Arizona's First Political Blog

E-mail Anonymous Mike at zonitics4-at-yahoo.com

By Anonymous Mike, pseudonymously.

 
Ho Ho Ho

Well the Griswolds have returned to Phoenix after a fascinating trip to New Mexico....

It's funny how a family acquires Christmas traditions. We made the same trip 3 years ago and due to meal time and gas tank requirements, we ended up opening Christmas presents at a truck stop in Winslow. This year I was up for the same modus operandi but I wanted to do it instead at a truck stop by Holbrook where gas was about 18 cents cheaper. Nope, because of tradition it had to be in Winslow in almost in the same spot in the parking lot as 3 years ago.

I should add that the kids wanted to get in a few viewings of a "Christmas Story" on TBS because "it's a Christmas tradition."

Of such traditions memories are made.

Other observations...

What ever happened to shopping mall Christmas trees? Back when I was a wee lad, you could always find Santa in the central meeting spot of the mall under a Christmas tree. Now not only has Santa been shunted over to the side somewhere, usually by a Mervyn's undergoing a liquidation sale (Santa, for Christmas I would like some of those store fixtures at 60% off) but he's no longer under a tree. At the Scottsdale Fashion Square, he's at some sort of "fantasy garden" and I think in Christown he reigns from top of the soft serve machine at the Orange Julius. So what happened to the Christmas tree? Did it go the politically way way of saying "Merry Christmas"?

Speaking of Holidays... I always thought the term "Happy Holidays" was a fairly innocent term. For us, the "Holidays" started with the family trip for Thanksgiving and ended after the Super Bowl when Mom took down the Christmas tree. So there you had it... Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, the Super Bowl... the "Holidays." Little did I know that it was all a plan to eliminate the use of "Merry Christmas" and shunt Santa off to a fantasy garden.

Oh and one more thing...

To the idiot driver in front of me who was going through Flagstaff on Christmas Day in the snow when the visibility was cut to a few hundred feet on I-17. If you decided against the use of any vehicle lights in order to camouflage your vehicle against an air attack or an insurgent ambush your strategy was brilliant. Likewise if you were trying to get me to use as many swear words as possible in front of my children on the day where we celebrate the birth of our Savior, I must say you were incredibly successful. Otherwise... well... I hope you survived to see the New Year.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 10:12 AM

 
Sippin' Whiskey

A wise man once told me that forget barrels and single malts, forget grains and peats; whiskeys are divided into two types, those for fightin' and then there are those for sippin'. I have been too much into the sippin' kind today for much good, in fact based on the lack of posts over the past week, I guess you can say I have been sippin' for a while.

So some thoughts here on Christmas Eve.

I have found the papers to be almost unreadable over the past few months. The TV and the papers tell me that depression and ruin fill the land, every day bringing bad news, every day bleaker than the last. We're all going to die.

I would go into our political leadership. How it has become feckless and corrupt, but now is not the time for doing that... plus if I started writing on that issue I would have to switch to the other type of whiskey, put away the Maker's Mark and bring out the Old Heaven Hill. As I said one whiskey is for sippin' and the other....

The point is that fear and despair seem to have infected the land. Things aren't good right now, but things have been worse in the past. You really wonder how we made it through things like the Great Depression, WW II, the Civil War, the Revolution. Actually what right now sounds like is the 1970s where the theme was civilization decline and demise from rampant crime, stagflation, depletion of resources, bad fashion and too many clothes made out of synthetics.

Gee whatever happened after that? Strangely enough we are still here

A wise man told me once that I would have better days than this and I would have worse days, that man was my boss and he told me that over dinner at a KFC after I gunked a major project. I never forgot that lesson, that you need in life to take the rough with the smooth and most of all not to learn to panic. That was some sound leadership on his part that evening as I stared at my Original Recipe.

So anyway take it easy have a drink this Christmas. If you have the time go over to Sonoran Brewing this Sunday, Vox is having a bloggerama blow-out and Thomas is coming back from North Carolina just for the occasion.

I'll see you early next week.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 3:03 PM

 
The Frogurt is (Still) Cursed

Long ago I wrote that the Arizona Cardinals was a cursed franchise, forever damned to wander the wasteland of disappointment. I warned about getting sucked in to a "rebirth" that we periodically hear about; a new coach, a new stadium, a high draft pick that finally pans out (or at least signs early.)

As a Philadelphia sports fan, I know about long patches of disappointment. I have also learned to hate sports writers with a passion (in the heart of every Dan Bickley there is John Feinstein fighting to get out), so I used to dismiss all the crying about the sad sack nature of the Cards.

That was until 2002. The coach was Dave McGinnis whose rah-rah nature would inspire us all to a fabulous new world where every season would be above .500 and draft picks would be signed before training camp started and not after it ended. I took one look at that and didn't like it, no sir not one bit. When the team started 4-2 that year and everyone was predicting the New Age I predicted disaster, I predicted the team wouldn't win another game.

I was wrong, they won one more game and finished 5-11, right then and there I knew they were cursed.

Now has this year's team sucked you in? The rebirth of Kurt Warner? The winning of a division title? I had to admit I was starting to believe. I like the coaches, I like the draft picks, everything smells right... execpt that it was the Cardinals. Sure enough, on Monday Night Football, a national stage, they struggled to beat the lowly 49ers and right then and there I knew there was trouble.

Quick aside, when have the Cards ever played well on Monday Night at home? In 1995, they got pounded by the Cowboys on Christmas night with Buddy Ryan running off the field before the game was even over. Two years ago they folded like a cheap suit against the Bears in an epic collapse giving us Dennis Green's forever You-Tube moment. In 1999, they ended Steve Young's career. Let's face it, they haven't played well at home since Jerry Maguire.

Then came that pounding by a down-and-out Eagles team on Thanksgiving. Last week they get torched by Tavaris Jackson, that just about it says it all. Today they got crushed by the Patriots in the snow. I think we all know where this is going in two weeks when they end up playing someone like Atlanta in the first round, they best we can hope is that they don't mangle the turf too bad for the Fiesta Bowl that comes a few days later.

This is how a cursed team works. A fan will build up his immune system to certain disappointments, it's only by creating new ways to throttle the emotions of the fans that a cursed team can manintain its evil ways. We've been through pre-season hype that doesn't materialize, new coach that heralds a new era only to spend the remainder of his contract at home (Bugel, Ryan, McGinnis, Green...), a new stadium that allows a revenue stream.... been there done that and we've built up resistance. So what else can the Cards do? Fast start and fall on their face? Nope done that too, see 2002....

Nope the new wrinkle is to get into the playoffs and clinch so early that they have a month to ruin the experience for us. Didn't see that one coming did you? That's what a cursed team does, finds new ways to ruin life for you. After the way the team has played the past 4 weeks, are you looking forward to that home playoff game or are you going to hide behind the couch or do something productive with that day like go out and shoot squirrels or something?

At least we have the Rattlers to look forward to... oh wait, I guess we don't any more.

Sigh
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:44 PM

 
Best Comment Yet...

... on the possibility of Caroline Kennedy being appointed to the US Senate. In the comments section from a NY Daily News column:

I think it's great that the son of Basil Paterson gets to choose between the daughter of JFK or the son of Mario Cuomo in order to replace the wife of Bill Clinton in the Senate. Thank God for democracy.

(h/t Small Dead Animals)
posted by Anonymous Mike at 12:15 PM

 
On a Three Hour Tour

Reading that El Gringo has taken the Carnival Elation cruise down along the Baja brings up memories of my cruise from last year… which just happened to be on the Elation down along the Baja.

Carnival advertises itself as the “fun” cruise line; the current slogan is “Fun for all. All for Fun.” In fact the quest for “fun” permeates everything that happens on board: songs and skits during dinner, bath towels folded up as various animals, the provision of a video arcade with games that date back from the time when Tom Foley was House Speaker. You get the picture. In fact Carnival makes sure that the fun-meter is always turned up to 11; I’m surprised they didn’t carry out regular mockings of sour-pusses on the Lido Deck just to encourage the others.

Leading the fun patrol was our cruise director, Stewart, who would regularly get on the PA system and inform us in his Aussie accent of the next fabulous, fun event for we which we had to get ready. Fun apparently began the moment the life boat drill was over when waiters started to cruise the decks with trays full of cocktails which of course were available at $6.75. In fact the ship was so attuned to fun that if you wanted soda, you had to pay for that as well. Free food 24/7 but if you wanted some carbonated sugar water they were going to pop you.

