A friend asked my opinion recently about the future of bitcoin. Given that he is a banker, and my areas of expertise are literature and film, this seemed an odd request.
Nevertheless, let's consider...
The purpose of a currency is either as 1) a means of exchange or 2) a storehouse of wealth.
Apropos 1) For now, as far as I can tell, there are not enough actors in the legitimate economic sphere using bitcoin regularly for it to be a widely-accepted conventional means of exchange. If in the future there are instances of currency restrictions on international exchange it could become useful but would presumably constitute flouting of some rule or another.
Apropos 2) Given that there is nothing tangible supporting the value of bitcoin (not commodity, nor treasury, nor even a "final guarantor" such as taxpayers) bitcoin would not seem an attractive long-term storehouse of wealth.
Whether it can, in purely speculative terms, be a profitable short-term play is an entirely different matter. Other than its inability to flower, how is a bitcoin different from a tulip bulb? I am sure that in the 17th century Dutch tulip mania there were some who safely stored their wealth in tulip bulbs, recognized the developing bubble, transferred their wealth into property (which many in Amsterdam at that time likely predicted would soon be literally under water) and then got out in time. This is not to knock speculation during a market rise, it's just that very few ever get out in time. And this is not to knock tulips. They're beautiful. If the Dutch treasury had figured how to modulate tulip mania and let the air out of that speculative bubble, things might have worked out okay and tulip bulbs would still be an alternative means of exchange in Northern Europe.
In any case, given their intricacy, a better comparison for bitcoin might be to Native American wampum belts.
How might a bitcoin bubble develop? Here's one possible scenario: China right now has a problem of too much debt, and probably too much bad debt. I believe they will work through that challenge okay, with some pain along the way. That said, this week S & P lowered China's credit rating. It could be that a crowd of Chinese investors, while enduring a market shock, grow less enamored of their currency, and also of the dollar and the pound, and see bitcoin as an alternative store of wealth. That could be a mistake. But who knows.
Here's hoping for smooth sailing.
More about the S&P downgrade HERE.
About tulip mania HERE.
About wampum belts HERE, via the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Friday, September 22, 2017
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
A Lesson from the Master
Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, delivers a brilliant, and charming, response to Mitt Romney's performance in last week's debate with President Obama.
Can such skills be taught? Perhaps, if a student is willing to listen. But Clinton more than that has great political instincts and an easy rapport with the crowd and camera.
I only wish Romney had been there to respond, and that the two of them could have carried on all evening. I'd have purchased on pay per view.
Worth noting: as usual, Clinton does an effective take down against the opponent, though not in a way one would much begrudge (that's his post-presidency mode); but he doesn't mention Barack Obama, and as usual I'm not entirely sure he does him much of a favor. Clinton's mastery makes the President look like a student.
The President is just going to have to depend, come this Thursday, upon Joe Biden besting Paul Ryan. (I was just reading in John Cassidy's New Yorker blog what a liability Ryan is... )
Can such skills be taught? Perhaps, if a student is willing to listen. But Clinton more than that has great political instincts and an easy rapport with the crowd and camera.
I only wish Romney had been there to respond, and that the two of them could have carried on all evening. I'd have purchased on pay per view.
Worth noting: as usual, Clinton does an effective take down against the opponent, though not in a way one would much begrudge (that's his post-presidency mode); but he doesn't mention Barack Obama, and as usual I'm not entirely sure he does him much of a favor. Clinton's mastery makes the President look like a student.
The President is just going to have to depend, come this Thursday, upon Joe Biden besting Paul Ryan. (I was just reading in John Cassidy's New Yorker blog what a liability Ryan is... )
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
In the Middle East, Where is the Indispensable Nation?
As President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly today many there were asking where does America stand on matters ranging from the crisis in Syria to Iran’s program to develop nuclear weapons. Others were asking where is President Obama? He declined to meet any foreign leaders this week, averring with the excuse that if he met one, he’d have to meet ten. He has nonetheless found time in his schedule over the last week to appear on the morning talk show The View, attend a fundraiser put on by rapper Jay-Z and singer Beyonce in a New York nightclub. His multi-tasking White House staff found time in advance of the UNGA meeting to send out gags about the president meeting in the White House with a man dressed as a pirate (*).
Of course, the President needn’t have met with ten leaders, but he might have met with the leaders of the handful of countries that are close American allies.
Meanwhile, across the pond two remarkable events have taken place in British diplomatic relations. As reported in the Daily Mail, Sir John Sawers, the head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (or MI6), travelled to Israel, not a particularly close ally of Britain, to confer with its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Until recently the holder of that post was never referred to publicly by name, but only as “C.” Historically, the chief of the SIS, unlike his American counterpart (the director of the CIA), never travelled as a diplomatic messenger for the British government. As far as I know, such a trip is unprecedented.
Additionally, and so far unreported, is that at about the same time a very senior figure in the British military embarked on a whirlwind tour of Arab countries with which Britain has cordial relations.
These two trips, taken together, bespeak A Moment.
The civil war in Syria has now become a grave humanitarian crisis; it will also soon become a serious political and security crisis for many countries in the Middle East, issues I addressed weeks ago in a post here.
What’s more, whereas the Iranian ambition to develop nuclear weapons has, in the American press, been portrayed as a problem primarily for Israel, a country that the Iranian president has threatened to wipe out; it is in fact a problem also for a number of Arab countries in the Gulf that Iran has been actively trying to destabilize. Saudi Arabia and these other countries do not particularly desire to have nuclear weapons but have made clear that they will need to develop or acquire them for deterrence’s sake should Iran do so.
