The View from Right Field

The Falklands, the British and Real Friends. Hint: It Is Not Us.

A year ago I wrote a post on "Where Will the Next Crisis Come From?" I gave an example of the kind of situation which can lead to a crisis: A country with economic problems so bad the government fears for its survival. The government generates a crisis, maybe a foreign crisis, to gain support or at least distract the people.

The example I used was the Falklands war in 1982:

"The Argentine military government had been in power since 1976, and it was in deep trouble. Argentina’s economy was a mess; the government’s popularity was worse. A president had resigned in March of 1981. Another [president] was forced out in December of that same year. A new economics minister imposed harsh economic policies. Protests were growing. There were even calls for Nuremberg-like trials for those allegedly involved in the disappearances of people during the military’s rule. So, in an effort to distract the people’s attention from all of these problems, the military government decided to invade the Falklands, known to the Argentines as the Malvinas."

And now, 28 years later, it may be happening again. Argentine Presidents Kirchner (first Nestor and now his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) have increased the level of diplomatic protests over the Falklands since Nestor was first elected in 2003. With new oil drilling starting up near the Falklands and with Argentina having economic problems*, Argentina has raised the level of their protests yet again.

Even though nobody thought Argentina would invade in 1982, fortunately it seems even less likely now. Argentina has not significantly modernized its armed forces since 1982, and the British, unlike 1982, are actively defending the islands. Over 1,000 troops are garrisoned on the islands along with four jet fighters Also, the British have recently built a new airport, and there are regular RAF flights to Britain.

But it is not the military situation that I wanted to comment on. Rather, it is the response of the Obama administration. At a recent summit meeting of the Rio Group in Cancun, 32 Latin American and Caribbean leaders backed Argentina’s claims to sovereignty over the islands. Even the members of the Commonwealth from the Caribbean voted against Britain.

And what has been the response of the Obama administration? According to The [London] Times:

"Senior US officials insisted that Washington’s position on the Falklands was one of longstanding neutrality. …

‘We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,’ a State Department spokesman told The Times. ‘The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.’"

That is appalling. Great Britain is our friend. There are probably no closer allies than Britain and the United States. Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, Britain was there with us. 179 British soldiers died in Iraq. And they are with us in Afghanistan (the war of "necessity," according to our President). The British have the second biggest contingent of forces in Afghanistan – and they are allowed to fight, unlike the troops from some other countries.

And what do we do when Argentina threatens the Falklands? We merely say that we "recognize de facto British administration". On the key question of sovereignty, we’re "neutral". When our friend needs help, we "take no position".

Maybe the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to support Britain and this is what they need to do in public to protect those efforts. If so, then I withdraw my criticism. But if not, then it stands, and I am appalled.

Let me make it clear that the Reagan administration did not cover itself with glory during the early stages of the Falklands crisis in 1982. Jean Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador, sided with Argentina. Secretary of State Alexander Haig took a middle position way too long. Eventually, President Reagan came around, and the United States fully supported the British. But from the beginning, it was only Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger who was doing what was right, supporting and aiding the British behind the scenes.** (And the British remembered. I can assure you Secretary Weinberger did not get that honorary knighthood from the Queen in 1988 because of his service as Secretary of HEW during the Nixon Administration.)

In 1982 I was embarrassed by the Reagan administration’s initial lack of support for the British. And I am embarrassed by the Obama administration’s statements today.

There is a saying, "A friend in need is a friend indeed." The Obama administration needs to act that way.

-----------
* The government of President Fernandez is unpopular. It lost its legislative majority in elections last year. Taxes have been increased on farmers, and last year the government nationalized private pension funds. Earlier this month President Fernandez ordered $6 billion of foreign-currency reserves be transferred from the Central Bank to be used to service the public debt. (See The Economist, January 7, 2010 and February 4, 2010.)

** The Economist, "Blood and bloddy noses," July 16, 2005; Chicago Tribune, "U.S. helped win Falklands war: British paper," March 3, 1984.

Baseball America Identifies the Cubs Top Prospects

Baseball America is out with their list of the Top 100 Prospects, and the Cubs have five players listed. Only the Rays, with seven, have more, and only the Indians have as many.

The highest ranking Cubs prospect was, not surprisingly, shortstop Starlin Castro at number 16.

The rest of the Cubs’ prospects were further down the list, but it was still good to see so many of them on it. Josh Vitters, a third baseman and the Cubs’ number 1 draft pick in 2007, was number 70. Outfielder Brett Jackson, the Cubs’ number 1 pick in 2009, was 74.

