Four versions of Gatsby – from Alan Ladd to Leo DiCaprio…there was even a silent version with Warner Baxter as Gatsby, but interestingly, William Powell as Wilson.

Other interesting trivia?

John Farrow was signed to direct the 1949 Alan Ladd version, but backed out and Jack Clayton directed. John Farrow is, of course, Mia’s Dad. Mia was Daisy in the ’74 version. Howard Da Silva, who was Ben Franklin in 1776, played Wilson in the ’49 version, and then was Meyer Wolfsheim in the ’74 version.

Other interesting notes: Scott Wilson played Wilson (ha ha) in the ’74 version. Scott also played one of the killers, Dick Hickok, in the film In Cold Blood released in 1967. Guess that role didn’t raise his career capital very much, as Wilson is a relatively minor role in TGG. But is it a minor role? After all, Wilson is the guy who kills Gatsby in the end. He actually gets a little more screen time than his successor, Jason Clarke. Jason is an Aussie who never plays Aussie. The last time we saw him he was the ‘extractor of intel’ in Zero Dark Thirty. Notice I neglected to label him ‘torturer’. Refer to previous blog on that topic!

More trivia: Francis Scott Fitzgerald wrote the novel TGG; Francis Scott Key wrote The Star Spangled Banner, which did not become our national anthem until
1931. Francis Ford Coppola, of Apocalypse Now fame, wrote the screenplay for the ’74 version of TGG, after he’d become a household name for directing The Godfather in 1972. Francis the talking mule didn’t write anything, but he did talk. Isn’t that good enough for an equine?
So enough with the trivia – who cares, right? It’s trivial…

OK, let’s not dither: the big question that must be asked and answered: how likely is it a man would work so hard and then give up so much simply for the love of a woman? But was it love, or was it an overwhelming need to possess?

And what was it he wanted to possess – the person or the idea?

If you Google “Analysis of TGG” or “Evaluation of TGG” or similar words, you will get a zillion hits more than happy to give you an analysis of the story. Since it is a classic and has all those classic themes in it – FSF knew what he was doing – you can read what FSF intended from a dozen different angles. But will it really capture the essence of what this is about? Ladies, have you ever known any man like Jay? I surely have not. But maybe I’m not the woman Daisy was. Or Zelda Fitzgerald was, since there are obvious comparisons between Daisy and the real Zelda.

But I’m going way out on a limb here with a take on the character out of the mainstream, so get ready. What really drove Jay to these extremes?

OK, first a step back. If you’ve seen both versions – the ’74 and the current version – you get a slightly different story and a different level of passion/obsession from the actor playing Jay. There really wasn’t much chemistry between Redford and Farrow, and since the film editor was clearly in love with both of them, there’s entirely too much dwelling on their respective, lovely blue eyes staring at one another. So to obtain this insight, I had to juxtapose both portrayals alongside the real Jay – the author, FSF. And what do you get? A man deeply out of his element – a WASP-ish Truman Capote. I’d argue Scott Fitzgerald – despite his marriage and affair with Sheilah Grahame in his Hollywood days – was a closet gay. Jay’s obsession with Daisy has nothing to do with a man/woman love affair – they just never happen that way! I see Daisy as a metaphor for an unrequited love that FSF could never explore in his lifetime. A love affair with a man.

Why do I come to this conclusion?

I’m thinking that Nick Carraway – the aloof narrator – was gay and in love with Gatsby. So in some ways it seems Nick and Jay are two sides of the same individual – FSF himself. The alcoholism, stormy relationship with Zelda, close relationship with Hemingway – all things point to the conclusion that he was gay. OK, having stated this conclusion, what of it?

FSF was a lapsed Catholic, and we know about the guilt trips inherent in that, even if you’re straight. As famous as he was, he never really made much money – TGG was not considered a classic until after his death. No money, an expensive, ill wife and guilt over ‘inapt’ feelings would drive any man to become a roaring alcoholic, yes? I think it was Wilson’s comment toward the end of the story – after he finds out that something ‘funny’ is going on with Myrtle, his wife – he says “God is watching and he sees all”. The quote seems totally out of context for what we know about the character, before and after. I think it’s a clue to FSF’s personal struggles with his sexuality. But I seem to be the only one that sees it. Oh well…

Post Script: Maybe somebody else saw the same thing: a guy named Greg Olear, an adjunct literature professor. He goes so far as to agree with my assessment about Nick, but draws the line at saying Nick is FSF. Even tho’ in the beginning of his essay – reproduced in the on-line magazine Salon – he notes the similarities between FSF and Nick’s backgrounds. And his opinion comes from having read the novel multiple times – hey – maybe I need to add it to my book list, eh? Break from book club and Gen-X…oh my..

