Mahler & Anti-Semitism in Europe
by Bill Breakstone
October 29, 2009
The role that anti-Semitism played during the lifetime of Gustav Mahler, and many other artists of Jewish descent, was very important in both a personal sense, and in an artistic one as well. Many may think that the rise of hatred against European Jews stemmed from the 1920s and the rise of Hitler’s National Socialist Party, but it in fact goes much, much further back in history.
What is both interesting, and tragic, is that European Jews were on the verge of real emancipation from religious bigotry. Mahler and his family provide a fascinating case in point.
Mahler was born in 1860 in the small Moravian town of Iglau, close to the border with Bohemia. It was one of just a few towns in that region where German-speaking inhabitants predominated. His father, Bernhard, was a Jew born in Germany, and was a quite successful businessman who had accumulated a high degree of education and monetary wealth.
Without becoming too historically detailed, during the 18th Century a division occurred among Jews in Europe. The emerging Haskalah sect, whose members were referred to as “Maskilim”, was composed of doctors, lawyers, philosophers and business people of all types, who “exhibited an ideal synthesis of loyalty to Judaism and involvement in general culture and society”1, and its purpose can be defined as ‘to bring light to the dark night in which the people of Israel are immersed’.2 These were the beliefs that Bernhard Mahler adopted in his early years. The Maskalim bitterly opposed Hasidism and its rampant superstition as the main obstacle in the way of improving the political, moral, and cultural situation of the Jews.
When the young Gustav Mahler left Iglau in 1875, nothing dramatic had yet occurred to dash the Jews’ hopes of emancipation, and he no doubt looked forward to attaining his full civil rights in the capital. Nor was he to be disappointed, for in Vienna he found himself in a tolerant society in which the Jews had been successfully integrated, even though the most precious benefits of assimilation were of course reserved for the rich bourgeoisie and foremost intellectuals.
This religious tolerance was about to change beginning in the late 1870s and then far more dramatically from 1880 onwards, especially after the 1895 General Election, which brought the Christian Socialists to power with an anti-Semitic programme that destroyed all hopes of assimilation of the Jews. As De La Grange states, “In any case, although Christian politics, Christian anti-Semitism and Christian social demagogy had effectively taken over Viennese politics, it was still Jewish brains, Jewish passion for learning, and Jewish artistic gifts which held sway in all branches of the City’s intellectual life, with science, medicine, philosophy, sociology, and the law all largely in Jewish hands. Jewish talent reigned over Viennese culture, especially in literature, while the philanthropy of Jewish magnates sustained the visual arts and saved them from sinking into traditional Viennese conservatism. The majority of the press was also in Jewish hands, and had remained faithful to its former liberal ideals. But an important change had taken place: Vienna had become the major centre of European anti-Semitism.”3
After his time in Hamburg and Prague, Mahler was approached by the Vienna Court Opera [Hofoper] to take over its reins. Mahler was quoted as saying “The fact was that it was impossible to occupy an official post without being baptized.” Thus, what I call a conversion of necessity was accomplished in 1896, shortly before he accepted the position in Vienna, one of the world’s highest achievements in musical arts.
Here it is worth quoting De La Grange in detail. “In any case, what is demonstrable is that he [Mahler] never was, and never became, a church- or synagogue-goer. Although there were a great number of Jewish organizations, societies, and fraternities—both religious and secular—Mahler never belonged to any of them. Throughout his adult life he never observed any of the Jewish High Holidays, but instead confined himself to the traditional—i.e., Christian—feasts, with Christmas as the main one. His religious beliefs were expressed in other ways. First there was his devotion to music and his positive sense of morality and justice. Then there was his unceasing life struggle to achieve the highest ethical standards, whether in a search for inner truths and eternal values or in his uncompromising sense of duty and solidarity with the rest of humanity. But, above all perhaps, at the core of his belief lay the commitment to be as true to himself as possible (often dangerously so), whether in his life or in his music. Mahler’s imaginary folk music, his expressionistic excesses (the asperities and cruel irony of his late scherzos for instance), can be interpreted as a form of the Jewish ‘ethical pursuit of truth, because in his music he strove to include everything human and thus sought to fulfill his ultimate desire—artistic integrity.”
1 Steven Belle, Vienna and the Jews 1867-1938(Cambridge University, Cambridge,
1989).
2 Samuel Finer, Haskalkah and History, The Emergence of Modern Jewish Historical
Consciousness (Littman, Oxford, 2002).
3 Henry-Louis de La Grange, Gustav Mahler—A New Life Cut Short (1907-1911), (Oxford University Press, London, 2008
Friday, October 30, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Dudamel & The Los Angeles Philharmonic on Great Performances
The PBS Great Performances broadcast of Gustavo Dudamel's Inaugural Concert with The Los Angeles Philharmonic earlier this week was an interesting event. Much has been made of this 28-year-old "wunderkind" from Venezuela. He certainly got some terrific sounds from his orchestra in the two pieces performed, John Adams' "City Noir" and Mahler's Symphony No. 1 in D Major.
I have always admired Adams as one of the leading composers of our day, and this latest work is a blockbuster, and one I must catch again when this program is rebroadcast. I prefer to never judge a new compoistion on a first hearing, so will have more to say on this piece later.
Now for the Mahler. This youthful work has never been my favorite Mahler opus, but it is filled with new ideas (or as his earlier critics said were re-workings of old ideas), wonderful orchestration and a brilliant finale. The funeral march is what has always set me back. I never could understand why Mahler used as his theme the simple, happy children's tune of "Frere Jacques" for such a funereal subject.
I now must admit a personal failing. I do not have the patience I used to, whether it is listing to music, watching a baseball championship game, or reading a book that takes forever to get into. When the Yankees gave up four runs in the first inning of their 5th game the other night, off went the TV! I had a similar reaction to Dudamel's reading of the first movement of Mahler's First. The restatement of the opening theme as the orchestra increases its dynamics leading to the tutti was performed with an accelerando that immediately brought me to think that thgis young conductor, as brilliant as he may be, has a long, long way to go. No doubt he will get there eventually as his musical intellect matures, but this was Mahler I just did not care to sit through.
Let's just leave it at that!
I have always admired Adams as one of the leading composers of our day, and this latest work is a blockbuster, and one I must catch again when this program is rebroadcast. I prefer to never judge a new compoistion on a first hearing, so will have more to say on this piece later.
Now for the Mahler. This youthful work has never been my favorite Mahler opus, but it is filled with new ideas (or as his earlier critics said were re-workings of old ideas), wonderful orchestration and a brilliant finale. The funeral march is what has always set me back. I never could understand why Mahler used as his theme the simple, happy children's tune of "Frere Jacques" for such a funereal subject.
I now must admit a personal failing. I do not have the patience I used to, whether it is listing to music, watching a baseball championship game, or reading a book that takes forever to get into. When the Yankees gave up four runs in the first inning of their 5th game the other night, off went the TV! I had a similar reaction to Dudamel's reading of the first movement of Mahler's First. The restatement of the opening theme as the orchestra increases its dynamics leading to the tutti was performed with an accelerando that immediately brought me to think that thgis young conductor, as brilliant as he may be, has a long, long way to go. No doubt he will get there eventually as his musical intellect matures, but this was Mahler I just did not care to sit through.
Let's just leave it at that!
Financial Regulation--Mistakes Made and A Path Forward
Financial Regulation—Mistakes Made and
A Path Forward
By Bill Breakstone
October 23, 2009
Only fools don’t learn from their mistakes. Is that how the saying goes?
Wednesday’s New York Times contained a front page article about Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and currently the head of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. I skimmed the article briefly at first, and then re-read it carefully.
Much later that evening, I viewed the PBS program “Frontline,” an hour-long story about Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who resigned under pressure in 1999, and foresaw the coming financial collapse. She and her staff tried unsuccessfully to reign in the renegades on Wall Street who had created a multi-hundred-trillion-dollar market in derivatives trading, and who were totally unregulated and unrestricted under any securities laws.
First, the Volcker story, excellently written by The Times Louis Uchitelle. Here are some excerpts:
“Mr. Volcker (he is 82) has some advice, deeply felt. He has been offering it in speeches and Congressional testimony, and repeating it to those around the president, most of them young enough to be his children.
He wants the nation’s banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. And the administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations.”
“Mr. Obama has in Mr. Volcker an adviser perceived as standing apart from Wall Street, and critical of its ways, some administration officials say, while Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Lawrence H. Summers, chief of the National Economic Council, are seen, rightly or wrongly, as more sympathetic to the concerns of investment bankers.
For all these reasons, Mr. Volcker’s approach to financial regulation cannot be just brushed off — and Mr. Goolsbee, speaking for the administration, is careful not to do so. “We have discussed these issues with Paul Volcker extensively,” he said.
Mr. Volcker’s proposal would roll back the nation’s commercial banks to an earlier era, when they were restricted to commercial banking and prohibited from engaging in risky Wall Street activities.
The Obama team, in contrast, would let the giants survive, but would regulate them extensively, so they could not get themselves and the nation into trouble again. While the administration’s proposal languishes, giants like Goldman Sachs have re-engaged in old trading practices, once again earning big profits and planning big bonuses.
Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street’s wild ways.
“The banks are there to serve the public,” Mr. Volcker said, “and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties” and ultimately fails.
The only viable solution, in the Volcker view, is to break up the giants. JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. It’s a tall order, and to achieve it Congress would have to enact a modern-day version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated separation.
Glass-Steagall was watered down over the years and finally revoked in 1999. In the Volcker resurrection, commercial banks would take deposits, manage the nation’s payments system, make standard loans and even trade securities for their customers — just not for themselves. The government, in return, would rescue banks that fail.
On the other side of the wall, investment houses would be free to buy and sell securities for their own accounts, borrowing to leverage these trades and thus multiplying the profits, and the risks.
