Scanning 20th century music

I haven't read the book reviewed in this article, but I found it intriguing enough that I plan to get and read "The Rest Is Noise" by Alex Ross. And I thought the review itself provides a reasonably good overview of/introduction to 20th century classical (or "serious" or symphonic or whatever) music for someone who is curious but not very familiar with it. Of course you have to hear music to get an appreciation for it, but if you want a guide to what was significant in the 20th century, the classification of Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Bartok as the century's most influential "modernists," with the sometimes really weird Anton Webern as "chief prophet" and John Cage as wild card isn't a bad place to start, though I'd mention Alban Berg as well. As for those who were less musical bombthrowers but significant, Debussy, Shostakovich, Ives and Sibelius, Benjamin Britten and Steve Reich are worthy of consideration, though I find Prokofiev a more appealing Russian than Shostakovich and I have yet to grasp what it is about Steve Reich beyond a certain hypnotic charm. And I'd rank Ravel at least equal with Debussy.

Medical marijuana progress

Prop. 5, mentioned in the previous post, is expected to pass. There's also encouraging news from other states on the medical marijuana front. In Michigan, Proposal 1, which would allow patients to use marijuana under the advice of a licensed doctor is favored by a solid majority of 59-37, according to a recent statewide poll. Michigan Technology News, for entrepreneurs, has a favorable interview with one of the proponents.

Meanwhile, in Idaho a Republican legislator, Tom Trail, is working on a medical marijuana proposal he plans to introduce in the legislature in January. I spent a fair amount of time in northern Idaho when I was working on my book, "Ambush at Ruby Ridge," and it is very conservative country. For a Republican to make this proposal is encouraging, although it might be a tough sell with Idaho voters.

Drug use: a more humane approach

Here is the Register's editorial on Proposition 5 on the California ballot, which would build on the success of Prop. 36 (passed in 2000) that mandated more treatment and less incarceration for non-violent drug users. It's another proposal from the Drug Policy Alliance, the most constructive thing billionaire George Soros does with his money.

The Register endorsed this proposal, but I actually have mixed feelings. It would certainly be less inhumane for the state govt. to offer treatment rather than incarceration to drug users, but it reinforces the impression that any use of "illicit" drugs is a problem requiring treatment. Sometimes, especially with (most) marijuana use, it is simply harmless and doesn't require expensive treatment, but the government simply getting out of the way and allowing adults to be treated like adults who can take responsibility for their own actions. I'm inclined to think most meth use is harmful to the person doing it, and cocaine and heroin can cause damage to the user. Whether treatment, especially tax-funded treatment, is the proper approach is not necessarily obvious.

Still, little steps away from criminalization may be the best we can get for now. But total decriminalization is the proper goal.

Blowback from Main Street

One way or another, enough constituents got to enough C0ngresscritters to defeat the $700 billion bailout. It took most of the Beltway crowd by surprise. This piece by Steven Pearlstein of the WaPo, published this morning -- and especially the headline, "Dr. Paulson's Tough Medicine, In a Pill the Public Can Swallow -- exemplifies to me the rather complacent and self-satisfied approach of most Beltway commentators. It wouldn't have cost taxpayers anywhere near the advertised $700 billion, he assured us, because Treasury would be buying troubled mortgages and instruments that would turn out to have some value. The wise rulers in Washington were saving Wall Street from itself and saving Main Street, and Main Street shold be grateful.

Well, Main Street wasn't and isn't grateful. Most Americans still don't fully understand the extent to which this mess was made in Washjington, but they have an inkling, and they're a bit sick of having ever more of their money seized to fix messes created by politicians and their friends. Interestingly, Nina Easton at Fortune caught a bit of the anger in her piece.

The expectation is that they'll tweak it a bit and come back with something essentially similar. Instead, they should hit restart and understand that more government intervention is not the solution for a problem caused by too much government. They could start by repealing "fair-value accounting" or mark-to-market, which I discussed earlier. Then cut Fannie and Freddie into bitty pieces and sell them to the private sector in such a way that they get no access -- zero, zilch, nada -- to taxpayers' funds ever again. That's for starters.

