Stratfor's Enter President Obama

Because they let me:

By George Friedman

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in on Tuesday as president of the United States. Candidate Obama said much about what he would do as president; now we will see what President Obama actually does. The most important issue Obama will face will be the economy, something he did not anticipate through most of his campaign. The first hundred days of his presidency thus will revolve around getting a stimulus package passed. But Obama also is now in the great game of global competition — and in that game, presidents rarely get to set the agenda.

The major challenge he faces is not Gaza; the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not one any U.S. president intervenes in unless he wants to experience pain. As we have explained, that is an intractable conflict to which there is no real solution. Certainly, Obama will fight being drawn into mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first hundred days in office. He undoubtedly will send the obligatory Middle East envoy, who will spend time with all the parties, make suitable speeches and extract meaningless concessions from all sides. This envoy will establish some sort of process to which everyone will cynically commit, knowing it will go nowhere. Such a mission is not involvement — it is the alternative to involvement, and the reason presidents appoint Middle East envoys. Obama can avoid the Gaza crisis, and he will do so.

Obama’s Two Unavoidable Crises

The two crises that cannot be avoided are Afghanistan and Russia. First, the situation in Afghanistan is tenuous for a number of reasons, and it is not a crisis that Obama can avoid decisions on. Obama has said publicly that he will decrease his commitments in Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. He thus will have more troops fighting in Afghanistan. The second crisis emerged from a decision by Russia to cut off natural gas to Ukraine, and the resulting decline in natural gas deliveries to Europe. This one obviously does not affect the United States directly, but even after flows are restored, it affects the Europeans greatly. Obama therefo re comes into office with three interlocking issues: Afghanistan, Russia and Europe. In one sense, this is a single issue — and it is not one that will wait.

Obama clearly intends to follow Gen. David Petraeus’ lead in Afghanistan. The intention is to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, thereby intensifying pressure on the Taliban and opening the door for negotiations with the militant group or one of its factions. Ultimately, this would see the inclusion of the Taliban or Taliban elements in a coalition government. Petraeus pursued this strategy in Iraq with Sunni insurgents, and it is the likely strategy in Afghanistan.

But the situation in Afghanistan has been complicated by the situation in Pakistan. Roughly three-quarters of U.S. and NATO supplies bound for Afghanistan are delivered to the Pakistani port of Karachi and trucked over the border to Afghanistan. Most fuel used by Western forces in Afghanistan is refined in Pakistan and delivered via the same route. There are two crossing points, one near Afghanistan’s Kandahar province at Chaman, Pakistan, and the other through the Khyber Pass. The Taliban have attacked Western supply depots and convoys, and Pakistan itself closed the routes for several days, citing government operations a gainst radical Islamist forces.

Meanwhile, the situation in Pakistan has been complicated by tensions with India. The Indians have said that the individuals who carried out the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack were Pakistanis supported by elements in the Pakistani government. After Mumbai, India made demands of the Pakistanis. While the situation appears to have calmed, the future of Indo-Pakistani relations remains far from clear; anything from a change of policy in New Delhi to new terrorist attacks could see the situation escalate. The Pakistanis have made it clear that a heightened threat from India requires them to shift troops away from the Afghan border and toward the east; a small number of troops already has been shifted.

Apart from the direct impact this kind of Pakistani troop withdrawal would have on cross-border operations by the Taliban, such a move also would dramatically increase the vulnerability of NATO supply lines through Pakistan. Some supplies could be shipped in by aircraft, but the vast bulk of supplies — petroleum, ammunition, etc. — must come in via surface transit, either by truck, rail or ship. Western operations in Afghanistan simply cannot be supplied from the air alone. A cutoff of the supply lines across Pakistan would thus leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan in crisis. Because Washington can’t predict or control the future actions of Pakistan, of India or of terrorists, the United States must find an alternative to the routes through Pakistan.

When we look at a map, the two routes through Pakistan from Karachi are clearly the most logical to use. If those were closed — or even meaningfully degraded — the only other viable routes would be through the former Soviet Union.

• One route, along which a light load of fuel is currently transported, crosses the Caspian Sea. Fuel refined in Armenia is ferried across the Caspian to Turkmenistan (where a small amount of fuel is also refined), then shipped across Turkmenistan directly to Afghanistan and through a small spit of land in Uzbekistan. This route could be expanded to reach either the Black Sea through Georgia or the Mediterranean through Georgia and Turkey (though the additional use of Turkey would require a rail gauge switch). It is also not clear that transports native to the Caspian have sufficient capacity for this.
• Another route sidesteps the issues of both transport across the Caspian and the sensitivity of Georgia by crossing Russian territory above the Caspian. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (and likely at least a small corner of Turkmenistan) would connect the route to Afghanistan. There are options of connecting to the Black Sea or transiting to Europe through either Ukraine or Belarus.
• Iran could provide a potential alternative, but relations between Tehran and Washington would have to improve dramatically before such discussions could even begin — and time is short.

Many of the details still need to be worked out. But they are largely variations on the two main themes of either crossing the Caspian or transiting Russian territory above it.

Though the first route is already partially established for fuel, it is not clear how much additional capacity exists. To complicate matters further, Turkmen acquiescence is unlikely without Russian authorization, and Armenia remains strongly loyal to Moscow as well. While the current Georgian government might leap at the chance, the issue is obviously an extremely sensitive one for Moscow. (And with Russian forces positioned in Azerbaijan and the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Moscow has troops looming over both sides of the vulnerable route across Georgia.) The second option would require crossing Russian territory itself, with a number of options — from connecting to the Black Sea to transiting either Ukraine or Belarus to Europe, or connecting to the Baltic states.

(click image to enlarge)

Both routes involve countries of importance to Russia where Moscow has influence, regardless of whether those countries are friendly to it. This would give Russia ample opportunity to scuttle any such supply line at multiple points for reasons wholly unrelated to Afghanistan.

If the West were to opt for the first route, the Russians almost certainly would pressure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan not to cooperate, and Turkey would find itself in a position it doesn’t want to be in — namely, caught between the United States and Russia. The diplomatic complexities of developing these routes not only involve the individual countries included, they also inevitably lead to the question of U.S.-Russian relations.

Even without crossing Russia, both of these two main options require Russian cooperation. The United States must develop the option of an alternative supply route to Pakistan, and in doing so, it must define its relationship with Russia. Seeking to work without Russian approval of a route crossing its “near abroad” will represent a challenge to Russia. But getting Russian approval will require a U.S. accommodation with the country.

The Russian Natural Gas Connection

One of Obama’s core arguments against the Bush administration was that it acted unilaterally rather than with allies. Specifically, Obama meant that the Bush administration alienated the Europeans, therefore failing to build a sustainable coalition for the war. By this logic, it follows that one of Obama’s first steps should be to reach out to Europe to help influence or pressure the Russians, given that NATO has troops in Afghanistan and Obama has said he intends to ask the Europeans for more help there.

The problem with this is that the Europeans are passing through a serious crisis with Russia, and that Germany in particular is involved in trying to manage that crisis. This problem relates to natural gas. Ukraine is dependent on Russia for about two-thirds of the natural gas it uses. The Russians traditionally have provided natural gas at a deep discount to former Soviet republics, primarily those countries Russia sees as allies, such as Belarus or Armenia. Ukraine had received discounted natural gas, too, until the 2004 Orange Revolution, when a pro-Western government came to power in Kiev. At that point, the Russians began demanding full payment. Given the subsequent rises in global energy prices, that left Ukraine in a terrible situation — which of course is exactly where Moscow wanted it.

The Russians cut off natural gas to Ukraine for a short period in January 2006, and for three weeks in 2009. Apart from leaving Ukraine desperate, the cutoff immediately affected the rest of Europe, because the natural gas that goes to Europe flows through Ukraine. This put the rest of Europe in a dangerous position, particularly in the face of bitterly cold weather in 2008-2009.

The Russians achieved several goals with this. First, they pressured Ukraine directly. Second, they forced many European states to deal with Moscow directly rather than through the European Union. Third, they created a situation in which European countries had to choose between supporting Ukraine and heating their own homes. And last, they drew Berlin in particular — since Germany is the most dependent of the major European states on Russian natural gas — into the position of working with the Russians to get Ukraine to agree to their terms. (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited Germany last week to discuss this directly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.)

The Germans already have made clear their opposition to expanding NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. Given their dependency on the Russians, the Germans are not going to be supporting the United States if Washington decides to challenge Russia over the supply route issue. In fact, the Germans — and many of the Europeans — are in no position to challenge Russia on anything, least of all on Afghanistan. Overall, the Europeans see themselves as having limited interests in the Afghan war, and many already are planning to reduce or withdraw troops for budgetary reasons.