Neither the Obama White House, nor its State Department, have declared, let alone put up for debate, a comprehensive plan for helping to shape the future of a Middle East in flux, or upheaval, since the onset of the so-called “Arab Spring.” If one peers closely one can see the outlines of a sophisticated, long-range strategic plan... but so far, in practice, this plan has only meant “When in doubt, do nothing.” Unfortunately, the US at this moment seems only ever to be in doubt. Worse, events in Libya and Egypt on September 11 this year have revealed unsteady hands in communicating America’s aims and values, as well as in providing security for our diplomats and those locally who engage with our diplomats.
Meanwhile, this week President Ahmadinejad threatened “World War III.”
In the past, at times like these, the world looked to the United States. This month, America’s long-time allies in the Middle East searching for counsel or solidarity of purpose have had to turn to Britain, a wonderful but small country that for some time has wanted to leave in the past the modifier “Great.” Perhaps the US now does too.
When then-Senator Obama was running for office he suggested that because of his background, life experiences and understanding, many of America’s problems in the Middle East and with Islamic countries would, upon his becoming president, settle down. What’s more, his first foreign trip on becoming president was not, as is customary, to close historical allies Britain or France, but instead to Cairo, Egypt, to deliver an address offering a new beginning, or a “re-set” as it were. At this moment, it appears that today’s Middle East has instead become a hostage to this president’s dysfunction and his ambivalences about both Islam and America’s role in the world.
Breaking news: The Emir of Qatar has just called for military intervention in Syria.
Links:
Daily Mail: "MI6 chief made secret trip to meet Israeli PM to head off plans to bomb Iran's nuclear programme" here.
Intelnews: "MI6 chief paid ‘extremely rare’ secret visit to Israel" (background) here.
Spiegel: "Obama's Middle East Policy Is in Ruins" here.
White House staff Pirate Photo Communique here.
* So far as we know the president met neither with pirate nor clown this week. Presumably that will teach news organizations not to believe everything the White House staff says.
+ A note regarding the accompanying image… the image was created as a White House tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong following his death. Some uncharitable commentators, noting the image's the foregrounding of the President, suggested that it was another example of President Obama's supposed narcissism (ie, "Wasn't it great that Neil Armstrong traveled to the moon and then died just so Obama could have a chance to think about the heavens"). At the time, I didn't understand why no one noticed that with the crescent moon and single star at the focal point of the picture, the White House was also, inadvertently or not, channelling classic Islamic iconography.
Insta-lanche! In fact, instant Insta-lanche. Thank you Instapundit, Michael Totten, and Glenn Reynolds.
Of course, the President needn’t have met with ten leaders, but he might have met with the leaders of the handful of countries that are close American allies.
Meanwhile, across the pond two remarkable events have taken place in British diplomatic relations. As reported in the Daily Mail, Sir John Sawers, the head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (or MI6), travelled to Israel, not a particularly close ally of Britain, to confer with its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Until recently the holder of that post was never referred to publicly by name, but only as “C.” Historically, the chief of the SIS, unlike his American counterpart (the director of the CIA), never travelled as a diplomatic messenger for the British government. As far as I know, such a trip is unprecedented.
Additionally, and so far unreported, is that at about the same time a very senior figure in the British military embarked on a whirlwind tour of Arab countries with which Britain has cordial relations.
These two trips, taken together, bespeak A Moment.
The civil war in Syria has now become a grave humanitarian crisis; it will also soon become a serious political and security crisis for many countries in the Middle East, issues I addressed weeks ago in a post here.
What’s more, whereas the Iranian ambition to develop nuclear weapons has, in the American press, been portrayed as a problem primarily for Israel, a country that the Iranian president has threatened to wipe out; it is in fact a problem also for a number of Arab countries in the Gulf that Iran has been actively trying to destabilize. Saudi Arabia and these other countries do not particularly desire to have nuclear weapons but have made clear that they will need to develop or acquire them for deterrence’s sake should Iran do so.
Neither the Obama White House, nor its State Department, have declared, let alone put up for debate, a comprehensive plan for helping to shape the future of a Middle East in flux, or upheaval, since the onset of the so-called “Arab Spring.” If one peers closely one can see the outlines of a sophisticated, long-range strategic plan... but so far, in practice, this plan has only meant “When in doubt, do nothing.” Unfortunately, the US at this moment seems only ever to be in doubt. Worse, events in Libya and Egypt on September 11 this year have revealed unsteady hands in communicating America’s aims and values, as well as in providing security for our diplomats and those locally who engage with our diplomats.
Meanwhile, this week President Ahmadinejad threatened “World War III.”
In the past, at times like these, the world looked to the United States. This month, America’s long-time allies in the Middle East searching for counsel or solidarity of purpose have had to turn to Britain, a wonderful but small country that for some time has wanted to leave in the past the modifier “Great.” Perhaps the US now does too.
When then-Senator Obama was running for office he suggested that because of his background, life experiences and understanding, many of America’s problems in the Middle East and with Islamic countries would, upon his becoming president, settle down. What’s more, his first foreign trip on becoming president was not, as is customary, to close historical allies Britain or France, but instead to Cairo, Egypt, to deliver an address offering a new beginning, or a “re-set” as it were. At this moment, it appears that today’s Middle East has instead become a hostage to this president’s dysfunction and his ambivalences about both Islam and America’s role in the world.
Breaking news: The Emir of Qatar has just called for military intervention in Syria.
 |
| + see note below |
Links:
Daily Mail: "MI6 chief made secret trip to meet Israeli PM to head off plans to bomb Iran's nuclear programme" here.
Intelnews: "MI6 chief paid ‘extremely rare’ secret visit to Israel" (background) here.
Spiegel: "Obama's Middle East Policy Is in Ruins" here.
White House staff Pirate Photo Communique here.