Expect more wars

Here is a link to my most recent column for Antiwar.com. Bouncing off the presidential debate on Friday, I predict that whoever is elected we can expect more wars and more aggressive intervention by the U.S. in the affairs of other countries. Both candidates expressed serene confidence in the mission of the U.S. to set the world right; they simply differed over which conflicts were priorities and what kinds of tactics to use. For someone who believes that the United states needs a new foreign policy -- something akin to the "humbler" policy George W. Bush claimed to espouse when he first ran for office -- this was a most dispiriting debate.

Financial crisis a government failure

Here's a link to the piece I did for the Register Sunday Commentary section on the current financial crisis. I think I make a pretty good case that this crisis was made in Washington (though Wall Street has some culpability, of course). But the government created subprime mortgages and pressured banks and other institutions to offer more and more of them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were near-perfect examples of moral hazard. Add the mark-to-market accounting rules that the government required, and you have something of a perfect storm. And of course, the government creates a huge crisis and uses it as justification to grabe even more money and power.

Incidentally, I didn't have room for it in this piece, but while I think John McCain was playing irresponsible faux-populist politics in calling for SEC Chairman Chris Cox's head (full disclosure; Chris was Newport Beach's Congressman for years, I've met him many times and like him) as what could only be seen as a symbolic gesture, I thought the SEC's outright ban on short selling was a big mistake

Bruins: more signs of life

Well, it wasn't the result I wanted, but the game today was somewhat heartening anyway. After not scoring an offensive touchdown for two games, to get to 31 wasn't so bad. And I can't help but thinking that if it hadn't been for that headscratcher of a decision to decline a penalty that would have given Fresno State a 4th and 12 -- immediately after which they scored a touchdown -- we might have had a pretty good chance to win this thing. Being competitive all the way through? I'll take it. I think getting Khalil Bell back at RB made a big difference. It almost makes me think that if Ben Olsen comes back, we just might become a really good team by the end of the year. Or am I dreaming?

Bruins: not expecting much

I'll watch the game, but I'm afraid I might have to be content if the Bruins just show a few signs of life. Fresno State, ranked 24th in some polls, beat Wisconsin in a game I caught some of, and seems to have a first-rate football team this year. There's just a chance that Kevin Craft will find that swagger (and passing accuracy) he had in the second half of the Tennessee game, and there's just a chance that after three games the offensive line, young as it is, will finally come together. But now Trevor Theriot, the fullback and a pretty good blocker, is down. They expect Khalil Bell, slated to start at tailback, will play some, but he's not 100% yet and probably won't play the full game. I'd love to be surprised, but it's looking like that creature fans hate to acknowledge, a rebuilding year. I still love the Bruins, but I think I'm pretty realistic.

Repeal mark-to-market accounting rules

Here's one way government contributed to the financial crisis that has only been acknowledged briefly.

I’ve been working on a piece for Sunday, and the more I look into the financial crisis the more I’m convinced that one of the chief factors behind the crisis is something nobody is talking about, at least in public, though the WSJ has run a couple of articles. It’s called mark-to-market accounting, embodied in Financial Accounting Standard 157, imposed by the government last November, John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has been raising the hue and cry, as has former FDIC chairman William Isaac, along with academics from Wharton and Yale. Here’s the gist:

As explained by John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the free-market-oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute: “[I]f a troubled bank sells a mortgage-backed security at a fire sale, many solvent banks have to take a paper loss on similar assets. This is the case even if the loans are still performing and even if the banks are holding the loans to maturity and simply collecting the payments instead of selling. In a small market such as those for unique securities, one fire sale can set the ‘market price.’

“If all this required was showing a loss to shareholders in annual reports, this would still be bad accounting, but not that much of a contagion problem. But because mark-to-market has been adopted as part of solvency rules, these ‘losses’ contract banks’ ‘regulatory capital’ on paper and mean they can’t make as many loans without being declared technically ‘insolvent.’ So these financial assets become ‘hot potatoes,’ as banks scramble to get them off their books, driving the asset prices down even further. This explains much of the ‘cascading effect’ that has caused the credit crunch.”