Rounding out the list were a couple of right-handed pitchers, Andrew Cashner, the Cubs’ top pick in 2008, at 95 and Jay Jackson at 98.

Obviously, you can never tell what will happen with young players. Ryan Theriot never made any of Baseball America’s annual lists of the Cubs’ top prospects, let alone the top 100 in the majors, and he has turned into a good major league shortstop. Other times, top-ranked players just don’t pan out (Corey Patterson, Felix Pie) or get injured and are never heard of again.

But it’s still fun to look at these lists, especially in the spring, when "hope springs eternal".

----------
Update (2/28/10 7:48 pm): Fixed the typo in Starlin Castro's first name.

On Filibusters, Health Care Bills and Consistency

It almost goes without saying that some of the best arguments on why the filibuster in the Senate is a good thing were made by Democrats when George W. Bush was President and by Republicans today, while some of the best arguments on why filibusters are bad were made by Republicans during George W. Bush’s presidency and by Democrats during … oh, you get the idea.

Actually, Jay Cost may have said it best at "RealClearPolitics.com":

"[P]eople with strong policy preferences should rarely be listened to in a debate about appropriate procedure. People who care intensely about the final vote tally often don't care how the votes are counted, so long as they get their preferred outcome. This is why there was no hue and cry coming from most of these born-again majoritarians on the left when the Democrats were looking to filibuster judicial nominees in 2005. It is easy to find numerous examples of conservative hypocrisy on this subject, too."

Actually, I agree with Democrats who say the filibuster is used too often today (as is the practice of allowing individual senators to put "holds" on the consideration of Presidential appointees). But then I felt the same way during the Bush presidency, too. If I were in the Senate, I would be agreeable, I think, to cut back on these things – as long as I could get an agreement with the Democrats that they would cut back on these things the next time they were in the minority – and as long as I felt they really meant it. Which probably means we would be back to where we started.

In any case, even if I would favor cutting back on the use of the filibuster, I would still want it to be around for really important issues – and I am sure most Democrats would say that, too. And a bill of the size and impact and complexity of the "Obama/Pelosi/Reid Health Care Contraption" is definitely an issue important enough to justify a filibuster.

On the Cubs' Hopes and Alfonso Soriano's Left Knee

I know it’s not even March yet, but here’s my candidate for the Cubs’ biggest concern for 2010. If the Cubs are going to improve on last year’s 83 wins, they need improvements from Zambrano and Soto, which hopefully they will get because both of these guys reported to camp in great shape.

On the injury/surgery front, they need Ted Lilly to be ready as soon as possible – and they need Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano to come back from last season’s injuries, Ramirez’s shoulder and Soriano’s knee. I am not particularly worried about Aramis. He’ll be fine.

But when I read on Cubs.com today that Soriano was "surprised" about how good his left knee felt, I was concerned. As Carrie Muskat said, "[t]he biggest hurdle for Soriano to overcome is mental, not physical." "‘I need to trust it [the knee] more,’ Soriano said. ‘That’s the biggest thing. I think my knee is good, but now I have to trust that it’s 100 percent.’"

When he is hot, Alfonso can carry a team all by himself, as he did at times in 2007. But when he is cold, he can drag a team down, too.

If the Cubs are going to do well in 2010, they need Soriano to be hot, and for Alfonso to be hot, he needs to be able to trust his knee. Which means that not only does his knee have to be healed, but also he has to play like his knee is healed. If Alfonso can’t do that, it could be a long season.

As We Approach the Health Care Summit

Greg Mankiw has a fascinating graph showing how the percentage of medical costs that people actually pay for themselves has gone down from over 40% in 1960 to little more than 10% today. Tie this graph together with the year-to-year increases in medical costs, and you have the problem with health care costs and health care reform in a nutshell.

The fact is we cannot continue on a path of constantly increasing health care costs, while at the same time paying less and less of these costs ourselves. It can’t continue, and it won’t.

One of two things is going to happen. Either people are going to have to pay more of their own health care costs, especially first dollar costs, and assume some responsibility for controlling their own health care costs, or government and health insurance bureaucracies are going to start rationing care based on whether a procedure or a drug provides enough "value" for what it costs. If it’s too expensive or has a high enough chance of not working, you are not going to able to get the operation or the medicine that you want because some bureaucrat (whether public or private) says the benefit isn’t worth the cost.

As you listen to the plans being discussed at the health care summit, keep these two choices in mind and figure out which one you want.