We went to the movies yesterday. Prior to departure we had to decide which movie to go see. On Saturday, Robin had volunteered that she still wanted to go see The Great Gatsby, if for no other reason than to hear Jack White’s rendition of The Edge’s song, Love is Blindness. Here is the bridge in that song:

A little death Without mourning
No call and no warning
Baby, a dangerous idea
that almost makes sense

If you haven’t heard Jack’s rendition of it – available on You Tube, you are missing an extraordinary cover. You can feel the emotion that The Edge was feeling when he wrote the song, apparently a reflection of the breakup with his first wife. To say Jack’s version contains raw emotion is to do it an injustice. It really is a primal scream.

Back to the movie: because Emily was with us, we decided to go see Star Trek: Into Darkness. The ‘hero’ (anti-hero, really) John Harrison/Khan was portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch, a guy with a fabulous name and a history of great performances on Masterpiece Theatre. Not to be missed is his Sherlock: a modern day version of the Conan-Doyle classic. He and Martin Freeman – lately of Love, Actually and more famously Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – have great chemistry together. The series is riveting (to quote Sheriff Bart) and two seasons are now available on Netflix. The third season is in production, but delayed because of Benedict’s star turn in the Star Trek franchise. God that all sounds like a cheesy ET report, doesn’t it? Pardon me whilst I put a finger down my throat for a second.

There – all better. Back to my point. Star Trek: Into Darkness.

This is the second of the ‘prequels’ with Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine playing the young Spock and Kirk characters. The first of their efforts was good enough to justify a second, and this one does not disappoint. But about a third of the way through, I began to get it: kind of like Gen-X “Let Tra Chore”. This isn’t just another shoot-em-up in outer space flick: this is MET TA PHOR I CAL…Draw out that word and repeat it three times, and you’ll get a sense of what’s goin’ down here.

There was very little edginess to the plot, so I’ll just tell you what it is: this guy John Harrison, no really Khan, John Harrison is just his alias, starts shooting up Star Trek heroes from previous episodes along with a few other extras. Who is this guy and why is he doing these mean things? Kirk and Spock are sent to kill him. Period. Bad dude..kill him with 72 photon torpedoes.

They go to the Klingon “Homeland” (first clue to the METAPHOR) where Harrison/Khan is hiding. The S/T crew are about to be killed by Klingons when Harrison/Khan shoots all of those guys who don’t look nearly enough like Mr. Warf. When Kirk goes to ‘arrest’ him because his other do-gooder pals are paling at the idea of being executioners (second clue to the METAPHOR) Harrison/Khan asks how many photon torpedoes are on the ship. When Kirk tells him 72, the bad dude immediately surrenders. Um hm…

Aw, gee – no more plot, just cut to the chase with the point. The Metaphor: we are being taken to task for having responded to 9/11 by doing all the things we’ve done, are doing and are telling people we will continue to do because it’s justified. The victims have become the hunters. Seems John Harrison was a guy in suspended animation from another time, awakened to help the Federation get a pre-emptive jump on the Klingons to destroy them. The 72 photon torpedoes each contain one of Khan’s crew members, essentially being held hostage to ensure Khan does what he is told. When Kirk answered him with the number 72, Khan knew his crew was still alive in those torpedoes, on the Enterprise. So he sacrifices himself to save them.

Everybody’s known since the days of Nimoy and Shatner that those Klingons are really terrorists determined to kill all us white folk. But in the plethora of previous Star Trek episodes, the Federation never crossed the pre-emptive strike line before. They’ve always played defense, and at the end of the episode the world was safe again – at least until those dastardly Klingons dreamt up a new strategy to do us harm. But see Mr. Warf’s color? I noticed these Klingons got lightened up – in fact I said something about it during the movie, but Emily told me in no uncertain terms that there was no talking in movies, so any further comments had to be kept to myself. But you can’t tell me this “lightening up” of the Klingon characters was a subconscious act on the screenwriter’s part. This was likely a combination of political correctness and their attempt at subtlety. Sorry, buddies, but I’m onto ya!

So in the end, it’s always gonna be about – the drones. Yes, I’ve said it: the God Damned Drones. As I have stated before, and I will say it again: the drones will be the downfall of all we know and hold dear. Kirk makes a statement at the end of the movie. He says it’s easy to lose sight of what’s right and attempt to take revenge on those that attack us. But that’s not who we are. Oh yeah? Apparently it is who we are and who we intend to continue to be.