Nobody in Washington has been talking about this. I’m convinced that if this rule isn’t repealed we’ll have continuing credit crunches, no matter how much taxpayer money they pour into the system. John Berlau thinks simply repealing the rule would make a taxpayer bailout unnecessary, though there would be some ongoing problems and some bankruptcies arising from people with too much invested in Fannie and Freddie. Here is CEI’s ongoing Bailout Watch blog.

Bailout still not done

The Register decided, while the matter was still under way, to focus on two aspects of the proposed financial bailout: the fact that Treasury Secretary Paulson had asked for unaccountable dictatorial "trust me" powers in the original draft, and the fact that we still have almost no details on just what they really plan to do with all that money. Congress bristled at the unaccountable part (they want their piece of the action and an ability to direct some money to their own preferred interests too. And as of tonight, there's still no agreement. Can't say that I'm terriblyu dispkleased, except that taxpayers will still get nicked and the fact that this thing was made in Washington rather than on Wall Street will never get fully acknowledged.

Live-blogging the debate

My colleagues Steve Greenhut, Mark Landsbaum and I live-blogged the presidential debate tonight at the Register's Orange Punch blog. We didn't score it, as some did, just made comments as it went along. I thought it was fairly even, which probably meant Obama won since foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's turf. As I said at the end, however, it was two imperialists jousting about which parts of the empire they wanted to put resources into, which is hardly satisfying to somebody like me who wants to see a new foreign policy. Ah. well.

A few other comments, based on some channel-switching. Chris Matthews was ballistic wanting Obama to be more populist and talk about the misery of people being laid off and all. But Obama isn't a populist type and never will be. For some liberals, it's always the Great Depression. He also went on and on about how McCain didn't look Obama in the eyes. Big deal, phony issue. David Gergen on CNN scored it for Obama. And Frank Luntz's focus group, composed of undecided independents, he assured us, split 17-10 for Obama

Why should Iowa rebuild Galveston?

This always seems like a tough issue, but the principle is still clear. Galveston got almost flattened by the most recent hurricane, and is asking Congress for $2.2 billion to rebuild. John Stossel has written about and done programs on federal flood insurance (which advertises on TV now). It sounds compassionate, I guess, but providing cut-rate flood insurance in a known flood-prone area or sending federal funds to a place that you know is going to get hit by hurricanes is simply encouraging risky behavior that might or might not be undertaken without subsidies from taxpayers in the rest of the country. Here's the Register's hard-hearted take on Galveston's request, urging Congress to turn it down.

My brother-in-law travels to Texas fairly often and has been to Galveston numerous times. He says, Glen Campbell aside, he can't understand the attraction. Perhaps there's no such thing as a bad beach, but he says Galveston is a long way from being something special in the oceanside department. Yet housing prices are high. Don't know if they would be higher or lower if taxpayers from iowa, Maine and Oregon didn't chip in to rebuiild it from time to time.

I don't think people should be forbidden from living in inherently dangerous places (after all, I live in Southern California, subject to earthquake, fire and even --sometimes -- flood). But people should take responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

The economic mess

I haven't written much here about the current crisis in the financial industry, except to refer you to my piece in the Register week before last on Fannie and Freddie. But I have been paying more attention than I might have wanted to. I'm working on a piece for this Sunday's Register Commentary that will, I hope, explain how most of the crisis has a made-in-Washington rather than a "made on Wall Street" character -- not the result of a failure of the free market, but of too much government intervention into the free market. Meantime, here's a good piece that appeared on the Mises Institute Website with more specific numbers than I had on Fannie and Freddie. The WSJ editorial page has had some of the best commentary, from a piece by AEI's Peter Wallison, whome I interviewed, to several outlining the problems with make-to-market accounting, mandated by the government. Other good pieces here, here, and here.

Incidentally, as much as I think a $700 billion bailout is an extraordinarily bad idea, I'me afraid that we have the makings of a real crisis. The government is likely to make it worse.