The UN Says Iran Is Probably Trying to Build Nuclear Weapons and the CIA Is Wrong – Again

The most amazing report was issued on Thursday. According to The Wall Street Journal:

"The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said it has information suggesting Iran may be working to build a nuclear warhead ….

The International Atomic Energy Agency, a Vienna-based U.N. body, said in a confidential report Thursday that Iran has impeded Agency efforts to establish the true purpose of Tehran’s nuclear program.

‘The information available to the agency … raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,’ IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano wrote in the report.

The expression of concern over the ‘weaponization’ of enriched uranium is a first for the agency. …

In the report Mr. Amano cites open questions about ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s nuclear program, adding that Iran has failed to explain the ‘procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies.’"

The Washington Post reported:

"The IAEA report is unusually frank in scolding Iran for failing to explain purchases of sensitive technology as well as secret tests of high-precision detonators and modified designs of missile cones to accommodate larger payloads – experiments closely associated with atomic warheads. Although most of the research took place nearly a decade ago, the report said that some tests ‘seem to have continued beyond 2004.’"

Such a report would be troubling no matter who put it out, but the fact it came from the United Nations makes it all the more significant.

For all the talk in Washington about health care and deficits and Tea Parties (the last of which seems appropriate since Washington has always had a bit of an "Alice in Wonderland"-feel to it), this is probably the most important, and scariest, development in the world today.

After all, if Iran has a bomb, won’t Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt want bombs, too? (Israel, obviously, already has them.) And if Israel has a bomb (publicly), isn’t Hezbollah, next? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has given Hezbollah every weapon it has; why not the bomb? (Are you getting scared yet?)

Some say that the situation can be managed. The United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, and they didn’t start a war. But compare the leaders of Iran, or the leaders of most of the other countries in the Middle East, with the leaders of the USSR or the US. Whose finger would you want on the button? When President Ahmadinejad says he will wipe the state of Israel off the map, which US leader or USSR leader does he sound like? (Actually, we know who he sounds like, and people didn’t believe him either.) (If not before, you should be scared by now.)

And what has the CIA been doing while the UN says that "[i]nformation suggests Tehran is working to build a warhead"? Getting it wrong.

In December of 2007, the Central Intelligence Agency issued a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that concluded, "with high confidence," that Iran had stopped its work on nuclear weapons in 2003.* This report contradicted an earlier report from November of 2004, which said that the United States had information suggesting that Iran was working on a nuclear warhead for a missile. When the 2007 report was issued, it directly undercut efforts by the Bush administration to stop the Iranian nuclear program. And coming after the alleged weapons of mass destruction that the CIA said were in Iraq but which were never found, it damaged the credibility of the Bush administration.

And now, it appears the CIA has gotten it wrong – again. This is amazing. What do these people do? The CIA is supposed to be giving our leaders the information that they need so they can make the decisions necessary to defend us – and the CIA keeps getting it wrong. And we are not talking about little things. We are talking about the most important issues of the day, and the CIA is getting them wrong. (Actually, they may be getting the little stuff wrong, too; we just never hear about it.)

Clearly, these questions are not easy to answer correctly, but the CIA is getting them wrong too often. Are they incompetent? Or do some of them have their own ax to grind, and does that affect the work they do and the conclusions they reach?** Or is it about bureaucrats protecting their turf? I don’t know, but it is becoming clear that we cannot rely on the CIA.

---------
* As noted here in much more detail, part of the problem with the CIA’s conclusion in 2007 may have been with how they framed the question. At that time, the concern was that, by focusing on the wrong question, the CIA may have been giving an inaccurate impression as to what Iran was doing. Now it appears that the CIA was even wrong on the question it framed.

** See here.

The Off-Season Move That May Help the Cubs the Most

As spring training starts, here is a prediction for the 2010 season: The off-season move that could wind up helping the Cubs the most will be the hiring of a new batting coach – by the St. Louis Cardinals. It is fine that the Cubs hired Rudy Jaramillo, late of the Texas Rangers. He is apparently a really good hitting coach. Hopefully, he will be able to help some of guys who slumped last year, though I think the 40 pounds that Geovany Soto lost* is going to help more than any new batting coach. And the key for Alfonso Soriano is less who the hitting coach is and more how healthy his left knee is.