Our cruise had two full days at sea and two days of shore excursions. The trick to enjoying the shore excursions is to ignore everything the ship’s crew tells you. My wife and I attended the pre-excursion orientation for Cabo led by none other than Mr. Stewart. Maybe he got an employee discount on booze or soda because the man always seemed stoked to the hilt and that morning he seemed especially on as he told of all the “fabulous” finds and deals that were available for in Cabo, in fact I lost count after his 15th use of the word “fabulous.” Needless to say once on the beach in Cabo, we found nothing “fabulous” about Stewart’s recommendations

Nope the trick to enjoying the shore excursions is to go blind into the city and cut your own deals with the locals, not only is it cheaper but is so tinged with the absurd that it proves a far better time than anything than the Carnival people could engender. In Ensenada, we ended up in a tour van with a young couple from Gilbert who were on their honeymoon, luckily the husband had done his mission somewhere in South America and therefore spoke Spanish. Instead of making a simple trip to see the famous “Blowhole” which isn’t very fabulous at low tide, we managed to negotiate a deal with the driver to go horseback riding on a “white sandy beach.” The beach had sand that might have been white at one time and the horses might not have been decrepit beasts for their entire lives; actually the horses had plenty of life in them because the father and son time leading the ride would make all of them run as fast as possible just to see if they could unseat the Americans. Believe me this was a lot more fun than it sounds.

Our cruise occurred over New Year’s so we celebrated New Year’s on board. In typical Stewart fashion, the good man informed us for days ahead of time that we had barely enough time to reserve our own champagne from the ship’s very limited stocks. What we found out that night was that free champagne abounded and believe me a good time was had by all. Having to buy your own champagne ranked right up there with the need to buy Tanzanite

I sound too harsh. I really did enjoy the cruise, though when it came time to disembark I was glad I didn’t have to spend one moment longer on that ship. It really does make for a great trip for kids, I mean nothing lights up a kid’s eyes more than the realization that they have 24/7 access to the free ice cream machine.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 11:56 AM

 
What's Good for the...

With the news that Governor Napolitano intends to sign an executive order allowing state workers to select union representatives to sit at the bargaining table and discuss personnel issues with state officials ("meet and confer"), I have some questions.

First the obvious one everyone is asking... if this was such a good idea why did the Governor wait for 6 years and then try to sign it when she has announced she's leaving?

Then... Democrats are yelping over the fact that the person who will replace Napolitano is coming from a different party and may reverse many of her policies (leave aside the fact that Napolitano will leave the state in a deep fiscal hole), then why should we accept the fact that while she's in her lame duck status that she is making major changes in how the state is run? I mean the state is in one of its fiscal crisis ever thanks in her part to her policies and she just waved good bye to the state and said "smell you later" but only wants to stay around long enough to make sure she's solid enough in her next gig. So while she waits she's going to start gumming up the works? What's next? Removing the letter "J" from the keyboards?

What's the practical benefit to having union representatives sitting at the table? I have always heard, preached, and practiced that good management involves directly listening to what your employees' need and concerns and getting them addressed... is there a problem with agency personnel management that "meet and confer" will solve?

Finally... what's been on the news lately? The auto bailout and how in part the UAW has screwed up the industry, not to mention that they want billions in tax payer money so they can keep some of their sweet contracts until they expire in 2011. Second, if you have been following the budget messes in New York and California over the last several years you realize how much of those states' budgets have been in hock to the public sector unions. Remember in 2003 how Schwarzenegger wanted to reform California until he realized he could either take on the unions or be re-elected but not both?

So why again do you want unions, at a time when there are stories galore about how they are trundling up to the taxpayer teat, sitting at the table when there is going to have be some serious budget cutting? Where's the value-added for the tax payer by allowing clowns like SEIU and AFSCME to be part of the process?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:53 PM

 
Belling the Cat

This is a story getting some play on the Internet. The other week Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio, who won this year's Nobel Prize winner in Literature, stated in his Nobel lecture that:

Who knows, if the Internet had existed at the time, perhaps Hitler's criminal plot would not have succeeded—ridicule might have prevented it from ever seeing the light of day.

Now I think it would unfair of me to cherry-pick a single sentence from a long lecture given by a man who just won one of the greatest prizes in literature. However as my kids will most certainly attest, I am not a fair person. So here goes.

It may seem unbelievable to 20-somethings, but there was quite a free flow of information and images before the Internet. While done in a more hierarchical fashion and with more filters than you will find today, a person of just modest means but sufficient ambition could be up to speed on the issues and news of the day. Don't think so? Think Somalia in the early 1990s. Images of the famine in that country and the criminal role the various militias played in the tragedy is what drove a lame duck George H.W. Bush to make a major commitment of not only American humanitarian aid but also the military firepower to make sure the chow got into the right hands. Those weren't UN peacekeepers guarding the food convoys, but rather the 7th Marines. People saw the criminal nature of what was happening and applied the pressure to make sure something was done.

The technology at the time was of course television; combined with satellite communications and air travel meant that even events in the farthest corner of the globe could be beamed into your living room.

Now let's go back further in time, to the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s as Hitler began his march to war.

Now of course television hadn't been invented yet, but there was a thriving newspaper industry in France and Britain that could provide plenty of information for the common person in the street. Even more importantly the elites, especially in Britain, who had a much more insulated position in power than today had a very clear view of what was going on. Anybody who paid attention to what Hitler was saying knew exactly what he wanted to do. It wasn't like Mein Kampf was a hard to find book in Europe and Hitler took numerous opportunities to broadcast his intentions.

In short people knew.

What people didn't have was the determination to actually do something about it. Hitler's domestic enemies misunderestimated him; political leaders like Papen and the industrialists thought he could be made a pawn of their interests, the military only saw the glittering opportunity to re-arm. Accordingly, instead of killing Nazism in its cradle, they kept Hitler and his party in play until it was too late.

If you read the history of Britain's interactions with Hitler during the 1930s, you see the problem wasn't one of information but rather of analysis of intent. Figures of appeasement such as Baldwin and Chamberlain looked at the exact same information as Churchill regarding Hitler and his rearmament program but came away very different conclusions of what it actually meant. It was if they were looking at clouds in the sky, trying to ascertain their shape; while Churchill saw a given cloud as being in the shape of a murderous Hun, the appeasers saw the same cloud as being in the shape of a puppy.

That was Churchill's special genius and why he in part occupies his special place in history. Before Hitler even came to power, Churchill had him pegged for what the German truly was and Winston made himself Hitler's nemesis. Churchill paid a tremendous political price for this stance, essentially living in political exile until the start of WW II. That's is why Manchester's famous second volume of Churchill during this time is entitled "Alone."

So let's go back to Mr. Le Clezio's statement.

To act is not just a matter of information, whether in text or images. It is also a matter of analysis and leadership. One of the terrible achievements of the 20th Century was the perfection of propaganda, which is the manipulation of known facts and images to create a picture of reality suitable for political action. A close cousin of propaganda is the natural human tendency to self-manipulate information to meet a preconceived notion; after all we don't necessarily believe what we see as much as we see what we already want to believe.

To know about Hitler's "criminal plot" is necessary to stop it, but it is not only not sufficient but not even the most difficult part. Proper analysis of the information and leadership to act on it is necessary and those factors are rare commodities.

LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.” This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?”
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:09 PM

 
Blago the Magnificent

Lee asked me why I hadn't commented on Illinois yet, well he's not the only one. So here are some random thoughts...

I wasn't overly shocked or appalled by what Governor Blagojevich did, but that's just me and my upbringing. I grew up in New Jersey where pay-to-play is a fact of life. Not to say if it happened in say, Arizona, I wouldn't be heading down to the Wesley Bolin with pitchforks and torches but I just come to expect to such things about Illinois

Will this hurt Obama? Oh yes if only because this story will follow him around like a leech, sucking the oxygen out of the room from now until Christmas. Do I think Obama was part of any monkey business? No. Do I think his staff was directly involved? No. However in both the president-elect and his staff's contacts with Blagojevich, it seems to be me they had to be aware of what the creep was up to or at least caught wind of it. How much further it goes than is anybody's guess. So I think there are two possible effects.

First the question is going to be raised when did Obama and his staff get an idea of what was happening and what did they do about it. After that glorious first Tuesday in November, the good man Obama ceased to be a Senator and became a Head-of-State-elect which has a very different set of responsibilities. How much did they know? All of it? Were they going to sit back and let a US Senate seat be sold like a high school prom date? Not a good place to be in and I don't envy them, but those are the bresks. You think it's bad now wait until you get blamed for what some deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs writes in a memo.

Second, it just refocuses attention on where Obama came from, the biggest political sewer in the country. Yeah I'll give it a top ranking, right above New Jersey, and light years above number 3 which was Arkansas. Remember Whitewater? Remember the cattle futures? Just a sign of the political mudpit the Clintons spent all those years marinating in while living in Little Rock. My guess is this will end up being just a small chink in Obama's armor but if another like story comes up, like something from the Rezko song sheet, then this will be seen as part of a pattern and then who knows?

As for myself, I hope this all passes and we can move on to more important business, but then again when did anybody listen to me anyway?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:00 PM

 
Senator Kennedy... from New York

I am still cleaning up the monitor from reading this, I don't know what drew me to it, but more than 12 hours later I'm still shaking my head about this Ruth Marcus column promoting Caroline Kennedy for the open New York senate seat. Not only I do find the material retching, but I'm a bit dazed from reading how Ms. Marcus talks herself into supporting Ms. Kennedy's candidacy

Now I'm not up to speed on the inside odds regarding who will get picked to replace Hillary Clinton, I guess Andrew Cuomo makes as much sense as anyone considering he may be a rival for Patterson in the 2010 gubernatorial. I also don't have any great insight regarding Ms. Kennedy's political abilities outside of the fact that her anointment of Senator Obama with her father's legacy sure helped.

