples of Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" during the 1990s. From the Washington Post,

Volcker had been arguing that banks, which are sheltered by the government because lending is important to the economy, should be prevented from taking advantage of that safety net to make speculative investments.

In a sign of the troubled times, perhaps, Obama has embraced Volcker's proposal, marking what could be a truly momentous shift in economic policy. Time will tell.

Intentionally or not, the return of Paul Volcker to policy-making world has had the effect of undermining Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner. He may end up playing the role of "fall guy" for the Obama administration, and given the miserable shape things are in, they sure need somebody to do so. Ironically, when he was being vetted by Obama staffers for the Treasury job in late 2008 Geithner warned that he carried political baggage because of his role in the bailout of AIG and major banks. So who's in charge? This confusion over future policy direction provoked a large sell-off on Wall Street, as the Dow Jones tumbled four percent during the week.

Moral hazards

The Volcker Rule addresses the perennial question of moral hazards, when public policies or private insurance creates a perverse incentive to be less responsible. If somebody else is going to pay for my mistakes, what is the point in exercising caution? Professor Bainbridge (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) finds that the proposal "look[s] potentially quite reasonable." Unlike me, Bainbridge sees no need to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act (1933) prohibition on investment peddling by depository banks. But I do agree with him that the Obama's proposal will be a key test to see whether the Republicans in Congress are prepared to support needed financial reforms or will remain the "party of no."

Meanwhile, at Mother Jones (hat tip to Matthew Poteat), economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote an article on this very same subject, but it just seemed to miss the basic point. So, I commented:

That article brings to light a very real fatal flaw in our economic system, but Stiglitz seems totally confused. He says "Market fundamentalism has eroded any sense of community," blaming free markets and a "moral deficit" among bank bosses. He doesn't seem to understand that the moral hazard problem does not stem from the moral failings of individuals, but from lax institutions and practices. Government intervention to prop up failing enterprises is the very antithesis of laissez faire. Banks got lazy and sloppy because of misguided regulations and mandates that took away their discretion over making loans. That, coupled with the absence of any anti-trust enforcement since the 1980s, allowed crooked mega-banks to dominate the market, which led to the demise of (semi-) free market capitalism.

Stiglitz is right that financial leaders haven't learned much if anything from their near-death experience -- but why should they? Bush or Obama or whoever will bail them out in the end. The habit of "socializing losses as we privatize gains" (an apt Marxian critique) did not start in the last ten years, but has long applied to airlines, pro sports franchises, etc. Blaming "Market fundamentalism" for the sins of crony capitalism will lead to the wrong remedies.

National debt sinkhole

I bet you never thought that Russia, Mexico, and Peru would achieve a ranking superior to the good ol' U.S.A. in terms of indebtedness relative to Gross Domestic Product. Altogether, the U.S. government owes $8.68 trillion, or 60.8% of GDP in the aggregate. Actually, Japan is even worse off than we are. Take a sobering look at the GDP vs National Debt by Country graphic at visualeconomics.com. This, in turn, raises the interesting question of whether or for how long countries can indulge the slide toward socialism; James Turk claims that "the ideological bankruptcy of socialism will be laid bare by government insolvency." He may be optimistic, however. Many countries in Latin America and Africa have continued with bankrupting socialist policies for years, astounding those who never dreamed that things could keep getting worse.

Global poverty declines

Here's good news, for most of us, anyway: "world poverty is disappearing faster than previously thought. From 1970 to 2006, poverty fell by 86% in South Asia, 73% in Latin America, 39% in the Middle East, and 20% in Africa." It really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, however, because until the last few years, there was a strong shift toward free market policies around the world, as part of the "neoliberal" wave. Gimme that good old (free market) religion! Contrary to left-wing populist dogma, markets tend to equalize differences among countries, though there is often a tendency to exacerbate inequalities in the wealthier nations, as the working class is forced to compete with dirt-poor peasants who are only too glad to work all day for a few dollars. See voxeu.org; hat tip to Bruce Bartlett.