* So far as we know the president met neither with pirate nor clown this week. Presumably that will teach news organizations not to believe everything the White House staff says.
+ A note regarding the accompanying image… the image was created as a White House tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong following his death. Some uncharitable commentators, noting the image's the foregrounding of the President, suggested that it was another example of President Obama's supposed narcissism (ie, "Wasn't it great that Neil Armstrong traveled to the moon and then died just so Obama could have a chance to think about the heavens"). At the time, I didn't understand why no one noticed that with the crescent moon and single star at the focal point of the picture, the White House was also, inadvertently or not, channelling classic Islamic iconography.
Insta-lanche! In fact, instant Insta-lanche. Thank you Instapundit, Michael Totten, and Glenn Reynolds.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Did Romney Just Lose the Election... or Did His Campaign Just Punk the Media?
In the wake of a viral video of Governor Romney's off-the-cuff remarks to wealthy Florida donors about the supposed feckless nature of Obama voters, the Republican nominee's Intrade contract has just sunk to 32%, the first time it's been below 35% since March. Accordingly, some say he just lost the election. I wonder, instead, if his campaign didn't just "punk" the media.
David Brooks has commented in the NYT that Romney "violated the social contract."
William Kristol, an actual supporter, chastises him:
Yet Romney's remarks in the video also highlight what has been an explicit appeal repeatedly made to Obama voters... and now Democrats themselves and the media (but I repeat myself) are the ones spreading this "meme," and reminding the electorate.
Meanwhile, it's worth flashing back to 2010 to watch another viral video, of Nancy Pelosi speaking to a group of young voters about the appeals of the signature piece of legislation of President Obama's first term:
That's right. She said: "You can quit your job, and not worry about paying for your own health care." Of course, that's not precisely how things work. And who in Pelosi's young audience for her speech has a job to quit? And of course what she suggests here also violates the social contract.
Read William Kristol here.
Read David Brooks here.
David Brooks has commented in the NYT that Romney "violated the social contract."
William Kristol, an actual supporter, chastises him:
It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well "believe they are entitled to heath care," a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.When Romney has lost Kristol...
Yet Romney's remarks in the video also highlight what has been an explicit appeal repeatedly made to Obama voters... and now Democrats themselves and the media (but I repeat myself) are the ones spreading this "meme," and reminding the electorate.
Meanwhile, it's worth flashing back to 2010 to watch another viral video, of Nancy Pelosi speaking to a group of young voters about the appeals of the signature piece of legislation of President Obama's first term:
That's right. She said: "You can quit your job, and not worry about paying for your own health care." Of course, that's not precisely how things work. And who in Pelosi's young audience for her speech has a job to quit? And of course what she suggests here also violates the social contract.
Read William Kristol here.
Read David Brooks here.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
The Prime Function of a First-Rate Newspaper
H.L. Mencken, the greatest American newsman ever, recounting his newspaper work in the 1920s:
– from Thirty-five Years of Newspaper Work: A Memoir
(hat-tip Ed Driscoll)
I believed then, as I believe now, that it is the prime function of a really first-rate newspaper to serve as a sort of permanent opposition in politics, and I tried to show that the Sun, because of its geographical situation, had a superb opportunity to discharge that function effectively. Baltimore was but forty miles from Washington — and the Washington papers were all third-rate, and seemed doomed to remain so forever, for the overwhelming majority of their readers were petty Federal jobholders, which is to say, half-wits. In consequence of their badness all Washington officials in the higher brackets had to read out-of-town papers, and not a few of them, including Wilson, read the Sun, for that was in the days before airships, and the Sun could get to Washington with news nearly five hours earlier than the news in the New York morning papers…The rudiments of the New Deal were already visible in those days, and I did not neglect to sneer at the “utopian ideas, economical, political, and ethical” that were going about…
– from Thirty-five Years of Newspaper Work: A Memoir
(hat-tip Ed Driscoll)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Outsourcing, and the Decline of Journalism
A few years ago friends at newspapers and magazines attempted to warn me off blogging with the contention that I'd be contributing to the decline of the paid-journalism model. In fact, all of us grossly underestimated the pressure that would soon be put on traditional methods of journalism production.
We all know the results.
Next cool-media newspapers like The Guardian began to cannibalize television news with their on-line documentary film series, and new media players such as PJTV and Reason TV further eroded that market.
Now we wait in hope now for the immanent arrival of The Jesus Tablet.
In the meantime, another ominous portent, or indeed competitor, has interceded:
The world's first film shot entirely by chimpanzees is to be broadcast by the BBC as part of a natural history documentary. The apes created the movie using a specially designed chimp-proof camera given to them by primatologists. The film-making exercise is part of a scientific study into how chimpanzees perceive the world and each other. It will be screened within the Natural World programme "Chimpcam" shown on BBC Two at 2000GMT on Wednesday 23 January.
The Horror.
Read all about it HERE.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Al Gore Gulfstream 5 Watch in Effect
This is the scene outside my window in London right now. All indications are for a visit soon by the Nobel Laureate and former Vice President. Up to eighteen inches are expected in the Southeast, the most snow in thirty years.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Norman Berke on Obama vs. McCain
The Main Point received this missive with astute analysis of the election ahead via a friend of its author, Norman Berke. Berke writes:
Now back in France, where there is a somewhat different take on the candidates.
As I have said before, I believe there are very few real "undecideds" among the electorate. This is a contrarian view, since just about all the analysts still keep talking about the independents as a sizable force whose vote is up for grabs. There are, indeed, independents and moderates out there. But not undecideds in sufficient numbers that could make a difference either way. Now, that is my opinion, and I may be stuck with it.
Again, as I have said, if the election were to be held tomorrow, the result would be the same as it will be in Nov. But in the meantime, we just don't have that crystal ball.