However let's face it... if her name wasn't Kennedy she wouldn't even be mentioned in all of this. She has no experience in elected office and it appears that her advancement in Democratic politics is based largely on her trading on her father's name.

Okay I'll admit it. I'm just sick of the Kennedys; the soap opera nature of the family, the "martyrdom" of the two brothers, and not to mention the non-stop coverage when JFK Jr. rammed his plane into the ocean. Look I can accept the fact that if you were born into the family then you are already on 3rd base when it comes to the public stage, how else to explain RFK Jr.? However do we have to accept that public office is something a Kennedy is entitled to upon demand? I mean didn't Hillary at least have to run for her seat?

As an aside I find it more than amusing this modern-day Democratic reverence, near-worship in fact, for JFK. After all the man was elected in part on a policy of building more nukes, had a hawkish foreign policy that included the sending of military forces around the globe, and the man cut taxes. Should I also mention JFK's lack of enthusiasm for the civil rights movement? How does all of that square up with the President-elect (pull troops out, no more new nukes, raise taxes) on whom Ms. Kennedy bestowed her father's legacy? Would she today bestow her father's legacy on the man who was truly her father?

So who was JFK closer to? Bush or Obama? Maybe it's the latter but I bet you'll have to think about it for a bit.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:16 PM

 
Wesley Bolin Plaza

The other day I had some time to kill between appointments so I did something I hadn't done for a while; I wandered through Wesley Bolin Plaza and looked at the various memorials.

If you haven't been to the Plaza, it's a large open-air public space located just east of the Capitol and surrounded by the state office buildings and has numerous memorials and monuments. So think Washington Mall but a bit less striking.

There are times where I feel like Lileks, getting caught up in the various minutiae of everyday life, and this is one of them. Each of those memorials and monuments represented a significant effort by someone to get it funded, approved, and constructed; someone really had to care to build that police dog memorial, someone had alot of passion and drive in them to get that one for Arizona Confederate Veterans or whatever. I may not care but someone else did.

But why? There's a story behind each of these and whatever I may think of the worthiness of the cause there is that passion behind it and therefore in the hands of a skilled researcher and writer, a nice story could be drawn out. However outside of the 9/11 Memorial and perhaps the Code Talkers, it's hard to find anything about the history of any of those effort.

So here's my suggestion... cost-effective and just a plain win-win for everybody.

Go to ASU (or UA and NAU) and look up the History Department. Stumbling around that department are a bunch of grad students looking for thesis and dissertation topics, put them on the case. Heck throw them a small stipend or some other bennie. Have them research the various memorials, interview the benefactors or supporters, the members of the commission that approved that particular project.

It works for everyone. We get a piece of our history documented, the people behind the projects get recognized, and a bunch of grad students will be rescued from writing their dissertations on socially transgendered relations in 19th Century Yuma.

I mean come on, don't you want to know the history behind the "Arizona Law Enforcement Canine Memorial"?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:27 AM

 
Pro-rouge or Prorogue?

If you follow the Canadian Football League , the place where NFL players who are either too short (Flutie) or too high (Ricky Williams) go to make a living, you know all about the rouge... that one point the other teams gets when you cannot run the ball out of the end zone. There are alot of rules like that in the CFL, like 3 downs, the 55-yard line, and once having two teams called the Rough Riders; I think they do it just to make it different from the NFL.

So imagine my surprise when I heard that the great Canadian political crisis that I wrote about earlier this week was solved when the Governor General agreed to prorogue the House of Commons. I mean that was all it took? Who knew this great constitutional crisis could be solved by downing the ball in the end zone?

Oh you mean prorOGUE and not pro-rOUGE, I see now. She basically closed the House of Commons down and told them not to come back until late January.

As an aside... did you know that in the 1990s the CFL expanded to the US with teams in such places as San Antonio, Memphis, and Shreveport? Wow I wonder how that worked out in Louisiana... was there a heated rivalry between Shreveport and say Edmonton.? Also apparently the Baltimore franchise won the Grey Cup, the CFL championship, in 1995 right about the time NHL teams like Quebec and Winnipeg were moving to the US. No wonder they hate us.

Back to politics...

If you remember, the whole constitutional crisis was coming to head this Monday when the Conservative government was going to lose a vote in the House of Commons and then be replaced by a NDP-Liberal-BQ coalition. The problem was that there was an election just 6 weeks ago and the parties that formed the coalition were told by the voters to take a hike, so it didn't seem fair for them to sneak into power through the back door. Another alternative was to dissolve Parliament and hold another election, just weeks after the last one. That didn't seem too bright as well, plus that meant holding an election campaign during Christmas and Boxing Day, apparently there is some Canadian superstition regarding campaigning on Boxing Day.

So the Governor General, who is the Queen's representative in Canada, decided on another alternative- to prorogue. Since the only thing that would come out of Monday's vote in the House of Commons were problems, she decided to lock everyone out of the House of Commons and not have any vote at all. Keep in mind that the Governor General isn't elected, she was appointed by a prime minister who held office like three prime ministers ago, and represents a queen who as any red-blooded American will tell you isn't elected at all.

So an unelected representative of an unelected queen solved a constitutional problem in a democracy by locking the doors of the country's pre-eminent democratic institution and telling the people's elected representatives to go away for a couple of months. Sounds very un-democratic, in fact sounds more like Chicago than Canada.

Did I mention the queen in question is descended from ole George III of American Revolution days? Coincidence? I think not.... hey Canada you should have joined up with us back in 1775 when you had the chance and so instead of still being pushed around by British royalty you could have Nancy Pelosi and President Obama's puppy
posted by Anonymous Mike at 9:11 AM

 
The Napolitano Bubble

Okay I've been through the tech bubble, the real estate bubble, and now the oil price bubble; maybe we can start talking about the Napolitano bubble.

I feel like one of those people who writes a biography of an athlete who is still in mid-career but I'm going to take a crack at trying to write-up the Napolitano legacy as far as Arizona; who knows it could also be her political epitaph. I think you break her career into 3 stages:

Part 1, The Rise: 1998 or so to 2006

Part 2, The Plateau: 2007-2008

Part 3, The Future: November 2008 onward

Let's do the easy part first, The Rise.

Her's was the meteoric rise. We forget with her crushing 2006 gubernatorial victory that she was barely elected for attorney general in 1998 and governor in 2002 winning both by narrow margins. That 2006 election was almost anti-climatic because she was such a dominant figure in Arizona that no one of any significance in the Republican Party wanted to run against her. I mean come one, Don Goldwater was a serious primary candidate and while probably a great guy had as his dominant qualification that he was Barry's nephew. It got to the point that the Republican-dominated Legislature sent her a budget that allowed her to claim during the election that she was both a tax cutter and spender. She was truly the Sun God because the whole of the Arizona political world revolved around her.

The Plateau.

Look you crushed your opponents, winning your election handily and bringing Republican margins down in the Legislature, where do you go from there? I mean you are so far up that you had to come down a bit right? So she didn't lower the sea levels, get us all Google-like jobs, and turn our fine state into the land of milk and honey. On top of that, whether it was too high expectation, staff departures, or just sheer political exhaustion her two main attempts to build a lasting political legacy- TIME and the state trust land ballot initiatives- were horribly bungled not even making it to the ballot. Worst of all, the political agenda of the last 12 months was dominated by the budget deficit, that's no way to generate warm fuzzies.

The Future

She's half-way out the door with her resignation promised as soon as she's confirmed as Homeland Security Secretary, probably as soon as late January. She will leave a state with the worst budget crisis in the country in terms of percentage of deficit and with expected revenues only returning to FY2007 levels in 2011. Her opportunity to run for Senate in 2010 has been dimmed by McCain's decision to run for re-election. Her political coat-tails were shown to be short by the fact that the Democrats lost seats in the Legislature.

So what is her legacy?

I am going to argue that her rise, or "The Rise" from 1998 to 2006, was in part a bubble. I don't think anyone will doubt she is a capable politician but it's a long way from 2-term governor to political collossus and while the former is fact I don't think the latter is necessarily deserved. First because her timing was extremely fortunate. If the Republicans didn't commit fatricide during the AG primary race in 1998, does she squeak through? If the Hull Administration didn't seem so tired, both her and Groscost tainted with the alt-fuel fisaco, and the downturn in the economy does she get by Matt Salmon on the slimmest of margins? If she doesn't win either election, and though she ran smart campaigns both times I think her fate rested on the events I mentioned above, none of the rest matters.

Look at her first term as governor. Her reputation relies on two foundations. First was stewardship, that she brought Arizona from a massive budget deficit to massive budget surpluses. Second was her control of the border. In the first case, the downturn that caused the deficit was short-lived and could be largely managed through one-time measures, the surpluses started rolling in long before the bag of tricks was used up. To top it, it has become clear that the massive increase in revenue that fueled those surpluses was largely one-time monies and not sustainable; however by treating that money as recurring allowed her to be that tax-cutting, high-spending politician running for re-election in 2006. In short a major part of her popularity was not sustainable.