It is therefore very difficult to see Obama recruiting the Europeans in any useful manner for a confrontation with Russia over access for American supplies to Afghanistan. Yet this is an issue he will have to address immediately.

The Price of Russian Cooperation

The Russians are prepared to help the Americans, however — and it is clear what they will want in return.

At minimum, Moscow will want a declaration that Washington will not press for the expansion of NATO to Georgia or Ukraine, or for the deployment of military forces in non-NATO states on the Russian periphery — specifically, Ukraine and Georgia. At this point, such a declaration would be symbolic, since Germany and other European countries would block expansion anyway.

The Russians might also demand some sort of guarantee that NATO and the United States not place any large military formations or build any major military facilities in the former Soviet republics (now NATO member states) of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. (A small rotating squadron of NATO fighters already patrols the skies over the Baltic states.) Given that there were intense anti-government riots in Latvia and Lithuania last week, the stability of these countries is in question. The Russians would certainly want to topple the pro-Western Baltic governments. And anything approaching a formal agreement between Russia and the United States on the matter could quickly destabilize the Baltics, in addition to very much weakening the NATO alliance.

Another demand the Russians probably will make — because they have in the past — is that the United States guarantee eventual withdrawal from any bases in Central Asia in return for Russian support for using those bases for the current Afghan campaign. (At present, the United States runs air logistics operations out of Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.) The Russians do not want to see Central Asia become a U.S. sphere of influence as the result of an American military presence.

Other demands might relate to the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

We expect the Russians to make variations on all these demands in exchange for cooperation in creating a supply line to Afghanistan. Simply put, the Russians will demand that the United States acknowledge a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The Americans will not want to concede this — or at least will want to make it implicit rather than explicit. But the Russians will want this explicit, because an explicit guarantee will create a crisis of confidence over U.S. guarantees in the countries that emerged from the Soviet Union, serving as a lever to draw these countries into the Russian orbit. U.S. acquiescence on the point potentially would have ripple effects in the rest of Europe, too.

Therefore, regardless of the global financial crisis, Obama has an immediate problem on his hands in Afghanistan. He has troops fighting there, and they must be supplied. The Pakistani supply line is no longer a sure thing. The only other options either directly challenge Russia (and ineffectively at that) or require Russian help. Russia’s price will be high, particularly because Washington’s European allies will not back a challenge to Russia in Georgia, and all options require Russian cooperation anyway. Obama’s plan to recruit the Europeans on behalf of American initiatives won’t work in this case. Obama does not want to start his administration with making a massive concession to Russia, but he cannot afford to leave U.S. forces in Afghanistan without supplies. He can hope that nothing happens in Pakistan, but that is up to the Taliban and other Islamist groups more than anyone else — and betting on their goodwill is not a good idea.

Whatever Obama is planning to do, he will have to deal with this problem fast, before Afghanistan becomes a crisis. And there are no good solutions. But unlike with the Israelis and Palestinians, Obama can’t solve this by sending a special envoy who appears to be doing something. He will have to make a very tough decision. Between the economy and this crisis, we will find out what kind of president Obama is.

And we will find out very soon.

Facebook

I've been sucked onto Facebook by a childhood friend. It's like being at a whole-life reunion while sitting in your sweats in your living room.

Mankiw on stimulus

I missed this, Mankiw on the stimulus, in the NYT on January 10.

Reich on TARP and Obama's team on stimulus

Robert Reich has a post at TPM discussing TARP:

It's difficult to make the case that the first $350 billion bailout of Wall Street -- so-called "TARP I" -- fulfilled its goals, unless one argues that the Street would have imploded without it, which is pretty much what Hank Paulson is saying these days. And since it's impossible to prove a counter-factual, especially when the Treasury was never clear about TARP I's goals to begin with, Paulson may have a point. But the easier and probably more correct argument is that American taxpayers wasted $350 billion.

He then goes on to recommend some prudent restrictions on the TARP II money. Two of his suggestions:
1) Don't buy stock in the banks. This one surprised me because I had believed that buying stock in the banks (so we have something to show for our "investment") was better than just handing them money, but Reich makes the case that such money simply disappears.

2) Limit compensation to execs to 50% of recent years since they've already been over-compensated for performance that was based on false premises and fraudulent assertions.

I'm trying to ignore the TARP and stimulus fiascoes because if I look directly at them, I get ill.

Here is a report from Obama's team on the predicted impact of the stimulus on jobs. The report contains this graph that compares predicted results to what would happen in the absence of Obama's stimulus plan:
At peak, that's a 1% difference. That doesn't seem like much to me. The endnotes point out that some estimates show the unemployment rate, sans stimulus, to be as high as 11%, so the peak difference might be more. Maybe the way to look at it is that over the period they show (we won't be back to 5% rates until 2013, stimulus or no), that difference affects a lot of lives and has a big economic impact. Tim Fernholz at Tapped has coherent thoughts about this jobs report and provides the link to the report.

The pitch...

Heaven knows I've had my disagreements, especially in the second term, but this is the image I'll remember. From Ace.

What a difference 27 years makes?

The Hudson today v. January 13, 1982.

Chops

A different kind of song displaying Kelly's singing skills:

For LJ: she won Season 1.

Idol

Sure, just like succeeding in the entertainment industry, popularity is a component of the voting in Idol. But no one has won who can't sing. Tell me Kelly Clarkson can't sing (from the big band night in Season 1):

And sure some of the whacky ones are looking for 15 minutes. But some of these sad souls really do not know they can't sing.

Mental illness

I've become convinced there is a particular form of mental illness in which its victim suffers from the delusion that he/she is a competent singer. Yes, I'm catching bits of Idol auditions tonight.

These economic times

Just a couple months ago, our firm was thinking about adding a secretary/paralegal. Since then, our biggest client, a Fortune 100 company, has demanded a rate freeze and a 20% discount for all of 2009. Our second biggest client has commanded that all our work cease for at least one month. So when we met this week, we decided we will not hire anyone after all and we will freeze our rates for all clients. In addition, we made a brutal decision about the 2008 bonus for our one current secretary/paralegal: we're giving her $0, nothing, nada, instead of our customary $10,000, based solely on economic conditions (not performance). (Let me just say in my own defense that I voted for well more than $0, but I was outvoted.)

The Wrestler

My Oscar movie Festival continued a day earlier as planned as yesterday I caught “The Wrestler”. I was a big Mickey Rourke fan starting with his small but impressive role in one of my all time favorite movies, “Body Heat”. In fact, I famously (in my circle of friends) predicted after seeing “Body Heat” that he would become a big star. He followed that up with great performances in “Diner”, “Rumble Fish”, “The Pope of Greenwich Village”, “9 ½ Weeks”, and “Angel Heart”. Then, his career and life began a long, downward spiral.

The story of how “The Wrestler” came to be a movie at all mirrors how Rourke came to play the lead. He really is as good as advertised in this. You can feel his aches and pains, you can feel his pride in what he does, you can feel his desire for wanting to get back into his daughters life, but knowing that he would find some way to mess that up as well. The film has a low budget feel about it, either by design or because the filmmakers had almost no money. It’s gritty, it’s grimy, it’s seedy – just as his life is. And the speech Rourke makes near the end of the film as he speaks to a wrestling event audience could very easily have been a speech about his personal life and career. There were also a couple of other incredible scenes that stayed with me – one with Rourke playing an old Nintendo game with a neighborhood kid and the other, Rourke sitting at a table at a wrestling legends signing event. This is not a feel-good movie and you knew, pretty early on, how the 3 major plot lines would end. But the journey getting there was enthralling.

Two other observations: (1) the movie is only showing at 1 theater here in DFW, an artsy-type theater near SMU. I went to the earliest showing (1:30) and it was packed. Old, young, men, women, but no kids and no talking even before the movie began. And when the lights came up, the common word or phrase you heard as….”intense”…”wow, that was pretty intense”….etc. (2) Marisa Tomei has also gotten a lot of hype and buzz with her role as a quasi love-interest. I’m not saying she wasn’t good, but I was wondering if the buzz had more to do with how great she looks. You know this because for the vast majority of her scenes, she isn’t wearing much. For a 40-something actress, doing numerous topless and almost nude dance scenes might have more to do with her buzz.