I base my opinion on two reasons: Firstly, the present-day, persistent polarization of the electorate, driven by the disputed election of 2000, carried over into 2004. And secondly, the long, drawn-out Hillary and Obama campaigns, which have defined all the issues, as well as dragging in the Repubs, so that we poor citizenry will be left with nothing but sound and fury, signifying not very much, all the way to Nov.
The following reasons are the basis of my belief that the demographics favor Obama and why I believe he will be elected.
1. I start with the Bush-Rove coalition of rock-ribbed Repubs, socially and otherwise conservative, allied with the Christian evangelicals - a powerful voting bloc that contributed mightily to the last two elections. In spite of grumblings, if not outright rejection, of the maverick Mccain, and signs of the evangelists turning away from politics for other causes, they still have no place else to go, so I would count them solidly in the Republican camp.
2. However, one different thing this time around is the emergence of a countervailing force, an equally powerful bloc --- the black vote. Yes, traditionally democratic. They voted 70% for Kerry, I believe, but in '08 many more of them will vote and it will be 99% pure. I believe this will pretty much neutralize Bush-Rove.
3. The primaries have indicated that the Reagan Dems are still a Republican asset, and maybe a little stronger because of the color problem.
4. Somewhat off-setting that is the dissatisfaction and intense dislike now existing among the more moderate republicans, especially over the war, and among women voters. When polls consistently show that 80% of voters think the country is on the wrong track, more than a few Bush supporters have already made up their minds to switch. Mccain may be the answer for the majority but by no means all. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this.
5. Then, of course, there is the usual Democratic base. After all, the popular vote in the last two elections was very close. Much has been made about the Hillary base deserting, especially women. I thoroughly disagree. Democratic women are not going to vote Republican.
6. Then there is the most phenomenal happening of all, at least in my opinion. That is the Democratic turnout in the primaries, surely a party aroused and committed. Along with the '06 congress results, that signals to me the shifting of the dial from right of center to left. Not by much, but it doesn't have to be much. The Repblican campaign issue, portraying Obama as a far left liberal out of the mainstream, simply won't wash with the broad electorate who are looking for reforms in health care, mortgage and wall street mis-steps, among others. It will turn out that it is the Repblicans who are out of the mainstream.
7.Finally, I have never known an electorate that voted to keep a party in power during hard times. Electorally, the Democrats will win all the states Kerry won, and I predict they will squeak by in Ohio, but even if not, states in play as Va.,N.C., N.M. Col.. and a few others will break mainly Democratic.
So what does McCain have to offer? Quite a bit, actually, as of now. The maverick and straight shooter image adds up to an appealing persona and brand, something which Obama has yet to achieve. But his supporters are counting on him getting there, and we think he will, over the next several months. Also, MacCain has many vulnerabilities, which will be revealed over that same time frame. How he balances the far right stance while he goes for the center will be interesting to watch. How he sheds the warrior image, which will be hung on him, is another. A thesis he wrote at the War College shortly after his release from prison in Viet Nam is very revealing. In it, he points to the anti-war sentiment at home as damaging the morale of the troops. His suggestion is that in addition to the usual training, soldiers should be indoctrinated in foreign affairs so that they will understand more fully what their mission is. But whose attitude to foreign affairs, other than what the administration in power is spinning? Nowhere does he refer to the false premise upon which the Viet Nam war was based, i.e. that if we fought communism in that country, we would prevent the domino effect throughout the region. And for that, 50,000 Americans died. It so happens that the war's critics were on the right side of history, and MacCain was on the wrong side. His stance on Iraq is the mirror image. In other words, it's a mind set of "My country, right or wrong", a fatal flaw in leadership which leads to fatal consequences.
It seems to me this is exactly the kind of leadership we desperately don't need or want at this juncture in our world, or in our nation's, history. It's up to the American people to decide.
Your comments, welcome.
- Norman Berke
Norman Berke, a new contributor to The Main Point, is a retired businessman and a nonagenarian blogger. He resides in Florida and the south of France.
Many thanks to the estimable Christopher Maclehose for passing it along to us.
Now back in France, where there is a somewhat different take on the candidates.
As I have said before, I believe there are very few real "undecideds" among the electorate. This is a contrarian view, since just about all the analysts still keep talking about the independents as a sizable force whose vote is up for grabs. There are, indeed, independents and moderates out there. But not undecideds in sufficient numbers that could make a difference either way. Now, that is my opinion, and I may be stuck with it.
Again, as I have said, if the election were to be held tomorrow, the result would be the same as it will be in Nov. But in the meantime, we just don't have that crystal ball.
I base my opinion on two reasons: Firstly, the present-day, persistent polarization of the electorate, driven by the disputed election of 2000, carried over into 2004. And secondly, the long, drawn-out Hillary and Obama campaigns, which have defined all the issues, as well as dragging in the Repubs, so that we poor citizenry will be left with nothing but sound and fury, signifying not very much, all the way to Nov.
The following reasons are the basis of my belief that the demographics favor Obama and why I believe he will be elected.
1. I start with the Bush-Rove coalition of rock-ribbed Repubs, socially and otherwise conservative, allied with the Christian evangelicals - a powerful voting bloc that contributed mightily to the last two elections. In spite of grumblings, if not outright rejection, of the maverick Mccain, and signs of the evangelists turning away from politics for other causes, they still have no place else to go, so I would count them solidly in the Republican camp.
2. However, one different thing this time around is the emergence of a countervailing force, an equally powerful bloc --- the black vote. Yes, traditionally democratic. They voted 70% for Kerry, I believe, but in '08 many more of them will vote and it will be 99% pure. I believe this will pretty much neutralize Bush-Rove.