The second part, immigration and border control, is a head scratcher. Over the past 6 years, she has been a true political genius because she has been on the wrong side (in terms of popularity) of the debate; she only sent the National Guard to the border to forestall the Legislature, she was against the successful ballot initiatives on the issue. However she's managed to develop a solid national reputation on the issue by seeing which way the parade was going in Arizona and then jumping to the front in order to claim the credit

I think that probably brings up a possible third part of her popularity; the fact that she was able to portray herself as a moderate and never got pushed against her base. Democrats accepted her relatively strong (for a Democrat) enforcement measures because they understood that she was politically triangulating herself in relation to the likes of Russell Pearce. When she was the height of her political power, they accepted the relatively incrementalist agenda because she spent the surpluses and vetoed symbolic bills such as abortion restriction proposals; in short her centrist measures were seen as stoppoing much worse (for them) initiaitives from the Legislature. I guess that's the other story from the last 6 years, low expectations from Democrat rank-and-file. Well it helped her because I didn't recall her once having to be pulled left to satisfy her base; as long as she was seen as just slightly to the left of the Legislature she was okay and could still operate as a centrist.

So I'll argue, again, that her Rise had to do with being dealt extemely favorable ground, both fiscally and politically, and enough political smarts to capitalize on it. That's not a bad thing and there are alot of people who have had their careers buried in the political graveyard because they lacked her skills, but that's a long way from her being the transformational figure some claim.

I think the Plateau and the Future have to be dealt with together because they are intertwined. Yes, some of the inertia and mistakes could be attributed to the staff departure and mistakes or just the realization that the fun fiscal times were over, but I think a good deal was due to Napolitano looking to her future. The only question was which one? US senator or cabinet officer? Up until the late Spring, it could be either or but I think once she started to stump hard for Obama her heart was set on the cabinet officer job. As the year wore on and she travelled more on the campaign trail, taking her out of the state, you could tell her heart wasn't in it. Here's why...

If she was going to run for senator, say planning for 2010, then she would serve out her term as governor. If she was going to serve her term out as governor, then she would have to solve the budget problem. By late Spring 2008, no one could think that budget was going to be a short-term dip as in 2003; it was going to take time and political capital to solve. However her solution was to scrape some Republican moderates and get a FY2009 budget passed that was based on 6% growth in revenue at a time when revenue was shrinking; it was an extreme act of fiscal dishonesty and everyone knew that it would have to overhauled. However it was to buy her time at the cost of Arizona's fiscal health. Rather than working on ways to get Arizona back on the way to that health, she then committed her Summer and Fall to stumping for Obama.

Let's face it she might not have yet resigned as governor, but she emotionally vacated the position a long time ago. Whether you wanted to trace it to the post-election doldrums, the excitement of possibly going to Washington, or whatever... If she wanted to stay and finish out her term then she would have approached the past 8 months on the budget from a much different standpoint understanding that restoring the state to fiscal health as early as possible was the key to her political future.

Now her legacy in this state and any future she may have here is in the process of being formed right now and this will continue through the Spring as we try to grapple with the deficit. If you think a budget deficit is a short-term phenomena, then you can try and solve it with some gimmerckery like the roll-over and tapping cash funds, however those don't work long term and can only paper over a structural deficit. If you think the deficit is going to be a multi-year mess then you look long and hard at reducing that structural deficit. Governor Napolitano has had two deficit budgets, looked at them as only short-term problems, and right we hava structural deficit of $2 billion which as a percentage of the budget is one of the highest in nation. Her legacy depends on the next several months, as the Republicans work to close that structural deficit, that this is what a Governor Brewer inherited and not made.

In a perfect world, I am sure Governor Napolitano would have wished that all of this came 12 months sooner. If she was going to Washington in December 2007, before the deficits, before the Democrat reverals in the Legislature, she would have a different sheen to her reputation
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:19 AM

 
Apple delenda est

I am a reasonable man, kind and considerate. I can see you nodding right now and saying to yourself, "Mike, you are the epitome of kindness and understanding." So because of these virtues it is only fair to warn you ahead of time of what about I am about to say, please turn away if you are easily shocked or wish to continue in your innocence.

Okay you had your chance. Here goes...

Apple must be destroyed.

I have not said that about any other bete noire; not Governor Napolitano, not Jon Talton, not my neighbor, not anyone else on my enemies list. Why is Apple different?

A little while ago, a kind and considerate person sent me an iPod for my birthday. The person in question knew I used my Palm Centro as an MP3 player and that while a wonder machine, the Centro is a little unwieldy. So in came a nice shiny, wafer-thin 8GB iPod Nano. Much smaller and 4x the storage space as the Centro. Smooth sailing for you Mike, your life is just now peaches and cream.

One problem.

To sync the iPod you need to use the iTunes management interface. Not just any iTunes for the new Nano but their latest and greatest, iTunes 8, which only works on Windows XP SP2 and above. Sorry I live in a house where we still use Windows 2000, heck my 12-year old still uses NT 4.0 (an OS almost as old as he is.) Why? Because well the crap still works for the limited uses we need it for and if I need serious power I'll just fire up the Linux box.

So basically I have a brick; a nice, shiny, thin brick that I cannot load. I call Apple support, I go down to the Apple Store - several different ones - and beg for help, a work-around, an explanation.

None. Should I add that of all the people I talked to, all the so-called "whizzes" or whatever they call them at these places treated me with contempt? That "You should get with the times", that "We cannot possibly support every operating system, I mean you don't expect us to support DOS" When I mentioned to them that they supported Windows 2000 until recently and then asked what features they gained in the recent version of iTunes that abandoned 2000 I was met with a blank stare.

I know that stare, I know that attitude because that was my modus operandi when I ran tech support, those who didn't want to run the latest and greatest were beneath contempt and just not worth more thought than "upgrade your computer." Oh yeah when I asked if them if they had something that could run under Linux, they had no resposne to that one either. So much for the bleeding edge.

Should I have taken the oh so subtle hint and laid out the relatively moderate amount of cash and buy a new computer that could have run XP? Or perhaps just got a copy of Vista or XP and partitioned the hard drive of my Linux box? I guess but why should I got through all of that so I could run Apple's software to load my Apple brick?

Here's what got me about all of it... besides the fact that Apple treated me more as a tech support supplicant than a paying customer. I found out later, after I gave my buddy a six pack of delicious Sierra Nevada Celebration to use his computer to load my iPod, that I didn't even need to use iTunes. There are plenty of solid 3rd party applications that work just as good if not better than iTunes, I mean even ole Winamp does a better job, and a bunch of them do Linux.

So they lied to me when they said there were no other options... either that or those tech whizzes who held me below contempt and smirked at me didn't know what they were talking about. Hey I'll eat alot of crap if the person who is dishing it out knows what they are talking about and I can learn a thing or two, I will definitly hold General McClellan's horse.

However when you dish it out and you are full of it? Say it with me...

Apple delenda est
posted by Anonymous Mike at 9:12 AM

 
Oh Canada....

Two months ago, Canada had an election. I am sure I told you about it... oh wait I did right here. However I didn't tell you how it ended; the Conservatives were returned to office with a minority government which means with the recent election of Obama and the hammerlock that Pelosi has on the House that Canada may have a more right-wing government than the US. Who would have thunk?

Well then again maybe not...

You think with their election over and it being a nice and peaceful country, that it would be safe to pull your attention away from Canada and focus on more useful things... like the disagreement within the Obama family on what sort of puppy to get. However right when you thought you were out, those Canucks just pull you right back in because by Monday, the Conservatives might be out on their ear a mere two months after they were elected.

Let's see if I got this straight....

The Conservatives have a minority government which means they have less than half the seats in Parliament... almost a majority but about 10 seats short. That means they need to get the votes of somebody else. This they managed to do for their last minortiy government, with fewer seats, for the past 2 1/2 years. Shouldn't be a problem right? Well I need to explain some Canadian political workings first but you can just skip ahead to the end for the punch line if you want.

This all started when the Conservatives attached a provision in a major financial bill that would eliminate public funding for political parties. Instant uproar and just not a smart move. The 3 main opposition parties (Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democrats) all got together and decided two things. First they would vote down the bill on Monday, supposedly because there wasn't enough fiscal stimulus but in reality because they wanted to keep their public funding; if a major bill goes down so does the government so the Conservatives may fall at tha time. The second thing they decided was after the Conservatives fell to agree to form their own governement with the Liberals and the New Democrats sharing cabinet seats and the Bloc agreeing to help legislation.

So what's the fuss? All normal British parliamentary stuff right?

Uh Uh

First look at the proposed alternative government. The leading party will be the Liberals who lost their majority government in 2006 after 13 years in power and lost even more seats two months ago. Their performance was so dismal that the Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, had to resign because he had no credibility. However since his replacement won't be picked until May, if the alternative government takes power he will be the new Canadian prime minsiter. in the mean time he would be prime minister. The New Democrats have been on the outside of government since forever, they have never tasted power because they just think Canada isn't left wing enough; they are like the Bernie Sanders and Cynthia McKinney of Canadian politics. Then you have the Bloc... these are the guys who want to break up the country by taking Quebec out of Canada.