All-in-all a tremendous performance by Rourke. A must-see for any fan of his or if you enjoy seeing an actor redeeming himself after years of being at the bottom of the heap, both personally and professionally. Be prepared for violence and blood, much of which is rumored to be actually Rourke.

Fruitcake?

As part of the extensive traveling I must endure as an attorney, Thursday takes me to the metropolis of Corsicana, Texas. Home of the Collin Street Bakery, maker of the world famous DeLuxe Fruitcake. If you’ve had a fruitcake, it likely came from CSB.

Next Tuesday a Mountaintop Moment

William Bennett and John Cribb at Culture11:

The election of Barack Obama confirms a new self-evident truth: that there is no ceiling to achievement in America based on race. Yes, of course, there is still racism in America. But there are no more viable excuses based simply on race. A black man or woman can become President in America — or anything else he or she wants to be. The recipe, as it largely was for Barack Obama, is to take a serious education seriously, to work hard, and to maintain a strong family ethic. The message to non-black America is that the Huxtables are not just a fictional drama or sitcom of the past; a version of the Huxtables is now about to run Washington with the paterfamilias leading the free world. A successful, upper-middle-class black family now serves as a role model for the success of the rest of black America and the rest of non-black America, too.

As Ta-Nehisi Coates put it in Time Magazine, "the most famous black man in America isn't dribbling a ball or clutching a microphone. He has no prison record. He has not built a career on four-letter words." Indeed. And, now we can all clearly see what we may have been blind to in the past: qualifications or demerits based on skin color, and not character, are the new fiction in America. Racial prejudice should die in the rest of America as it died at the ballot boxes across America last year — as should an ethic of non- or low-achievement based on excuses and low expectations.

My annual Oscar nominated movie festival

Every year, I try to make sure I see every movie nominated for Best Picture. I'm starting a little early this year, as the nominations haven't been released yet. Yesterday, C and I went to see "Slumdog Millionaire". I had heard about this movie months ago and due to all of our travels around the holidays, this past weekend was the first chance we've had to go to the movies. The premise of this movie is pretty cool - a young boy from the slums (and an American vision of slum doesn't do justice to what a slum in India is) of Mumbai is a contestant on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire". The movie cuts back and forth between present time as he is asked questions and the past as he uses his life experiences in order to answer the questions. The authorities (and host of the program) believe he is cheating and he has to explain how he knew the answers. I found his explanations very plausible, except for one concerning a Hindu God. And his reason for being on the program isn't for the money, but to find the girl he loves, who he believes will be watching the program. The movie was filmed in India and the poverty and daily life struggle of the people who live in the slums is mind-boggling. There are some very uncomfortable scenes from his childhood, one in particular that was difficult to watch.
And perhaps it's because I'm a movie buff, but I knew how the last question would work itself out and in fact, what the last question would be.

The acting was great (each of the 3 main characters had 3 different aged people playing them), the photography captured present day India as well as I thought "Ghandi" captured India of that time and as a big fan of the music of Bollywood (India's Hollywood that produces vastly more movies per year as Hollywood does), the score was fantastic. This is a feel-good movie that most of the time doesn't have a feel-good vibe to it.

UPDATE: "Slumdog Millionaire" won 3 Golden Globes last night for Best Score, Best Screenplay and Best Drama. It is the odds-on favorite now to win the Best Picture Oscar.

Next on my list is "The Wrestler", which I plan to see on Wednesday. It stars Mickey Rourke, who from all I've read and heard is brilliant in this. Also stars Marisa Tomei who is also supposed to be excellent. Again, not a feel-good movie, but the buzz for this film is off-the-charts.

How cool/embarrassing is that II or Funnier Coincidence

Minutes after waking me up, Fred Burton wrote to me to assuage my suspicions of an imposter commenter on Scooter's post.

Funny coincidence

I just woke up to Fred Burton's voice. NPR was interviewing him about kidnappings in Mexico, so my radio alarm made him the first thing I heard this morning.

Barred owl

One of my favorite things about the dog park lately is seeing this (or some) owl on occasion. I'd heard about him/her for a year, but finally saw him for the first time a few weeks ago and now see him almost every time I go. He/she has a couple typical spots. This is a barred owl. Today I saw two of these owls in close proximity and heard them calling and responding to each other. Amazing. Part of their call is a "who who" like a stereotype of an owl. One was quite a bit larger than the other, so I think they're opposite sex and may be or may become a mating pair. I'm hoping for baby owls in April, though I'll probably not be able to spot them. Seem like a dog park would be a dangerous place to fledge.

I took this photo with my husband's camera and couldn't figure out how to work the zoom, so you'll have to take my word for it that there's an owl there.I'll try to get a better photo some time.

How cool/embarassing was that?

My Ghost post got corrected by the author.

Stephanie the Honda girl...

Honda Girl is right there with Victor Davis Hanson:

I never bought a foreign or even a new car until 1991 when I first sinned at 38, and got a cut-rate, entry-level 4-cylinder Mazda MPV van for the five of us ($15,100/five years at 5%, and a $1000 down). (It ran wonderfully for 130,000 miles without a glitch).

That said, over the subsequent years and in subsequent real guilt (My late B-29-flying Dad wouldn’t buy Japanese), I did atonement and bought my two kids two Chevy-S-10s. I got my other daughter a Chevy Malibu. In the 1990s I drove only Dodge Pick-ups—a little Ram D-50 and then a Dakota.

Then I noticed the following: Malibu—6 brake jobs, alternator out twice, air conditioning never worked right after 5,000 miles. The two S-10s: alternators went out, fuel line problems. Dodge pick-ups: one broke down late at night on California’s empty West Side due to ignition and chronic electrical problems, and then again during a rain storm in the Sierra. (on a high pass on a curve). The other’s timing belt quit at 40,000 miles (stuck while driving on the coast for two days); the head gasket blew at 85,000 miles (stuck in Hollister).

Then in 2004 I sinned again (mea culpa, Pater care, mea magna culpa!) and borrowed and bought a Honda Accord (now 110K miles, still no problems), then yet again with a 2006 Civic for my daughter (60K no problems), and, yes, still more, with a 2005 Honda CRV for my wife (70K, battery once went dead).

(I used to have an Accord myself and currently drive that Dakota...63k with only oil, wiper blade and tire changes.)

Why I went to the Univeristy of Arkansas

I decided to reply this way, as I felt the comment section would be inappropriate for such a long winded answer.

Some history. Both of my parents are from the same small town in Arkansas. My grand-parents and great-grandparents both lived their whole lives in the same town. I had many aunts, uncles, cousins in the same town. All through my childhood, we spent almost as much time in Arkansas as we did in Tulsa or Houston. As with most Arkansans, all the members of my family were HUGE Razorback fans, even though none of them went there, let alone attended college. Only my father and one of his sisters ever went to college.

I always "knew" that is where I would go. My father, somewhat teasingly, always told me that I could to college anywhere I wanted, but he would only pay for Arkansas. By the time I got to college age, I was ready to get away from home. My thinking was that Arkansas was far enough away to be away, but close enough to my grandparents (2 1/2 hours) and I would see my parents when the made their numerous trips back home. Arkansas was , and is, a small school even though it is a state school (when I attended, 15,000 undergrads and only slightly higher now). I liked the small class sizes, the small but beautiful campus, the area of NW Arkansas and, of course, I was totally indoctrinated into the whole Razorback sports hysteria. I had gone to my first Razorback football game when I was 2 months old and had been attending or listening to games my whole life.

It's too bad that I wasn't exactly the best student - had I been, my experience would have been even better than it was.

Fred Burton’s Ghost: Confessions of a Counterterrorism Agent

Finished it last night while others watched the Gators beat the Paperclips.


I’ve been posting the Stratfor columns for a while now and Fred Burton is their vp for counter-terrrorism and corproate security. He was formerly deputy chief of the DSS. I didn’t really even know that the DSS was until I read the book even though I’ve met him a couple of times at speaking engagements (his, not mine…who wants to come hear a dry lawyer talk to a bunch of contractors about liens?).

It is the Defense Security Service. It is a federal agency under the State Department which operates CIA/FBI/Secret Service-like agency for the State Department. Lots of security work for our embassies, ambassadors and other diplomats abroad and in charge of protecting foreign dignitaries while here.

Update. That link I posted for DSS may have been wrong. It's parent organization, the DS is here.

There is a video about the book which I haven’t viewed but can be seen here.


It is written in style a counter-terrorism agent would employ along with the help of competent editors. A few too many references to the “Dark World” in which he operated for my taste.