3. The primaries have indicated that the Reagan Dems are still a Republican asset, and maybe a little stronger because of the color problem.
4. Somewhat off-setting that is the dissatisfaction and intense dislike now existing among the more moderate republicans, especially over the war, and among women voters. When polls consistently show that 80% of voters think the country is on the wrong track, more than a few Bush supporters have already made up their minds to switch. Mccain may be the answer for the majority but by no means all. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this.
5. Then, of course, there is the usual Democratic base. After all, the popular vote in the last two elections was very close. Much has been made about the Hillary base deserting, especially women. I thoroughly disagree. Democratic women are not going to vote Republican.
6. Then there is the most phenomenal happening of all, at least in my opinion. That is the Democratic turnout in the primaries, surely a party aroused and committed. Along with the '06 congress results, that signals to me the shifting of the dial from right of center to left. Not by much, but it doesn't have to be much. The Repblican campaign issue, portraying Obama as a far left liberal out of the mainstream, simply won't wash with the broad electorate who are looking for reforms in health care, mortgage and wall street mis-steps, among others. It will turn out that it is the Repblicans who are out of the mainstream.
7.Finally, I have never known an electorate that voted to keep a party in power during hard times. Electorally, the Democrats will win all the states Kerry won, and I predict they will squeak by in Ohio, but even if not, states in play as Va.,N.C., N.M. Col.. and a few others will break mainly Democratic.
So what does McCain have to offer? Quite a bit, actually, as of now. The maverick and straight shooter image adds up to an appealing persona and brand, something which Obama has yet to achieve. But his supporters are counting on him getting there, and we think he will, over the next several months. Also, MacCain has many vulnerabilities, which will be revealed over that same time frame. How he balances the far right stance while he goes for the center will be interesting to watch. How he sheds the warrior image, which will be hung on him, is another. A thesis he wrote at the War College shortly after his release from prison in Viet Nam is very revealing. In it, he points to the anti-war sentiment at home as damaging the morale of the troops. His suggestion is that in addition to the usual training, soldiers should be indoctrinated in foreign affairs so that they will understand more fully what their mission is. But whose attitude to foreign affairs, other than what the administration in power is spinning? Nowhere does he refer to the false premise upon which the Viet Nam war was based, i.e. that if we fought communism in that country, we would prevent the domino effect throughout the region. And for that, 50,000 Americans died. It so happens that the war's critics were on the right side of history, and MacCain was on the wrong side. His stance on Iraq is the mirror image. In other words, it's a mind set of "My country, right or wrong", a fatal flaw in leadership which leads to fatal consequences.
It seems to me this is exactly the kind of leadership we desperately don't need or want at this juncture in our world, or in our nation's, history. It's up to the American people to decide.
Your comments, welcome.
- Norman Berke
Norman Berke, a new contributor to The Main Point, is a retired businessman and a nonagenarian blogger. He resides in Florida and the south of France.
Many thanks to the estimable Christopher Maclehose for passing it along to us.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Always elegant
In adversity, when faced with stupidity, or simply awkward mistakes, Obama is always elegant. Yesterday the presidential frontrunner faced a question from the AP about the "whereabouts of Obama bin Laden." See his gracious response HERE.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
from Thomas Goltz, in Baku, Azerbaijan, a Yule-Tide Epistle
Dear Friends,
Last night, I called an old actor pal out of sense of obligation and perhaps to have a 5 PM beer. No can do sez he, as he is performing. What's on? asks I.
'I am playing B---. Be at the Drama Theater at 7 if you want.'
It really did not make much difference what he meant by playing B---, because I realized that I had never see him perform live, and that I had never been in the Drama Theater in the years I have been associated with Az: it was always closed or under repair or I had not time or interest to see Chekov in Azerbaijani. As for Rafiq, I have seen him in films dating back to the late Soviet period, but nothing recent. He is a character actor, and often got stuck playing the role of Armenians; he says he tries to humanize the roles. Accordingly, I assumed the production he had invited me to was going to be something along those lines, and perhaps even a comedy.
Anyway, I drifted back to my crash-pad through heavy traffic, feeling increasingly woozy and not a little irritated that I am sort of stuck in Baku again due to a ticket glitch, and sort of forced to stomach the rampant materialism that the oil boom is bringing to this place: the hideous new buildings, the rows of boutiques and car show-rooms, jewelry stores and such. So I lie down for a cat nap that doesn't kick in, and watch the clock creep forward from five to six and then six thirty and I am about to blow off the entire go-to-the-theater thing because I really am working on two dead cyllinders, but say to myself that it is either now or never and Rafiq is an old friend. So I force myself up, throw down some cold coffee and get out the door to make my way through the traffic-clogged, cold and dirty streets over to the theater, wondering how I can get a ticket at 5 minutes to 7 o'clock and curtain time. At the door, I notice lots of folks all dolled up in near tuxes and heels and much fur, and when the attendant at the door asks who I am I say I am a pal of Rafiq's and suddenly he pushes a comp or something like a program in my hand, and I am sort of whisked up stairs toward row 2 and seat 11, stopped briefly by someone who sees that I am still wearing my coat and told I cannot entire when my old pal the minister of culture appears and I say hello while taking off my coat and then I am inside and in my seat and I realize that this is no ordinary show. It is the 125th birthday celebration of Javit Hussein, a famed Azerbaijani poet and dramaturgue of whom I have some information but whom I have never really read or studied, aside from the general sort of knowledge that one picks up from friends and the occassional article about Azerbaijanis who were repressed by Stalin. The stage doesn't tell me much about anything; the set is minimalist; dark and sort of made up of black boards with names on them. An idiot would recognize that these represent Javit's main works: Mother; Satan/Iblis; Teymur The Gimp/Lame; Sheikh Senan. I have read none of them. Curtain up, as it were, and the show starts with a speech by the deputy Prime Minister, who in effect fills me in on some life detail, including the curious fact that my old pal the late great semi-dictator Heydar Aliyev was the one who managed to convince the Kremlin to allow Javit's remains to be brought back from obscurity in Siberia and re-interred in his native Naxjivan in 1982 on the 100th anniversary of the writer's birth. Usually, deputy prime ministers fawn and fumble for words when evoking Heydar, but this speech is actually straight to the point--namely, that the 25 years bracketing Javit's return and tonight's jubilee have been a time of huge transformation in Azerbaijan. Polite applause, followed by a short video clip about Javit's life, repression and death, and then finally, show time.