The Cardinals, on the other hand, may have done the Cubs a great favor by hiring Mark McGwire as their new batting coach. There is a great potential for a media circus in every town the Cardinals visit this year as the media everywhere asks McGwire the same questions time after time about steroids and home runs and everything else. Will McGwire be able to handle the pressure and the constant questions? He hasn’t done well with it so far. And how will the Cardinals players react to the questions and commotion in every clubhouse they visit this year? They will try to ignore it, but it is going to be hard. As Jim Brosnan said, it’s a "Long Season," and this has the potential to be a big distraction for the Cardinals. And a big plus for the Cubs.

---------
* I just realized: Like Chevy dealers in the early ‘90s, the Cubs will have a new compact Geo in their lineup this year!

How Has Obama's Economic Surge (i.e., the Stimulus Bill) Worked?

In yesterday’s New York Times David Leonhardt wrote about how President Obama’s stimulus program of a year ago had succeeded: "Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success". I would have been more impressed, and potentially more convinced, however, if Mr. Leonhardt had been able to restrain his anti-Republican animus a little better.

An example:

"The reasons for the stimulus’s middling popularity aren’t a mystery. … Saying that things could have been even worse doesn’t exactly inspire. Liberals don’t like the stimulus because they wish it were bigger. Republicans don’t like it because it’s a Democratic program."

No, I am sorry; that was not it. Republicans liked certain parts of the proposal, especially including the tax cuts, though Republicans thought, as did many economists, that a permanent tax cut would have been better than a temporary one. Also, they saw a bill that was supposed to be about stimulating the economy loaded down with things like money like high-speed rail, etc. Whether or not high-speed rail is a good idea, it is definitely not a program to stimulate the economy today – or tomorrow or even the day after tomorrow. There were lots of such things in the bill and that was a legitimate reason to oppose it.

Another example: Mr. Leonhardt says that "[t]he case against the stimulus revolves around the idea that the economy would be no worse off without it" and then mentions an Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal making this point. But instead of dealing seriously with the arguments that the article raises, he notes that "two of the article’s three authors were listed as working at a research institution named for Herbert Hoover." Once again, Mr. Leonhardt throws an insult instead of making an argument.

It is little things like this that brings the MSM (mainstream media) into disrepute and tends to make one try to find other sources for balanced reporting.

How Wrigley Field and Cubs Fans Have Changed: A Few Thoughts As Pitchers and Catchers Report

With pitchers and catchers reporting for their first workout on Thursday, spring is in sight, regardless of what Punxatawny Phil may have said a couple of weeks ago. And so it seemed an appropriate time to post this.

In the various recaps of the highlights, and lowlights, of the Chicago sports scene for the last decade, the sixth game of the 2003 National League Championship Series figured prominently. You remember the game. The Cubs were leading the Marlins in the series, three games to two. The Cubs were leading the game, 3 to 0. And then the eighth inning happened. The Cubs were five outs away from the World Series (three outs closer than in 1984), but the Marlins got eight runs and won the game. And they won the series the next night.

But the Cubs lost more than a game, and more than a chance to go to the World Series, that night. They lost part of what used to make Wrigley Field and Cubs fans so special.

While looking through some old files, I found a review of Season Ticket, a book by Roger Angell. The review, from the Chicago Tribune (March 6, 1988), was written by Mark Harris, himself a noted author of baseball books, including Bang the Drum Slowly. What caught my eye was this:

"He [Angell] writes with respect of every player he mentions, making the game larger than winning and losing, bigger than persons or teams, a triumph of art and grace most distinguished at that very site – Wrigley Field – where, from the point of view of winning, the locals would seem to have succeeded the least. The fans have compensated for simple disappointment with the higher pleasure of larger understanding. An Oakland baseball executive said to Angell, ‘For some reason, there’s a different perspective at Wrigley Field – a clearer understanding of failure as a consistent part of baseball. Because ball teams play every day, the chances for failure are always high, but the Cubs fans somehow understand that. It’s a higher level of baseball culture. I think that’s the model we should be striving for.’"

That is the way it used to be at Wrigley Field. I remember the playoffs in 1998 against the Atlanta Braves. The Braves had cruised to the playoffs that year, winning 106 games and winning the National League East by 18 games. The Cubs had been in a dogfight with the New York Mets (need I say "the hated Mets") since the beginning of August for the Wild Card spot. For two months the Cubs and the Mets were never separated by more than one game. Then in September the San Francisco Giants made their move. The Cubs lost six of their last eight games. The Mets lost their last five in a row. When the Cubs lost their last game of the season, in extra innings, in Houston, the season seemed over. After 4½ innings, the Giants had a 7 to 0 lead over the Rockies. But they were playing in Colorado, and within 90 seconds of the Cubs loss to the Astros, the news flashed on the TV screen: Neifi Perez of the Rockies had hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth. The Giants lost! There would be a playoff game in Chicago the next day. And the Cubs won it, 5 to 3. The Cubs had won the Wild Card, and they were going to the playoffs!