He served under Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton. Interesting insights into several things: how the counter-terrorism operation used to work and how they work today, Arms for Hostages/Iran/Contra, guarding Arafat when it was once one’s job to get him, to Burton’s role in the capture of what has to be at least one the top five pre-9/11 terrorists.

Update: How embarrassing. Correction from the author: Diplomatic Security Service.

National champion from the SEC...again

I was really torn last night watching the BCS National Championship game. Normally, I would obviously be rooting for the SEC team. However, I hate Florida. When you follow the SEC week-to-week as I do, you get force-fed Tim Tebow. I know he is a great person and a great player, but he seems TOO good, TOO perfect and his hype is unreal. Part of it, I admit, is being upset that he won the Heisman Trophy 2 years ago when I felt Darren McFadden of my beloved Arkansas Razorbacks should have. I've been to a game at Florida and their fans are arrogant as hell and just rub me the wrong way.

As for OU, I hate them as well. Never liked Bob Stoops, never liked Barry Switzer (even though he was an Arkansas boy and alum), never liked their fans, living here in DFW you have to listen and read about how great they are and how great the Big 12 is. Even though I was born in Oklahoma and lived there through 3rd grade, I never had a connection to OU. When they played Nebraska, I always rooted for Nebraska.

In the end, I wanted Florida to win, but look bad doing it. And I wanted the SEC to once again prove their dominance. 3 years in a row now the national champion has been from the SEC. I would love to see a Florida-USC matchup however, even though in that case I would be for USC. That being said....


S-E-C... S-E-C .... S-E-C!!!

George Will on the GMAC mess

From JWR:

GMAC is known as the "financing affiliate" of General Motors. But Cerberus, the huge private equity firm that owns 80.1 percent of Chrysler, also owned 51 percent of GMAC until GMAC got the government to baptize it as a bank holding company. That transformation supposedly was necessary to make GMAC eligible for a place at the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) trough — although GM itself already has a place there, as does Chrysler. Anyway, the infusion of TARP dollars — 6 billion of them — diluted Cerberus's GMAC ownership to at most 33 percent, but that diminution seems a small price for Cerberus to pay for a second bite from the bailout apple.

Washington sternly said that it would allow GMAC to become a bank holding company only if GMAC managed to increase its capital to $30 billion. When GMAC fell far short of that goal, Washington supplied some of the shortfall. Immediately after GMAC became eligible for TARP money, GM reduced to zero the interest rate — for up to 60 months — on certain models. This, of course, penalizes GM competitors, including Toyota, Honda and other "transplants" whose cars are made in America by Americans for Americans, and Ford, which does not have the freedom of maneuver conferred by TARP money because Ford is not taking any.

Stratfor on Israel/Hamas

Because Stratfor lets me:

Israel is now in the 13th day of carrying out Operation Cast Lead against the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has been the de facto ruler ever since it seized control of the territory in a June 2007 coup. The Israeli campaign, whose primary military aim is to neutralize Hamas' ability to carry out rocket attacks against Israel, has led to the reported deaths of more than 560 Palestinians; the number of wounded is approaching the 3,000 mark.

The reaction from the Arab world has been mixed. On the one hand, a look at the so-called Arab street will reveal an angry scene of chanting protesters, burning flags and embassy attacks in protest of Israel's actions. The principal Arab regimes, however, have either kept quiet or publicly condemned Hamas for the crisis — while privately often expressing their support for Israel's bid to weaken the radical Palestinian group.

Despite the much-hyped Arab nationalist solidarity often cited in the name of Palestine, most Arab regimes actually have little love for the Palestinians. While these countries like keeping the Palestinian issue alive for domestic consumption and as a tool to pressure Israel and the West when the need arises, in actuality, they tend to view Palestinian refugees — and more Palestinian radical groups like Hamas — as a threat to the stability of their regimes.
One such Arab country is Saudi Arabia. Given its financial power and its shared religious underpinnings with Hamas, Riyadh traditionally has backed the radical Palestinian group. The kingdom backed a variety of Islamist political forces during the 1960s and 1970s in a bid to undercut secular Nasserite Arab nationalist forces, which threatened Saudi Arabia's regional status. But 9/11, which stemmed in part from Saudi support for the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, opened Riyadh's eyes to the danger of supporting militant Islamism.

Thus, while Saudi Arabia continued to support many of the same Palestinian groups, it also started whistling a more moderate tune in its domestic and foreign policies. As part of this moderate drive, in 2002 King Abdullah offered Israel a comprehensive peace treaty whereby Arab states would normalize ties with the Jewish state in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 borders. Though Israel rejected the offer, the proposal itself clearly conflicted with Hamas' manifesto, which calls for Israel's destruction. The post-9/11 world also created new problems for one of Hamas' sources of regular funding — wealthy Gulf Arabs — who grew increasingly wary of turning up on the radars of Western security and intelligence agencies as fund transfers from the Gulf came under closer scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Egypt, which regularly mediates Hamas-Israel and Hamas-Fatah matters, thus far has been the most vocal in its opposition to Hamas during the latest Israeli military offensive. Cairo has even gone as far as blaming Hamas for provoking the conflict. Though Egypt's stance has earned it a number of attacks on its embassies in the Arab world and condemnations in major Arab editorial pages, Cairo has a core strategic interest in ensuring that Hamas remains boxed in. The secular government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is already preparing for a shaky leadership transition, which is bound to be exploited by the country's largest opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

The MB, from which Hamas emerged, maintains links with the Hamas leadership. Egypt's powerful security apparatus has kept the MB in check, but the Egyptian group has steadily built up support among Egypt's lower and middle classes, which have grown disillusioned with the soaring rate of unemployment and lack of economic prospects in Egypt. The sight of Muslim Brotherhood activists leading protests in Egypt in the name of Hamas is thus quite disconcerting for the Mubarak regime. The Egyptians also are fearful that Gaza could become a haven for Salafist jihadist groups that could collaborate with Egypt's own jihadist node the longer Gaza remains in disarray under Hamas rule.

Of the Arab states, Jordan has the most to lose from a group like Hamas. More than three-fourths of the Hashemite monarchy's people claim Palestinian origins. The kingdom itself is a weak, poor state that historically has relied on the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States for its survival. Among all Arab governments, Amman has had the longest and closest relationship with Israel — even before it concluded a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1994. In 1970, Jordan waged war against Fatah when the group posed a threat to the kingdom's security; it also threw out Hamas in 1999 after fears that the group posed a similar threat to the stability of the kingdom. Like Egypt, Jordan also has a vibrant MB, which has closer ties to Hamas than its Egyptian counterpart. As far as Amman is concerned, therefore, the harder Israel hits Hamas, the better.

Finally, Syria is in a more complex position than these other four Arab states. The Alawite-Baathist regime in Syria has long been a pariah in the Arab world because of its support for Shiite Iran and for their mutual militant proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah. But ever since the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Syrians have been charting a different course, looking for ways to break free from diplomatic isolation and to reach some sort of understanding with the Israelis.

For the Syrians, support for Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and several other radical Palestinian outfits provides tools of leverage to use in negotiating a settlement with Israel. Any deal between the Syrians and the Israelis would thus involve Damascus sacrificing militant proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas in return for key concessions in Lebanon — where Syria's core geopolitical interests lie — and in the disputed Golan Heights. While the Israeli-Syrian peace talks remain in flux, Syria's lukewarm reaction to the Israeli offensive and restraint (thus far) from criticizing the more moderate Arab regimes' lack of response suggests Damascus may be looking to exploit the Gaza offensive to improve its relations in the Arab world and reinvigorate its talks with Israel. And the more da mage Israel does to Hamas now, the easier it will be for Damascus to crack down on Hamas should the need arise.

With Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria taking into account their own interests when dealing with the Palestinians, ironically, the most reliable patron Sunni Hamas has had in recent years is Iran, the Sunni Arab world's principal Shiite rival. Several key developments have made Hamas' gradual shift toward Iran possible:

1. Saudi Arabia's post-9/11 move into the moderate camp — previously dominated by Egypt and Jordan, two states that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

2. The collapse of Baathist Iraq and the resulting rise of Shiite power in the region.

3. The 2004 Iranian parliamentary elections that put Iran's ultraconservatives in power and the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose public anti-Israeli views resonated with Hamas at a time when other Arab states had grown more moderate.

4. The 2006 Palestinian elections, in which Hamas defeated its secular rival, Fatah, by a landslide. When endowed with the responsibility of running an unrecognized government, Hamas floundered between its goals of dominating the Palestinian political landscape and continuing to call for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamist state. The Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, had hoped that the electoral victory would lead Hamas to moderate its stance, but Iran encouraged Hamas to adhere to its radical agenda. As the West increasingly isolated the Hamas-led government, the group shifted more toward the Iranian position, which more closely meshed with its original mandate.