Cutting health costs

A reasonable proposal to cut health costs was laid out by Dr. Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. He is pragmatic and refrains from any radical solutions, but he does at least recognize some of the biggest flaws in the current system and logical inconsistencies in Obamacare. See yahoo.com; hat tip to Dan.

Freedom of speech, Inc.?

Last week the Supreme Court issued a ruling (in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that overturns statutory limits on donations to political campaigns by corporations. Generally speaking, I'm opposed to arbitrary limits on campaign spending, but the way this case was decided causes me concern. The justices seem to be saying that corporations enjoy free speech rights just as much as human individual citizens do. (What??!!) I hope they are not inventing a new right, as the justices who voted for Roe v. Wade in 1973 did. See the Washington Post.

By the way, Citizens United is the PAC run by conservative activist David Bossie. He gained fame attacking Hillary Clinton a couple years ago (perhaps helping Barack Obama get elected?), and last year I finally received the video on Hillary that his organization promised me -- about a year too late.

Expect more government

I swear, I'm NOT making up this latest cybernetic initiative from the Obama White House: expectmore.gov; hat tip to Connie. Was that a Freudian slip, or perhaps a taunt? In fairness, I think they are trying to convey the idea that the government should live up to people's expectations.

January 25, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Conservatives win in Chile

For the first time since democracy returned to Chile in 1990, conservatives have won the presidential elections. (It was the second round election, actually, the first round taking place last month.) Last week, Sebastian Piñera, of the National Renewal Party, defeated Eduardo Frei, of the ruling Concertacion coalition, by a margin of 52% to 48.3%. (Frei had served as president from 1994 until 2000, and Piñera was the losing candidate in the January 2006 election, when outgoing president Michelle Bachelet won by a 53.5%-46.5% margin.) Piñera claimed he had a "mandate for change," but promised to try to work with the opposition. He has served as a senator and head of the National Renewal Party. The Washington Post describes him as a billionaire "who ranks No. 701 on Forbes magazine's list of the world's richest people." Also see CNN.com.

This marks the end of two full decades in which socialists or socialist sympathizers have led in Chile, which is one of the rare success stories in modern Latin America. Peru has emulated the free-market approach of Chile since the early 1990s, with considerable success as well. For outsiders, it may seem puzzling that a country with such great success in capitalist economic development would keep electing socialists as president. Part of the reason, obviously, is the lingering stench of authoritarianism that the Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1989) has bequeathed to the conservative movement. (Indeed, went out of his way to promise that officials who had served under Pinochet would be excluded from his cabinet.) Also, the left-leaning governments have been smart and pragmatic enough not to "kill the golden goose" that keeps their precious welfare programs funded. On the other hand, the center-left coalition had become deeply embroiled in a serious of scandals over the past several years, and some people were surprised that Bachelet avoided any public backlash over that when she won the 2006 election. The upshot is that, ironically, economic policy may not change very much in the next few years. I would expect cuts in some social and education programs, however, and there are bound to be protests against "fascists."

One of Piñera's older brothers is among those who once served in the Pinochet government. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Jose Piñera was Secretary of Labor and Social Security, where he played a crucial role in privatizing the nation's pension system, and later as Secretary of Mining. I saw him speak at a conference at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business in the early 1990s. He wrote a small book extolling the virtues of free markets: Chile 2010: Libertad, Libertad, Mis Amigos. The latter four words are from a poem by the Nicaraguan poet Ruben Dario. It's an eerie coincidence that the title of his book coincides with the year his younger brother assumed the presidency, setting the stage for putting those free-market values into practice in Chile -- in a democratic context, for the first time!

Piñera will be inaugurated in March, presumably the first peaceful democratic transition from one party to another in Chile since the 1960s. I have partially updated the Chile background information page, clarifying that the presidential term was reduced from six years to four years in 2005, as part of a series of constitutional reforms that undid some of the lingering authoritarian features of the Pinochet era.

