As David Boaz said last night, Obama’s talk of blueprints was telling.  A blueprint is a simple plan that an architect imposes on an inanimate object.  Obama really does seem to think that he can manage the economy in the same way.  No, I don’t think that he is a socialist.  Rather, I think that he really believes there are technocratic levers that can make the income distribution flatter, the rate of innovation faster, and the banking system safer, without undesireable side effects.

The problem with all nostalgia isn’t even that it’s necessarily wrong–by many standards, the 1950s was a great time to live.  Rather, the problem is that it almost always wants to turn a transient moment into a steady state–or worse, only “the good parts” of those transient moments.

I had hoped that the last three years had taught Obama the limits of this sort of thinking.  But if they have, he certainly hasn’t chosen to share that hard-won knowledge with the rest of us.

“Those ideas will require congressional approval, and may be a tough sell in an election year, when Republicans are already trying to pare back federal grant and loan subsidies. Other proposals focus on making colleges more efficient, and these ideas are meeting skepticism from the higher ed lobby (or ‘community,’ depending on how you view it).

“The president wants to mimic the ‘Race to the Top’ program used to reform K-12 education, by creating Race to the Top grants for colleges and universities that come up with ways to keep tuition in check. Higher ed officials say this smells like another example of federal overreach into higher ed, a system which, as the president acknowledged in his speech at the University of Michigan today, is viewed by many as the world’s finest.

O most learned of the descendants of Romulus,
as many there are and as many as there were, Marcus Tullius,
or as many as there will be later in years,
Catullus gives you great thanks,
the worst of all poets,
by as much the worst poet of all,
as you the best patron of all.

The Roman comparisons are attractive, if for no other reason than to imagine our friend clad in finely-spun toga, gorging himself to the health of the Republic between trips to the vomitorium. But I think there are other comparisons to be made. Evan has made the strong case for Newt as a “tin-pot Napoleon,” a comparison that certainly bears further consideration, but, while we’re in the realm of Russian literature, I think it’s worth pointing out our protagonist’s uncanny similarities to one Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov.

Like Raskolnikov, Newt fancies himself a great man. The Romney campaign released a wonderful email yesterday chronicling Newt’s tendency to compare himself to historical figures. It’s a rich cast of characters that includes stars such as Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, William Wallace, and, yes, Moses himself– all singular forces of history who fundamentally, radically, philosophically, revolutionarily changed the world as we know it.  As a member of their ranks, Newt believes that he is above the rules meant to dictate the lives of mere plebes. Although he’s not known to have murdered anyone (yet…), he has made it clear on many occasions that he finds it entirely consistent to live his life according to his own rules while simultaneously championing a different set for his subjects. However it’s not the inconsistency per se that’s shocking, for such behavior is quite common (especially among politicians); rather  it is his sheer indifference to the idea that his hypocrisy should be an issue.

I think it’s a compelling comparison, but the real drama will unfold only as it becomes increasingly clear to Newt himself that he won’t win the nomination. His marital woes, his ouster from the speakership, and the dems clawing up in ’96 were all minor blips, setbacks that were easily incorporated into a larger narrative arc. They would ensure that the drama would reach a crescendo in the final act. However, as Raskolnikov quickly learned after committing his double murder, reality is quite obdurate even in the face of the most imaginative fantasies. Rather than achieving greatness, he soon fell into a wretched abyss of paranoia and hypochondria. One can only hope that Newt’s own fall is as entertaining.

Lloyd’s West Indians kept coming because they played thrilling, menacing cricket and because everybody made money out of it. Australia and India keep playing each other because everybody makes money out of it. If one of the two ingredients – good cricket – is missing, does that wreck the cake? The men who sit on the board of “India’s major partner” might say: “To a point.” Or: “Pig’s arse.” If India win or India lose, Indians will keep watching cricket and Indian TV stations will keep buying cricket. That’s the presumption. The market decides.

When BCCI ass-hat in chief N. Srinivas declared that India’s humiliation in Australia would soon be rendered irrelevant by a string of victories at home, he was rightly derided in the press. So it is with great sadness that I must admit that, well, there’s probably some truth to what he said.

I don’t think this is necessarily an affront to the Indian fan. On the contrary, I think the Indian fan’s current state is a defense mechanism, painstakingly developed after generations of administrative neglect.  For it is no secret that, with all due respect to Bindra and Vishwanathan Anand, cricket is all we have. Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that I took our capitulation in Australia quite badly; my mood darkened, sleep became elusive, and my ritual visits to Cricinfo were no longer preceded by excitement, but rather foreboding.

Surprisingly, my relatives and friends who have been following Indian cricket since the early 90s were less perturbed. That’s not say that they didn’t care, but they were certainly able to come to terms with the loss much quicker than I. The last four years, they told me, has been an aberration. This (that is, a humiliating loss overseas) is what it means to be a Indian cricket fan. Although tinged with disappointment, their tone betrayed a sense of amusement–a feeling akin to one, perhaps, educed by the discovery of a childhood blanket long thought lost. It’s filthy and torn, but it’s still your blanket.