Dexter Filkins on Iraq

Here's an especially good report on a recent trip to Iraq by Dexter Filkins of the NYT Magazine. He was last there two years ago, and he found the differences striking. It's much more peaceful, parents take their children to parks without apparent fear, businesses have reopened. Things are definitely better. But it's an extrordinarily nuanced article, mostly straight reporting on things he saw and people he talked to. The improvements, as Gen. David Petraeus fully acknowledges, are potentially fragile, especially since the Shia-dominated government is proving reluctant to incorporate the fighters of the Sunni Anbar Awakening into the national security services. He observed a wedding procession of 25 cars in a Sunni neighborhood, for example, and the groom stopped the car and went over to talk to this American. The groom said how wonderful it was, but pointed to a band of plainclothes Iraqi gunmen gathered at the roadside and said, "It's all because of them."

Money quote: "For obvious reasons, almost no one in Baghdad seems willing to predict the future anymore. Ask anyone, and you are likely to get to the all-purpose Arabic expression, “Insha’Allah” — “God willing.” Everyone, it seems, is trying to enjoy the calm while it lasts.

"But if people here do not want to talk about the future, they still have to plan for it."

"White Flight" reversing in NYC

Here's an interesting little article that tends to confirm Alan Ehrenhalt's thesis, about which I wrote previously, that American cities are oh-so-gradually coming to resemble European cities a bit more, in that the city centers are becoming more and more the domain of the affluent, while the poor and minorities are moving more to the near suburbs. Seems that the proportion of non-Hispanic whites in New York City is now increasing. Ever since 1940 the share of non-Hispanic whites has been declining, but since 2000 there's been a noticeable uptick, half of it since 2006. The city is now 35 percent white, 27 percent Hispanic, 23.5 percent black and 12 percent Asian. Census demographers also found a decline in immigration, both legal and illegal -- not surprising during rough economic times, especially in the construction industry.

Coffee with Robert Fisk

I had the opportunity today, along with my colleague at the Register Steve Greenhut, to share a few cups of coffee with Robert Fisk, the celebrated British foreign correspondent who lives in Beirut and has covered 11 wars and numerous minor conflicts, mostly in the Middle East, now working for the London Independent. He was here for a speech last night at Chapman University, which, alas, I did not attend. Some would call Fisk a bit of an Arabist (he speaks fluent Arabic), as he is apt to be more critical than most journalists of Israel, and most people peg him as somewhat left of center. In the two conversations I've had with him, however (he came for an editorial board in 2002, just before the invasion of Iraq), he hasn't said much that gives off an ideological tinge, but rather has spoken from a deep knowledge of recent Middle Eastern history about the likely consequences of various actions. He has been right more than he has been wrong.

Fisk bemoaned the condition of American journalism, particularly in coverage of the Middle East ("If Tom Friedman is your cutting edge you're in deep trouble"). I can't help but agree. Our paper included, coverage of foreign affairs is generally abysmal. Only a few papers even maintain many foreign correspondents any more. In some ways, that reflects what readers seem to want. Although most Americans can be stirred up reliably to hate the latest foreign dictator our leaders want to demonize this year, few have any real interest in foreign affairs, an interesting situation for a country that has military installations in more than 160 countries. But that's one of the reasons I think the U.S. is ill-suited to be an imperial power, Ah, well.

I took pretty good notes, which I'll use as the basis for this week's Antiwar.com column. A fgew highlights: He thinks the U.S. should disengage militarily from the entire Middle East and South Asia, arguing that our military presence only creates more enemies and people who hate us. He's fascinated that anybody at all was satisfied with the "They hate us for our freedoms" explanation for 9/11. And despite some apparent rumors on the Internet, he's not close to thinking about retirement.

Oh, he has a new book out, "The Age of the Warrior." I have a copy now and will report when I read it.