Being separated from banks, the investment houses would no longer have access to federally insured deposits to finance this trading. If one failed, the government would supervise an orderly liquidation. None would be too big to fail — a designation that could arise for a handful of institutions under the administration’s proposal.
“People say I’m old-fashioned and banks can no longer be separated from nonbank activity,” Mr. Volcker said, acknowledging criticism that he is nostalgic for an earlier era. “That argument,” he added ruefully, “brought us to where we are today.”
“He may not be alone in his proposal, but he is nearly so.”
“Still, a handful side with Mr. Volcker, among them Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics at Columbia and a former official in the Clinton administration. “We would have a cleaner, safer banking system,” Mr. Stiglitz said, adding that while he endorses Mr. Volcker’s proposal, the former Fed chairman is nevertheless embarked on a quixotic journey.”
With this current news story as a backdrop, the excellent PBS show, “The Warning,” carried an impact that to this viewer was overwhelming, and maddening.
Brooksley Born graduated from Stanford University and Stanford University Law School at the top of her class in the mid-1960s, and was Editor of The Stanford Law Review. She was the first woman in Stanford’s history to attain such honors. One of her classmates was our former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Born was appointed by President Clinton in 1997 to head the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), an independent Federal regulatory agency created under Congressional authority. She soon became aware of how quickly the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market was growing, and how little any of the Federal regulators knew about it. “We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea of what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players and counterparties to one another’s contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notational value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was a peak. And that is an enormous market. That’s more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries of the world.”1
“First of all, we really didn’t know the dangers in the market because it was a dark market. There was no transparency. But in any financial market, if there is not government oversight to control abuses like fraud and manipulation, to limit speculation, to make sure that a major default won’t cause a domino effect throughout the economy, the public interest is exposed and in danger.” The previous year, suit was brought by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) and Gibson Greeting Cards against Bankers Trust, their OTC derivatives dealer, alleging fraud, a suit won by the plaintiffs. There had also been some spectacular failures, collapses from speculative dealings of fund managers at public institutions acting with similar derivatives dealers, notably the Pension Fund of Orange County, California, which was forced into bankruptcy because of its speculation, gambling with public money in the OTC derivatives market on interest rate swaps. In that case, every taxpayer in Orange County suffered the consequences.
Berksley Born was the Chair of this regulatory agency, the CFTC. She, rightly, perceived one of her responsibilities as defending the public interest. There was something definitely wrong about these markets. There was no record-keeping requirement; no reporting. Now keep in mind that this was 1997, a full decade before the financial collapse that we are still recovering from.
Born and her staff thus prepared a paper on the subject called a “concept release” [a report to be released to the public outlining a proposed rule change], in this case asking questions about the market, whether certain changes needed to be made to the regulatory regime; whether there need to be record-keeping; should there be reporting requirements to some Federal regulator; would clearing the transactions in a clearinghouse help protect against counterparty risk of default by one side or another?
When word of this proposed release reached the government, in the persons of Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt, all hell broke loose. In a meeting set up in Greenspan’s office, Born was told a report of this nature would be catastrophic to the financial markets, which at the time were operating smoothly and churning out record profits. Born was shocked. Was fraud to be permitted, sanctioned at the highest levels of government due to a straightjacket ideological approach to market self-regulation?
Despite the warnings of Greenspan, et al, the CFTC went ahead and published the concept release in May of 1997. Eventually, Congressional hearings were held, and a six-month moratorium at first imposed on the CFTC from taking any action, which was further extended indefinitely.
Some two years later, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management collapsed, causing near-panic on Wall Street and a crisis that was averted only because the Fed and Treasury pressured a dozen or so of the largest investment houses to fund its rescue by an infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital. Sound familiar?
The bottom line was that these OTC “black markets” were allowed to go on in a business as usual mode, with no regulatory changes made. In fact, a statute was passed in 2000 called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act [CFMA] which specifically took away all jurisdiction over the OTC derivatives market from the CFTC. Born resigned in 1999, and the rest is history.
Could the financial collapse of 2007-2009 been prevented by bringing light to a market that was completely unregulated and unknown by market participants and counterparties? Probably not, but the damage would have been contained somewhat. The collapses of several investment houses may have been avoided, but other factors were acting on the economy, the bursting of the housing bubble, the evaporation of the public trust in the markets without which public and private finance cannot thrive, the subsequent collapse of consumer confidence and spending, and the worst unemployment rate in over 35 years.
So, where are we now? Financial regulation is a main topic in today’s news, the Volcker story just one example. What are the odds that safeguards will be put in place to avoid a repetition of the recent financial disasters? The major players on the stage back in 1998, with the exception of Rubin, have all submitted their “mea culpa’s.” Yet the financial industry’s lobby is putting up a terrific fight to preserve its self-interest.
Born was asked if this moment passes [without such regulation], what will be the consequences from your perspective? She answered “I think we will have continuing danger from these markets and that we will have repeats of the financial crisis. It may differ in details, but there will be significant financial downturn and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience.”
One final cautionary note from Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stigliltz:
“So this is a dangerous moment, because if we don’t get it right, we are likely to wind up with an even more politically influential financial system, banks that are even bigger, more too big to fail, too big to be financially resolved, and so the risk of another crisis some years down the line is going to be greater. The risk that our economy’s performance will be weaker, the risk that there will be greater inequalities and a sense of injustice in our society will be higher.
So I think this is really a moment. I was very hopeful that in the aftermath of the crisis we could see what had gone wrong and say “Let’s fix it.” But it may be that we are passing that critical moment.”
1 Quoted material in this article is from interviews with the participants, and can be found on-line at http://www.pbs.org/. Go to “Frontline” to view the numerous interviews.
A Path Forward
By Bill Breakstone
October 23, 2009
Only fools don’t learn from their mistakes. Is that how the saying goes?
Wednesday’s New York Times contained a front page article about Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and currently the head of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. I skimmed the article briefly at first, and then re-read it carefully.
Much later that evening, I viewed the PBS program “Frontline,” an hour-long story about Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who resigned under pressure in 1999, and foresaw the coming financial collapse. She and her staff tried unsuccessfully to reign in the renegades on Wall Street who had created a multi-hundred-trillion-dollar market in derivatives trading, and who were totally unregulated and unrestricted under any securities laws.
First, the Volcker story, excellently written by The Times Louis Uchitelle. Here are some excerpts:
“Mr. Volcker (he is 82) has some advice, deeply felt. He has been offering it in speeches and Congressional testimony, and repeating it to those around the president, most of them young enough to be his children.
He wants the nation’s banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. And the administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations.”
“Mr. Obama has in Mr. Volcker an adviser perceived as standing apart from Wall Street, and critical of its ways, some administration officials say, while Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Lawrence H. Summers, chief of the National Economic Council, are seen, rightly or wrongly, as more sympathetic to the concerns of investment bankers.
For all these reasons, Mr. Volcker’s approach to financial regulation cannot be just brushed off — and Mr. Goolsbee, speaking for the administration, is careful not to do so. “We have discussed these issues with Paul Volcker extensively,” he said.
Mr. Volcker’s proposal would roll back the nation’s commercial banks to an earlier era, when they were restricted to commercial banking and prohibited from engaging in risky Wall Street activities.
The Obama team, in contrast, would let the giants survive, but would regulate them extensively, so they could not get themselves and the nation into trouble again. While the administration’s proposal languishes, giants like Goldman Sachs have re-engaged in old trading practices, once again earning big profits and planning big bonuses.
Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street’s wild ways.
“The banks are there to serve the public,” Mr. Volcker said, “and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties” and ultimately fails.
The only viable solution, in the Volcker view, is to break up the giants. JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. It’s a tall order, and to achieve it Congress would have to enact a modern-day version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated separation.
Glass-Steagall was watered down over the years and finally revoked in 1999. In the Volcker resurrection, commercial banks would take deposits, manage the nation’s payments system, make standard loans and even trade securities for their customers — just not for themselves. The government, in return, would rescue banks that fail.
On the other side of the wall, investment houses would be free to buy and sell securities for their own accounts, borrowing to leverage these trades and thus multiplying the profits, and the risks.
Being separated from banks, the investment houses would no longer have access to federally insured deposits to finance this trading. If one failed, the government would supervise an orderly liquidation. None would be too big to fail — a designation that could arise for a handful of institutions under the administration’s proposal.
“People say I’m old-fashioned and banks can no longer be separated from nonbank activity,” Mr. Volcker said, acknowledging criticism that he is nostalgic for an earlier era. “That argument,” he added ruefully, “brought us to where we are today.”
“He may not be alone in his proposal, but he is nearly so.”
“Still, a handful side with Mr. Volcker, among them Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics at Columbia and a former official in the Clinton administration. “We would have a cleaner, safer banking system,” Mr. Stiglitz said, adding that while he endorses Mr. Volcker’s proposal, the former Fed chairman is nevertheless embarked on a quixotic journey.”
With this current news story as a backdrop, the excellent PBS show, “The Warning,” carried an impact that to this viewer was overwhelming, and maddening.