The actors seem to stumble a little bit, and Rafiq is nowhere to be seen. I worry that I will fall asleep; my Azerbaijani is good, but this is all literary stuff and a lot more difficult to follow than conversation over a bottle of vodka. Indeed, what I am listening to is elegant Azerbaijani, prose and poetry. And step by step the production improves, while I get drawn in as the main theme emerges: the repression of Javit by enthusiastic new communists, who sling accusations at him of Pan-turanism, pan-Islamism, elitism, bourgeoism and a general neglect for The Revolution and The Toiling Masses, and take apart every one of his master pieces after segments of same are performed. Timur the Gimp (Tamurlane) and his showdown with the Ottoman Sultan Yildirim Beyazit, which splits the Turkic world; Sheikh Senan being forced to drink wine, wear a cross and commit to herd pigs; a weird and wonderful whirling dervish set piece with the national mughamist treasure Alim Qasimov making a sneak vocal appearance, all deliciously staged and clean and closing with the re-appearance of the crowd, mocking and taunting the actor playing Javit the old man before his repression. And then, a booming voice from one of the ornate private balconies nearest the stage, and the crowd turns its adultation and applause on---Rafiq, playing the Stalin/Beria era Boshevik 'baron' of Baku, Comrade Bagirov. The only thing I can say is that he was very, very good--a real professional, and that I felt honored to be his friend. And as for the rest of the production, everything is finally meshing, as state artist after state artist appears to play certain 'classic' roles, culminating in Iblis, or Satan, who lures a youth into a duel with a pal (or brother?) over a gal. Boom boom; regrets; curtain down. Standing ovation--and yours truly stumbles out of the show he almost did not go to, stunned by it all--and even more so when I got back stage to shake Rafiq's hand, only to learn that this was a one-time only performance (whence the initial stumbling at curtain-up?) that I had almost missed. And more.
Reflecting on it all, amazing to witness of the re-birth of Dramatic Theater in post-Soviet Azerbaijan.
Happy New Year to all
tcg
Update: related here.
Last night, I called an old actor pal out of sense of obligation and perhaps to have a 5 PM beer. No can do sez he, as he is performing. What's on? asks I.
'I am playing B---. Be at the Drama Theater at 7 if you want.'
It really did not make much difference what he meant by playing B---, because I realized that I had never see him perform live, and that I had never been in the Drama Theater in the years I have been associated with Az: it was always closed or under repair or I had not time or interest to see Chekov in Azerbaijani. As for Rafiq, I have seen him in films dating back to the late Soviet period, but nothing recent. He is a character actor, and often got stuck playing the role of Armenians; he says he tries to humanize the roles. Accordingly, I assumed the production he had invited me to was going to be something along those lines, and perhaps even a comedy.
Anyway, I drifted back to my crash-pad through heavy traffic, feeling increasingly woozy and not a little irritated that I am sort of stuck in Baku again due to a ticket glitch, and sort of forced to stomach the rampant materialism that the oil boom is bringing to this place: the hideous new buildings, the rows of boutiques and car show-rooms, jewelry stores and such. So I lie down for a cat nap that doesn't kick in, and watch the clock creep forward from five to six and then six thirty and I am about to blow off the entire go-to-the-theater thing because I really am working on two dead cyllinders, but say to myself that it is either now or never and Rafiq is an old friend. So I force myself up, throw down some cold coffee and get out the door to make my way through the traffic-clogged, cold and dirty streets over to the theater, wondering how I can get a ticket at 5 minutes to 7 o'clock and curtain time. At the door, I notice lots of folks all dolled up in near tuxes and heels and much fur, and when the attendant at the door asks who I am I say I am a pal of Rafiq's and suddenly he pushes a comp or something like a program in my hand, and I am sort of whisked up stairs toward row 2 and seat 11, stopped briefly by someone who sees that I am still wearing my coat and told I cannot entire when my old pal the minister of culture appears and I say hello while taking off my coat and then I am inside and in my seat and I realize that this is no ordinary show. It is the 125th birthday celebration of Javit Hussein, a famed Azerbaijani poet and dramaturgue of whom I have some information but whom I have never really read or studied, aside from the general sort of knowledge that one picks up from friends and the occassional article about Azerbaijanis who were repressed by Stalin. The stage doesn't tell me much about anything; the set is minimalist; dark and sort of made up of black boards with names on them. An idiot would recognize that these represent Javit's main works: Mother; Satan/Iblis; Teymur The Gimp/Lame; Sheikh Senan. I have read none of them. Curtain up, as it were, and the show starts with a speech by the deputy Prime Minister, who in effect fills me in on some life detail, including the curious fact that my old pal the late great semi-dictator Heydar Aliyev was the one who managed to convince the Kremlin to allow Javit's remains to be brought back from obscurity in Siberia and re-interred in his native Naxjivan in 1982 on the 100th anniversary of the writer's birth. Usually, deputy prime ministers fawn and fumble for words when evoking Heydar, but this speech is actually straight to the point--namely, that the 25 years bracketing Javit's return and tonight's jubilee have been a time of huge transformation in Azerbaijan. Polite applause, followed by a short video clip about Javit's life, repression and death, and then finally, show time.