January 23, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Upset: Red Sox fans rock politics

Future historians may decide that the fate of President Obama's domestic policy agenda was decided when a hapless Massachusetts politician managed to offend Boston Red Sox fans twice in one week. Not smart at all. Martha Coakley, who had held a wide lead in the race for U.S. Senate until a couple weeks before last Tuesday's election, was being interviewed on a radio show and referred to retired pitcher Curt Schilling (the bloody red-sock hero of the "miraculous" 2004 ALCS) as a "Yankee fan." What!!?? Schilling was as mystified by this remark as anyone, as his blog 38 Pitches makes abundantly clear.

Gold mine of
prospective voters:

Then, when asked about her lack of campaign activity and failure to court potential voters, she said, "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" (This was in reference to the NHL Winter Classic held there on New Year's Day.) YES, you idiot!!! For more on these two monumental gaffes, see Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. In terms of getting blamed for an easy win that slipped through a team's fingers, Coakley will spend the rest of her life being compared to Bill Buckner or Steve Bartman.

At the very least, this special election in Massachusetts will lay to rest any doubts as to the significance of Our National Pastime in national affairs.

Big Mac comes (half) clean, late

The news about Mark McGwire's belated confession of past steroid use was overshadowed by the earthquake in Haiti last week, which may have caused a missed opportunity for a more intensive public discussion about the dope issue. (With fatalities climbing into the six figures, sports seems less important.) McGwire said what he had to do say to mend his tarnished honor, but it was several years too late, and in any case cannot undo the wrongs that he did against baseball and professional sports more generally. His announcement was probably a condition for his being hired as a hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals late last year, and it was time to clear the air. As the Washington Post reported, McGwire had to wait for the five-year statute of limitations to expire, or else face legal jeopardy. He says he used steroids for the first time after the 1989 season, and resumed doing so several years later, as a way to recover from injuries more quickly. Maybe. Saying that he human growth hormone but not to build his strength makes one wonder if he really has faced up to his culpability, however.

Likewise, as ESPN analyst Peter Gammons writes at MLB.com, McGwire's claim that there is no relationship between the performance-enhancing drugs and home run production does not sound very convincing. Gammons says more time will be needed to judge McGwire and others who are suspected or confess to cheating. The argument over this issue will never end, and the record books will forever be tainted by lingering doubts.

Gannett columnist Mike Lopresti wonders why it took McGwire so long to come clean. Just ask Pete Rose. If your whole identity is based on being a hero to millions of adoring fans, what is there left when you strip away the illusion? Some people develop an innate sense of self-worth in life that enables them to rise above crushing setbacks or the loss of friendships, but many entertainers and other public figures who encounter such a life crisis simply crash and burn.

What about the historical legacy? In the Washington Post, Tracee Hamilton "believe[s] he is contrite" but should not be let in "the Hall of Fame, ever, for a variety of reasons." She thinks he had no choice but to confess, which in her mind doesn't really change much. I have a hard time deciding. If those who cheat are never forgiven, like the Chicago White Sox "Eight Men Out" of 1919, what incentive will suspected cheaters have to come clean? It's a dilemma that can never be satisfactorily resolved: We want to encourage honesty, but we don't want to reward unethical conduct. In the end, they may have to create a separate category in the Hall of Fame for dope users, with asterisks next to their name.

David Pinto comments on the interview Bob Costas gave to McGwire, who denied Jose Canseco's statement that he and McGwire used to inject each other right before ballgames: "I believe Jose more than Mark on this one." Ouch!

McGwire is the biggest-name baseball star to admit dope use since Alex Rodriguez did so last February. Few have doubted that Big Mac was a user since the March 2005 circus on Capitol Hill when McGwire issued a teary-eyed non-statement. Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Curt Schilling also testified. The investigations culminated when the Mitchell Report was released in December 2007.