Brooksley Born graduated from Stanford University and Stanford University Law School at the top of her class in the mid-1960s, and was Editor of The Stanford Law Review. She was the first woman in Stanford’s history to attain such honors. One of her classmates was our former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Born was appointed by President Clinton in 1997 to head the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), an independent Federal regulatory agency created under Congressional authority. She soon became aware of how quickly the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market was growing, and how little any of the Federal regulators knew about it. “We had no regulation. No federal or state public official had any idea of what was going on in those markets, so enormous leverage was permitted, enormous borrowing. There was also little or no capital being put up as collateral for the transactions. All the players and counterparties to one another’s contracts. This market had gotten to be over $680 trillion in notational value as of June 2008 when it topped up. I think that was a peak. And that is an enormous market. That’s more than 10 times the gross national product of all the countries of the world.”1
“First of all, we really didn’t know the dangers in the market because it was a dark market. There was no transparency. But in any financial market, if there is not government oversight to control abuses like fraud and manipulation, to limit speculation, to make sure that a major default won’t cause a domino effect throughout the economy, the public interest is exposed and in danger.” The previous year, suit was brought by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) and Gibson Greeting Cards against Bankers Trust, their OTC derivatives dealer, alleging fraud, a suit won by the plaintiffs. There had also been some spectacular failures, collapses from speculative dealings of fund managers at public institutions acting with similar derivatives dealers, notably the Pension Fund of Orange County, California, which was forced into bankruptcy because of its speculation, gambling with public money in the OTC derivatives market on interest rate swaps. In that case, every taxpayer in Orange County suffered the consequences.
Berksley Born was the Chair of this regulatory agency, the CFTC. She, rightly, perceived one of her responsibilities as defending the public interest. There was something definitely wrong about these markets. There was no record-keeping requirement; no reporting. Now keep in mind that this was 1997, a full decade before the financial collapse that we are still recovering from.
Born and her staff thus prepared a paper on the subject called a “concept release” [a report to be released to the public outlining a proposed rule change], in this case asking questions about the market, whether certain changes needed to be made to the regulatory regime; whether there need to be record-keeping; should there be reporting requirements to some Federal regulator; would clearing the transactions in a clearinghouse help protect against counterparty risk of default by one side or another?
When word of this proposed release reached the government, in the persons of Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt, all hell broke loose. In a meeting set up in Greenspan’s office, Born was told a report of this nature would be catastrophic to the financial markets, which at the time were operating smoothly and churning out record profits. Born was shocked. Was fraud to be permitted, sanctioned at the highest levels of government due to a straightjacket ideological approach to market self-regulation?
Despite the warnings of Greenspan, et al, the CFTC went ahead and published the concept release in May of 1997. Eventually, Congressional hearings were held, and a six-month moratorium at first imposed on the CFTC from taking any action, which was further extended indefinitely.
Some two years later, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management collapsed, causing near-panic on Wall Street and a crisis that was averted only because the Fed and Treasury pressured a dozen or so of the largest investment houses to fund its rescue by an infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital. Sound familiar?
The bottom line was that these OTC “black markets” were allowed to go on in a business as usual mode, with no regulatory changes made. In fact, a statute was passed in 2000 called the Commodities Futures Modernization Act [CFMA] which specifically took away all jurisdiction over the OTC derivatives market from the CFTC. Born resigned in 1999, and the rest is history.
Could the financial collapse of 2007-2009 been prevented by bringing light to a market that was completely unregulated and unknown by market participants and counterparties? Probably not, but the damage would have been contained somewhat. The collapses of several investment houses may have been avoided, but other factors were acting on the economy, the bursting of the housing bubble, the evaporation of the public trust in the markets without which public and private finance cannot thrive, the subsequent collapse of consumer confidence and spending, and the worst unemployment rate in over 35 years.
So, where are we now? Financial regulation is a main topic in today’s news, the Volcker story just one example. What are the odds that safeguards will be put in place to avoid a repetition of the recent financial disasters? The major players on the stage back in 1998, with the exception of Rubin, have all submitted their “mea culpa’s.” Yet the financial industry’s lobby is putting up a terrific fight to preserve its self-interest.
Born was asked if this moment passes [without such regulation], what will be the consequences from your perspective? She answered “I think we will have continuing danger from these markets and that we will have repeats of the financial crisis. It may differ in details, but there will be significant financial downturn and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience.”
One final cautionary note from Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stigliltz:
“So this is a dangerous moment, because if we don’t get it right, we are likely to wind up with an even more politically influential financial system, banks that are even bigger, more too big to fail, too big to be financially resolved, and so the risk of another crisis some years down the line is going to be greater. The risk that our economy’s performance will be weaker, the risk that there will be greater inequalities and a sense of injustice in our society will be higher.
So I think this is really a moment. I was very hopeful that in the aftermath of the crisis we could see what had gone wrong and say “Let’s fix it.” But it may be that we are passing that critical moment.”
1 Quoted material in this article is from interviews with the participants, and can be found on-line at http://www.pbs.org/. Go to “Frontline” to view the numerous interviews.
Friday, October 9, 2009
David Brooks on Health Care Reform
You've just have to admire David Brooks. A lot of noise has been heard lately from the far right about his criticism of The Republican Party, of which he is a member. Nonetheless, he believes that what the majority of Republicans are saying and doing is akin to political suicide.
When one watches the cable news channels, or PBS, or Meet The Press and other Sunday morning national network interview programs, you can't help but take note of the extreme positions taken by interviewees, such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson's comments this morning on CNBC, when asked about the liklihood of Congress passing compromise legislation such as that which emerged from the Senate Finance Committee this week. It didn't take her a second to roll off reasons tyhat she and her Republican colleagues would turn it down, as an example of increased government spending an interferece in the marketplace. Other Republicans decry the cutting of Medicare benefits to the elderly, and say we're better off with the status quo.
So give Republican Brooks credit for analyizing the issues and choices we face in his Op-Ed today. I'm sure he could also back up his reasoning with the argument that once again, the obstructionist right is taking a position that runs counter to the Nation's long-term welfare [God forgive me for using that term], as well as being against the interest of their Party.
And what was Mitch McConnel's comment after it was announced that President Obama was awareded The Nobel Peace Prize. "I'm sure he won it because of his star power." Thanks Mitch! What a gracious man.
Best,
Bill B.
Somers, NY
October 9, 2009
THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Baucus Conundrum
By DAVID BROOKS
The longer the health care debate goes on, the more I become convinced that the American system needs fundamental reform. We need to transition away from a fee-for-service system to one that directs incentives toward better care, not more procedures. We need to move away from the employer-based system, which is eroding year by year. We need to move toward a more transparent system, in which people see the consequences of their choices.
I’ve also become convinced that the approach championed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, is the best vehicle for this sort of change. The Wyden approach — first introduced in a bill with Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, and now pared down to an amendment to the current bills—would combine choice with universal coverage.
People with insurance could stay with their existing health plans. But if they didn’t like the plans their employer offered, they could take the money their employer spends, add whatever they wanted to throw in, and shop for a better option on a regulated exchange. People without insurance would get subsidies to shop at the exchanges.
Americans would have real choices. The vigorous exchanges would reward providers and insurers that are efficient, creative and innovative.
But barring a legislative miracle, the Wyden approach was effectively killed in committee last week. The business and union lobbies worked furiously against it. They want to control their employees’ and members’ benefit packages. Many politicians support it in principle but oppose it in practice. They fear that if they try to fundamentally reform the system, voters will revolt.
So what we are going to get is health insurance reform, not health care reform. We’ll be adjusting and expanding the current system, not essentially changing it.
At this point people like me could throw up our hands and oppose everything. But that’s not what adulthood is about. In the real world, you often don’t get to choose what your options will be. You have to choose from a few bad options. The real health care choice now is between the status quo and the bill primarily authored by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, that is emerging from the Senate Finance Committee.
The Baucus bill centralizes power, in contrast to the free choice approach, which decentralizes it. The Baucus approach aims to reduce costs, expand coverage and improve efficiency by empowering regulators to write a better set of rules. It aims to rationalize the current system from the top down.
This approach has many weaknesses. It entrenches a flawed system. It creates greater uniformity and rigidity. It redistributes income from the politically disorganized young to the politically organized old. It squeezes people into a Rube Goldberg complex of bureaucracies based on their income level. It will impose huge costs on people as they rise up the income ladder, distorting the whole economy.
The biggest problem is that it will retard innovation. Top-down systems just don’t innovate well, no matter how many Innovation Centers you put in the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill will retard innovation by using monopoly power to squeeze costs. It will also retard innovation by directing resources toward current care (and current voters) and away from future technologies and future beneficiaries.
But the Baucus bill has some advantages over the status quo as well. It would insure an additional 29 million people, a social benefit critics never grapple with.
It is also more fiscally responsible than any other committee bill. It courageously cuts Medicare benefits by hundreds of billions. It raises taxes on the upper and middle classes in many necessary (and covert) ways. The bill will not really be budget neutral, but the authors have taken fiscal responsibility seriously. They’ve earned that good score from the Congressional Budget Office.
Most impressively, the Baucus bill includes many provisions to make government-run health care more rational. It would bundle payments to hospitals and encourage doctors to work in efficient teams. It would punish hospitals that have to readmit patients. It would create a commission to perpetually squeeze costs. It would improve information technology. It would measure the comparative effectiveness of different treatments. No one knows how much savings would be produced by these changes in payment method, but they could be significant.
If you asked me to compare the Baucus approach with the Wyden approach, the answer is easy. But if you asked me to compare it with the status quo, the answer is hard. The Baucus bill contains hidden bombs that could lead to a rigid bureaucratic system that still doesn’t address the fundamental problems. On the other hand, it contains hidden experiments that could lead to new models that might spread across the system.
If I were in Congress, I’d figure there’s an 80 percent chance of something like this passing anyway. I might as well get engaged as a provisional supporter to fight to make it better, or at least to fight off the coming onslaught to make it worse.
When one watches the cable news channels, or PBS, or Meet The Press and other Sunday morning national network interview programs, you can't help but take note of the extreme positions taken by interviewees, such as Kay Bailey Hutchinson's comments this morning on CNBC, when asked about the liklihood of Congress passing compromise legislation such as that which emerged from the Senate Finance Committee this week. It didn't take her a second to roll off reasons tyhat she and her Republican colleagues would turn it down, as an example of increased government spending an interferece in the marketplace. Other Republicans decry the cutting of Medicare benefits to the elderly, and say we're better off with the status quo.