So back to those bridge lyrics – you knew I’d get back around to that sooner or later, didn’t you?

A little death Without mourning
No call and no warning
Baby, a dangerous idea
that almost makes sense

Sounds like God Damned drone strikes to me.

As promised in a previous post, I have taken to reading emblematic Gen-X literature (pronounced let tra chore…eh heu!) to try to better understand the first of my progeny’s demographic group. The first venture into this wading pool (cesspool?) was Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk. I’m sure you have seen the movie, which kind of spoiled the end for me, as I’ve seen it too (and liked it very much). But recall the reading was from the point of view of Gen-X Lit, so knowing the twist at the end was secondary.

And the conclusion to which I came? The song remains the same: unlikeable characters carrying out heinous activities without remorse or even conviction. Slouching toward Nirvana … yes, a thickly veiled allusion to Cobain..another Gen-X’er. Gee whiz – they’re everywhere!

But wait: let’s talk about why Gone Girl and Fight Club are so popular with audiences. What is it about readers like us that we find such nasty characters so attractive? I can only speak for myself, not having any creds as a psychoanalyst or such…I find bad people far more interesting than good people. Well, duh! Hey, wait: not so fast.

Look at prime time (and not so prime time) network television these days. COPS. Hoarders. The Suze Orman show! The Price is Right. All of these shows feature people who do foolish or just plain stupid things and get busted or punished for their transgressions. We look down on these people. We would never do idiotic things like the people on these shows. So that makes us some kind of voyeurs, peering into their lives and judging them as wanting. But is their behavior the same as that of the sociopathic narcissists found thus far in GXL (new shorthand for Gen-X Let tra chore)? Nay, nay I say. In fact, I’d argue they are exactly the opposite! Ah ha – now we’re onto something…

We’ve got what cha might call this love/hate relationship thing going on. The people we watch on television are people we either love or we hate. We love the bad people who get away with being bad. We hate good, ordinary people who do foolish things and get caught…How’s that for some insight there? We love winners and we hate losers. Simple..

Which brings me to the heading of this post: Nurse Jackie. Four seasons came & went, with the heroine of the story, Jackie Peyton, doing bad things and getting away with them. We rooted for Jackie, even tho’ we knew she was doing wrong. She hurt her family with her infidelities and drug use; she hurt her employer by violating clear drug policy (aided and abetted by the hospital administrator who didn’t want to lose her best nurse). She hurt her friends by engaging in a sexual relationship with the druggist Eddie, oh but forgetting to inform him that she was married and had kids…a fact she hid from all her co-workers.

But in spite of all her misdeeds, we still wanted her to succeed in her misadventures. Why? Because we knew for sure that Jackie was a survivor – a winner in the tough game of life. And we want to be like that as well.

So what happened? The two founders of the series left the show (for personal reasons: what the hell does that mean?) and got replaced by two guys. And what happened to Jackie? Aargh…she’s kicked drugs, has become Eddie’s “friend”, has a new relationship with a NYPD sweetie pie and is doing her best to be a mother to her children. OMG! What is up with all that?

When at the end of Episode 5 these two ‘guys’ that run the show opined that they wanted Jackie to get some relief from all her angst, it struck me as a rather odd thing to say. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Men cannot stand the idea of a woman being bad and getting away with it. It just strikes them at their core (and we know what part of their anatomy resides there: ref back to phrase with pic at the top of this post). So we have a little internal psychodrama going on here with NJ – and one I predict that will end up dooming the series. Of course! What better way for Jackie to get her comeuppance than to get cancelled? Whew…that’s deep. So un-GXL…

PostScript: Did a little surfing to find out that the two creators – Linda Wallem and Liz Brixius – are a lesbian former couple. According to some, their hostility to each other post-breakup made things difficult for the cast & crew. Say, what? Sounds like they got the boot to me. New President of Showtime – a guy. Two new guy show runners. Um hm…well well. I rest my case.

Hey, Enough About Baseball –

Let’s get back to something really important: the Japanese Economy! (I can hear your collective groans all the way up here…now ya’ll just cool it and listen)

Last night the Nikkei Dow dropped 1,423 points – a 7.3% drop in one day – the biggest in 13 years. Whoa! Why, you inquire? (you really do want to know – you know you do!)