Saying he wished he had never played in the Steroid Era almost sounds like McGwire is rationalizing his behavior on the basis of what was condoned at the time. It's kind of like the reasons that were given for the mortgage crisis and the resultant virtual collapse of the U.S. financial system in 2008. I want to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt, but he is going to have to work hard over the next few years to rebuild his credibility and honor.

Stadium news in Miami

Just in time for the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl, Joe Robbie Stadium / Pro Player Stadium / Dolphin Stadium / Land Shark Stadium has been officially renamed "Sun Life Stadium," as part of a five-year $37.5 million contract with a Canadian financial services company by that same name. See the Miami Herald; hat tip to Mike Zurawski. What-ever... I revised the Dolphin Stadium page. I have updated the Stadium names page accordingly.

Coincidentally, plans are underway to add a large, cable-suspended roof at Dolphin Stadium, in hopes of avoiding another 2007 Super Bowl, marred by a steady downpour. Like Qwest Field in (rainy) Seattle, it would cover virtually all the seats, but not the playing field. New scoreboards would be built in the four corners of the stadium, so that more fans will be able to see them. (The scoreboards are currently behind the end zones.) See palmbeachpost.com; hat tip to Mike Zurawski.

Progress on the new baseball stadium in Miami, meanwhile, is already having a positive impact: the budget-conscious Marlins just signed pitcher Josh Johnson to a four-year, $39 million contract through 2013. The new stadium, set to open in 2012, was evidently a major consideration in his decision. See MLB.com.

Wrigley Field makeover

The new owners of the Chicago Cubs have laid out their plans for a further renovation of Wrigley Field, which will celebrate its 100th birthday in four more years. The construction project is to be called "Wrigley 20-14" and is intended to let the Cubs can use it "for another 100 years." Well, let's hope so. See Chicago Tribune; hat tip to Bruce Orser.

The mail bag

Thanks to Matt Lachs for informing me that a bus repair facility for the Philadelphia School District presently occupies the site where the Baker Bowl once stood. I've updated the Stadiums in Limbo page accordingly.

There are more items in my in-box to get to, so thanks for your patience. Where have I been lately? "Back to school..."

January 20, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Obama's budgetary sneak play

So, how do you suppose President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress reacted to the obvious signs of growing and widespread antipathy toward their agenda, in Massachusetts and elsewhere? Why, by pushing to make the government less democratic, of course! Apparently some folks in the White House and Capitol Hill finally got the message that this country's finances are going to hell in a handbasket, and they are determined to show that they really care about it! Rather than calling for belt-tightening measures that would risk more electoral defeats, however, they came up with an unaccountable government body that would make the unpleasant but necessary decisions on which budget items to cut, in backroom sessions. Some "transparency"! What's more, Congress wouldn't have to vote on the recommendations until after the next elections, when many of them are lame ducks and therefore immune to public pressure. Utterly disgusting. From today's Washington Post:

Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs -- including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- that threaten to drive the nation's debt to levels not seen since World War II.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to any of them, however, that creating a legislative agency by executive fiat is a flagrant violation of the whole principle of separation of powers. (What-ever!) Kudos to Rep. Frank Wolf for vehemently protesting this scam and insisting that "the American people participate and have a say in how their tax dollars are spent." On Facebook, I thanked Rep. Wolf for "resisting this unconstitutional and anti-democratic bit of skullduggery, and for remaining vigilant in defense of open, representative government."

Miscellaneous

The Huffington Post (hat tip to Connie) blames Martha Coakley's loss on the failure to use social media such as Facebook. To which I say, there are so many reasons for her calamitous drop in the polls over the past month that it would take a page or more just to list them.

It puts a smile on my face to see the newly revamped governor.virginia.gov Web page, with Gov. Bob McDonnell. Brighter days are ahead...