So give Republican Brooks credit for analyizing the issues and choices we face in his Op-Ed today. I'm sure he could also back up his reasoning with the argument that once again, the obstructionist right is taking a position that runs counter to the Nation's long-term welfare [God forgive me for using that term], as well as being against the interest of their Party.
And what was Mitch McConnel's comment after it was announced that President Obama was awareded The Nobel Peace Prize. "I'm sure he won it because of his star power." Thanks Mitch! What a gracious man.
Best,
Bill B.
Somers, NY
October 9, 2009
THE NEW YORK TIMES
October 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Baucus Conundrum
By DAVID BROOKS
The longer the health care debate goes on, the more I become convinced that the American system needs fundamental reform. We need to transition away from a fee-for-service system to one that directs incentives toward better care, not more procedures. We need to move away from the employer-based system, which is eroding year by year. We need to move toward a more transparent system, in which people see the consequences of their choices.
I’ve also become convinced that the approach championed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, is the best vehicle for this sort of change. The Wyden approach — first introduced in a bill with Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, and now pared down to an amendment to the current bills—would combine choice with universal coverage.
People with insurance could stay with their existing health plans. But if they didn’t like the plans their employer offered, they could take the money their employer spends, add whatever they wanted to throw in, and shop for a better option on a regulated exchange. People without insurance would get subsidies to shop at the exchanges.
Americans would have real choices. The vigorous exchanges would reward providers and insurers that are efficient, creative and innovative.
But barring a legislative miracle, the Wyden approach was effectively killed in committee last week. The business and union lobbies worked furiously against it. They want to control their employees’ and members’ benefit packages. Many politicians support it in principle but oppose it in practice. They fear that if they try to fundamentally reform the system, voters will revolt.
So what we are going to get is health insurance reform, not health care reform. We’ll be adjusting and expanding the current system, not essentially changing it.
At this point people like me could throw up our hands and oppose everything. But that’s not what adulthood is about. In the real world, you often don’t get to choose what your options will be. You have to choose from a few bad options. The real health care choice now is between the status quo and the bill primarily authored by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, that is emerging from the Senate Finance Committee.
The Baucus bill centralizes power, in contrast to the free choice approach, which decentralizes it. The Baucus approach aims to reduce costs, expand coverage and improve efficiency by empowering regulators to write a better set of rules. It aims to rationalize the current system from the top down.
This approach has many weaknesses. It entrenches a flawed system. It creates greater uniformity and rigidity. It redistributes income from the politically disorganized young to the politically organized old. It squeezes people into a Rube Goldberg complex of bureaucracies based on their income level. It will impose huge costs on people as they rise up the income ladder, distorting the whole economy.
The biggest problem is that it will retard innovation. Top-down systems just don’t innovate well, no matter how many Innovation Centers you put in the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill will retard innovation by using monopoly power to squeeze costs. It will also retard innovation by directing resources toward current care (and current voters) and away from future technologies and future beneficiaries.
But the Baucus bill has some advantages over the status quo as well. It would insure an additional 29 million people, a social benefit critics never grapple with.
It is also more fiscally responsible than any other committee bill. It courageously cuts Medicare benefits by hundreds of billions. It raises taxes on the upper and middle classes in many necessary (and covert) ways. The bill will not really be budget neutral, but the authors have taken fiscal responsibility seriously. They’ve earned that good score from the Congressional Budget Office.
Most impressively, the Baucus bill includes many provisions to make government-run health care more rational. It would bundle payments to hospitals and encourage doctors to work in efficient teams. It would punish hospitals that have to readmit patients. It would create a commission to perpetually squeeze costs. It would improve information technology. It would measure the comparative effectiveness of different treatments. No one knows how much savings would be produced by these changes in payment method, but they could be significant.
If you asked me to compare the Baucus approach with the Wyden approach, the answer is easy. But if you asked me to compare it with the status quo, the answer is hard. The Baucus bill contains hidden bombs that could lead to a rigid bureaucratic system that still doesn’t address the fundamental problems. On the other hand, it contains hidden experiments that could lead to new models that might spread across the system.
If I were in Congress, I’d figure there’s an 80 percent chance of something like this passing anyway. I might as well get engaged as a provisional supporter to fight to make it better, or at least to fight off the coming onslaught to make it worse.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
IVORY TOWER ACADEMICS ON IRAN IN THE NY TIMES
A rather lengthy op-ed piece appears in this morning's edition of The New York Times, "How to Press the Advantage with Iran," authored by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett. The Times credits the former as the director of the New American Foundation and a professor of international affairs at Pennsylvania State University, and the latter as president of a political risk consultancy. It further states that both are former National Security Council staff members.
Their point is that present and former administrations are at fault for backing Iran into a corner, and they suggest that the stance taken towards China by President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, opening up America's relationship with that regime, should be the position the Obama Administration adopt at this crucial point in time. The authors state that the "crippling sanctions" Secretary of State Clinton promises should Iran not change course will never be accepted by China, and that Russia's statement of possible support for them will be so watered down in the end as to become meaningless.
Well, if this isn't pie in the sky reasoning, I don't know what is. First of all, where is the "advantage" the authors claim we have with Iran? Far from it! Teheran is caught lying and cheating on the issue of uranium enrichment for the third time in a decade; they defy us and our allies and say they have done nothing illegal; then they proceed with two days of sabre rattling by testing their medium-range missles which they claim can hit any of those nations that may threaten their regime. Would Tel Aviv think that with all that, we have an advantage? On the contrary, Israel must now realize that Iran will never give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities and are faced with an 18-month time line to come up with a solution that would insure their national security. Yet the Leveretts are "the experts" on National Security issues.
Should the West forgive Iran for its tresspasses, and welcome them back into the international community with open arms? We don't know when these two authors left the National Security Council, but it is obvious that they've spent far too much time since then locked up in their "Ivory Tower."
Bill Breakstone
Somers, NY
September 30, 2009
Their point is that present and former administrations are at fault for backing Iran into a corner, and they suggest that the stance taken towards China by President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, opening up America's relationship with that regime, should be the position the Obama Administration adopt at this crucial point in time. The authors state that the "crippling sanctions" Secretary of State Clinton promises should Iran not change course will never be accepted by China, and that Russia's statement of possible support for them will be so watered down in the end as to become meaningless.
Well, if this isn't pie in the sky reasoning, I don't know what is. First of all, where is the "advantage" the authors claim we have with Iran? Far from it! Teheran is caught lying and cheating on the issue of uranium enrichment for the third time in a decade; they defy us and our allies and say they have done nothing illegal; then they proceed with two days of sabre rattling by testing their medium-range missles which they claim can hit any of those nations that may threaten their regime. Would Tel Aviv think that with all that, we have an advantage? On the contrary, Israel must now realize that Iran will never give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities and are faced with an 18-month time line to come up with a solution that would insure their national security. Yet the Leveretts are "the experts" on National Security issues.
Should the West forgive Iran for its tresspasses, and welcome them back into the international community with open arms? We don't know when these two authors left the National Security Council, but it is obvious that they've spent far too much time since then locked up in their "Ivory Tower."
Bill Breakstone
Somers, NY
September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
ISREAL'S POSITION ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES
I caught a segment this morning during the 8:00 A.M. hour of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program where Mika Brzezinski interviewed NBC's Pentagon Correspondent Jim Micklaszweski's [Mick"] opinions as to the "military option" in response to Iran's confession of a second nuclear uranium enrichment site near Quom.
Other than a brief mention by Ret. Col. Jack Jacobs this past weekend, this was the first reference I have read or heard about what the Israeli's leadership might be thinking at this point.
"Mick" said that the Obama Administration was of the opinion that the military option would be ineffectual is disabling Iran's nuclear capabilities, and that its possible use of this alternative could trigger a Middle East conflagration that would make the situation far worse. He also hinted that the Administration was actively engaged in efforts to persuade Israel not to make any comments on their possible consideration of this course of action.
I would imagine that from a public relations aspect, Obama would have to adhere to this advice. However, as I have stated on my previous posts on this subject, Israel has not always toed the line to Washington's appeal for restraint, though that Nation has exhibited much patience over the past decade.
In respect to that Nation's position, there comes a time when any Country has the right to take actions that it percieves to be in its best interest. Israel has taken that path many times in the past. We marked the anniversary of the Yom Kippour war just yesterday.
Jim's points were well taken, one of which would be the consequences any such action may have on world oil prices. However, Israel's concerns about oil may have no impact upon their concerns about their own security should Iran achieve its goal of acquiring a nuclear capabilty, which indeed it demonstrated again this morning with the successful test firings of long-range delivery systems that could easily reach targets in Israel.
All the commentaries I have read and heard are not very encouraging. Rule out China's cooperation on sanctions. They are dependent upon Iran for 15% of their energy needs. Any decision by the Chinese Goernment to endanger that supply would have to be accompanied by American and Euopean pledges to make up that difference. I guess taht's what diplomacy is all about, but who knows what will evolve. Non Security Council actions may have an effect on Iran's economy, but given the 18-month time frame for it to have enough enriched uranium to produce several nuclear weapons, that is not going to make the Israeli leadership more comfortable to give those sanctions a chance to be effective.
The bottom line is what position will Israel take? My thought is that they will make that decision not based upon short-term consequences, but on their long term security interests.
Bill Breakstone
Somers, NY
September 29, 2009
Other than a brief mention by Ret. Col. Jack Jacobs this past weekend, this was the first reference I have read or heard about what the Israeli's leadership might be thinking at this point.