Depends on who’s being quoted in the financial papers today. Was it Helicopter Ben’s comments yesterday before Congress saying QE-infinity isn’t infinite, and in fact the Fed will begin to ‘taper’ (his word) in the 4th quarter? Ouch! Maybe…

Or was it the publication of the manufacturing index for China indicating a significant slowdown in Chinese manufacturing production? Oh no! Maybe…

Or maybe it was just that the Nikkei Dow – up a whopping 70% in six months – just got a little bit ahead of itself, and when it surpassed the U.S. Dow, that gave investors – mostly foreign hedge funds – a desire to cool it for a bit?

Or maybe it’s a little of all those things –

There was even some discussion about the situation with Japanese banks and a bond rout. If you recall, on January 2nd, in the post titled The Phoenix Rises from the Ashes, I cited AEP and his observation that Japanese banks held a lot of government bond debt that would get to be more expensive to service when the yen was devalued. I believe the last line was something about chickens coming home to roost in the East – well: look out for some flying birds on their way to the henhouse.

Now it can be told: drum roll, please!

Brrrrrrrr…Rum!

Michael came up here Thursday night, and we spent most of yesterday creating the Excel spreadsheet to analyze baseball team performance. We used a combination of a “P” chart and Bill James’ Pythagorean Expectation….whoa! What the devil are you talking about, you ask?

OK, so in my excitement I’m getting ahead of myself…

Back to the beginning. Recall in my last post I talked about doing a ‘single point chart’ to try to assess which teams were most likely to make it to the playoffs? Well, upon further inspection, I deduced that a single point chart was not the appropriate way to proceed. Why? A single point chart is good for analyzing things like accounting information. I used it for electric bill analysis to try to determine why some schools were using more electricity than others. But that really didn’t work for a baseball result: they either won or they didn’t on each game. So upon further “inspection” (little TQA joke…ah hem) and upon further reading of the AT&T Statistical Quality Control book (the “Bible” for these things) I decided that a “P” chart was best. What’s a P Chart used for? Manufacturers would use a “P” chart to figure out the minimum and maximum number of defects coming out of batches of widgets. So how does that apply to baseball? Simple: a win is a ‘good’, and a loss is a ‘defect’. When you have 41 or 42 ‘batches’ (i.e. games) you can do a spreadsheet and come to some conclusion about the team’s potential to minimize losses, i.e. defects. Clear as mud, eh?

Well, nonetheless we did that and it produced some results. Then we got the Pythagorean Expectation from the Baseball-reference.com web site for each team and put that on the spreadsheet. What’s the Pythagorean Expectation? Nothing more than a calculation based on a team’s runs scored versus runs allowed.

The beauty of using these two criteria is that a) they are based on different data; and b) it provides another layer of confidence in a team’s performance as being based on their skill versus just a lucky streak. If you’re a fan, you’ll know that Atlanta had an amazing streak of wins early in the season. Luck or skill? The Pythagorean Expectation is supposed to sort that out based on the run ratio.

So without further ado, here’s the list of teams that we predict will be at the top of the list at the end of the playing season:

Atlanta Braves
St. Louis Cardinals
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers
Texas Rangers
Arizona Diamondbacks
Baltimore Orioles
Cincinnati Reds
Colorado Rockies
Kansas City Royals

Again if you’re a fan, you will know that there are five American League teams and five National League teams. This is how it’s supposed to work out prior to the Playoffs. So the question will be: how close to accurate will our prognostications be? We predict an 80% accuracy.

Michael spent about 8 hours crunching all these numbers yesterday. He took to Excel like a duck takes to the pond behind our house. So kudos to him for all his work. I’ve noted from several Google searches that nobody else is using this kind of analysis at this point in the process – or frankly at any point. I hope he writes about it and gets some attention, as he’s very knowledgeable and an excellent writer. Good combo, eh?

Note two other factoids: the Oakland A’s, my favorite team, didn’t make the list. And the Miami Marlins – Michael’s favorite? Based on both sets of criteria, they are the least performing team in all of baseball. And after watching their game against Arizona last night, there ain’t much hope of improvement. Well – there’s always next year!

Ah, that is the question: what IS up with baseball? All the ‘usual suspects’ returned from last year to take early leads in their division. Thus far, with 1/3 of the season gone, it appears that we’ll have a repeat of the duels staged last year on the way to the World Series.

But gee whiz – doesn’t that seem vague and – oh, I don’t know – SUBJECTIVE?

In consultation with Michael the Magnificent, I have hit on an idea that just makes a whole bunch of sense. What idea is that, you eagerly ask? Well, I’ll ‘splain it to ja.