Finally, here's my favorite bumper sticker from libertystickers.com:

The Constitution doesn't matter unless you say it does.

January 19, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Brown defeats Coakley, decisively

Sorry, Democrats, there won't be any recounts in Massachusetts! Confirming what the polls were saying, Scott Brown easily prevailed over Martha Coakley in the special election for the U.S. Senate today, by a 52%-47% margin. Let the record show that Republican Brown won the election by capturing an overwhelming share of the independent voters -- the same winning strategy followed by Bob McDonnell last year, and the same approach which I have advocated over and over through the years. Granted, that's the only real way a Republican can win in Massachusetts. But maybe the message is finally sinking in among Republicans nationwide. As Brown declared in his victory speech tonight:

The independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken!

It's just too bad the Fox News had to spoil the occasion by featuring two guest commentators who epitomize the unfortunate polarizing tendency within the Republican Party today: Karl Rove and Sarah Palin.

Speaking of which, Andrew Sullivan (hat tip to Bruce Bartlett) has some (predictable) cautionary words that remind us that the Republicans need to reflect just a bit before exulting in glee. He says Brown "has no plans to cut the debt or control government," and that the Republicans "merely want to kill a reform presidency. They have no alternative [policy]." I don't know about Brown, but he may have a point about many of the Republicans in Congress. My comment on Facebook:

Sullivan is on target as far as Rovian hypocrisy, though I would like to think the Massachusetts election is more than a "hissy fit." If the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party "Base," don't face up to the ugly truth about their own complicity in this country's fiscal mess, it's all but certain that they will misinterpret today's results just as badly as the Democrats misinterpreted Obama's 2008 victory, and likewise miss another historic opportunity for true reform.

Be that as it may, we can at least be sure that the threat of a government takeover of health care, and the march toward socialism in general, has been stalled for the moment, at least. How the next chapter unfolds depends to a large extent on whether the Democrats are going to ignore voter sentiment and press on with their agenda before their "window of opportunity" slams shut. Will they make excuses to prevent Brown from taking office in the Senate until they have pulled some legislative tricks? Not if the people of Massachusetts have anything to do with it. In the middle of the victory rally, the crowd started a chant aimed directly at the Democratic leaders in Congress:

Seat him NOW! Seat him NOW! Seat him NOW!

Actually, the threat of Democratic stalling tactics has just diminished, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) released a statement urging that no votes on health care be taken until Brown is officially seated as U.S. Senator. If a Democrat says such a thing, there is no way that Harry Reid will risk further damage to his party's sullied image. Good for Webb!

So what will the political ramifications be in Washington? Yesterday, Republitarian solicited forecasts as to how the Democrats would spin a loss by Coakley. My two cents:

Easy -- they will blame it on the lousy economy which Obama inherited from Bush. They can't heap blame directly on Coakley, of course, because she's a women, and it would be hard for Democrats to alienate a key constituency. They will reflexively accuse Brown of lies and distortions and scare tactics, linking him to the Tea Baggers, but in so doing they might even put themselves in a bigger hole for the elections next fall, because all indications are that Brown is a very decent [and] sincere guy.

"America Rising" video

It may seem a little disturbing for younger viewers, but for a good portrayal of the deep, widespread anger against Obama and the Democrats across the Fruited Plain, watch the America Rising Video at youtube.com.

January 18, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Our new governor: Bob McDonnell!

After eight years of Democrats occupying the Governor's Mansion in Richmond, Republicans have a lot to celebrate now that Bob McDonnell has been elevated to the top executive leadership position in the Old Dominion. The new governor struck a sober yet upbeat and inspirational tone in his hour-long speech to the General Assembly this evening, stressing bipartisan cooperation and making good-natured references to Del. Ward Armstrong and other Democratic legislators. Stylistically, it was right on target.