5. The 2006 summer military confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel, in which Iranian-backed Hezbollah symbolically defeated the Jewish state. Hezbollah's ability to withstand the Israeli military onslaught gave confidence to Hamas that it could emulate the Lebanese Shiite movement — which, like Hamas, was both a political party and an armed paramilitary organization. Similar to their reaction to the current Gaza offensive, the principal Arab states condemned Hezbollah for provoking Israel and grew terrified at the outpouring of support for the Shiite militant group from their own populations. Hezbollah-Hamas collaboration in training, arms-procurement and funding intensified, and almost certainly has played a decisive role in equipping Hamas with 122mm BM-21 Grad artillery rockets and larger Iranian-made 240mm Fajr-3 rockets — and potentially even a modest anti-armor capability.

6. The June 2007 Hamas coup against Fatah in the Gaza Strip, which caused a serious strain in relations between Egypt and Hamas. The resulting blockade on Gaza put Egypt in an extremely uncomfortable position, in which it had to crack down on the Gaza border, thus giving the MB an excuse to rally opposition against Cairo. Egypt was already uncomfortable with Hamas' electoral victory, but it could not tolerate the group's emergence as the unchallenged power in Gaza.

7. Syria's decision to go public with peace talks with Israel. As soon as it became clear that Syria was getting serious about such negotiations, alarm bells went off within groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which now had to deal with the fear that Damascus could sell them out at any time as part of a deal with the Israelis.

Hamas' relations with the Arab states already were souring; its warming relationship with Iran has proved the coup de grace. Mubarak said it best when he recently remarked that the situation in the Gaza Strip "has led to Egypt, in practice, having a border with Iran." In other words, Hamas has allowed Iranian influence to come far too close for the Arab states' comfort.

In many ways, the falling-out between Hamas and the Arab regimes is not surprising. The decline of Nasserism in the late 1960s essentially meant the death of Arab nationalism. Even before then, the Arab states put their respective national interests ahead of any devotion to pan-Arab nationalism that would have translated into support for the Palestinian cause. As Islamism gradually came to replace Arab nationalism as a political force throughout the region, the Arab regimes became even more concerned about stability at home, given the very real threat of a religious challenge to their rule. While these states worked to suppress radical Islamist elements that had taken root in their countries, the Arab governments caught wind of Tehran's attempts to adopt the region's radical Islamist trend to create a geopolitical space for Iran in the Arab Middle East. As a result, the Arab-Persian struggle became one of the key drivers that has turned the Arab states against Hamas.

For each of these Arab states, Hamas represents a force that could stir the social pot at home — either by creating a backlash against the regimes for their ties to Israel and their perceived failure to aid the Palestinians, or by emboldening democratic Islamist movements in the region that could threaten the stability of both republican regimes and monarchies. With somewhat limited options to contain Iranian expansion in the region, the Arab states ironically are looking to Israel to ensure that Hamas remains boxed in. So, while on the surface it may seem that the entire Arab world is convulsing with anger at Israel's offensive against Hamas, a closer look reveals that the view from the Arab palace is quite different from the view on the Arab street.

Dead of Winter

Looks a little something like this in Minnesota:

Sweet Potato Soup with Chilies and Honey

I tried and loved this very easy recipe for sweet potato soup. The flavors are interesting and complex because of the mix of spicy/savory and sweet and because of the roasting of the sweet potatoes. In the dead of winter, I'm always craving creamy food and this is at least a little creamy without being full of the calories that usually come with creamy.

2 lbs fresh sweet potatoes, peeled and cut into wedges (I cut them into slabs of relatively uniform thickness so they cook evenly)
2 TBSP olive oil
1/2 tsp hot pepper flakes
1/2 tsp ground cumin
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp black pepper
1/4 cup golden honey
6 cups chicken stock

Options for garnishes:
1/2 cup heavy cream whipped to soft peaks
1/2 cup fresh cilantro leaves, chopped
1/2 cup pumpkin seeds

Preheat oven to 375 F, with rack in the middle. Put all ingredients except stock (and optional garnishes) in a medium bowl and toss very well. Tip everything onto an ungreased heavy cookie sheet or shallow roasting pan. Bake at 375 F for 40 minutes, but check them after 25 minutes. (You don’t want any blackening on the edges, but you do want them to brown well in a few spots. If you get black spots on any of your wedges, don’t use them in the soup – just eat them.)

Put the stock in a large pan over medium heat and add the roasted sweet potatoes and simmer for 20 minutes.

Blend to a smooth puree, either with an immersion blender or in small batches in a blender. Check the consistency; if too thin, return to pot and simmer further; if too thick, add water or stock.

Optional: add garnish to dished soup. I recommend a good crusty bread to go along with it.

This recipe was printed in the Fall 2008 issue of Real Food, a magazine provided free by Lunds & Byerlys (my favorite grocery stores), and I post it here with permission from the magazine's editor, Dara Grumdahl. The recipe is the creation of caterer Serena Bass.

More on taxes from the CBO

From Mankiw:
...

Here are the total effective federal tax rates for 2005, the most recent year available:

Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent
...

Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent

N.B.: These figures include all federal taxes, not just income taxes.

Tax Transparency

A lot of talk going on about the President-elect’s tax concessions in order to get the Rethugs, or at least some of them, to go along with his economic recovery plan.

One of the ideas I’ve heard floated is a sort of tax holiday in which, instead of rebates, employers simply wouldn’t deduct any income taxes from the employee paychecks for a certain period. I used to think this would never happen because it would give taxpayers a painful reminder about taxes once the holiday ended and their checks went back down to the pre-holiday amount. It would make that income tax too transparent. Of course, any taxpayer with a brain sees the amount that is deducted but I believe there are many taxpayers who see their refunds as some sort of windfall they get every spring. I know people who actually ask employers to withhold at higher rates than necessary to enforce saving when they should have been using the time value of money to increase net worth. Because of lunacy like this, maybe a holiday can be safely implemented.

I also hear it tossed around a lot on the right that among industrialized nations, only Japan’s corporate income tax rate exceeds ours. I have never understood corporate income taxes except that politicians know they can succeed because they are not transparent. Corporations are not taxpayers; they are tax collectors. At least one’s local sales taxes are visible. Lawyers out there know there are ways to avoid those corporate income taxes on the federal level (at least for smaller businesses) by making a sub-S election or jumping through other hurdles. I don’t get why a corporation, upon reaching a certain size, should become a tax collector. If we want transparency, let’s drop the corporate income tax and increase my income tax accordingly.

The Sopranos

One of the running jokes with my friends is how long it takes me to jump on bandwagons. Books, movies, music, tv. One prime example is Seinfeld. I didn't start watching it until maybe season 3 or 4, even when my friends were telling me how great it was. It WAS great. It IS great. In my opinion, the best tv series ever. The Sopranos is another example. My excuse is/was that I don't have HBO. But even after being released on dvd, it still took me until maybe last year to start checking the series out.

I finished Season 3 yesterday. While I'm finally getting and seeing the subtle humor (whether intentional or not is up to some debate I think), I'm still not seeing what all the hype was about. It's good, it's different, but I'm not sure I would have made it to season 3 if I had been watching it real time. As for the humor, I question the humor aspect based upon listening to the commentaries that are part of some of the episodes. The directors and the creator (David Chase) make comments about inside jokes, extremely subtle lines, the way the actors made something funny that might not have been written that way, etc. So that makes me question whether the humor was intended or just a part of the actors playing it that way. I guess it's both and maybe that is the genius that everyone else sees.

Season 3 did have, so far, my favorite episode - Pine Barrens. Basically a debt collection gone bad - way bad. The stuff in the woods is very funny and the comments on the commentary (by director Steve Buscemi of Fargo fame) gave a lot of insight into how they filmed the wood scenes. He mentioned several times how the actors underplayed scenes that made the humor even better. The episode had a very "Fargo" feel, which he said wasn't intentional at all. It just happened to snow at the location before and during the 4 day filming.

I will start Season 4 in the next week or so (thank you Netflix). I'm not sure what direction Season 4 will go in, but I have to think that a couple of the regular characters have to have something bad happen to them. Time will tell.

Medicare/Social Security Ponzi Scheme

From John Stossel at JWR:

Ten years after Social Security passed in 1935, there were almost 42 workers for each retiree. Five years later, the ratio slipped to about 17 to 1. Now it's about 3.4 to 1. Thirty years from now, the ratio is projected to be 2 to 1.