He will be coming down next weekend, loaded with lots of data on how the teams have performed thus far. We will take that data and – together – we will develop single point charts. Say, what? Single point charts – google it…you will see.

Well, never mind that – golly gee whiz, I seem to know something others are oblivious to. So let me try to tell you what it is.

A single point chart is one that depicts the average performance of an entity in a given time frame. Boy, that clears it up big time, right? OK, smarty pants, let me try again. Let’s say you want to predict what a stock will sell for in 90 days’ time. Assuming no major upsets – cancellation of the dividend, or an overall crash, you can look at its past performance for say the last 45 days and develop an average. OK, so? You can also determine a range of values, from a low to a high, based on the standard deviation of price change from one day to the next. What good is that? It’s good for predicting upside and downside risk, for one. For another, it’s useful in things like predicting a budget for future expenditures.

OK – what does this have to do with baseball? As I mentioned above, the same teams that won their divisions last year are in first or second place this year in those same divisions. Does this past performance necessarily determine that they’ll make the play offs? That’s why we want to try to predict. And if we can predict that – we can likely predict how the whole thing will turn out, based on current performance.

But baseball wouldn’t be very interesting if you could predict the winner with only 1/3 of the season gone, right? Things change daily for all the teams. But that’s the real advantage to this. Based on when the lines cross the upper and lower limits, you can say that something has changed in the process. A new player that is adding energy to the team? Line likely goes up. A lot of key players might be injured? Line goes down.

As you get more data, the significance of the slopes become more evident. The real test will be after the division winners are declared. Can we use the charts to predict the World Series winner? If it works, Michael will certainly have some interesting columns for his baseball blog. Check it out:

http://www.baseballhotcorner.com

Click on contributors and look for Michael Theed. He’s a wonderful writer and I hope to add to his skill base in accurate predicting outcomes! We shall see…

No really – don’t click to look inside…

Gone Girl is the BAM book of the month for May. BAM is the now nearly three year old book group, Books at Millstone. That’s the group of women who meet monthly in my development to read and discuss books that were read the previous month.

The individual that chose this book earlier this week sent out an e-mail to the rest of us, warning about some issues with language (the “F” word) and activity (sexual in nature). She was just beginning to read the book, and had already sensed this might be a problem. This is because a pastor’s wife attended the book club meeting last month when we covered The Night Circus. The book’s sponsor was concerned that the writing would be too risque for the group, given this new member.

Last night we had the April meeting to discuss the story of Henry Flagler’s ill-fated attempt to build the railroad to Key West, brought to life in Last Train to Paradise. The May book recommender reiterated her concern about the nature of Gone Girl‘s writing. Another member said she’d read the entire book and while yes, there was that inappropriate (?) language and activity, it wasn’t really that terribly bad. A few others chimed in to say they thought they could handle it. And since the pastor’s wife was a ‘no-show’ last night, maybe we could risk it. (Note my illustration for the pastor’s wife: not all are created out of the same cloth…pun intended)

But I’ve already read the book. In fact, I finished the book in two days’ flat. I gave up most of Wednesday night’s sleep to feed my desire to reach the end. As such, inapt language which could potentially offend sensitive eyes notwithstanding, I was hoping they would agree to make it the May book. They did, after a short speech from me about the Gen-X thing. So now I can tell you about the book – sort of a warm up for the May discussion…OK?

Author: Gillian Flynn. Gen X-er. Those born between 1965 and 1980. Called “Gen-X”, per a piece in Time magazine, because they were born between the much larger population of Baby Boomers and Gen Y’s. I have a Gen-X son. I have one cusp daughter, and one Gen-Y daughter. How’s that for diversity? I think having this spectrum of children’s ages qualifies me to understand this book maybe in ways others cannot. So here goes…

Start with the description on the inside-left portion of the book jacket. Looks like an Ann Rule-written Scott Peterson story. Rotten husband gets sick of perfect wife, wants hot girlfriend and kills perfect wife. Being the narcissistic idiot that he is, eventually all is found out – generally through assistance from the doting father – and the reader is satisfied with the bum getting his just desserts after dying his hair and attempting to escape after the girlfriend rats him out.

But wait a sec – cool your jets. This is not at all your typical plot line, as described above.

No, there’s no spoiler alert required here – I won’t disclose much – if anything – of the plot. Why not? Geez, lady, if you say the book was worth staying up all night to finish, why won’t you describe the plot?