The strange combination of extreme passion and detached stoicism is a strange one, and it seems to be endemic to the Indian fan. And while it may be a handy tool for survival, I’m not sure it bodes well for the long-term health of Indian cricket. Despite Siddharth Monga’s insistence in Cricinfo in the other day that we can’t let the hurt of this loss fade away when the next series rolls around, chances are we’ll do just that.

It is for this reason I was so elated when I saw this:

New Delhi: Italy’s World Cup-winning captain Fabio Cannavaro, former Argentina skipper Juan Pablo Sorin and Frenchman Robert Pires are set to feature in an Indian soccer competition that hopes to replicate the success of cricket’s Indian Premier League (IPL).

Some 30 players and six coaches from abroad will be auctioned off in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata for the Feb 25-April 8 league, one of the organisers told Reuters.

“We have signed seven ‘icon’ players for the auction and each of the six teams will have one such player with a $600,000 salary cap,” Bhaswar Goswami, executive director of Celebrity Management Group (CMG), said by telephone.

At the end of the day, the BCCI will not change its behavior as long it has a monopolistic force-choke grip on the sport-loving demographic in India. As long as we have nothing else to watch every series– regardless of how poorly India performs– will yield millions in profits for the players and boards involved. The best thing that could happen to Indian cricket is the emergence of football or basketball or even field hockey as a serious challenger for the Indian sport fan’s attention.

10.00am Friday the 13th proved to be one of the darkest days for Indian cricket in recent times, with the batting collapsing yet again after which David Warner pummelled the Indian bowling with the fastest Test century by an opener.

The headlines in the papers in India say it all. The Mumbai Mirror goes with the direct “Somebody stop this mismatch”, The Times of India has a one-worder “DISGRACE”, The Hindu says “Warner bludgeons beleaguered Indians” while The New Indian Express screams “India crumble again”.

The United States is increasingly relying on three transit routes snaking through Central Asia, Russia and the Caucasus, to ship non-military supplies and fuel into Afghanistan as the deteriorating relationship between Washington and Pakistan closes off border crossings, according to a Senate report obtained by The Associated Press.

Use of the Northern Distribution Network to supply U.S. and coalition forces has been crucial in the ongoing war against terrorism and its role underscores the political and strategic importance of the Central Asian nations on the frontlines of the conflict. In broader security terms, the United States has invested millions in the former Soviet states — compared to billions spent on Afghanistan — but even that limited U.S. assistance could serve as a bulwark against the region’s major players, Russia and China, the report suggested.

The study found that just three years ago, about 90 percent of non-military supplies to Afghanistan went through Karachi, Pakistan. Today, close to 75 percent of cargo is shipped through the northern network. Some 40 percent of cargo goes through the ground network, 31 percent is shipped by air and 29 percent heads through Pakistan, the study said, citing figures from the military’s U.S. Transportation Command.

So if our aid agreement with Pakistan is fundamentally a transactional one, what exactly are we getting in return? According to the Senate report cited above, an increasing percentage of supplies for the Afghan war effort are being transported from the north, meaning we no longer have to rely on ground or air routes through Pakistan. Well, is it about drone bases then? Unlikely, according to Spencer Ackerman in Wired. In fact, not only are the Pakistani government’s threats to close the US’ drone bases in its country empty, but even if they were not such closures would not pose enough of a conundrum to deter the CIA from continuing to launch their highly accurate strikes in Waziristan. I don’t think anyone would have the gall to argue that the billions of dollars we’re currently pumping into Islamabad is improving anything, so let’s go ahead and assume that we’re giving them the money out of a fear of what would happen were we to stop. The top entry into this category would surely be concern over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. A credible fear, surely, but ultimately an overblown one. Besides, what’s stopping from a particularly radical ISI/Army official from facilitating such a deal now? It wouldn’t be the first time figures familiar with the nuclear program in Pakistan shared the technology with, uh, undesirable elements. The other concern, I suppose, is that cutting off funds would precipitate some sort of regime collapse, leading to a power vacuum. I guess it’s possible, but frankly it’s hard to see how things could get any worse than they already are. Indeed, the latest news out of Pakistan suggests that the country is closest it has been to a coup since Musharraf’s impeachment and subsequent exile in 2008:

The army warned of “serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences” after the PM criticised military leaders in a media interview.

Meanwhile, Mr Gilani has sacked his defence secretary, who is seen as having close ties to the military…

On Monday Mr Gilani was quoted telling China’s People’s Daily Online that Pakistan’s army chief and head of intelligence acted unconstitutionally by making submissions to a Supreme Court inquiry which has been rocking the government…

On Wednesday, the military hit back with an unusually strongly-worded statement.

“There can be no allegation more serious than what the honourable prime minister has levelled.

“This has very serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences for the country,” the statement said, without specifying what these might be. [emphasis mine]

If there were any illusions left over the purpose of American aid to Pakistan, they were dispelled last month when Congress voted to freeze $700 million dollars of bilateral aid, about a third of what the government sends Islamabad annually. The funds would be withheld, Congress told Pakistan, until they made an effort to tackle the issue of “homemade bombs.” Clearly, this isn’t about helping the Pakistani people. A people who, it should be noted, have suffered most at the hands of the extremist elements that our aid ironically subsidizes . While the generals and civil leaders continue to line their pockets, the Pakistani people remain dismally poor, uneducated, and bereft of the most basic necessities.