Celebrating Leonard Bernstein

When I started reading this article I didn't notice the byline, figuring it was one of the NYT's music critics. As I got further into it, I wondered how a critic could know so much about how Leonard Bernstein lived, how dedicated he was to the show that was his life, how completely he put himself at the service of music, how frustrating it was for him to think constantly that he wasn't composing enough, and might not leave a real legacy. So I flipped back and saw that it was written by Michael Tilson Thomas, a distinguished conductor himself (I remember when he was a young lion, aware of him being at USC the same time I was at UCLA; he's a year younger than I, so he's not young any more, except perhaps at heart) and one of many musicians Lennie mentored and encouraged and in some ways taught.

Those who have never been into classical music as much as a nut like me, or those who are too young to have experienced through various media the force of Leonard Bernstein's personality and musicality might find here some of the reasons that he loomed so large in American musical life. For those who want a more detailed view, written at something of a low point in his life, I found Meryle Secrest's 1994 book "Leonard Bernstein: A Biography" quite engrossing

The inversion of American cities?

I'm a little late getting to this, but the trend is long-term and may not be fully established yet. Alan Ehrenhalt of Governing magazine had a fascinating article in the New Republic about a month or more ago. It argued, using Chicago as the first example, that it's just possible to discern a trend that rather reverses the U.S. urban pattern of the last half century or more. With suburbanization, we saw middle-class people move out of central cities (white flight, some called it) and the central cities becoming dominated by the poor and minorities. Ehrenhalt sees a pattern that resembles cities in Europe -- the affluent moving back into the central cities (gentrification squared), and the poor and minorities populating the suburbs, which works because that's where many of the blue-collar jobs are anymore. Deindustrialized cities become more attractive to affluent people, and something like the ideal of a lively urban life becomes more likely.

The trend seems most marked in Atlanta, and although Ehrenhalt cautions that the numbers are still relatively small, he thinks he sees a pattern. Maybe Jane Jacobs' ideal of cities that are really alive and people-friendly will happen eventually, years after her death.

I don't know. Urban patterns seem to happen in cycles as neighborhoods deteriorate and are gentrified and back again. But it would be interesting if cities became more vital at their centers. Even aside from the fact that I probably couldn't afford them, I'm not sure how tempted I would be. Maybe it's age, but a small town works nicely for me so long as I have plenty of bookshelves and access to the Internet.

High-speed train boondoggle

This may be of interest mainly to California readers, but there are 11 propositions on the November ballot, only one of which has to do with gay marriage (#8). Here is the Register's take on Prop. 1A, which would authorize the sale of almost $10 billion (well, 9.95) in bonds as a down payment on a high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It's a marvelous-sounding idea, but like most government-promoted rail plans (this one was put on the ballot by the legislature, not by gathering signatures, it doesn't begin to pencil out. As a Reason "due-diligence" report notes, the projected cost has risen from about $30 billion in 1999 to around $45 billion today for a scaled-back version, and you can be sure the cost would rise further if it were begun. Where would that money come from? The proposal is vague.

I suspect, with the state government having just band-aided a state budget that was $15 billion in the hole, that voters won't go for this kind of increase in bonded indebtedness. But the capacity to believe rosy if unrealistic projectioons is common.

Peter Camejo spiced things up

Peter Camejo, who had become a perennial candidate of the Green Party in California for various offices, a long-time acrivist who also ran as a Socialist Workers Party candidate, died last week. I was pleased he got a chance on a larger stage during the 2003 gubernatorial debates, when the requirement of letting all the declared candidates participate made things a lot more interesting than the usual affair with the chosen ones of the two branches of the Government Party spouting poll-tested platitudes and soundbites. Here's the Register's editorial in memory. Almost all his political ideas were dead-wrong as far as I'm concerned, but I'm glad he was around.

Of course with the bailouts of last week and the likely commitment of $700 billion to try to "stabilize" the markets, the U.S. with Republicans at the helm has become more socialist in action than Peter Camejo probably ever dreamed could happen. Well, maybe it will tie the hands of the next president from taking any substantive action, which wouldn't be such a bad thing. Trouble is, as even the linked article acknowledged, state socialism has never been stable for long.