As for the substance, McDonnell covered the gamut of issues, mostly revolving around the difficult dilemma posed by the severe budget crunch. He focused like a proverbial "laser beam" on the fundamental task of job creation, the subject of Executive Order #1, which he signed on Saturday, within hours of taking the oath of office. My only real criticism of McDonnell was in putting too much emphasis on the standard tools by which state and local governments give special preferential incentives to attract investment from out-of-state. (He mentioned the tourist and movie-making industries as being prime examples of big payoff opportunities.) From a broader, nationwide perspective, however, such incentives yield little if any net increase in aggregative private investment, merely shifting investment from one state or locality to another, as in a zero-sum game. But otherwise, McDonnell said all the right things about the need to ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses, and to firmly reject any proposals to raise taxes on "hard-working Virginia families." Good! (It was also good that he left just a little bit of wiggle room for negotiating purposes.)

McDonnell repeated one line that caught my attention from his inaugural address on the Capitol steps, eliciting loud cheers along with some boos from Democrats:

We will make Virginia the energy capital of the east coast.

To which I say, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." I support the proposed off-shore drilling measures, as long as there are strong environmental safeguards, but I am under no illusion that we are necessarily going to strike it rich. I was never much impressed with the simplistic slogan, "Drill here, drill now!" Maybe we will get lucky, as Brazil did two years ago, or maybe not. For a detailed summary and analysis of the Governor's speech, read Jim Hoeft at Bearing Drift.

Sunday's News Leader reported on local folks who made it down to Richmond for the inaugural festivities, including Jimmy Brenneman, a young Staunton Republican. [Also present at the ceremonies was the new 20th District Delegate, Dickie Bell and his wife, Anne.] (I was seriously considering making the trip, but the household vote on the issue was tied, 1-1.) If I had only known the 70s acoustic rock group America was going to play at the inaugural ball...

In the months to come, Governor McDonnell will have a precious opportunity to prove that he can tackle tough issues in a bipartisan fashion without giving up on conservative principles. He will be under heavy pressure from the "grassroots" to do their bidding. Fortunately, he seems to be a very capable and gifted leader, so there is very good reason to expect that he will rise above the old partisan bickering and gamesmanship, and do what is in the best interest of all Virginians.

I have made no secret of my deep dissatisfaction with the Grand Old Party over the past few years, and I have explained my reasoning in fine detail. Being that I have striven to be discreet about intra-party squabbling, however -- in marked contrast to the "grassroots" leadership -- you sometimes have to "read between the lines" in my critiques. For the record, I ceased involvement in the formal party organization after the final "mediation effort" came to naught in mid-2008. Since then, I have limited my political activities to occasional public meetings, campaign events, and the Mountain Valley Republicans. I am gratified that the victory last November validated the approach I have been calling for, and I hope that it signifies the beginning of a fresh turn in a more sane and constructive direction.

Special Senate elections

In Virginia's 37th Senate District, being vacated by Attorney General-to-be Ken Cuccinelli, Democrat Dave Marsden defeated Republican Steve M. Hunt by only 327 votes: 50.64% to 49.26%. Some Democrats are crowing about the narrow win, but given the demographic makeup of Northern Virginia, the race should not have been so close. Clearly, something is amiss on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, the GOP held on to the 6th District Senate seat, being vacated by Ken Stolle (just elected as Sheriff of Virginia Beach), as Jeff McWaters beat Bill Fleming in a landslide. See the Virginia State Board of Elections. That means the Democrats now have a 22-18 majority in the state Senate, rather than a 21-19 majority as before. Accordingly, I have updated the table showing the composition of the Virginia government on my Politics blog page.

GOP upset in Mass.?