Whatever you want to say about the Conservatives and a mandate or lack thereof, these guys have that much less. After all just two months they got smacked around hard in the polls, but now they are on the verge of power; their leader just got called from packing his office to picking out drapes for his prime minisieterial office and all thanks to the decision to the throw the keys of power to a bunch of socialists and traitors.

Okay enough of the trivia because right now your head is hurting, here's the key thing to know...

Canada is headed for a constitutional crisis with the likes unseen since... gosh ever. Well maybe up there with the separatist votes in 1980 and 1995. By Monday the Canadian Governor General is going to be faced with a decision on whether to accept the Frankenstein of an alternative government which has no popular support and no reason besides power during perhaps the most critical financial time over the last 75 years. Or she can call another election, two months after the last one and the third in 3 years.

So let's see... governments falling two months after election. Three elections in three years. Frankenstein coalitions that have no popular support cobbled together to take power. What does that sound like to you? Post-war Italy? Third Republic France?

This isn't good.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:14 PM

 
A Tale of Two Guns

In reading about New York Giant Plaxico Burress shooting himself with his own handgun, it's hard to feel sympathy for him because:

1) His gun went off accidentally

2) He did it in a night club while carrying a drink

Remember kids, drinking and firearms with the safety off don't mix.

Still the fact that the man faces a mandatory 3 1/2 year prison sentence on each of 2 counts for carrying a handgun without a license seems a bit excessive. 7 years in the slammer for self-defense? It does however show the differences in gun laws across our great land.

I'm a big believer in federalism, different strokes for different folks. If you want to live in an emerging nanny state where the mayor of your largest city bans trans-fats for "your own good," the state government jacks up taxes to pay huge salaries and bennies to unionized state workers, and you have to jump through more hoops than a circus lion to get a gun permit then New York is your cup of tea. If you like living in a state where it's "right to work," the gun laws are shall-issue, and there's an abundance of earth-toned stucco; might I suggest Arizona.

Now once again Mr. Burress is not exactly a sympathetic person and let's face it besides being a candidate for the Darwin Award he broke the law; Ignorantia juris neminem excusat. Amen

However judging from the remarks of Mayor Bloomberg and his almost fanatical glee in pursuing both Mr. Burress and the hospital that treated him, you have to ask from what emotional bearing the city is being run. While New York has improved, the Thin Blue Line has not yet made it a crime-free utopia. Mr. Burress works in a profession that was chronicled in a recent issue of the ESPN The Magazine about how professional football players fear for their safety a year after Sean Taylor's death. New York does not allow non-residents to hold gun permits, Mr. Burress resides in New Jersey, and both the city and state make any gun permit process onerous.

Perhaps the obvious solution is for Mr. Burress to hire an armed security gurard, with proper permits of course, so he wouldn't fear for his safety. You and I get to hope and pray and hope there is a lead pipe laying around.

That reminds me of an amusing story. I used to frequent a sushi place when I lived in Chandler; great place, a dive, where I thought they kept the lights low so you couldn't see how bad the carpeting was. Anyway one night as they were closing, I was watching the local news on TV with some of the staff when one of them recognized an (now ex) Arizona Cardinal player who was in court on a DUI (a number of Cardinal players would go there.) The staff member in question mentioned what a great guy he was, how neat his fiancee was, and how shocked she was to see him in such a situation. Thereafter when the player would go out to this place, he would rent a limo; I on the other hand made sure I stayed within the DUI laws by walking home.

See the ultimate solution for the Plaxicos of the world is to hire the limo, the rest of us have to get by with walking. When it comes to personal safety on the streets, that's what a Mr. Bloomberg run city will get you.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:17 PM

 
Under the Bus

I have been asked by my friends of opposite political persuasion of my opinion of the initial Obama cabinet picks. I have to say that so far so good, not perfect but the best that could be hoped for given that my side lost the election. Serious men and women who will take their job seriously. As far as picking Senator Clinton I find the selection foolish for the President-elect but that's a matter for another day.

I had often wondered which person a President Obama would be. Would he be the leftist New Party candidate who spoke glowingly of redistribution, had a positivist view of liberty, and wanted a piece of Joe the Plumber's pie? Would he be a moderate, DLC-type of Democrat? Would be be true to his Chicago roots and do whatever was necessary to further himself?

I didn't know before the election and my guess is neither did anyone else. Disgusting that it worked out that way given that the man was on the campaign trail for 20 months but take it up with the media. Hey don't blame Obama because if you can get away with being an engima wrapped up in a handsome smile then more power to it

Now the people who thought they knew Obama were the progressives and the Kos kids who thought the election of Obama would usher in a new era of peace, happiness, and the end of capitalism. Surprise... Obama's economic and national security picks aren't too far off from those who sat in Bush's cabinet over the last few years. So add the wild-eyed progressives, for now, to those who got thrown under Obama's electoral assault vehicle.

Before we all get giddy about this moderate-tint to the Obama presidency and for us Republicans an escape from the Obapocalypse, keep in mind that this isn't the first time the man has thrown people under the bus. What do you call a man who acts one way during the sales pitch and another after you buy the product? As Wretchard might say, we may rub our hands with glee as the man shoves the knife into the back of campaign promises without realizing that if he treats his supporters this way what will he do to those who are not?

Sit back, have a beer, and keep an eye on the appointments and policy. It's going to be wild.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:31 PM

 
Ode to Pie

Before I was married, I took no small measure of pride in my cooking. Perhaps my efforts were not worthy of mention in a Michelin Guide of Chandler fine dining, but it was a source of self-satisfaction.

Since those days, I have lost my grip on the kitchen. My wife, fueled by inspiration from The Food Network and a sense of innovation worthy of a mad scientist, has launched continued assaults on my culinary domain. Over the past few years, I have suffered continued defeats to the point where my rout is almost complete in that I have been laregely exiled outside to the grill. Make no mistake, one can do wonders with a simple Weber; however such a device lacks both the necessary electrical outlets and space for cutting boards.

I am left with only one redoubt in the kitchen, one reminder left of what had been. However much like the Byzantine Empire relegated to the city of Constantinople awash in a sea of Turks, my one island is very beautiful and in its magnificence almost equals all that was lost...

... that island is pie.

During the Thanksgiving-to-Christmas stretch of holidays, when guests arrive for summer pool party, when the wife throws a gathering for her prayer group... then I'm summoned back into the kitchen to perform pie. Yesterday I served up a blackberry crumble with ginger and cardamom; the fruit soaked overnight in cassis. I added a pumpkin with some cream cheese and a bit of Bailey's mixed in.

It's all fun now but when Christmas finally comes and passes and pie no longer needed, my kitchen talents will again be placed into hibernation, to sleep and perchance to dream.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:56 AM

 
The Lost Cause

Man you wait a day or two to do a blog post and events over-take it....

From The Republic's Political Insider:

Burns said he's fairly confident there will be agreement on some level of cuts. That could set the Legislature up for a special session the second week of December...

Burns also confirmed that Napolitano told him she intends to stay in the governor's seat until if and when she is confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration. That could mean lawmakers will get a state of the state address from Napolitano on Jan. 12, as well as a budget plan for 2009-10.

I found that encouraging and for the Governor, honorable.

If you have been reading the papers and blogs, you notice that there is a great deal of Democratic angst about what will happen when Napolitano leaves for Washington and Brewer gets the 9th Floor; a veritable budgetary Armageddon where our normally dry rivers will run with the blood of a thousand cut programs and the innocents such as all-day kindergarten programs will tossed into the fire as the Republican barbarian hordes do their pagan small-government dance at Capitol.

Democrats are already being maudlin about what could have been if only the good Governor Napolitano would stay. Why we could have had a Golden Age as those cuts never would have happened and we would be on our way to a utopia (East Valley excluded) that would make us Arizonans proud whenever we travelled to the East coast.

The thing is... the cuts are going to happen whether Governor Napolitano stays or not. The only question is how the blame is going to get spun.

$1.2 billion this current fiscal year and counting, $2 to $3 billion for next year; out of a total budget of about $10.5 billion. Cash reserves gone, accounting gimmicks used up, with only the promise of spending cuts and/or tax increases to come. Out of that budget, about 1/3 is voter-protected (give or take depending on how you look at it) which means you could have to make those cuts out of only say... $6.5 billion. Ouch babe.

My fear was that Napolitano would skip town before being confirmed as a cabinet officer; that means confirmed before having to come up with a proposal for dealing with the 2 big budget deficits. After all she consistently underestimated the problem for the last 2 budgets, so why would this be any different? If she left town without a proposal then the Democrats could spin any massive budget cuts as the fault of the heartless Republicans and use it as a campaign issue for the 2010 gubernatorial.

Now if Napolitano has her own budget proposals, they will have to be chock-full of budget cuts. Maybe not to the level of what Senate President-elect Bob Burns would like or that approaches the level of real solutions, but it should take some of the fuel out of any latter Democrat attempts to lay the ensuing budgetary blood bath at the feet of the Republicans.

If this goes down like that article intimates it will, then I say good for Governor Napolitano.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:33 AM

 
For a Few Movies More... The Top 5

My top 5 war movies in reverse order with some commentary about those which missed the cut and those movies that have yet to be made.