The actors seem to stumble a little bit, and Rafiq is nowhere to be seen. I worry that I will fall asleep; my Azerbaijani is good, but this is all literary stuff and a lot more difficult to follow than conversation over a bottle of vodka. Indeed, what I am listening to is elegant Azerbaijani, prose and poetry. And step by step the production improves, while I get drawn in as the main theme emerges: the repression of Javit by enthusiastic new communists, who sling accusations at him of Pan-turanism, pan-Islamism, elitism, bourgeoism and a general neglect for The Revolution and The Toiling Masses, and take apart every one of his master pieces after segments of same are performed. Timur the Gimp (Tamurlane) and his showdown with the Ottoman Sultan Yildirim Beyazit, which splits the Turkic world; Sheikh Senan being forced to drink wine, wear a cross and commit to herd pigs; a weird and wonderful whirling dervish set piece with the national mughamist treasure Alim Qasimov making a sneak vocal appearance, all deliciously staged and clean and closing with the re-appearance of the crowd, mocking and taunting the actor playing Javit the old man before his repression. And then, a booming voice from one of the ornate private balconies nearest the stage, and the crowd turns its adultation and applause on---Rafiq, playing the Stalin/Beria era Boshevik 'baron' of Baku, Comrade Bagirov. The only thing I can say is that he was very, very good--a real professional, and that I felt honored to be his friend. And as for the rest of the production, everything is finally meshing, as state artist after state artist appears to play certain 'classic' roles, culminating in Iblis, or Satan, who lures a youth into a duel with a pal (or brother?) over a gal. Boom boom; regrets; curtain down. Standing ovation--and yours truly stumbles out of the show he almost did not go to, stunned by it all--and even more so when I got back stage to shake Rafiq's hand, only to learn that this was a one-time only performance (whence the initial stumbling at curtain-up?) that I had almost missed. And more.
Reflecting on it all, amazing to witness of the re-birth of Dramatic Theater in post-Soviet Azerbaijan.
Happy New Year to all
tcg
Update: related here.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
TMP interview with Consuela Saavedra
Consuela Saavedra is the anchor for the evening news for Chilean public television, and wife of Finance Minister Andres Velasco. At the time of the interview, late January, she was on her last evening of maternity leave following the birth of her second daughter.
JL: Tomorrow you return to work. How long were you away?
CS: We have very long maternity leaves in Chile—eighteen weeks. Six weeks before, and twelve after, standard, and I enjoyed it very much. Until then that I’d thought that maternity leaves were too long, a burden for the system. Having just had one I think it's a very good idea.
JL: Who funds the leaves?
CS: Generally, the public system subsidizes them, up to a certain amount, and then it's up to one’s employer to provide additional subsidies.
JL: Michelle Bachelet has been president for more than a year now. Was it surprising to people for a woman to be elected? Was the country simply ready for that?
CS: It was a very particular phenomenon. She became a massive figure, everybody loved her and everyone was talking about her; but the coalition actually had two women competing for the post. She hadn’t had any traditional political career at all. The other half of the coalition decided to put up another woman to compete to see if they could win too, and the other candidate had been in politics for longer, was more traditional. But the first election of a woman wasn't a process as much as a leap. Perhaps people were tired of traditional politicians.
JL: Remarkable… but not controversial?
CS: Everyone talked about it, but no. Interestingly, to compete with a woman candidate the right-wing parties put up a businessman who was supposedly very in touch with people; in a sense not a traditional political candidate either. That election was a different kind of political theater.
JL: How did you and Andres meet?
CS: We had friends in common but the first time we actually met was on TV during an interview.
JL: Discussing?
CS: Inflation, the price of lettuces and tomatoes. It was an interview about economics for a current events program. He was this newly-appointed Harvard professor, some kind of the golden boy, and I had to talk with him about macroeconomics and microeconomics.
JL: For the benefit of other economists, would a discussion of macroeconomics or microeconomics be a better topic in such a situation?
CS: It wasn’t a date, and we didn’t see each other again for years… but I’d say microeconomics definitely, it’s more fun. That said, Andres’s specialty is macro.
JL: Andres tells me you're more recognized here than he is.
CS: Well, I've been on TV here in Chile since '95. My first job, as anchor, was in 1995 at a new TV station for young people, called Rock and Pop. It was fun, but an economical disaster. All of the people who worked there were very close friends, and all are still in the media, now doing fine. Did Andres not tell you that when he went to the Central Market a while ago, someone did recognize him. The man insisted he’d seen him on a certain soap opera.
JL: Did you ever have a chance to interview Pinochet?
CS: Unfortunately not. I tried very hard.
JL: And you were on maternity leave when he died.
CS: The big story. All those years I covered him. I’d even traveled to London when he was arrested, and covered the extradition trial. It would have actually been illegal for me to go to work during my maternity leave to cover his funeral, so I had to sit still and watch it on TV. Of course, I go back to work tomorrow, and now we’re waiting for Fidel to die. News people, we’re all the time waiting for someone to die.
JL: Chile is doing well. Does that make things less interesting for journalists?
CS: For journalists? We can find stuff everywhere.
JL: Is it fair to say that the better job he and his colleagues in the government do, the more challenging it becomes for you journalists?
CS: Exactly right.
Interview by James Scott Linville
JL: Tomorrow you return to work. How long were you away?
CS: We have very long maternity leaves in Chile—eighteen weeks. Six weeks before, and twelve after, standard, and I enjoyed it very much. Until then that I’d thought that maternity leaves were too long, a burden for the system. Having just had one I think it's a very good idea.
JL: Who funds the leaves?