"Mick" said that the Obama Administration was of the opinion that the military option would be ineffectual is disabling Iran's nuclear capabilities, and that its possible use of this alternative could trigger a Middle East conflagration that would make the situation far worse. He also hinted that the Administration was actively engaged in efforts to persuade Israel not to make any comments on their possible consideration of this course of action.
I would imagine that from a public relations aspect, Obama would have to adhere to this advice. However, as I have stated on my previous posts on this subject, Israel has not always toed the line to Washington's appeal for restraint, though that Nation has exhibited much patience over the past decade.
In respect to that Nation's position, there comes a time when any Country has the right to take actions that it percieves to be in its best interest. Israel has taken that path many times in the past. We marked the anniversary of the Yom Kippour war just yesterday.
Jim's points were well taken, one of which would be the consequences any such action may have on world oil prices. However, Israel's concerns about oil may have no impact upon their concerns about their own security should Iran achieve its goal of acquiring a nuclear capabilty, which indeed it demonstrated again this morning with the successful test firings of long-range delivery systems that could easily reach targets in Israel.
All the commentaries I have read and heard are not very encouraging. Rule out China's cooperation on sanctions. They are dependent upon Iran for 15% of their energy needs. Any decision by the Chinese Goernment to endanger that supply would have to be accompanied by American and Euopean pledges to make up that difference. I guess taht's what diplomacy is all about, but who knows what will evolve. Non Security Council actions may have an effect on Iran's economy, but given the 18-month time frame for it to have enough enriched uranium to produce several nuclear weapons, that is not going to make the Israeli leadership more comfortable to give those sanctions a chance to be effective.
The bottom line is what position will Israel take? My thought is that they will make that decision not based upon short-term consequences, but on their long term security interests.
Bill Breakstone
Somers, NY
September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ON IRAN
The more I thought about the comments I posted yesterday [Iran's Treachery--What Are We Missing Here?], the more concerned I became about the whole Middle East situation.
What if a military strike is undertaken [not necessarily by the U.S.], what would the possible consequences be? At best, a retaliatory strike by Iran against that Nation. At worst, another war that would involve those Middle East nations that support Iran and benefit from Iranian aid and support of terrorist activities.
Last evening [EST] the Iranians tested several of their short- to medium-range missles. It was an obvious warning to any nation that is contemplating a knock-out punch against the Iranian nuclear sites.
I caught most of NBC's "Meet The Press" this morning. Former President Clinton was interviewed, followed by Senators Jim Webb [D] and Tom Kyl [R]. When asked by David Gregory whether a military strike should be at least be considered, all three gentlemen agreed that no option should be taken off the table. The two Senators felt that China would unlikely join the other permanent members of the UN Security Council in supporting joint and stringent sanctions against the Iranian Regime, but that other options exist--including a combination of U.S. and European sanctions that would include Russian participation.
We're certainly treading on dangerous ground here, and if that were'nt enough for the Administration, they also have to deal with the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation AND what commentators are saying are going to be some very ugly employment numbers this coming week.
Bill B.
Somers, NY
September 29, 2009
What if a military strike is undertaken [not necessarily by the U.S.], what would the possible consequences be? At best, a retaliatory strike by Iran against that Nation. At worst, another war that would involve those Middle East nations that support Iran and benefit from Iranian aid and support of terrorist activities.
Last evening [EST] the Iranians tested several of their short- to medium-range missles. It was an obvious warning to any nation that is contemplating a knock-out punch against the Iranian nuclear sites.
I caught most of NBC's "Meet The Press" this morning. Former President Clinton was interviewed, followed by Senators Jim Webb [D] and Tom Kyl [R]. When asked by David Gregory whether a military strike should be at least be considered, all three gentlemen agreed that no option should be taken off the table. The two Senators felt that China would unlikely join the other permanent members of the UN Security Council in supporting joint and stringent sanctions against the Iranian Regime, but that other options exist--including a combination of U.S. and European sanctions that would include Russian participation.
We're certainly treading on dangerous ground here, and if that were'nt enough for the Administration, they also have to deal with the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation AND what commentators are saying are going to be some very ugly employment numbers this coming week.
Bill B.
Somers, NY
September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Iran's Treachery--What Are We Missing Here?
Iran’s Treachery—What Are We Missing Here?
By Bill Breakstone
September 29, 2009
Twenty-four hours ago, the Cable News Channels performed a “full-court press” with their coverage of Iran’s disclosure [under immense pressure] of a second nuclear enrichment facility near Quom, and the brief statements made by President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.
This news hit the wires far too late to be included in Friday’s East Coast newspapers; thus, the first reportage we saw was in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. And the news articles, opinion pieces and editorials were indeed excellent. I read through them all, word for word. But in all those pages and columns, something was missing! A six letter work that begins with “I” and ends with “L”. Not one mention!
Now, imagine you’re a citizen and resident of that Country. [Note bene: Following in the footsteps of these illustrious newspapers, I will not spell that out for you either!] Practically on your doorstep is another Country that has lied and cheated its way toward acquiring the capabilities of producing a nuclear weapons capability. And this Nation denies that the Holocaust ever took place, denies the legality of your State, and is pledged to its destruction. How would you feel? Threatened? Paranoid? You bet your butt!
Yet not a word or even a hint of concern in these two leading newspapers. Are we missing something here? I think not. Harsh sanctions will work, IF they can be unanimously be adopted by the UN Security Council. They might even lead to a popular revolt in Iran that could topple the Islamic Government. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
No, there’s something else at work here. This “secret” Nation has shown great patience over the past 10 years as we have all been lied to by Tehran. Now, on the eve of the first meaningful talks to be held with it in a decade, there they go again—caught with their hands in the cookie jar. My guess is that patience noted above has now worn out. It was only nine months ago that their military conducted an extensive exercise to prove that they had the long-range capability to do what may have been needed in the long term. And our World’s leaders are fully aware of that fact, and may well have pressured the media to “keep hands off.”
Whatever, the gathering clouds over the Middle East will surely darken, and do so quickly. The experts seem to agree that Iran could have nuclear weapons within three years if they continue at their current pace. What’s the old saying? “Time waits for no man?” I would not feel so secure right now if I were living in a palace in Tehran.
By Bill Breakstone
September 29, 2009
Twenty-four hours ago, the Cable News Channels performed a “full-court press” with their coverage of Iran’s disclosure [under immense pressure] of a second nuclear enrichment facility near Quom, and the brief statements made by President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh.
This news hit the wires far too late to be included in Friday’s East Coast newspapers; thus, the first reportage we saw was in today’s New York Times and Washington Post. And the news articles, opinion pieces and editorials were indeed excellent. I read through them all, word for word. But in all those pages and columns, something was missing! A six letter work that begins with “I” and ends with “L”. Not one mention!
Now, imagine you’re a citizen and resident of that Country. [Note bene: Following in the footsteps of these illustrious newspapers, I will not spell that out for you either!] Practically on your doorstep is another Country that has lied and cheated its way toward acquiring the capabilities of producing a nuclear weapons capability. And this Nation denies that the Holocaust ever took place, denies the legality of your State, and is pledged to its destruction. How would you feel? Threatened? Paranoid? You bet your butt!
Yet not a word or even a hint of concern in these two leading newspapers. Are we missing something here? I think not. Harsh sanctions will work, IF they can be unanimously be adopted by the UN Security Council. They might even lead to a popular revolt in Iran that could topple the Islamic Government. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
No, there’s something else at work here. This “secret” Nation has shown great patience over the past 10 years as we have all been lied to by Tehran. Now, on the eve of the first meaningful talks to be held with it in a decade, there they go again—caught with their hands in the cookie jar. My guess is that patience noted above has now worn out. It was only nine months ago that their military conducted an extensive exercise to prove that they had the long-range capability to do what may have been needed in the long term. And our World’s leaders are fully aware of that fact, and may well have pressured the media to “keep hands off.”
Whatever, the gathering clouds over the Middle East will surely darken, and do so quickly. The experts seem to agree that Iran could have nuclear weapons within three years if they continue at their current pace. What’s the old saying? “Time waits for no man?” I would not feel so secure right now if I were living in a palace in Tehran.
Alicia de Larrocha--A Poet of the Keyboard
One of my favorite pianists died Friday night at her home in Barcelona. The New York Times published a wonderful obituary in today's edition, which I have attached below.
I attended many of de Larrocha's concerts over the years, including many at Lincoln Center's Mostly Mozart Festival.. But the night I remeber most was a concert she devoted to the music of Issac Albeniz at a sold out Philharmonic Hall back in the 1970s. No one played the music of the Spanish masters better than this lady. The only one who came close was Victoria de los Angeles' husband and accompianist Gonzalo Soriano. The world of music will miss Alicia greatly, but we should give thanks that we were able to share in her magnificent artistry.
Bill Breakstone
September 29, 2009
THE NEW YORK TIMES
September 26, 2009
Alicia de Larrocha, Pianist, Dies at 86
By ALLAN KOZINN
Alicia de Larrocha, the diminutive Spanish pianist esteemed for her elegant Mozart performances and regarded as an incomparable interpreter of Albéniz, Granados, Mompou and other Spanish composers, died on Friday evening in a hospital in Barcelona. She was 86.
Her death was confirmed by Gregor Benko, a piano historian, record producer and family friend. He said she had been in declining health since breaking her hip two years ago.
In a career that began when she was a child — she made her concert debut at 5, and her first recording at 9 — Ms. de Larrocha cultivated a poetic interpretive style in which gracefulness was prized over technical flashiness or grand, temperamental gestures. But her approach, combined with her small stature — she was only 4-foot-9 — was deceptive: early in her career she played all the big Romantic concertos, including those of Liszt and Rachmaninoff, and she could produce a surprisingly large, beautifully sculptured sound.