5: Ran: Okay so it's really King Lear and maybe it stuck with me because it was the first Kurosawa movie I ever saw and I was just blown away about it... but the battle scenes are shot and scored in a way that have left me speechless by their power. You feel instantly transported to feudal Japan.

4: Where Eagles Dare: The best WW II adventure movie... Kelly's Heroes was ruined by the goofiness of Donald Sutherland, trying to bring a touch of hippie madness to the 1940s. Dirty Dozen might have made it but Telly Savales with a southern accent? That's just the start of the problems.

No problems here... a plot with twists and turns, Richard Burton playing yet again a hard-boiled British vet, and with both he and Eastwood mowing down Nazis with an everlasting supply of submachine gun ammo. Not to mention one of the great war movie of all time.

3: Black Hawk Down: This should be #2, but for reasons that will become clear I want to treat #1 and #2 together. The critics lambasted the movie for its wooden characters and that's true. It's also true that there are some awful American accents... Jason Isaacs?

On the plus side, the movie is beautifully edited and scored. As you follow the flow of the movie... from hubris, to Stoicism, to finally acceptance... you see how the movie was put together in post-production to bring forth themes that make it stand larger than a botched afternoon mission in Somalia.

After you see the movie once or twice, make sure to listen Hans Zimmer's soundtrack and you can pick out those themes, and the virtues, from the extended tracks.

If you want to read the book before you watch, go ahead, but be forewarned the movie does take liberty with it. However by reading it, you gain appreciation for the character of the men that composed the Delta Force unit stationed there. I am pretty sure Eric Bana didn't get an Oscar nomination for his depiction of a Delta non-com but I think he perfectly captured those men in Mark Bowden's book.

#1 and #2: Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan Okay I know Band of Brothers is a miniseries and not a movie but bear with me here.

Saving Private Ryan will probably get the #1 slot. It really did change not only how war movies are made but most importantly what viewers expected from war movies. When you watch the first 20+ minutes as Tom Hanks' company storms Omaha Beach keep in mind that military censors blocked from the papers all but the most saccharine types of pictures; there was a famous picture of 2 dead GIs rolling in the New Guinea surf covered with maggots that was blocked. WW II movies came a long way from the Sands of Iwo Jima.

The reason I put the two films together is because of two men; Captain Miller and Major Winters. You know the first character, that's the Ranger captain played by Tom Hanks. The second character is Band of Brothers and is real-life.

This is a case where you will first need to read the book Band of Brothers to gain appreciation for Winters. The popular historian Stephen Ambrose sat down with WW II veterans of Easy Company, 101st Airborne and wrote what amounted to a unit history stretching from their formation in 1942 through the end of the war. Winters, who started out as a platoon commander and rose by war's end to be battalion XO, stands out in Ambrose's book for 3 reasons.

The first was his assault on a German battery position at Brecourt Manor on D-Day when he led a hodgepodge group of only 13 paratroopers. The attack was a complete success, Winters was awarded the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, and the assault is still taught as a classic example of small group infantry tactics at West Point.

The second happened soon after D-Day when Winters' unit assaulted the town of Carentan. In the initial phase of the assault, hidden machine guns pinned down a large part of Winters' unit on an access road creating the possibility of a debacle. Winters stood up in full view of the German gunners and kicked and cursed his men to continue the assault; which they did.

The third is toward the end of the book in the present day when Winters and Ambrose were walking by the Winters' house in Pennsylvania. Ambrose noticed an injured duck and suggested to Winters since the duck was doomed to be killed by a predator anyway, that Winters should kill and freeze the animal for his own use. To which Winters replied with shock and dismay, saying that he could never do such a thing.

The first two reasons are depicted in the first two hours of the mini-series and while the film takes alot of liberties with the book, the assaults on Brecourt Manor and Carentan are both true-to-life and breathtaking. In the assault on Carentan you see Winters from the perspective of the German gunners, standing in the clear and kicking his men laying in the safety of the ditches. In the assault on Brecourt Manor, the footage shows the translation of classic infantry tactics (Winters read widely on the subject) into the reality of a brutal combat assault. In both reasons brought to life through masterful film-making, you understand what an elite American infantry officer both looks and acts like.

Note many US combat units in WW II were assigned redundant platoon officers because lieutenants were killed in such abundance. After watching Winters in the Carentan episode, I now know why.

The third reason comes out in the later episode "Crossroads" where Winters surprises a company of SS troopers; in the opening moments of the battle, Winters surprises and coldly shoots an unarmed and young German soldier. The act haunts Winters through the rest of the episode.

At this point it's useful to bring in Saving Private Ryan, who does Winters resemble? Yep... Hanks' Captain Miller, the mild-mannered Pennsylvania boy turned into a coolly-efficient killer. After the war as we can see from the story of the injured duck, Winters seems to revert to the man he was before the war. We don't know about his conscience or his dreams at night, but that day with Ambrose he seems miles away from the killer who shot down the young unarmed trooper or stood up in a hailstorm of gunfire to lead his men to take a town and kill Germans.

In the scene where his small squad is on the point of killing one another over letting a German prisoner go, Captain Miller reveals to his men what he was before the war, a school teacher. He wondered if his wife will even recognize him when he gets home. We know, from watching his nerves fray and hands shake, that in a sense he can never go back.

It's not a coincidence that Ambrose was involved in both films; a common theme throughout his long work of histories and biographies was common American men and women selected to do uncommon things.

Both films tell two stories.... the first is the murderous nature of life as an American combatant in the European Theater of Operations. By the February 1945, most front-line units had suffered a horrific rate of casualties and there was a dire need for trained infantrymen. Second, was the fact that the people who had to fight those murderous battles were citizen soldiers, plucked from their teaching jobs or life on the farm, to fight a war and to hopefully return to that same life afterwards. After seeing war, after being a hero and a successful infantry officer in history's greatest war, after seeing Paris... Winters returned home; Miller did not.

Some movies that didn't make the cut....

Patton, I go back and forth on this. Maybe I should make room for a pretty good character story about one of America's greatest warrior who wasn't cut out for peace. A good depiction of Patton's 3rd Army can be found in Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle.

Gettysburg. The dialogue is awful, forced; the story-line forced. However it almost makes the list if only for its depiction of Pickett's Charge which is magnificent. One of the items on my bucket list is to go to the battlefield and walk that ground.

When We Were Soldiers. Good movie but the end ruins it for me. Not only is ending wrong and hackneyed but it ends too soon. More on that in a bit.

Movies that should be made...

Afghanistan. Where to begin? A movie about the opening months from the perspective of CIA operations officer and special warfare NCO leading perhaps through Tora Bora? Operation Anaconda, the March 2002 assault into the Shahi-Kot Valley? Story based on the recent assault on the forward combat base? Operation Red Wing when 16 SEALs and special warfare personnel were killed trying to rescue one lone SEAL?

Iraq. The November 2004 assault on Fallujah from the perspective of a Marine or soldier? The story of the Punishers in Mosul, as depicted by Michael Yon? As with Afghanistan, the material here is rich and varied and open to all viewpoints.

Ia Drang. The problem with the movie "When We Were Soldiers..." was that it only dealt with the first part of the book. After the initial battles, American units marched out to other landing zones in order to leave the area before B-52 strikes on the battlefield. On the way, while strung out in column, the Americans were attacked and nearly crushed by Viet Cong and NVA units. Read the book and you find it to be an amazing story. One of the amazing characters is the guy who's on the cover of the book as well someone I've mentioned before, Rick Rescorla. Heck... why not make a movie on "Heart of a Soldier"
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:55 PM

 
War! What's It Good For? Movies....

Four months ago at some bloggerama involving beer, the topic came up about favorite war movies. I put the theme in the deep freeze and decided to take out and defrost in order to avoid a discussion of politics (but I do appreciate the SecTres pick.) I guess we call it "Zonitics: Weekend Edition" or something.

Anyway I'll list my top 10 war movies and give you the reasons for it. You may agree, but you probably won't. If you think the topic is weird then hey move on and come back Sunday... in the mean time why don't you go read Tedski freak out about the coming Brewapocalypse and then come back and tell me who is being freaky. That's how we fly here, throwing some link love to other Arizona bloggers.

I'll go through the picks in reverse order and get through the 5 today and then the next 5 tomorrow. The reason is that I have some commentary and let's face it these posts are long enough anyway.

10. A Bridge Too Far. The story about the ill-fated Operation Market Garden and based ont he book from Corneillus Ryan. One of the last of the great ensemble war movies: James Caan, Robert Redford, Elliot Gould, Michael Caine, Sean Connery, and a young Anthony Hopkins. Also a watershed movie in how it looked at WW II, contrast it with another film based on a Ryan book The Longest Day which was filmed 15 years earlier; the latter is a gung-ho movie that could have been shot during the war itself for homefront purposes while the former has a grim, bitter take.

Well of course it's grim because the battle was one we lost (sorry for the spoiler) but I couldn't see this filim being made in 1962; people weren't ready for it, it wasn't what they expected for a WW II film.