Think of the burden on those two to three workers who'll have to support one retiree for 15 to 20 years.

With African-American males having the shortest life spans and white women having the longest...who's taking care of my mother?

Thank you credit/financial/mortgage crisis

To date, the only effect the financial crisis has had on C and I was in a negative way, as mentioned here. Well, now we've had a positive. I spent most of the day yesterday on the phone going through the process of refinancing our mortgage. Went from a 30yr @ 6.58% to a 15yr @ 4.69%. Our monthly payment went up just a bit, but the prospect of paying off the mortgage in at least half the time is very, very attractive. Then we can start on the vacation cabin in Wisconsin.

Re: Daily Coyote

Wow. I finally took the time. Those photos are amazing. Even if this ultimately ends not so well (as I suspect it might), it is an interesting experiment.

Take your time and follow Stephanie's advice and start from the beginning.

Good Heavens!

Take a look at these guys...flying. Yep. Flying. Stolen from Hot Air.

Dallas "winter" weather

The weather in the DFW is so weird. Saturday C and I were doing yard work (raking leaves, cleaning gutters, taking down Christmas decorations) wearing shorts with the temp near 80. Yesterday, it never got above 44. Today, freezing rain and temps near freezing. A week or so before we left for Wisconsin for Christmas, it was 80, then down to the highs in the 20's for 3 days, up to the 50's, then down to the 30's and back to the 70's in the span of 7 days.

Can anyone say...climate change????

The Daily Coyote

Shreve Stockton is a writer and photographer who has transplanted herself from NYC to a 12X12 cabin in Wyoming. In 2007, she was given a coyote pup, 10 days old, by a cowboy who'd just orphaned the pup by killing its parents and siblings (for his government job to protect cattle from coyotes) and who later becomes her boyfriend. She's raising the coyote, Charlie, and lives with him. She chronicled their first year in a book, The Daily Coyote, which I have not read. She also blogs about the experience here, with lots more pictures (beautiful pictures) than text. I recommend starting from the beginning, to enjoy watching Charlie grow up. Among other fascinating things, the coyote gets along great with her cat. Of course, there's plenty of criticism out there for her for raising a wild animal and for pimping out the coyote (besides the book, she sells calendars and T-shirts), and for giving (crazy) people the impression they should raise coyotes too (she strongly discourages this). I'm suspending judgment and just enjoying the beautiful photography of coyotes and Wyoming.

Book report: All the King’s Men

This was a book club pick that I wasn’t all that excited to read, but I’m glad we did. It’s a classic of contemporary American fiction and It has been a gap in my literary education but now I’ll know what people mean when they reference this.

Set in the 1920’s in a Southern state, it’s loosely based on Huey Long’s political operation in Louisiana. Ostensibly, the main character is Willie Stark who begins as a small-time politician used by the state political machine to its own ends and rises to become governor and the boss of his own ruthless corrupt political machine. Willie’s corruption is different from the machine he’s supplanted; he’s doing it for the good of the people and he secures cooperation by threatening to divulge others’ secrets rather than offering them cash.

The real main character, though, is the narrator, Jack Burden, who tells us Willie’s story. Jack reveals his own story along the way and we get to know him through his observations and long and intricate descriptions of things.

It reminds me a smidge of Virginia Woolf (with the stream of consciousness narration), a little bit of Catcher in the Rye (Jack and Holden are similarly emotionally disconnected from the worlds they describe), with a splash of noir with some mystery, patter in the dialogue, and deliciously overwrought metaphors on every page, a few of which have graced the subhead recently. The metaphors alone are reason to read the book. I may have used this as a subhead, but I’ve forgotten, and it’s worth enjoying again anyway:

Duffy was face to face with the margin of mystery where all our calculations collapse, where the stream of time dwindles into the sands of eternity, where the formula fails in the test tube, where chaos and old night hold sway and we hear the laughter in the ether dream.

It won the Pulitzer in 1947. Two movies have been made of it, one in 1949 and one in 2006. The 2006 version (Sean Penn, Jude Law) was on Ebert's list of the worst movies of 2006.

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle

I normally stay away from any and all things "Oprah". Had I known that this was an Oprah Book Club selection, I might not have asked for this for Christmas. But, it got great reviews and was set in rural, northern Wisconsin. Since we recently purchased land in northern Wisconsin, I was interested.

This is a long book (560+ pages) and is rather slow. Not boring slow, but slow. It held my interest through-out, whether in the description of the training of the dogs they raised, the bond between mother and child, the bond between child and family "pet", the description of life in a remote setting, the portrait of the landscape and sounds and smells of that part of Wisconsin.

I had read a blurb somewhere that the author has been approached to write a sequel; sadly (I thought), I read this before I had finished the book. So I was somewhat (though in a strange way) pleasantly surprised at the ending. In what way the author would write a sequel is enough to ensure I check it out if in fact he writes one.

I think both of my fellow contributors would love this book, if for no other reason than being dog lovers/owners. The setting in the NW part of Wisconsin should be familiar enough to Stephanie; for Scooter, well no guns, but lots and lots of dogs.

GM, Chrysler and Treasury v. Ford

When I heard about the GMAC bailout, I didn’t connect the dots. Per the WSJ, what a slap in Ford’s face:

When the Bush Treasury decided to bail out Detroit, GM and Chrysler quickly said yes to the taxpayer cash, but Ford Motor Co. said it didn't need the money and declined. Ford's reward for this show of self-reliance? Treasury is now helping GM again by giving it a credit pricing advantage against Ford in the marketplace.

That's one little-noted result of Treasury's action earlier this week to rescue GMAC, the GM credit arm that, as it happens, is 51% owned by the Cerberus private-equity shop that also owns Chrysler. With $5 billion in taxpayer cash in its pocket, GMAC quickly decided to offer 0% financing on several of its models. "I think it would be fair to say that without this change . . . we would not be able to do this today," explained GM Vice President Mark LaNeve in a conference call with reporters this week.
…

This is always what happens when politicians decide to muck around in private industry. Even when made with the best intentions, their policy decisions have unintended consequences that help some companies at the expense of others. Meanwhile, your neighbor who buys a GM SUV this weekend with 0% financing should thank you when he pulls into the driveway. He did it with your money.

An Austin Legend passes

Feel like an active, community oriented/interested person? You just think you are. A fellow lion Willie Kocurek passed away yesterday. I met and talked to him a few times through Lions but I certainly couldn’t call him anything more than an acquaintance.

Just some snippets from today’s Austin American Statesman:

Willie Kocurek, a former Austin school board president, merchant and bow-tie-wearing pitchman recognized as a tireless civic advocate, died Thursday of natural causes at the Westminster Manor retirement home. He was 98.

Kocurek, who had an elementary school in Southwest Austin named for him in 1986, was known for his gracious personality and can-do spirit. He spent his life advocating for a variety of causes, including care for the elderly and education. He was a perpetual student, entering law school at age 67 and starting a practice at age 70.

"He didn't stick to one theme and one passion," said Joyce Lauck, executive director of Austin Groups for the Elderly, which Kocurek co-founded in 1986 to provide resources to seniors. "Underlying all of it was care and concern and making the community better."
...
Kocurek remained vigorous throughout most of his life, also working as a banker into his 90s.
...
His slogans "Where there's a Willie, there's a way" and "You don't need money, just a little bit a month," as well as hand-drawn Mr. K. newspaper ads, led him to be called one of the most visible and often-quoted men in town.
...
A newer generation of Austinites knew him on the airwaves as a promoter of education.
"He knew everybody and everybody knew Willie; he was friendly to everybody," said one of Kocurek's grandchildren, Dr. Jeffrey Kocurek, an Austin urologist. "I have patients come into my office every day saying 'I met your grandfather. Your grandfather gave me credit when no one else would."

Kocurek served on the Austin school board from 1946 to 1954, the last four years as board president. In recent decades he offered his quasi-celebrity to the Austin school district as an advocate for school bond referendums, appearing on television to urge Austinites to approve the measures at the polls.
...

Eventually, he bought that service station and expanded it from a place that sold gas and lube jobs to what became the Willie Kocurek Co. Kocurek also began wearing a leather bow tie.
"The reason it was leather was oil could be wiped off," he recalled once. That evolved into red cloth bow ties sewn by his wife Maurine, an Austin native whom he married in 1934.
...
Indeed, Kocurek enrolled at the University of Texas School of Law in 1977. He had gone to law school in 1943, but his work schedule and service in the U.S. Navy during World World II interrupted his studies.