Even so, it was in music that demanded focus, compactness and subtle coloristic breadth that Ms. de Larrocha excelled. Her Mozart performances, as well as her readings of Bach and Scarlatti, were so carefully detailed and light in texture that even as public taste shifted toward the more scholarly interpretations of period-instrument specialists, Ms. de Larrocha’s readings retained their allure. She was closely associated with the Mostly Mozart Festival at Lincoln Center, where she first performed in 1971. Her appearances remained among the festival’s hottest tickets until her final performance there in 2003.
Her approach to Mozart also served her well in larger works, like the Beethoven concertos. When she belatedly recorded the full cycle, with Riccardo Chailly and the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, in 1986, her performance was notable for the devotional serenity she brought to the slow movements and her fleet but dignified renderings of the Allegros. But even there she retained a touch from a former age: instead of playing Beethoven’s own cadenzas in the Fourth Concerto, she played those of the composer Carl Reinecke, because those were the only ones available to her as a student in the 1930s.
Ms. de Larrocha’s most enduring contribution, however, was her championship of Spanish composers. Although Arthur Rubinstein played some of this repertory, few other pianists outside Spain did, and none with Ms. de Larrocha’s flair. She made enduring recordings of Albéniz’s “Iberia” and Granados’s “Goyescas,” and helped ease those works into the standard piano canon. She also made a powerful case for the piano music of JoaquÃn Turina, a composer otherwise known mostly for the guitar music he wrote for Andrés Segovia, and she almost single-handedly built a following for Federico Mompou, a Catalan composer of quietly shimmering, poetic works.
Although she was often regarded as partial to Granados — her mother and an aunt were among his piano students, but he died before Ms. de Larrocha was born — she refused to cite a favorite.
“I don’t believe there is a ‘best’ of anything in this life,” she said in a 1978 interview with Contemporary Keyboard. “I would say, though, that Granados was one of the great Spanish composers, and that, in my opinion, he was the only one that captured the real Romantic flavor. His style was aristocratic, elegant and poetic — completely different from Falla and Albéniz. To me, each of them is a different world. Falla was the one who really captured the spirit of the Gypsy music. And Albéniz, I think was more international than the others. Even though his music is Spanish in flavor, his style is completely Impressionistic.”
Alicia de Larrocha y de la Calle was born in Barcelona on May 23, 1923, to Eduardo de Larrocha and Maria Teresa de la Calle. Although her mother gave up any ambition of a performing career when she married, Ms. de Larrocha’s aunt was a piano teacher at the Academia Marshall, a school founded by the pianist Frank Marshall, who was also a Granados student.
Ms. de Larrocha began to demand piano lessons when she was 3, after visiting her aunt as she taught students. At the keyboard on her own, Ms. de Larrocha imitated what she had seen her aunt’s students do, and impressed her aunt sufficiently that she took Ms. de Larrocha to Marshall. He was less encouraging. He said it was too early to start lessons, and suggested that Ms. de Larrocha be kept away from the piano. Ms. de Larrocha said that once her aunt locked the instrument, she banged her head on the floor until Marshall relented and began to teach her.
She made progress quickly. At 5 she made her concert debut, performing works by Bach and Mozart at the 1929 International Exhibition in Barcelona. She made her orchestral debut with a Mozart concerto in Madrid when she was 11.
Happenstance led to her first recordings, when she was 9. She was taken to a recording studio to watch the great Spanish mezzo-soprano Conchita Supervia at work, and the singer invited Ms. de Larrocha to record something. She played two Chopin works, a nocturne and a waltz.
Mr. Benko has written of these recordings that “it is uncanny to note that this 9-year-old demonstrates all the elements of Chopin’s style — tone, color, legato phrasing and singing line — by means of finger technique alone, since we know Alicia’s legs were barely long enough to reach the pedals.”
When Marshall, Ms. de Larrocha’s only teacher, left Spain in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War — he was, Ms. de Larrocha said, a target of the Loyalists — the young pianist continued her studies on her own. She resumed working with Marshall after he returned in 1939, and she took over the direction of Marshall’s academy after he died in 1959. Her co-director was the pianist Juan Torra, whom she married in 1958. Mr. Torra died in 1982. They had two children, a son, Juan, and a daughter, Alicia, who survive her.
Ms. de Larrocha confined her performances mostly to Spain until 1947, when she undertook a European tour that included recitals in Paris, Geneva and Brussels. She made her American debut with the Los Angeles Philharmonic in 1955, performing Mozart’s Concerto in A (K. 488) and Falla’s “Nights in the Gardens of Spain.” That same year she had her New York recital debut at Town Hall. Her program, which included Beethoven’s large Sonata in A flat (Op. 110), Schumann’s “Carnaval” and works by Carlos Surinach, Granados and Albéniz, quickly established her strengths.
Reviewing the concert in The New York Times, Harold C. Schonberg wrote of her Spanish set that “she had a way of idiomatically shaping a musical phrase that cannot be taught — a sudden dynamic shift, a note instinctively accented, a touch of the pedal, an application of rubato. Her rhythm was extraordinarily flexible. Obviously this music is in the pianist’s blood. She invested it with a degree of life and imagination that not many pianists before the public today could begin to duplicate.”
Yet Ms. de Larrocha was a reluctant star. She returned to Spain; taught at the Marshall academy; made a series of exquisite recordings for the Spanish Hispavox label, which were later licensed for release by Vox and other American companies; and played occasional recitals in Europe. She returned to the United States after Herbert Breslin, a concert manager, heard her Hispavox recording of “Iberia” and brought her back for performances in 1965, including her first appearance with the New York Philharmonic.
Mr. Breslin also built her recording career, getting Ms. de Larrocha signed to an international recording contract with the British Decca label. For Decca she remade the Spanish works that she had recorded for Hispavox, and added many others, as well as a great deal of Mozart and albums of Bach, Franck, Ravel and Rachmaninoff. She recorded for Decca until 1990, when she took a new look at her repertory for BMG Classics.
“There are two kinds of repertory Alicia plays,” Mr. Breslin said in 1978. “Things she plays extremely well, and things she plays better than anyone else. But what I think makes her a phenomenon is that she doesn’t give the impression of being a great personality. She’s cool as a cucumber. Onstage, she doesn’t even like to look at the audience. So what the public is responding to is something in the music.”
After 1965, Ms. de Larrocha visited the United States regularly, and continued making annual recital, concerto and, occasionally, chamber music appearances, until her retirement in 2003. She was, as always, self-conscious about her size. In the mid-1990s she complained that she was shrinking: by 1995 her height was only 4-foot-5, and where her small hand had been able to reach the interval of a 10th in her heyday, she was by then able to reach only a 9th, which limited her repertory somewhat.
But over all her technique never failed her, nor did her sense of color, especially in the twin pillars of her repertory, Spanish music and Mozart. She continued to earn glowing reviews.
When she played her final Carnegie Hall performance — the chamber version of Mozart’s Concerto No. 12 in A (K. 414), with the Tokyo String Quartet, in November 2002 — The New York Times reported that, “The small details — the trills and turns that adorn the score — as well as the more expansive pianism in the cadenzas and the glowing Andante, had considerable energy behind them.”
The review continued: “Her performance had the bright, light quality that she brought to her playing in the ’70s, when her appearances at the Mostly Mozart Festival were among the highlights of New York summers. If anything, her approach to Mozart on Monday was more fluid, more carefully nuanced than it was then.”
I attended many of de Larrocha's concerts over the years, including many at Lincoln Center's Mostly Mozart Festival.. But the night I remeber most was a concert she devoted to the music of Issac Albeniz at a sold out Philharmonic Hall back in the 1970s. No one played the music of the Spanish masters better than this lady. The only one who came close was Victoria de los Angeles' husband and accompianist Gonzalo Soriano. The world of music will miss Alicia greatly, but we should give thanks that we were able to share in her magnificent artistry.
Bill Breakstone
September 29, 2009
THE NEW YORK TIMES
September 26, 2009
Alicia de Larrocha, Pianist, Dies at 86
By ALLAN KOZINN
Alicia de Larrocha, the diminutive Spanish pianist esteemed for her elegant Mozart performances and regarded as an incomparable interpreter of Albéniz, Granados, Mompou and other Spanish composers, died on Friday evening in a hospital in Barcelona. She was 86.
Her death was confirmed by Gregor Benko, a piano historian, record producer and family friend. He said she had been in declining health since breaking her hip two years ago.
In a career that began when she was a child — she made her concert debut at 5, and her first recording at 9 — Ms. de Larrocha cultivated a poetic interpretive style in which gracefulness was prized over technical flashiness or grand, temperamental gestures. But her approach, combined with her small stature — she was only 4-foot-9 — was deceptive: early in her career she played all the big Romantic concertos, including those of Liszt and Rachmaninoff, and she could produce a surprisingly large, beautifully sculptured sound.
Even so, it was in music that demanded focus, compactness and subtle coloristic breadth that Ms. de Larrocha excelled. Her Mozart performances, as well as her readings of Bach and Scarlatti, were so carefully detailed and light in texture that even as public taste shifted toward the more scholarly interpretations of period-instrument specialists, Ms. de Larrocha’s readings retained their allure. She was closely associated with the Mostly Mozart Festival at Lincoln Center, where she first performed in 1971. Her appearances remained among the festival’s hottest tickets until her final performance there in 2003.
Her approach to Mozart also served her well in larger works, like the Beethoven concertos. When she belatedly recorded the full cycle, with Riccardo Chailly and the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, in 1986, her performance was notable for the devotional serenity she brought to the slow movements and her fleet but dignified renderings of the Allegros. But even there she retained a touch from a former age: instead of playing Beethoven’s own cadenzas in the Fourth Concerto, she played those of the composer Carl Reinecke, because those were the only ones available to her as a student in the 1930s.