Because that would spoil it for you, and because, upon completion of the book, and upon some introspection, that’s not the topic I want to discuss. Hey, it’s my blog – I can do what I want widdit…so just shut the fuck up! (Hey, I’m trying to get you inured to the word so you can handle the language when you read the book…right..)

So I finish the book about 4 am, and my immediate reaction is more about the author than the story. Somewhere – about two-thirds thru – I looked at the back flap to find out about this Gillian Flynn. There are two of them – this one has a hyphen in her website. The other doesn’t, so don’t get confused with the two. This one is Gen-X; the other is clearly Gen-Y. Interesting reality, but not the point so back to it.

If this Gillian is at all representative of Gen-X’ers, oh wow…they are a really nasty bunch. To have thought up the main character – named Amy Elliott Dunne – you more than likely have to possess some of the same characteristics. To quote Dana Carvey doing George H.W. Bush, “scaarrryyy”.

The husband, “Lance” Nick Dunne, isn’t any more likeable than his wife. Amy’s parents are a couple of dipsticks, who have exploited their daughter’s psyche through creating a fictional ‘Amy’ and making a fortune selling books about her as she grew up to adulthood. Nick’s mother is dying of cancer, and Nick’s father has Alzheimer’s, and always was a dick (that’s how he’s described in the book – don’t get all ruffled about this old broad’s bad language).

So here’s the point of my essay – this is the lens through which these unfortunate Gen-X’ers have grown up. That piece in Time magazine is one big whine about boomers’ reflection on the madness of the 60’s, and their younger, Gen-Y siblings’ easy life. So what have you got? Middle child syndrome…never satisfied…somebody always has it better…life is just one great big disappointment. A recipe for murder, you say? A recipe for that and … a recipe for obsession, creative life-role playing to the point of complete destruction and – I’d use the word psychosis, but a walking form of cleverly disguised psychosis.

Whew! Enough – let’s go grab that scary book full of evil and madness…almost as good as The Walking Dead and/or The Vampire Diaries. OK…if you say so.

That’s not what got me. She got me on page 7. Here’s the sentence that did it: “When she spied me lurking there in grubby boxers, my hair in full Heat Miser spike (bold mine), she leaned against the counter and said, ‘Well, hello handsome’.” .

So, you say, what the …? See, I’m working to not say bad words…That was certainly the reaction of the group last night when I told them that was what got me…Of course I had to really stretch my mind to recall the exact phrasing “heat miser hair”, a function of my getting on in age and advanced retirement status. But there it is…what is it? Heat miser hair is a reference to a character from the old Rankin/Bass tv cartoon, “The Year Without a Santa Claus”. Came out in 1973. Erik, my Gen’X son, insisted we watch it at Christmas every year for about 3 years after that. How else would I remember? Bet he remembers it; nah. Six TBIs probably erased that slim memory. BTW: here’s Heat Miser. Get the hair thing?

So that started the thinking about Gen X fiction. Maybe I’ll make a new obsession out of it – just read things on the side of book club assignments to absorb Gen-X fiction to better understand how these abominable creatures came to be. So that’s a topic for a later post…read the book, Goddamit..

This morning’s New York Times has a couple of editorials of interest. The first is from the Editorial Board, commenting on yesterday’s article from the Constitution project, declaring the reality of Bush Administration torture tactics. The second is a contribution from an historian, suggesting that the concern about low birth rates in the U.S. is overblown, and should not be used as justification to loosen immigration standards.

Interesting, eh? Didn’t someone we know write a couple of blogposts about these very topics over the past couple of days? Hmm.., c’est moi, c’est moi as Lancelot sang in Camelot. I am the eggman? I am the walrus? No! I am the diviner of truths to come…

So what that means is I am generally from a couple of days to a few weeks ahead of the curve in public discussion. For example: last August I reminded Barry O that his infatuation with drones would come to tears. What has happened? Ask Rand Paul…

I suggested that the best way for the country to move forward is for Congress and the President to work together. And what have they begun to do (at least the Senate)? Um hm…

So if only I could translate that divination skill to the outcome of horse races and/or foreseeing lottery numbers. But alas, most of this stuff is frankly just common sense. Common sense? A rare commodity these days, but we’re getting better.