Addendum: It occurred me that the first part of my post could be misconstrued as expressing some degree of support for America’s drone operations in Pakistan. My view is in fact the exact opposite. Though lost amid the cacophonous din of the presidential campaign, there have recently been a series of hard-hitting pieces chronicling the devastating civilian toll wrought by the CIA’s drone program. Noor Behram, the activist whose photos were linked above, has estimated that at least 600 civilians were killed at the 60 sites in Waziristan he himself has visited and documented. Although his survey comprises just a fraction of the drone-strike sites  in the region, the numbers do give one a good idea of just how imprecise these aptly named “hellfire missiles” are.

And if the civilian toll is not enough to convince you that the drone program is fundamentally evil, then at least consider the fact that these strikes have in no small measure contributed to a significant upsurge in Anti-Americanism throughout Pakistan, emboldening and swelling the ranks of the very forces we have spent so much time and money trying to eliminate.

Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the Middle East, belongs to a family that,according to Lobelog’s sources, has “a direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s inner circle.” In a Bloomberg View piece that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr reports that “Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war.” Indeed, the Iranian leadership now sees U.S. policy as “aimed at regime change.”

In this light, Iran’s recent threats–notably that it will close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an oil embargo–shouldn’t be dismissed, says Nasr. “The regime in Tehran is ready for a fight.”

Wright then goes on to argue that the West’s assumption that sanctions and tough rhetoric can somehow convince the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program is patently false:

The good news is that Nasr thinks war can be averted. The bad news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers need to “imagine how the situation looks from Tehran”–not exactly a favorite pastime among American politicians these days.

Underlying our Iran strategy is the assumption that if we keep ratcheting up the pressure, the regime will eventually say uncle. A problem with this premise is that throughout human history rulers have shown an aversion to being seen by their people as surrendering. Indeed, when you face dissent, as the Iranian regime does, there’s actually a certain appeal to confronting an external threat, since confrontation tends to consolidate domestic support. As Nasr puts it, “the ruling clerics are responding with shows of strength to boost solidarity at home.”

But don’t let Iran’s persistence lead you to believe that they are unwilling to negotiate:

This doesn’t mean Iran’s rulers haven’t wanted to make a deal. But it does mean the deal would have to leave these rulers with a domestically plausible claim to have benefited from it, and it also means these leaders can’t afford to be seen begging for the deal. When President Ahmadinejad visited New York last year, he gave reporters unmistakable signals that he wanted to negotiate, but the Obama administration chose to ignore them. After Ahmadinejad “went home empty handed,” reports Nasr, power increasingly shifted to Iranians who argued for confrontation over diplomacy.

Even so, Iran’s foreign minister made another appeal to re-open talks only days ago, suggesting that they be held in Turkey. But, as the New York Times reported, western nations interpreted this overture “as an effort by Iran to buy time to continue its program.” Got that? If Iranians refuse to negotiate it means they don’t want a deal, and if they ask to negotiate it means they don’t want a deal. [emphasis mine]

Indeed, a quick survey of the campaign rhetoric we’ve been subjected to thus far makes our Roman inheritance quite explicit: The West faces an existential threat from a murderous, theocratic regime so intent on national martyrdom that traditional diplomatic pipelines– tools employed only when dealing with rational states– are rendered totally futile.

Zaheer is mature enough to see the lighter side of things. “I have finally passed the Sydney hurdle,” he said. “This is the first time I am coming to Perth. Really excited about it, really looking forward to it. There has been a lot of talk about how the wicket is going to play in such and such manner. So really excited about the whole talk and the vibe going around.”

More than coming to a fast bowler’s paradise, Zaheer is happy at making it so deep into a series in Australia. For all the help Perth is known to afford fast bowlers, Zaheer hardly ever relies on express pace. “Honestly for me what is important is hitting the right areas and getting the rhythm going,” Zaheer said. “Doesn’t matter what kind of pitch it is, the distance between the wickets is going to remain 22 yards.”

I’ll take what I can get.

I really dig the idea that a presidential campaign is all about authenticity.  Do we really know who Willard Romney is?  His être-au-monde and être-en-soi?  Is he a self-created avatar of his own beingness, the observer, the fire, the shadow, and the cave?  Now obviously what is meant by authenticity here is something more like truth-in-advertising.  Does it taste great?  Is it less filling?  Do the curtains match the drapes?  And in this regard, let me suggest to you that Romney, despite all this shit about his inconsistency and incoherence, his too-slick demeanor and penchant for reversing himself, is far and away the grande dame of Executive Realness; he is exactly what he seems–all id and superego and a Cheshire grin where his I used to be.  The other candidates suffer from remnants of actual personalities, and will likely lose because of it.  Interestingly, Obama has always struck me with an almost identical impression, a human personality reduced entirely to its formal, gestural elements, Commedia dell’arte where the soul’s ‘sposed to be.  I can’t wait for the general election season.

-IOZ