Ms. de Larrocha’s most enduring contribution, however, was her championship of Spanish composers. Although Arthur Rubinstein played some of this repertory, few other pianists outside Spain did, and none with Ms. de Larrocha’s flair. She made enduring recordings of Albéniz’s “Iberia” and Granados’s “Goyescas,” and helped ease those works into the standard piano canon. She also made a powerful case for the piano music of JoaquÃn Turina, a composer otherwise known mostly for the guitar music he wrote for Andrés Segovia, and she almost single-handedly built a following for Federico Mompou, a Catalan composer of quietly shimmering, poetic works.
Although she was often regarded as partial to Granados — her mother and an aunt were among his piano students, but he died before Ms. de Larrocha was born — she refused to cite a favorite.
“I don’t believe there is a ‘best’ of anything in this life,” she said in a 1978 interview with Contemporary Keyboard. “I would say, though, that Granados was one of the great Spanish composers, and that, in my opinion, he was the only one that captured the real Romantic flavor. His style was aristocratic, elegant and poetic — completely different from Falla and Albéniz. To me, each of them is a different world. Falla was the one who really captured the spirit of the Gypsy music. And Albéniz, I think was more international than the others. Even though his music is Spanish in flavor, his style is completely Impressionistic.”
Alicia de Larrocha y de la Calle was born in Barcelona on May 23, 1923, to Eduardo de Larrocha and Maria Teresa de la Calle. Although her mother gave up any ambition of a performing career when she married, Ms. de Larrocha’s aunt was a piano teacher at the Academia Marshall, a school founded by the pianist Frank Marshall, who was also a Granados student.
Ms. de Larrocha began to demand piano lessons when she was 3, after visiting her aunt as she taught students. At the keyboard on her own, Ms. de Larrocha imitated what she had seen her aunt’s students do, and impressed her aunt sufficiently that she took Ms. de Larrocha to Marshall. He was less encouraging. He said it was too early to start lessons, and suggested that Ms. de Larrocha be kept away from the piano. Ms. de Larrocha said that once her aunt locked the instrument, she banged her head on the floor until Marshall relented and began to teach her.
She made progress quickly. At 5 she made her concert debut, performing works by Bach and Mozart at the 1929 International Exhibition in Barcelona. She made her orchestral debut with a Mozart concerto in Madrid when she was 11.
Happenstance led to her first recordings, when she was 9. She was taken to a recording studio to watch the great Spanish mezzo-soprano Conchita Supervia at work, and the singer invited Ms. de Larrocha to record something. She played two Chopin works, a nocturne and a waltz.
Mr. Benko has written of these recordings that “it is uncanny to note that this 9-year-old demonstrates all the elements of Chopin’s style — tone, color, legato phrasing and singing line — by means of finger technique alone, since we know Alicia’s legs were barely long enough to reach the pedals.”
When Marshall, Ms. de Larrocha’s only teacher, left Spain in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War — he was, Ms. de Larrocha said, a target of the Loyalists — the young pianist continued her studies on her own. She resumed working with Marshall after he returned in 1939, and she took over the direction of Marshall’s academy after he died in 1959. Her co-director was the pianist Juan Torra, whom she married in 1958. Mr. Torra died in 1982. They had two children, a son, Juan, and a daughter, Alicia, who survive her.
Ms. de Larrocha confined her performances mostly to Spain until 1947, when she undertook a European tour that included recitals in Paris, Geneva and Brussels. She made her American debut with the Los Angeles Philharmonic in 1955, performing Mozart’s Concerto in A (K. 488) and Falla’s “Nights in the Gardens of Spain.” That same year she had her New York recital debut at Town Hall. Her program, which included Beethoven’s large Sonata in A flat (Op. 110), Schumann’s “Carnaval” and works by Carlos Surinach, Granados and Albéniz, quickly established her strengths.
Reviewing the concert in The New York Times, Harold C. Schonberg wrote of her Spanish set that “she had a way of idiomatically shaping a musical phrase that cannot be taught — a sudden dynamic shift, a note instinctively accented, a touch of the pedal, an application of rubato. Her rhythm was extraordinarily flexible. Obviously this music is in the pianist’s blood. She invested it with a degree of life and imagination that not many pianists before the public today could begin to duplicate.”
Yet Ms. de Larrocha was a reluctant star. She returned to Spain; taught at the Marshall academy; made a series of exquisite recordings for the Spanish Hispavox label, which were later licensed for release by Vox and other American companies; and played occasional recitals in Europe. She returned to the United States after Herbert Breslin, a concert manager, heard her Hispavox recording of “Iberia” and brought her back for performances in 1965, including her first appearance with the New York Philharmonic.
Mr. Breslin also built her recording career, getting Ms. de Larrocha signed to an international recording contract with the British Decca label. For Decca she remade the Spanish works that she had recorded for Hispavox, and added many others, as well as a great deal of Mozart and albums of Bach, Franck, Ravel and Rachmaninoff. She recorded for Decca until 1990, when she took a new look at her repertory for BMG Classics.
“There are two kinds of repertory Alicia plays,” Mr. Breslin said in 1978. “Things she plays extremely well, and things she plays better than anyone else. But what I think makes her a phenomenon is that she doesn’t give the impression of being a great personality. She’s cool as a cucumber. Onstage, she doesn’t even like to look at the audience. So what the public is responding to is something in the music.”
After 1965, Ms. de Larrocha visited the United States regularly, and continued making annual recital, concerto and, occasionally, chamber music appearances, until her retirement in 2003. She was, as always, self-conscious about her size. In the mid-1990s she complained that she was shrinking: by 1995 her height was only 4-foot-5, and where her small hand had been able to reach the interval of a 10th in her heyday, she was by then able to reach only a 9th, which limited her repertory somewhat.
But over all her technique never failed her, nor did her sense of color, especially in the twin pillars of her repertory, Spanish music and Mozart. She continued to earn glowing reviews.
When she played her final Carnegie Hall performance — the chamber version of Mozart’s Concerto No. 12 in A (K. 414), with the Tokyo String Quartet, in November 2002 — The New York Times reported that, “The small details — the trills and turns that adorn the score — as well as the more expansive pianism in the cadenzas and the glowing Andante, had considerable energy behind them.”
The review continued: “Her performance had the bright, light quality that she brought to her playing in the ’70s, when her appearances at the Mostly Mozart Festival were among the highlights of New York summers. If anything, her approach to Mozart on Monday was more fluid, more carefully nuanced than it was then.”
KATHLEEN FERRIER--A REMEMRANCE
KATHLEEN FERRIER--A Remembrance
Geraldine Ferrar was an outstnding soprano in the early years of the 20th Century, both at The Met in New York and as a guest artist at the Vienna Hofoper. In reading about her, I came to realize that I had confused her with another famous singer whose name was similar, but had been active in far more recent times. This was Kathleen Ferrier. Kath was English born, and had a meteoric carreer in England and worldwide in the period between 1940 and 1953. She was a contralto, and an extraordinary vocalist. She died of cancer in 1953, and her premature departure from the musical stage was indeed a tragedy. Kath posessed a contralto voice of sublety and power, as well as a musicianship that was unmatched in her time. Her career as a singer was unfortunately short-lived.
She collaborated with Mahler's disciple Bruno Walter in many recordings of lieder programs and Mahler lied and symphonies. Those recordings date from the period between 1946 and 1952. Many were re-mastered in 2003, in celebration of the 100th birthday of Mahler's death and this fine singer's passing in 1953.
Kathleen was a "Decca Artist", and the master recordings of her work on that label were faithfully preserved. A 2003 tribute to her artistry was re-issued on Decca in 2003, and a two disc CD set became available in 2004.
I acquired this tribute a few days ago, and have listened to it several times in the past two days. It is a remarklable and historic addition to the performance literature. It includes several "takes" with The Vienna Philharmonic in works of Mahler, and many other recordings of Ferrier's famous performances of English folk songs and more serious lieder selections by Mahler, Brahms, Handel and others. This three hour compendium of song is among the finest historical documentations of vocal artistry that we have been left by former artists. There are no hollow sounding recordings such as Caruso's in the early 20th century. The sound reproduction is up to today's standards, and Ferrier's voice comes accross in full detail.
There are numerous standout performances in this recording, including several of Mahler's Ruckert Lieder. One aria from Handel's Atalanta, "Like as the love-torn turtle", is totally new to these ears, and a pure delight.
Should you want to re-aquiaint youselves with a tuely remarkable contralto voice of those times, this is a recording for you!
Best,
Bill Breakstone
September 29, 209
Geraldine Ferrar was an outstnding soprano in the early years of the 20th Century, both at The Met in New York and as a guest artist at the Vienna Hofoper. In reading about her, I came to realize that I had confused her with another famous singer whose name was similar, but had been active in far more recent times. This was Kathleen Ferrier. Kath was English born, and had a meteoric carreer in England and worldwide in the period between 1940 and 1953. She was a contralto, and an extraordinary vocalist. She died of cancer in 1953, and her premature departure from the musical stage was indeed a tragedy. Kath posessed a contralto voice of sublety and power, as well as a musicianship that was unmatched in her time. Her career as a singer was unfortunately short-lived.
She collaborated with Mahler's disciple Bruno Walter in many recordings of lieder programs and Mahler lied and symphonies. Those recordings date from the period between 1946 and 1952. Many were re-mastered in 2003, in celebration of the 100th birthday of Mahler's death and this fine singer's passing in 1953.
Kathleen was a "Decca Artist", and the master recordings of her work on that label were faithfully preserved. A 2003 tribute to her artistry was re-issued on Decca in 2003, and a two disc CD set became available in 2004.