CS: Generally, the public system subsidizes them, up to a certain amount, and then it's up to one’s employer to provide additional subsidies.
JL: Michelle Bachelet has been president for more than a year now. Was it surprising to people for a woman to be elected? Was the country simply ready for that?
CS: It was a very particular phenomenon. She became a massive figure, everybody loved her and everyone was talking about her; but the coalition actually had two women competing for the post. She hadn’t had any traditional political career at all. The other half of the coalition decided to put up another woman to compete to see if they could win too, and the other candidate had been in politics for longer, was more traditional. But the first election of a woman wasn't a process as much as a leap. Perhaps people were tired of traditional politicians.
JL: Remarkable… but not controversial?
CS: Everyone talked about it, but no. Interestingly, to compete with a woman candidate the right-wing parties put up a businessman who was supposedly very in touch with people; in a sense not a traditional political candidate either. That election was a different kind of political theater.
JL: How did you and Andres meet?
CS: We had friends in common but the first time we actually met was on TV during an interview.
JL: Discussing?
CS: Inflation, the price of lettuces and tomatoes. It was an interview about economics for a current events program. He was this newly-appointed Harvard professor, some kind of the golden boy, and I had to talk with him about macroeconomics and microeconomics.
JL: For the benefit of other economists, would a discussion of macroeconomics or microeconomics be a better topic in such a situation?
CS: It wasn’t a date, and we didn’t see each other again for years… but I’d say microeconomics definitely, it’s more fun. That said, Andres’s specialty is macro.
JL: Andres tells me you're more recognized here than he is.
CS: Well, I've been on TV here in Chile since '95. My first job, as anchor, was in 1995 at a new TV station for young people, called Rock and Pop. It was fun, but an economical disaster. All of the people who worked there were very close friends, and all are still in the media, now doing fine. Did Andres not tell you that when he went to the Central Market a while ago, someone did recognize him. The man insisted he’d seen him on a certain soap opera.
JL: Did you ever have a chance to interview Pinochet?
CS: Unfortunately not. I tried very hard.
JL: And you were on maternity leave when he died.
CS: The big story. All those years I covered him. I’d even traveled to London when he was arrested, and covered the extradition trial. It would have actually been illegal for me to go to work during my maternity leave to cover his funeral, so I had to sit still and watch it on TV. Of course, I go back to work tomorrow, and now we’re waiting for Fidel to die. News people, we’re all the time waiting for someone to die.
JL: Chile is doing well. Does that make things less interesting for journalists?
CS: For journalists? We can find stuff everywhere.
JL: Is it fair to say that the better job he and his colleagues in the government do, the more challenging it becomes for you journalists?
CS: Exactly right.
Interview by James Scott Linville
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Frontline Club comes to NYC
London's Frontline Club is staging its maiden event in NY - 'Talking to the Enemy,' April 16, when participants will discuss whether the western media should give more coverage to the self-proclaimed enemies of western civilisation: the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq. Does failure to give these organisations proper coverage do readers and viewers a disservice? Is truth really the first casualty in the coverage of the war on terror?
About the FLC...
Over the last few years in London, I’ve spoken with a UK envoy about what he saw that week in Basra and Baghdad, with reporters just returned from Kandahar, Tbilisi, Pyongyang, and the northeast of Sri Lanka. I listened while filmmakers offered editing suggestions to documentarians for their footage of interviews with insurgents in Anbar province. An Al Jazeera editor from Cairo patiently answered my questions about the launch of their English-language service. And I watched a senior army officer break bread with a leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. All this under one roof, at the Frontline Club, where they have a dining table with a very big view.
--JSL
About the FLC...
Over the last few years in London, I’ve spoken with a UK envoy about what he saw that week in Basra and Baghdad, with reporters just returned from Kandahar, Tbilisi, Pyongyang, and the northeast of Sri Lanka. I listened while filmmakers offered editing suggestions to documentarians for their footage of interviews with insurgents in Anbar province. An Al Jazeera editor from Cairo patiently answered my questions about the launch of their English-language service. And I watched a senior army officer break bread with a leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. All this under one roof, at the Frontline Club, where they have a dining table with a very big view.
--JSL
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Envirobabe is a Force of Nature
Envirobabe is a Force of Nature
earlier in “Page Six,” NY Post
IF President Bush unveils strong environmentally conscious initiatives... credit (or blame) goes to Nora Maccoby . At the end of the year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was seen at a holiday party in Georgetown genially locking horns with the enviro-babe and screenwriter. After a half-hour of Maccoby lecturing Rummy that energy independence through renewable clean sources should be the heart of a national security strategy, a grinning Rumsfeld bleated to those nearby, "I can't believe this - this girl's kicking my ass, and she's right." Then to Maccoby, "Call the Secretary of Energy. You can use my name. By the way, how old are you?" Maccoby: "Why?" Rumsfeld: "I have a son, actually." Rumsfeld then sent out a "snowflake" - a memo to friends and associates with ideas he believes will "snowball."
earlier in “Page Six,” NY Post
IF President Bush unveils strong environmentally conscious initiatives... credit (or blame) goes to Nora Maccoby . At the end of the year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was seen at a holiday party in Georgetown genially locking horns with the enviro-babe and screenwriter. After a half-hour of Maccoby lecturing Rummy that energy independence through renewable clean sources should be the heart of a national security strategy, a grinning Rumsfeld bleated to those nearby, "I can't believe this - this girl's kicking my ass, and she's right." Then to Maccoby, "Call the Secretary of Energy. You can use my name. By the way, how old are you?" Maccoby: "Why?" Rumsfeld: "I have a son, actually." Rumsfeld then sent out a "snowflake" - a memo to friends and associates with ideas he believes will "snowball."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)