Now back to those editorials. The NY Times Editorial board is just looking for more justification – some classified report written by the CIA further documenting abuses. Why? How much verification is needed? They stop short of discussing any potential for prosecution. If they did, the genie would be out of the bottle big-time. Is prosecution inevitable for those evildoers? Not necessarily. The current Administration could go a long way to assuaging the wounds created by the predecessor goon squad. Just as George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton apologized to the survivors of Japanese interment camps in World War II, this Administration can and must apologize for excesses committed in the heat of emotion post 9/11. But how is such a thing possible with the continued use of drones? Well, that’s a no brainer. The apology can accompany the statement that armed drones will no longer be used anywhere without specific permission from a host of sources, at the least the host nation and Congress. That would surely send a clear message that may obviate the need for prosecution.

Finally, the historian’s piece about population and immigration. The author is, of course, also hyping a book he wrote, entitled – yep, you guessed it, some title involving the myth of population decrease. I’d be more specific, but having just returned to the online NY Times, the piece is now no longer available. Guess the editors didn’t care for that guy’s shilling his book. Instead, they give us Grover Norquist. Oh, don’t get started with me on that guy!

Can you believe it? I have several registered followers from Poland. So I’m dedicating this post to them, in hopes that they respond – even if in Polish, since it would be interesting to try to translate what they write. That is, if they are in fact readers and not just ordinary spammers, trying to sell me some Polish vodka.

But ever the optimist, I’ll assume they enjoy my snappy repartee, and talk about Poland.

According to a piece from the BBC, there are no less than 13 major daily or weekly newspapers in Poland. I did a quick scan of them, and each had a picture and article about the bomb explosions in Boston. One English language business journal was quick to point out that there were 30 Poles racing in the marathon, but that none of them were injured. Let’s hear it for the home team. Nonetheless, they were all still concerned enough to inform their readers of this incident.

So to some factoids: Poland is a member of the EU, but one that didn’t get caught up in the debt crisis. They are doing just fine, thank you, and expect to continue that way. Further, Poland has contributed troops to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That fact alone is probably making Uncle Joe Stalin roll in his tomb. The very notion of one of the Soviet Social Republics aiding and abetting America in pursuing armed conflict would be enough to make his moustache madly twitch.

Speaking of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that brings me to another topic of interest. A report in today’s New York Times headline reads:

“U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Nonpartisan Review Concludes”

One’s first instinct is to say, Duh! But the authors don’t reach their conclusions with any degree of equivocation. Check this out:

““it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.”

That seems pretty clear, does it not? So the usual suspects,

are the ones caught in the crosshairs now. An official document like this one – authored by The Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is step one in a multistep process that inevitably leads to prosecution. Prosecution? Yes, prosecution for war crimes. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and yes, even little Condi Rice are all war criminals.

Exaggeration? Hmm..let’s go back to the basics. Definition of a war criminal from Dictionary.com:

“war criminal – an offender who violates international law during times of war”

There’s another definition, this one more generic:

“offender, wrongdoer – a person who transgresses moral or civil law”

Moral or civil law. Wrongdoer – remember GWB’s infamous use of the made up word, ‘evildoer’? Things like this often come back to bite..

So is the U.S. Government going to be the one to bring charges? Heck no, because to do so would also point the finger at the current administration for its acts using drone warfare. No, the flying fickle finger of fate (4F’s) will come from an organization such as Amnesty International. Remember Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, responsible for thousands of deaths after the junta he led disposed of Salvador Allende? Charges against him were brought decades after he committed them by a Spanish court. The rationale? The principle of universal jurisdiction — that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world. See where am I going with this?

What would be the effect of such a prosecution, say in the International Criminal Court in the Hague? The same court that prosecuted Liberian strongman Charles Taylor, as well as Slobodan Milosavich of Serbia. Taylor was convicted and sentenced to fifty years in prison for merely aiding and abetting the civil war in Sierra Leone. His crime? Trading arms for ‘blood diamonds’. That pales in comparison with the Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice crimes, dontcha know. And Slobo? He died of a heart attack before he was convicted, thus ending the trial.

I have always believed that the Cheney Administration should be prosecuted for war crimes. To do so would not only punish wrong doing, but also send a message to the rest of the world that America can be held accountable for its acts. Right now there is no other nation strong enough to compete with the United States. We have a schizophrenic notion of ourselves as world protectors/aggressors. At some point, we will pay for our sins and crimes in far off lands. But in the short term, if I were Dick, George, Donnie or Condi, I’d be real hesitant to travel outside the 4 corners of the good old U.S. of A. You never know who might be waiting with a warrant and 4 sets of handcuffs.

How many times have you heard people say, “Gee – I didn’t know that would happen!” That’s a result of the law of unintended consequences.

Take simple examples from everyday life: you punish your child for not completing their homework by sending them to their room to ‘think about it’. What happens” They promptly start playing video games and ‘forget’ to do their homework again. Law of unintended consequences.