There is also a special election in Massachusetts tomorrow, for the United States Senate. Somehow, the Democratic favorite Martha Coakley has totally botched her campaign, wrongly assuming that the seat was an inherited peerage like in the House of Lords. Amazingly enough, the latest polls show the Republican Scott Brown with a significant lead that keeps growing. (Nine percent??? -- see politico.com.) I commented on a couple blogs that I expect the Democrats to manage to hold on to the "Kennedy seat" one way or another, but I hope I'm wrong. It is clear that a Democratic defeat would signify a humiliating repudiation of President Obama, but I would be very dubious about any claim that the "Tea Party" movement is responsible for a Republican win -- even if the original Tea Party was in Boston! A more convincing argument is that the tax hikes planned under Obamacare would severely penalize the manufacturers of medical devices that operate in Massachusetts, causing workers in that industry to defect from Democratic ranks. Ver-r-ry interesting!

Martin Luther King Day

Today, for the first time since an African-American became president, we celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, father of the great Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Local Republican activist Carl Tate, one of the rare breed of African-Americans who is proud to stand by the "Party of Lincoln," attended a program in honor of his late grandfather, Oliver J. Tate. I read the elder Mr. Tate's obituary in the News Leader a few months ago, and I can see where Carl got his character and gumption.

Thanks to the miracle of social networking, I learned about another African-American with a Republican identity: Samantha Rucker. She is running for the school board in the Mason District of Fairfax County. (I used to play softball in Mason District Park!) She says, "I am not running to promote one specific agenda or any partisan principles. I am running to be a part of the solution." Sounds good to me.

January 18, 2010 [LINK / comment]

Earthquake leaves Haiti in ruins

The 7.0-magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti last Tuesday was the most destructive and lethal natural disaster to strike the Western Hemisphere in recorded history. The televised images of toppled major buildings and bodies strewn about the streets are almost too much to comprehend. The suffering of the roughly three million residents of the capital Port au Prince is beyond compare, and it is hard to watch the gravely wounded people waiting treatment outside makeshift surgical clinics. Yet every day they are finding more people still alive, liberated from entombment in the rubble. It is cause for some hope in the face of utter despair.

Right now, the most conservative estimate of fatalities is 80,000, but that number is expected to rise substantially. When the final estimates are made, it may rival the 2004 earthquake/tsunami, which killed at least 200,000 people in Indonesia and other countries around the Indian Ocean. But the question of exactly how bad it was or how highly it ranks on the list of historical disasters (see the list below) can never be answered, and the huge uncertainty in all such death tolls merely illustrates another dimension of the tragedy -- that no one but God will ever know all the human lives that were lost that awful day.

The epicenter of the earthquake was only ten miles southwest of the capital Port au Prince, which is why most buildings were destroyed or heavily damaged. Many smaller towns in the southern part of the island country were ruined as well, but because of bad roads and a broken system of communications, it will be days before the full extent of the damage is known. The neighboring Dominican Republic escaped relatively unscathed. President Rene Preval has not played an active role since the presidential palace was destroyed and he became homeless. He has an aloof reputation, and his leadership abilities seem gravely lacking in this emergency. For continuous updates on this story, see CNN.com.

Inevitably, tragedies of this magnitude invite political commentary, and some of what has been said is either very insensitive or ill-informed, reinforcing American prejudices about Haiti. I refer in particular to Rev. Pat Robertson's remark about the alleged "pact with the Devil" made by Haitian independence leaders in 1804; see Christian Science Monitor. Personally, I think the less some of our pundits talk about Haiti's misery, the better.

After the shock of the disaster wore off and as the people's hunger grew, frustration was bound to erupt into violence. As today's Washington Post reported, the security situation is deteriorating as looting escalates. What is left of most banks and retail stores is being stripped bare, and it will probably take several months for markets to resume functioning in a normal way. Also see the BBC, which reported on the 2,000 U.S. Marines who have arrived in Haiti. Hopefully they will not have to stay as long as they did early in the 20th Century, 1915-1934. Unlike other Caribbean Basin countries which were occupied by U.S. forces during that era, the sport of baseball never took hold in Haiti.