The other reason I picked the film is because of some of the great characters. You'll notice a theme in my picks in that they are often based on or related to some book or movie and that also there are great characters involved. In this case it's Hopkins' character; Lt. Colonel John Frost who led the doomed 2nd Battalion that was trapped at Arnhem Bridge. Read the book first and you get the impression that this was a man who should have been born 60 years earlier, perhaps to stand shoulder to shoulder with Gordon at Khartoum or to fight river pirates in China. Years after the battle, Frost is at the Bridge with the author and the old man looks south as if searching for XXX Corps but instead he shakes his fist and yells "Do you call that fighting?"

That's the man Hopkins brings to life.

9. Das Boot: A movie that perfectly captures the rottenness of life as a WW II German submariner: boredom, terror, and stinky conditions

8. Full Metal Jacket: In his 1985 book "War", Gwynne Dyer takes a chapter to discuss the US Marine Corps. Remember this is your typical 1985 anti-war book that assumes we are going to incinerate ourselves in a nuclear holacaust for re-electing Reagan. However Dyer casts an approving eye on the Marines for the simple reason that they are honest about what they do; they train men to survive combat and to ensure their enemies do not.

I think about that every time I see the first half of the movie as it deals with the experiences of a training platoon as it undergoes basic training with a sadistic DI. The thing about "sadistic" is that the DI, played by Lee Ermey, was training the young men for Viet Nam. You don't have to admire Ermey's character for what he did but it does help to appreciate what he was trying to do, train young men to survive a brutal and sadistic environment.

The other part of the movie I found memorable was the combat. The entire film was shot in Britain and that meant recreating elements of the Battle of Hue, South Vietnam in an old abandoned gas works located in Greater London. It gave some of the shots an almost theatrical look as if instead of sprawling urban combat this was in fact a tragedy taking place on a stage.

7. The Wild Geese: No deep reasons, it's a straight adventure movie about a group of mercenaries who go on a mission to Africa and have to fight their way out. One of those ensemble casts: Roger Moore, Hardy Kruger, Richard Burton, Richard Harris.... you sort of wish they did The Dogs of War this well.

6. Master and Commander: Russell Crowe is the spitting image of what a 18th Century British frigate commander should look like; reckless, dashing, and just a bit too intense. He dominates the movie through his portrayal of the twin obessions of duty and a French frigate

More later.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 7:18 PM

 
Smell You Later

With news that Governor Napolitano has been offered Homeland Security, I guess we'll find out whether she'll choose an outer-tier cabinet position or whether she'll do what the local Democrats hope for and stay to keep the Republicans out of the 9th Floor.

My guess is that she'll waving from a jet plane saying "Smell you later!"

On one hand if you are a national Democrat it could be worse... Obama could have selected Richard Clarke marking yet another Clintonista appointment. Of course if you are a national Democrat, Obama could have made a better selection.

Let's see about Governor Napolitano's cred...

Knowledgeable about international terrorists? Nope

Experience in busting local extremist groups up to no good? Nope

Demonstrated ability to get disparate and unwieldy bureaucracies to work together combined with ability to work with the legislature and all levels of government? Janet "The Screamer" Napolitano?

Hey but she's governor of a border state, that counts for something right? Well it does if you equate homeland security with defending the border against illegal immigration which I don't remember being an Obama campaign focus. Anyway let's look at her record on illegal immigration/border control:

Sent National Guard to the border? Yes, after the Republican-Legislature forced her hand

Supported building fence? Janet "15 foot ladder" Napolitano? I think not

Showed initiative in solving border issues using local resources? She's well-known for her local policy of "illiegal immigration is a federal issue."

In fact we may want to send her congratulatory telegrams with that slogan embossed on the front. Funny how life turns out.

Yeah sweet pick
posted by Anonymous Mike at 5:34 AM

 
Beyond Barneydome

We're two weeks after the election and let's see how the Obapocalypse is faring for the Republicans...

Hope and Change front: Clintonistas populate the White House staff and AG's office. Good thing Hillary didn't win because then Clintonistas would populate the.... oh never mind.

Kinder, gentler foreign policy: looks like the guy who did such a good job prosecuting the Iraq War is going to come back to the same post. That Clinton person? The one that voted for that Iraq War? The one that said she would "...totally obliterate Iran"? Leading candidate for State. Good thing McCain because otherwise he would just re-appoint that guy at Defense and lead a more bellicose foreign policy in regards to Iran...

Next thing you'll tell me is that the President-elect will nominate for Treasury someone who wants a strong dollar policy... well one can hope.

Turning to Congress and the auto bailout.

I have a theory. Look come January, everyone knows that the Democrats will give the Big 3 what they want as far as a bailout, but the auto makers say they'll go under before then. To top it, it seems they haven't even fully tapped into the loans approved back in September, why the Bush Administration wants to speed up in lieu of approving a larger bail out. So why the rush to steamroll the larger bailout before Obama takes over? Come January the Democrats will be even more entrenched in power...

My theory is political cover. We're going through the same mechanics as we did during September and early October when the topic was the financial industry and Speaker Pelosi said whe wanted 100 Republican votes but then refused to whip her own caucus. The bailout as currently constructed stinks: it leaves in place the management that drove the companies into ground, it keeps in place the union contracts and cost structure that has made the Big 3 uncompetitive, and the only pro quid pro is to build more efficient cars which their competitors have been doing for years.

It's like it hasn't occured to the Big 3 to build those cars, they just have the management and cost structure which have stopped them from doing it in a way that would make these companies profitable. You can build all the hybrids and green cars you want but if they aren't better or cost less than Toyota or Honda then they wouldn't sell.

So we're going to throw money at an industry without asking that industry to make the changes necessary to be profitable. We'll just assume that now their wallets are full of taxpayer cash that by magic their management will become smart, their cost structure competitive, and that they will build the cars that everyone wants to buy. Of course that won't work and the Big 3 will be back, perhaps in a year or two, asking for more money and then the crap will really hit the fan. When that crap hits the fan, the Democrats will want to have the Bush Administration's fingerprints on the first bailout because then they can say... "We all know the Bush was a fascist war-mongering idiot in the pockets of Big Oil who wants to break unions and throw little Timmy O'Toole down the well (or something like that), you cannot expect him to get have gotten this right. Now that he's gone, we'll do better on the next $50 billion bailout"

Rinse and repeat.

So here's my solution.

Let's have a cage match... we can build Thunderdome right on the Mall and have Speaker Pelosi lord over it like Tina Turner. For every industry wanting a bailout there will only be enough money for a certain fraction of the companies asking. To get the moolah, the CEOs will have to enter Thunderdome (let's call it Barneydome) and then have a fight to the death. So for the Big 3, only 2 of them are getting the cash with the money going to the comapanies whose CEOs survive. Schumer, Frank, and Reid can all chant "Three men enter, two men leave"

Not fair? I mean the Ford CEO looks like a big wimp. Okay we'll expand the teams to include the C-level executives for each company and they can fight it out like the brawl in "Anchorman."

Think about it... it will be fun and at least we'll get something approaching surivial of the fittest. Look it's either that or mass executions.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 4:05 PM

 
Laughing All the Way

It looks Eric Holder and not Napolitano will be Attorney General.

A few reasons to laugh on this one:

1) Those Democrats who were voting for Obama over Clinton in the interest of "hope and change" have to be delighted to see the guy who was Bill Clinton's deputy AG and green-lighted the Marc Rich pardon.

2) While Napolitano is still in the running for other cabinet posts, AG was the big one. Plus she's a lower-tier candidate for Education and Homeland Secretary, what sort of cred would she bring to either? All day kindergarten? Having the Legislature push her into sending the National Guard to the border?

3) I find the idea that she wouldn't go to Washington for anything less than AG because a Republican would replace her to be window dressing. So she won't leave the 9th Floor in the hands of the Republicans who could undo her legacy.... unless she got a really good job? Huh?

With a chance to turn the Legislature Democratic how much time did she spend in Arizona supporting the local races versus going national campaigning for Obama? To say you aren't going to leave the Democrats here in Arizona in the lurch for "anything less" is like a guy leaving the girl he just seduced after he told he would love her forever because he has "...an important meeting in the morning."

Trust me, if she got a lower-tier cabinet post she will go because as she will state at her teary-eyed news conference before she departs for the capital "When the President-elect calls you to serve your country..."

4) If she doesn't get any cabinet appointment, I hope that Senator Bruns will send her a condolence card attached to the latest JLBC fiscal highlight with a note for her to call him.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 2:53 PM

 
Team of Rivals

I knew I should have sworn off cable news, but just when I thought I was out....

One of the current spins surrounding the possible nomination of Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State is "Team of Rivals." This is a direct references to the recent Doris Kearns Goodwin's book of the same title which dealt with President Lincoln's incorporation into the cabinet of his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination.

The common theme between 1860 and 2008 is supposedly that a little presidential diplomacy is necessary to strengthen intra-party coalitions. Leave aside that essentially diplomacy is saying "nice doggy" until you find a rock (France is still looking for one); there are things which don't match up.