How about a set of problems on a bigger scale – e.g. stringent regulations? After the Exxon Valdez, the federal government changed the rules of the game, and made the law one of unlimited liability for ship owners that create environmental damage. The result? Companies no longer used their own fleet, and switched to fly-by-night outfits with iffy insurance likely to declare bankruptcy if a problem occurred. This is a much bigger, costlier example of the law of unintended consequences. Too much regulation ends up costing more when compared with reasonable regulations and the power of social media to ‘persuade’ companies to do the right thing.

Onto a bigger, pervasive problem of wage deflation that has been occurring for the past twenty years. One of the effects of globalization has been to give multinational companies the ability to move production overseas to wherever labor costs were lowest. This ultimately benefitted the consumer in terms of price reductions. But the consumer is also the wage earner – except for the 1% – so in reality nothing was gained because of reduced ability to buy. Lower wages, I would argue, in large measure contributed to the borrowing binge from consumers attempting to keep their lifestyles on par with the past. They used the alleged equity in their homes to finance that which they could not purchase due to lower wages. We all know how that turned out. That equity wasn’t really there, and when the debt bubble burst, taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Taxpayers? Aren’t those the same people we were just talking about – workers, and consumers? Yes, indeed. How is this possible?

Taxpayers bailed out the banks, not the individual consumer. The individual consumer had to do a short sale or was foreclosed on. For those that used the home like a credit card, I guess you could say they got what they deserved. But the individual that lost their job and therefore couldn’t make the mortgage payments because of the bursting debt bubble? I’m not sure they fall into the same category.

After two decades of wage deflation, a large portion of the population has given up on trying to work. They went through their unemployment benefits and when those ran out, filed for and got disability, food stamps and medicaid. Families in this situation do not live ‘high on the hog’. They pretty much just get by each month and survive to the best of their ability. They don’t buy flat screen TVs and they don’t eat at fancy restaurants. This kind of behavior is not at all stimulative to the economy, and in large measure explains why the so-called ‘recovery’ has been so prolonged in the U.S.

But things are fixing to change. Why? Two important reasons: FRACKING

and DEMOGRAPHICS

OK, you say, I’ll bite: what’s fracking?

Here it is from Investopedia:

Definition of ‘Fracking’
A slang term for hydraulic fracturing. Fracking refers to the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted. Fracking has resulted in many oil and gas wells attaining a state of economic viability, due to the level of extraction that can be reached

OK, what is the benefit of this?

The benefit is in the availability of large quantities of natural gas used in industrial production. Here’s a graphic showing the projected increase in the use of natural gas by industry in the next couple of decades:

That’s a lot of gas.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Companies that left the U.S. years ago for China are now coming back and will soon be looking for skilled workers. Why? Natural gas prices in the U.S. – thanks to this new technology and midwest discoveries of natural gas – are 5 to 7 times cheaper than the price in Europe and Asia. Natural gas is hard to transport across the ocean because of special shipping needs. As such, that cost has to be factored in. Russia supplies Europe, and because energy is really their only source of income, when they need more money they just up the price. If Europe complains, Russia just shuts off the pipe. Good for stability, eh?

What about demographics? China is running out of blue collar workers, and the ones that exist are now being paid higher wages. Moving to Thailand or Vietnam just prolongs the inevitable, because of the same factors that have suppressed the availability of workers in China. Japan is trying a ‘hail Mary” strategy to solve its economic woes. The European Union is, for all intents and purposes, in a depression.

So back to the US – where will these companies find these skilled workers? Demographics are causing an aging population to retire early, or – as indicated above – quit the system and live a subsistence life. Cuts in education funding have eliminated many if not all of the technical programs industry needs to find these workers. The net result?

Aha! The law of unintended consequences. Immigration that took a huge nose dive after 9/11 will be the ultimate salvation of industry. Arizona’s legislation that empowered law enforcement to determine anyone’s immigration status left a big hole in that state’s agricultural work force. Same thing happened in Alabama. All of a sudden legislatures started being asked not to get involved by large agribusinesses. You won’t see that legislation in Florida.

Skilled and unskilled workers will be available from Mexico and Latin America, which still have healthy population increases because of their Catholic institutions. Americans left out of this resurgence from lack of skills or motivation will decry this unintended consequence. But it’s inevitable. And I believe this reality will be a first, big step in the recovery of America’s reputation as the place to go if you want decent employment. Too bad a whole generation of workers had to suffer before that reality came to pass.