Being located in the middle of the Caribbean Sea, Haiti has been plagued by major hurricanes over the course of its history. Part of the problem is man-made, however: deforestation has resulted in more soil erosion, and made Haiti much more vulnerable to mudslides than otherwise. In May 2004 over 1,000 people died in massive floods after days of heavy rains, and just a few months later, in September, Hurricane Jeanne killed at least 1,500 people.

Relief & development aid

Coincidentally, the News Leader recently ran a series of feature stories about the humanitarian/developmental missionary program in which various local churches are participating. Rev. Bowen, a retired rector, played a leading role in this campaign, which is centered at St. Marc's School in Cerca La Source, in the northeast part of Haiti, close to the Dominican Republic border. Our local church, Emmanuel Episcopal, is going to show a movie on Haiti as part of a pizza dinner fund-raising event next Sunday, January 24. In the mean time, you can donate to help the people of Haiti at: Episcopal Relief & Development.

Politics in Haiti

Of all the 20 countries in Latin America, Haiti is the one I have studied the least. That is because it is French-speaking and is culturally distinct from the rest of the region. Haiti's political system does exemplify bad aspects of Latin America, however, with violence and instability for most of its history. For many decades it was an oligarchy dominated by the light-skinned mixed-race elite class, led by the Duvalier family from the late 1950s (under "Papa Doc") until the late 1980s, when his son "Baby Doc" was forced to flee. Catholic Priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to power, but was forced out until President Clinton sent in the U.S. military to restore his authority. Aristide was elected president once again in 2000, but an uprising broke out in early 2004, and he was forced to resign and flee the country. Because of poor security, elections planned for November 2005 were repeatedly postponed until early 2006. The process of counting votes was marred by irregularities, and after riots by poor people, election officials in Haiti changed their rules and declared former President Rene Preval to be the winner in February 2006. (Preval is an ally of Aristide.)

In short, Haiti is an extremely dysfunctional country with a host of social maladies, and it lacked even rudimentary emergency response capabilities. For the next few years at least, it will be largely dependent on international assistance just to survive.

Accordingly, I have updated my Haiti background information page, including an attempt to reflect the current political party configuration, which is very complicated and confusing. Since I am not at all an expert on Haiti, that summary of political parties must be regarded with a grain of salt.

Latin American earthquakes

Anyone who pays much attention to Latin America knows that the region is prone to experiencing major earthquakes, especially the countries along the eastern rim of the Pacific Ocean. (The first time I traveled to Peru, in 1994, I felt at least three minor tremors that were enough to make the walls shake.) To put the 2010 Haiti earthquake in perspective, it is useful to look at the major earthquakes in modern Latin American history. In the list below, the estimated fatalities are in parentheses:

• Peru, May 1970 (66,000)
• Nicaragua, Dec. 1972 (5,000)
• Guatemala, Feb. 1976 (23,000)
• Mexico, Sept. 1985 (9,500)
• El Salvador, Oct. 1986 (1,000+)
• Colombia/Ecuador, Mar. 1987 (4,000+)
• Colombia, June 1994 (1,000)
• El Salvador, Jan.-Feb. 2001 (1,100+)
• Haiti, Jan. 2010 (80,000+)

SOURCE: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004

The devastating 1985 earthquake that wrecked large parts of Mexico City happened barely six months after I visited there. It was made worse by the fact that Mexico City was built on an old lake bed, and the ground beneath is still wet and unstable. In addition, a large earthquake hit southern Mexico in 2003, forcing a change in my subsequent vacation plans; 29 deaths were reported.

As for more recent seismic events, an earthquake in Guatemala in October 2005 happened soon after a tropical storm had drenched the countryside. The resulting mudslides killed over a thousand people, many more than would have died if the land had been drier and more stable. The most recent major earthquake in Latin America happened in Peru in August 2007. It was centered near Ica, about 100 miles southeast of Lima, and over 500 people died. One year ago, in January 2009, Costa Rica suffered a serious earthquake in the mountains northwest of the capital San Jose.