Let's start with the fact that between his election and inauguration, Lincoln watched the country break apart and slide toward war; times were tough and the last thing Lincoln and the Republicans needed were intra-party disputes. Second at the time of Lincoln's inauguration, the last three presidents had failed to secure their party's nomination. Third, Lincoln's position within the Republican Party, while a successful nominee, wasn't as the consensus candidate entering his convention and instead depended on his four rivals (the four he brought into the cabinet) beating on each other during the first ballot.

Which of these factors is similar to what Obama is facing tofay? A secession crisis sliding into civil war? Previous presidents unable to achieve renomination let alone re-election? Shaky nomination? Maybe that but how much did that come up in October? A Clinto appoitnement would at best a calculated risk to defang any potential rival for a contested nomination for 2012, by brining her into the cabinet it would either make her a team player or tar her with the indelible brush of Obama.

However there are dangers to the strategy. Let's look at Lincoln's rivals:

Senator Cameron and Representative Bates tenure in the cabinet had both headed to oblivion; the former due to corruption scandals in the War Department which resulted in his resignation and the latter became irrelevant due to the demands of the war.

Salmon Chase was appointed to the Treasury and from there never shed his ambotion to replace Lincoln for the 1864 election and constantly schemed. In fact only his indispenability in maintaining the nation's finances during the Civil War kept from his being purged earlier than he was.

The only high note in all of this was William Seward who was appointed as Scretary of State but who early on tried to usurp Lincoln's authority by becoming de facto prime minsiter of the administration. He later formed a fast friendship with Lincoln, becoming his loyal confidant, largely based on his admiration of skills as a war leader.

So the historical precedent that people want Obama to follow in appointing Clinton as Secretary of State rests on the results of Lincoln following a similar path in that of the four rivals he selected: one was cashiered for corruption, one tried to constantly submarine his administration, one became a historical non-entity, and the best one also tried to undermine but later came to admire his abilities in leading the most murderous war this country ever fought.

Yeah a perfect parallel for Obama to follow. Taking bitter rivals into your cabinet is a last resort, not a first option.

What do I think will happen? Obama will learn from his mistake about the vice presidency and lead Clinton on about her being a serious candidate for Secretary of State in order to show her supporters that he is treating her with respect. Meanwhile he'll find reason to scuttle the proposed nomination, through proxies of course, due to her husband's various business dealings
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:00 AM

 
Choice

I had a neat post about Obama and Christianity but I'll save that for another day.

Instead I want to look at choice. I think the average person when presented with a choice will think that the most important thing to do is to gather all the information needed to make the correct decision. Instead I think the most important thing is to make sure you are framing the choice correctly.

Alot of ink has been spilled in the field of rational actor theory on single-shot vs. supergames. The distinction is simple and is often described in introductory political science classes.

A single-shot game (or interaction) is a game that is played only once. You meet a guy on the street, he offers to sell you a apple, you agree and make the transaction, and then part company never to see each other again. A supergame is a game played time and again; you have a purchasing contract with a fruit vendor from whom you buy fruit on a daily basis. In the single-shot game, the seller may not mind off-loading on you a worm-ridden apple because he'll never see you again while in the supergame the fruit vendor knows that your satisfaction will dictate whether there are any future transactions.

Now let's look at the Arizona budget. The Governor's approach has two interlocking elements. The first is to low-ball the projected deficit: she did it for FY2008, for the original FY2009 budget, and for the current size of the hole in the FY2009 budget. One of the great communications from her office is an October 1st document from OSPB which outlines the pessmistic case for the FY2009 deficit as $800 million and then come back 5 weeks later and agree that the budget gap is actually at least $1.2 billion. Ooops.

The second element is to treat each problematic budget year separately; in short to treat each fiscal year is a single-shot game. The public reason is that recovery is just around the corner; revenue will recover in Spring 2008, for FY2009 revenue will increase 6.1%.... The two elements inter-lock because it allows her to push the idea that spending can be maintained on the current year budget because revenue will increase for next year's budget; all we have to do is get through this little rough spot.

Contrast that with viewing budgeting as a supergame. When the solution was devised for the FY2008 budget back in April, the basic outlines for the FY2009 were already clear. How much money should be borrowed through school financing and accounting tricks versus how much should be cut for FY2008 should have been based on the realization that several lean years were ahead. Spending cuts deferred were just that, deferred with compounded interest and not avoided. However the Governor was allowed to push the idea that recovery was around the corner.

So as we near a special session to deal with the FY2009 budget hole, which exists because of Democratic can kicking back in June, 6.1% revenue growth!, let's please look at the solutions through the prism of this being a multi-year problem. Arizona is heavily dependent on the housing market and the surplus inventories of housing may not clear until 2011. JLBC is not projecting revenue growth until 2011. To top it, the national economy is sliding into recession. So we're looking not just at FY2009, but also FY2010 and 2011 as well.

Let's get a number on how much we're in the hole for the next 3 years and then come up with the 3 scenarios ranging from optimistic to pessmistic of how large that number may be. Then let's find ways of attacking that number over that time period. We find there is simply not enough money to cut from the 55% of the budget that the Legislature can touch... what happens after that is anyone's guess but at least we would be working in the light.

Single shot games are for con artists, supergames are for leaders.
posted by Anonymous Mike at 1:59 PM

 
City of Obama

I read with amusement Vox's link to the recent cover of New York Magazine with the lede of:

In New York, reverence for Barack Obama has long been approaching the level of worship, and last week’s spontaneous eruption over his election had the feel of an ecstatic religious celebration. But the peculiar thing about this faith is that it is rooted in a belief above all in reason—and underlying all the excitement on the streets was the wonder of what it might be like to belong to a reality-based nation again.

Faith rooted in a belief of reason? Ecstatic religious-like celebration over an election?

Where to begin?

About 400 AD with Augustine of Hippo

Augustine was one of the first to try and integrate the rationality of the Ancient Greeks with the faith and revealed word of Christianity, so I feel he would have much to say about our times. The Greeks, starting with Pythagoras and continuing through Plato, trumpeted the rationality as a tool for discovering truth. Augustine in turn accepted the validity of the Greeks in that their rationality could be used as a tool to fight fanaticism, but found their world view lacking in the larger theological truths.

For a Christian, to ascend in truth one must at some point turn to faith and strive for the ability to know an immaterial God. For Augustine, while one couldn't perceive God, one could come to know him because the individual could conceive of him through the use of faith. In defining this perspective, Augustine provided a strong intellectual foundation for the early church, one on which today's Christian apologists construct their own arguments.

Now I'll admit that "faith ... rooted in ... above all in reason"smacks of the anti-clerical elements of the French Revolution. Even more distressing their supposedly unique and superior linkage of faith and reason, is as such is culturally illiterate. You get the feeling that the writer uses the laden terms of Western Civilization much like a child would use a sword and with about the same result.

I try not to cherry-pick articles to make larger points, but it's hard to top this piece as a neat summation of the cultural contradictions and national self-loathing (and it is self-loathing) of those who have treated the election of Senator Obama as a transcendental, as opposed to historical, moment.

You wonder if people like the writer, as they pass the chruches and cathedrals of their city, wonder if the religion contained therein would have anything to say about their feelings over the last 2 weeks
posted by Anonymous Mike at 6:41 PM

 
Mayor with Hands Out

It started with the financial industry, continued through the auto industry, and now it looks like state and local politicians want some federal monetary love.

Now I'm a resident of both Phoenix and Arizona so perhaps I should just avert my gaze as my mayor and governor are out trying to get money out of Washington. Well, outside of any feelings of shame over handouts, I'm also a federal taxpayer; let's hear it for James Madison and shared sovereignty.

A quick point to be paid here...

The argument against the financial and auto industry bailouts is that they leave the existing management and shareholders in place; the same clowns who got a number of these firms in trouble will receive the federal money and continue to operate these companies. Focusing on the auto industry, the problem is compounded because the fundamentals of the Big 3 are left unchanged by the bailout and it's likely that after the auto makers burn through the money they will be back on the edge of the abyss; afterall if they went Chapter 11 at least they would have a chance to reorganize.

So why is it any different than with the states and cities?

States like California and New York, and I'll assume the cities as well, spent the recent gushers of tax revenue like drunken sailors. Both Phoenix and Arizona dramatically increased spending in the years leading up to the current fiscal crisis. In fact as evidenced that the growth in tax revenue far exceeded the growth in personal income, that revenue gusher was probably based on one-time money. However my state and city government spent the money like it would keep on like that forever, which was a bad decision, and now they want help.

Sounds alot like the auto and financial industry.

Where the states and cities differ is that not only do they have the power to cut their spending, but also to raise revenue through taxes. Both are politicaly painful and will probably mean the political kiss of death for more than one politician, but both haven't really been tried on a level necessary to meet the crisis on hand and since when should federal dollars be used to keep local politicians afloat?

The other issue is that any city and state bailout, just like the one proposed for the auto industry, leaves the same people and the same basic fiscal structure in place that got these governments in trouble in the first place. At least when a country has to go to the IMF for a bailout, there are "austerity" measures which are imposed.

So what will the feds ask in return for the bailout or is it considered rude to even ask?
posted by Anonymous Mike at 8:23 PM