In the 1980s, Kocurek chaired the Austin school district's Forming the Future long-range planning project, which involved 14,000 Austinites developing goals and building plans for the district. From that came a $210 million bond issue that voters passed overwhelmingly in 1983.
He later chaired an $80 million bond election drive for the school district in 1986.
...
J.P. Kirksey, past president of the Austin Founders Lions Club, a group Kocurek belonged to since 1939, once told the American-Statesman: "He gave an unselfish sharing of himself."

The last Cotton Bowl at the Cotton Bowl

To continue my sports theme for the past 2 days, I thought I would mention the Cotton Bowl game to be played today. Ole Miss vs Texas Tech. Normally, I would be for the SEC team (Ole Miss), but for reasons too complicated to go into, I'm rooting for a BIG TT win today.

I also won't get into the whole thing about why the game won't be played in Dallas or the Cotton Bowl stadium anymore. My interest is about why is the game being played on January 2, instead of the traditional Jan 1 date? It's a work day for most and the game will be over around 4-5pm, which will help nicely with the Friday afternoon traffic mess that is bad enough without adding 70,000 more folks around Fair Park. Nice planning. I guess they want everyone to get used to the traffic hell that will happen at the new "Jerry World" stadium in Arlington - a stadium that will hold between 85,000 to 100,000 (depending on the event) with even less parking and traffic flow options.

So long Cotton Bowl as we knew you - we'll miss you (maybe).

NHL Winter Classic

The NHL played their 3rd Winter Classic (outdoor game on 1/1) today at Wrigley Field in Chicago. The Chicago Blackhawks vs the Detroit Red Wings. My interest in this was two-fold. First, C and I are BIG Wings fans and second, watching outdoor hockey. Since I grew up in Houston, I don't get the whole outdoor hockey thing, but it was obvious that it was a very big deal to the players. The skating wasn't as smooth and fast as you see with indoor games (ice conditions and the wind in Chicago toady played a big role in that), but it was a very entertaining game. Big hits, lot of goals, great saves. The only thing missing, as in most NHL games these days, was a fight.



I posted this last picture to show the uniforms the teams were wearing today, especially the Wings. This was the uniform they wore during their first season in the NHL, back in the 1920's. I liked the shirt, but the socks are awful. The Detroit players described them as "Dr. Seuss uniforms", which is a very accurate description.

The Wings won 6-4. All-in-all a great day for hockey fans.

If you Google

If you search for "Smith & Wesson Model 56" on Google, Scooter's post is the top entry:



Update: Wondering if that's what everyone gets for that search result, or if somehow Google's results are tailored based on one's viewing habits.

Our first 2009 reader

Was from India. S/he was looking at the Smith & Wesson post. Proof is here.

Village Voice just lost a reader...

since they just let Nat Hentoff go per the NYT. Never quite figured out how he fit in there: pro-life and anti-Castro; I guess they kept him around because of his strong voice against the African genocides.

Book Report

Finished listening to Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor by Anthony Everitt. About 13 disks. Loved the first 10. I always love the Julian story and learned a lot more about Antony and Cleopatra but got bogged down in the last 10 years or so of Augustin's empire. Not the author's fault; it was the subject matter.

Have also read Greg Iles's True Evil at the behest of one of our former contributor's spouse. Airport fiction at its best until the denouement. Hated the action ending after a reasonably intellectual joust between the protag and the antag.

Facebook Christians of Kosovo

From City Journal:

...

"Here people are Muslims, but they think like Europeans," says Xhabir Hamiti, a professor in the Islamic studies department at the University of Pristina in Kosovo's capital. "Muslims here identify themselves as Muslim Lite," an American police officer tells me. As Afrim Kostrati, a young bartender, puts it: "We are Muslims, but not really." And Luan Berisha, an entrepreneur, agrees: "We were never practicing Muslims like they are in the Middle East. . . . First of all, we are Albanians. Religion comes second."
...

Many Kosovars are starting to convert "back" to Christianity. Café owner Gazi Berlajolli ascribes the trend partly to American influence. "Most of these people were atheists and agnostics, but they don't want to be seen as atheist Muslims," Berlajolli adds. "So they needed to convert to something else. They want to be able to put `Christian' on their pages on Facebook."

Update: I posted those paragraphs because I couldn’t get beyond “Muslim Lite”, “Facebook” and “young [Muslim] bartender” but the article is well worth reading.

Like a snake eating itself

From TPM:

Treasury also said it will lend up to $1 billion to General Motors so that the company can purchase additional equity that GMAC is planning to offer as part of its effort to raise more capital.

And oh, by the way:

Last week, the Federal Reserve approved GMAC's application to become a bank holding company, which made it eligible to receive money from the financial rescue fund. The Fed's approval was contingent on GMAC raising additional capital.

1160

The number of calories in a quart of egg nog.

Merry Christmas!

Off to Dallas later today. Hope everyone has a great Christmas!

O-spam-a

Apparently, our President Elect has a taste for Spam!

Stratfor on Deep Throat

Again, my weekly flash from Stratfor:

By George Friedman

Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who don't recognize that name, Felt was the "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame. It was Felt who provided Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post with a flow of leaks about what had happened, how it happened and where to look for further corroboration on the break-in, the cover-up, and the financing of wrongdoing in the Nixon administration. Woodward and Bernstein's exposé of Watergate has been seen as a high point of journalism, and their unwillingness to reveal Felt's identity until he revealed it himself three years ago has been seen as symbolic of the moral rectitude demanded of journalists.

In reality, the revelation of who Felt was raised serious questions about the accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the actual price we all pay for journalistic ethics, and how for many years we did not know a critical dimension of the Watergate crisis. At a time when newspapers are in financial crisis and journalism is facing serious existential issues, Watergate always has been held up as a symbol of what journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that others were unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this vision of journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around Felt's role. This is therefore not an excursion into ancient history, but a consideration of two things. The first is how journalists become tools of various factions in political disputes. The second is the relationship between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a Democratic society.

Watergate was about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The break-in was carried out by a group of former CIA operatives controlled by individuals leading back to the White House. It was never proven that then-U.S. President Richard Nixon knew of the break-in, but we find it difficult to imagine that he didn't. In any case, the issue went beyond the break-in. It went to the cover-up of the break-in and, more importantly, to the uses of money that financed the break-in and other activities. Numerous aides, including the attorney general of the United States, went to prison. Woodward and Bernstein, and their newspaper, The Washington Post, aggressively pursued the story from the summer of 1972 until Nixon's resignation. The episode has been seen as one of journalism's finest moments. It may have been, but that cannot be concluded until we consider Deep Throat more carefully.

Deep Throat Reconsidered

Mark Felt was deputy associate director of the FBI (No. 3 in bureau hierarchy) in May 1972, when longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover died. Upon Hoover's death, Felt was second to Clyde Tolson, the longtime deputy and close friend to Hoover who by then was in failing health himself. Days after Hoover's death, Tolson left the bureau.

Felt expected to be named Hoover's successor, but Nixon passed him over, appointing L. Patrick Gray instead. In selecting Gray, Nixon was reaching outside the FBI for the first time in the 48 years since Hoover had taken over. But while Gray was formally acting director, the Senate never confirmed him, and as an outsider, he never really took effective control of the FBI. In a practical sense, Felt was in operational control of the FBI from the break-in at the Watergate in August 1972 until June 1973.

Nixon's motives in appointing Gray certainly involved increasing his control of the FBI, but several presidents before him had wanted this, too, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both of these presidents wanted Hoover gone for the same reason they were afraid to remove him: He knew too much. In Washington, as in every capital, knowing the weaknesses of powerful people is itself power - and Hoover made it a point to know the weaknesses of everyone. He also made it a point to be useful to the powerful, increasing his overall value and his knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the powerful.

Hoover's death achieved what Kennedy and Johnson couldn't do. Nixon had no intention of allowing the FBI to continue as a self-enclosed organization outside the control of the presidency and everyone else. Thus, the idea that Mark Felt, a man completely loyal to Hoover and his legacy, would be selected to succeed Hoover is in retrospect the most unlikely outcome imaginable.

Felt saw Gray's selection as an unwelcome politicization of the FBI (by placing it under direct presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover and an insult to his memory, and a massive personal disappointment. Felt was thus a disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official in an organization that traditionally had protected its interests in predictable ways. (By then formally the No. 2 figure in FBI, Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray's inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies' wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim - who was usually guilty as sin - crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon's crimes as by Ni xon's decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover's playbook in motion.

Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of The Washington Post at the time. They were young (29 and 28), inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess he sought these three characteristics - as well as a newspaper with sufficient gravitas to gain notice. Felt obviously knew the two had been assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to lead them where he wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control, their investigation.

Systematic Spying on the President

And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide and control the young reporters' investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what the White House had done, going back quite far. He could not possibly have known all this simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too many places simply to have been the product of one of his side hobbies. The only way Felt could have the knowledge he did was if the FBI had been systematically spying on the White House, on the Committee to Re-elect the President and on all of the other elements involved in Watergate. Felt was not simply feeding information to Woodward and Bernstein; he was using the intelligence product emanating from a section of the FBI to shape The Washington Post's coverage.

Instead of passing what he knew to professional prosecutors at the Justice Department - or if he did not trust them, to the House Judiciary Committee charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing - Felt chose to leak the information to The Washington Post. He bet, or knew, that Post editor Ben Bradlee would allow Woodward and Bernstein to play the role Felt had selected for them. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all knew who Deep Throat was. They worked with the operational head of the FBI to destroy Nixon, and then protected Felt and the FBI until Felt came forward.

In our view, Nixon was as guilty as sin of more things than were ever proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was carrying out espionage against the president of the United States, not for any later prosecution of Nixon for a specific crime (the spying had to have been going on well before the break-in), but to increase the FBI's control over Nixon. Woodward, Bernstein and above all, Bradlee, knew what was going on. Woodward and Bernstein might have been young and naive, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand who knew exactly who Felt was, knew the FBI playbook and understood that Felt could not have played the role he did without a focused FBI operation against the president. Bradlee knew perfectly well that Woodward and Bernstein were not breaking the story, but were having it spoon-fed to them by a master. He knew that the president of the United States, guilty or not, was being destroyed by Hoover's jilted heir.

This was enormously important news. The Washington Post decided not to report it. The story of Deep Throat was well-known, but what lurked behind the identity of Deep Throat was not. This was not a lone whistle-blower being protected by a courageous news organization; rather, it was a news organization being used by the FBI against the president, and a news organization that knew perfectly well that it was being used against the president. Protecting Deep Throat concealed not only an individual, but also the story of the FBI's role in destroying Nixon.

Again, Nixon's guilt is not in question. And the argument can be made that given John Mitchell's control of the Justice Department, Felt thought that going through channels was impossible (although the FBI was more intimidating to Mitchell than the other way around). But the fact remains that Deep Throat was the heir apparent to Hoover - a man not averse to breaking the law in covert operations - and Deep Throat clearly was drawing on broader resources in the FBI, resources that had to have been in place before Hoover's death and continued operating afterward.

Burying a Story to Get a Story

Until Felt came forward in 2005, not only were these things unknown, but The Washington Post was protecting them. Admittedly, the Post was in a difficult position. Without Felt's help, it would not have gotten the story. But the terms Felt set required that a huge piece of the story not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about an out-of-control government brought to heel by two young, enterprising journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasn't what happened. Instead, it was about the FBI using The Washington Post to leak information to destroy the president, and The Washington Post willingly serving as the conduit for that information while withholding an essential dimension of the story by concealing Deep Throat's identity.

Journalists have celebrated the Post's role in bringing down the president for a generation. Even after the revelation of Deep Throat's identity in 2005, there was no serious soul-searching on the omission from the historical record. Without understanding the role played by Felt and the FBI in bringing Nixon down, Watergate cannot be understood completely. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee were willingly used by Felt to destroy Nixon. The three acknowledged a secret source, but they did not reveal that the secret source was in operational control of the FBI. They did not reveal that the FBI was passing on the fruits of surveillance of the White House. They did not reveal the genesis of the fall of Nixon. They accepted the accolades while withholding an extraordinarily important fact, elevating their own role in the episode while distorting the actual dynamic of Nixon's fall.

Absent any widespread reconsideration of the Post's actions during Watergate in the three years since Felt's identity became known, the press in Washington continues to serve as a conduit for leaks of secret information. They publish this information while protecting the leakers, and therefore the leakers' motives. Rather than being a venue for the neutral reporting of events, journalism thus becomes the arena in which political power plays are executed. What appears to be enterprising journalism is in fact a symbiotic relationship between journalists and government factions. It may be the best path journalists have for acquiring secrets, but it creates a very partial record of events - especially since the origin of a leak frequently is much more important to the public than the leak itself.

The Felt experience is part of an ongoing story in which journalists' guarantees of anonymity to sources allow leakers to control the news process. Protecting Deep Throat's identity kept us from understanding the full dynamic of Watergate. We did not know that Deep Throat was running the FBI, we did not know the FBI was conducting surveillance on the White House, and we did not know that the Watergate scandal emerged not by dint of enterprising journalism, but because Felt had selected Woodward and Bernstein as his vehicle to bring Nixon down. And we did not know that the editor of The Washington Post allowed this to happen. We had a profoundly defective picture of the situation, as defective as the idea that Bob Woodward looks like Robert Redford.

Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult, as we know all too well. There is no simple solution to this quandary. In intelligence, we dream of the well-placed source who will reveal important things to us. But we also are aware that the information provided is only the beginning of the story. The rest of the story involves the source's motivation, and frequently that motivation is more important than the information provided. Understanding a source's motivation is essential both to good intelligence and to journalism. In this case, keeping secret the source kept an entire - and critical - dimension of Watergate hidden for a generation. Whatever crimes Nixon committed, the FBI had spied on the president and leaked what it knew to The Washington Post in order to destroy him. The editor of The Washington Post knew that, as did Woodward and Bernstein. We do not begrudge them their prizes and accolades, but it would have been useful to know who handed them the story. In many ways, that story is as interesting as the one about all the president's men.

Merry Christmas in Big D

Be careful LJ.

DALLAS (AP) - Authorities pressed a manhunt Tuesday for a gunman in a pickup truck who is suspected of killing two people and injuring another in a series of rush hour shootings on Dallas-area roads.

The suspect was last seen Monday evening heading west on Interstate 635, which loops Dallas and connects to other interstates, said Sgt. Gil Cerda, a Dallas police spokesman.

The shootings happened within minutes of each other. Afterward, rush hour traffic slowed along the highway as police shut down all westbound lanes of 635 east of the shooting scenes for several hours.

"I'm getting shot at! I think I'm shot!" the injured big rig driver said in a radio call to his employer, according to a report by The Dallas Morning News.

The employer, Jesse Medford, terminal manager with Dugan Truck Line, told the newspaper that he instructed his driver to pull over, and Medford then called 911.

I'm on my way to LJ's neck o' the woods tomorrow. I'll keep my eyes wide open.

Still a crazy thing

on SSJ. When I post a link, I get all the html language in the box where type. Just realized I need to go to the compose mode instead of "edit html" mode. Nevermind.

Saracuda

John O'Sullivan in the WSJ on the Prime Minister and the Governor of Alaska:

Inevitably, Lloyd Bentsen's famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): "Newsflash! Governor, You're No Maggie Thatcher," sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, "now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher -- and no Dan Quayle either!"

Jolly, rib-tickling stuff. But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.

Re: Fixed

Great work. I never could have done that. I never even could have known my Bowie post did the damage.

Fixed!!!

I deleted some crazy html stuff in Scooter's Dec. 18 David Bowie post.

Layout -- Maybe the last one

I don't think layout posts are the best start on our Pulizter year. Sorry about yet another. Here's the latest exchange with the Help Group.

I would be skeptical except that he seems to have researched and identified a specific thing causing code problems. Scooter, do you want to try deleting it?

Russ Smith

I hadn't seen him in a while. Looks like he's been at SPLICETODAY since last spring.

California AG

I just noticed that Jerry Brown is California's Attorney General.

One more dead end

I had one more idea about fixing the layout. I looked at an old, archived SSJ page, then looked at its html code and compared it to the html code for a current page. When I look at archived pages, the title is messed up, but the post titles are black. But the html code is identical for old pages and current pages.

Layout problem: Help Group response

Here was the Help Group response regarding our layout problem:

Layout - again

In light of that Help Group response about our font, I tried to look at an old SSJ page via the Way Back Machine (to see/copy/paste the html). Way Back only has SSJ for a couple months in 2006 and otherwise you're invisible to it. Also, the post text isn't there -- just the post titles. (Darn it; looks like you had a big immigration discussion I'd like to read.)

I'm out of ideas.

[Update: You were using a different layout back then, so it's no help.]