Things did not go well in the playoffs. The Braves won the first game, which was in Atlanta, 7 to 1. The next game was also in Atlanta. The Cubs were leading 1 to 0, and it looked like we might just have a chance to even-up the series until Kevin Tapani, who was pitching his heart out, left one over the middle of the plate to Javy Lopez in the bottom of the ninth. Lopez hit a home run to tie the game, and the Braves won it in the tenth.

So it was back to Chicago for game three. Greg Maddux was going for the Braves. Kerry Wood, who had been sidelined since August 31 with a sore arm, was pitching for the Cubs. When Kerry left, after five innings, the score was Braves 1, Cubs 0. (Maddux had scored in the third inning on a wild pitch.) The score stayed 1 to 0 until eighth, when the Braves broke the game open with five runs. The Cubs got the tying run to the plate in the bottom of the inning, but it wasn’t to be. The Braves won, 6 to 2. The Braves celebrated on the field, and then it was over. Except it wasn’t. The Cubs had lost, but it was still a great season. A bunch of old guys and a flame-throwing rookie had done better than anybody expected, and the Cubs had won the Wild Card. Sammy hit 66, Kerry struck out 20, and there were exciting games all summer and into the fall. And even though the Cubs had lost, and the Braves had celebrated, the fans didn’t leave. We stayed, especially those of us in the upper deck grandstand, and after the Braves had left the field, we cheered. Because it was a good year. And when the Cubs players came back onto the field, we cheered some more.

But that is not the way it is anymore. For several reasons. Player salaries are up big time, so people expect more. After all, if somebody is making zillions of dollars, shouldn’t they get a hit every time up or strike out every batter? (The fact that the opposing players are also making zillions of dollars and are supposed to do the same thing does create a bit of a problem, but fans aren’t always logical.)

Ticket prices are up, too, which has had a couple of effects. First, just like with higher salaries, with higher ticket prices, people expect more. But more importantly, higher prices have resulted in different people coming to the games. Some of the old fans can’t afford it anymore. And the people who can afford the tickets are not fans in the old way. They are the people who go where the teams are winning. (If you win, they will come.)*

Also, after having come so close in 2003, it seems that anything less than winning all the time has become boo-worthy for some people.

The combination of all of these has changed the mood at Wrigley Field. Wrigley Field used to be a great place to play ball. Now it is becoming an ugly place at times, where it’s the Cubs players who are booed, instead of the opponents. We are even getting compared to Philadelphia, for pete’s sake.

Some will say that people like me are the problem with the Cubs. I’ll go to games no matter what, so the owners don’t have to win. If they can make money, even if the Cubs lose, they don’t have to try. (I know this is what they will say because those were some of the responses to a letter to the editor I wrote back in October of 2006.)

This is nothing that we can do about the changes at Wrigley Field. Things change, and what has happened at Wrigley Field is one of those things. Wrigley Field is still a special place. The sad thing is that it used to be even more special. But at least that is what memories are for.

--------------
* You really can’t blame the Cubs for raising the prices. If people will pay higher prices, the team would be foolish to not charge more. Even if the Cubs didn’t charge more, the prices would still be as high. It would just be the scalpers and the ticket brokers getting the extra money.

Why Do Liberals Hate Sarah Palin So Much?

What is it about Sarah Palin that drives liberals and Democrats so crazy and makes them do such silly things? It would seem to me that Democrats ought to love the idea of Sarah Palin as a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. One would think she would be a pushover for any Democrat. There were four reasons I supported her in 2008. First, I liked what she had done in Alaska in terms of fighting the Republican establishment in that state. Second, I was impressed by the way she lived her principles when she had Trig. But the third and fourth reasons were the most important: Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And I think a lot of Republicans felt the same way.

So why do the Democrats do it? Consider this one: When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs met with the press on February 9, he went out of his way to make fun of Sarah Palin for writing things on her hand for her speech to the Tea Party convention a week ago. (See here and here.) I don’t understand it. Why would the President’s press secretary think it was funny, or appropriate, for somebody in his position to engage in this kind of junior high school antics? Why would be lower himself – and his boss – to this level? He is making Sarah Palin look better in contrast.

There are a lot of things we need our government to do, and we need adults to do them. It’s too bad President Obama couldn’t find one to serve as his press secretary.