I acquired this tribute a few days ago, and have listened to it several times in the past two days. It is a remarklable and historic addition to the performance literature. It includes several "takes" with The Vienna Philharmonic in works of Mahler, and many other recordings of Ferrier's famous performances of English folk songs and more serious lieder selections by Mahler, Brahms, Handel and others. This three hour compendium of song is among the finest historical documentations of vocal artistry that we have been left by former artists. There are no hollow sounding recordings such as Caruso's in the early 20th century. The sound reproduction is up to today's standards, and Ferrier's voice comes accross in full detail.
There are numerous standout performances in this recording, including several of Mahler's Ruckert Lieder. One aria from Handel's Atalanta, "Like as the love-torn turtle", is totally new to these ears, and a pure delight.
Should you want to re-aquiaint youselves with a tuely remarkable contralto voice of those times, this is a recording for you!
Best,
Bill Breakstone
September 29, 209
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
ORCHESTRAL SEATING PLANS
In the NY Times Review (Tommassini) of the Philharmonic's Opening Night Gala, the accompanying photograph caugt my eye, as it appeared that Alan Gilbert had changed the orchestra seating. Today's Times carries an article about various changes at The Philharmonic, most visable of which is the new orchestral seating plan, and the musician's reaction to it [having to get used to listening for other instruments entrances and overall coordination after, what, 40 years sitting in the same seats as last season.
When Escenbach took over the Philadelphia, he made the same seating changes, and my friend had more than a little trouble seeing the second violins in front of us (we sit third row orchestra to the conductor's left), when she was so used to seeing Stoecklin (?) sitting in front of us. In any case, I actually like the new seating plan, as it really brings out the differences between the first and second violin parts. However, if I were on the podium, I could never get used to reaching to my left for the lower strings when for 60 years it's been the other way around.
Two interesting musical acquisitions this past week. First, a recording of Mahler's "Das klagende Leid" led by Michael Tilson Thomas with The San Francisco Symphony and soloists (including Michelle de Young) and chorus. Never heard this work before, but de la Grange mentions it so many times in his biography, and it was one of "Mahler's favorite children", that I had to get acquainted. Heard it through yesterday afternoon, and must do so again tomorrow. Astounding orchestration for a nineteen-year-old composer! The final hammerblow on the timpani in the last movement is a foretelling of the three that end his Sixth Symphony.
The other recording was also brought about from reading de la Grange. When Mahler took over the Hofoper, a repertoire staple was Albert Lorzing's "Zar und Zimmermann", very popular at the time amongst the Viennese audience. Mahler immediately re-staged the production in the fall of 1897, and it was a great early success. Thus I was very curious to hear what it was all about, it having vanished into performance oblivion. Well, the Viennese may have loved it, but that doesn't say too much about them or their tastes! My Lord, what was such rubbish doing on the stage of the second greatest opera house in the world? [More about the Viennese later-- hint, I filled out a survey for a travel blog site the other day. Among several questions, it asked what place would you never travel to again? I spent 4 days over Christmas in Vienna around 1967 or so, and outside of a wonderful performance of Zauberflote and Christmas Morning services at St. Stephens, found the City to be a very unfriendly place!].
So, the bad news is that "Zar" was awful. The good news is that it only set me back $9.00 + shipping.
In the NY Times Review (Tommassini) of the Philharmonic's Opening Night Gala, the accompanying photograph caugt my eye, as it appeared that Alan Gilbert had changed the orchestra seating. Today's Times carries an article about various changes at The Philharmonic, most visable of which is the new orchestral seating plan, and the musician's reaction to it [having to get used to listening for other instruments entrances and overall coordination after, what, 40 years sitting in the same seats as last season.
When Escenbach took over the Philadelphia, he made the same seating changes, and my friend had more than a little trouble seeing the second violins in front of us (we sit third row orchestra to the conductor's left), when she was so used to seeing Stoecklin (?) sitting in front of us. In any case, I actually like the new seating plan, as it really brings out the differences between the first and second violin parts. However, if I were on the podium, I could never get used to reaching to my left for the lower strings when for 60 years it's been the other way around.
Two interesting musical acquisitions this past week. First, a recording of Mahler's "Das klagende Leid" led by Michael Tilson Thomas with The San Francisco Symphony and soloists (including Michelle de Young) and chorus. Never heard this work before, but de la Grange mentions it so many times in his biography, and it was one of "Mahler's favorite children", that I had to get acquainted. Heard it through yesterday afternoon, and must do so again tomorrow. Astounding orchestration for a nineteen-year-old composer! The final hammerblow on the timpani in the last movement is a foretelling of the three that end his Sixth Symphony.
The other recording was also brought about from reading de la Grange. When Mahler took over the Hofoper, a repertoire staple was Albert Lorzing's "Zar und Zimmermann", very popular at the time amongst the Viennese audience. Mahler immediately re-staged the production in the fall of 1897, and it was a great early success. Thus I was very curious to hear what it was all about, it having vanished into performance oblivion. Well, the Viennese may have loved it, but that doesn't say too much about them or their tastes! My Lord, what was such rubbish doing on the stage of the second greatest opera house in the world? [More about the Viennese later-- hint, I filled out a survey for a travel blog site the other day. Among several questions, it asked what place would you never travel to again? I spent 4 days over Christmas in Vienna around 1967 or so, and outside of a wonderful performance of Zauberflote and Christmas Morning services at St. Stephens, found the City to be a very unfriendly place!].
So, the bad news is that "Zar" was awful. The good news is that it only set me back $9.00 + shipping.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
POLITICAL DEPRESSION
Political Depression—
Nothing Positive Is Emerging from Our
Choice to Change Direction
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, September 17, 2009
It’s time to double up on anti-depressants! The Nation voted to elect President Obama based on his promise of change, of enacting policies that reversed the bias of previous administrations over the past 30 years to de-regulate the economy, engage in deficit building fiscal policies, of mis-managing foreign affairs, and ignoring the concerns of the average American family.
When he came into office, Obama rightfully attempted to reach out to the opposition that had so overwhelmingly been turned out of office, and seek a non-partisan solution to the crises the Nation was facing, and continues to face at present. He and his Congressional allies sought compromise on all issues, be they economic reform, education reform, foreign policy initiatives, education reform, in effect all matters that everyone considered essential in these troubling times to right our ship of sate and return America to growth-oriented policies that would move the Nation from the dismal present to a brighter future.
That attempt at bipartisanship has been rejected outright by a Republican minority focused on blocking all Administration initiatives on a purely ideological basis, not based upon a concern about the welfare of the Nation, but on the political reality that a defeat of Administration proposals will result in public frustration with its handling of these issues, and a public denial of the Administration in the coming mid-term elections. They have done their work very effectively.
So, where are we now? A total impasse on Health Care Reform, diminishing support from within his own Party about foreign policy, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now Republican opposition to the Obama Administration’s plan to change course on the missile defense issue.
What is troubling is an apparent lack of Administration will and courage to proceed on a path that his supporters elected him upon. Moderates within his own Party oppose a Public Option on Health Care Reform, and he backs down. Voices within his Party voice opposition to his pledge to do what his Generals suggest in Afghanistan, and he backs off.
When is Obama going to stand up to the opposition, and initiate the changes that he promised to his base, whatever it takes? When will he and his advisors come to realize that there is no expectation to bring the minority, or even a few of them, on Board with his initiatives? Not one single Republican supported the compromise that Max Bauchus announced yesterday afternoon. None! And that mealy-mouth Committee agreement did not even contain a public option or any alternative thereto.
It’s absolutely sickening! Enough to think that there is something inherently wrong with our political system. Actually, it’s too early to forecast how all this will turn out, but many of my friends who supported Obama so fervently during the election are very disappointed with him at this point.
Nothing Positive Is Emerging from Our
Choice to Change Direction
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, September 17, 2009
It’s time to double up on anti-depressants! The Nation voted to elect President Obama based on his promise of change, of enacting policies that reversed the bias of previous administrations over the past 30 years to de-regulate the economy, engage in deficit building fiscal policies, of mis-managing foreign affairs, and ignoring the concerns of the average American family.
When he came into office, Obama rightfully attempted to reach out to the opposition that had so overwhelmingly been turned out of office, and seek a non-partisan solution to the crises the Nation was facing, and continues to face at present. He and his Congressional allies sought compromise on all issues, be they economic reform, education reform, foreign policy initiatives, education reform, in effect all matters that everyone considered essential in these troubling times to right our ship of sate and return America to growth-oriented policies that would move the Nation from the dismal present to a brighter future.
That attempt at bipartisanship has been rejected outright by a Republican minority focused on blocking all Administration initiatives on a purely ideological basis, not based upon a concern about the welfare of the Nation, but on the political reality that a defeat of Administration proposals will result in public frustration with its handling of these issues, and a public denial of the Administration in the coming mid-term elections. They have done their work very effectively.
So, where are we now? A total impasse on Health Care Reform, diminishing support from within his own Party about foreign policy, especially Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now Republican opposition to the Obama Administration’s plan to change course on the missile defense issue.
What is troubling is an apparent lack of Administration will and courage to proceed on a path that his supporters elected him upon. Moderates within his own Party oppose a Public Option on Health Care Reform, and he backs down. Voices within his Party voice opposition to his pledge to do what his Generals suggest in Afghanistan, and he backs off.
When is Obama going to stand up to the opposition, and initiate the changes that he promised to his base, whatever it takes? When will he and his advisors come to realize that there is no expectation to bring the minority, or even a few of them, on Board with his initiatives? Not one single Republican supported the compromise that Max Bauchus announced yesterday afternoon. None! And that mealy-mouth Committee agreement did not even contain a public option or any alternative thereto.
It’s absolutely sickening! Enough to think that there is something inherently wrong with our political system. Actually, it’s too early to forecast how all this will turn out, but many of my friends who supported Obama so fervently during the election are very disappointed with him at this point.
Hans Pfistner—
Looking Back on a Musical Oddity
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, September 16, 2009
After attending several Mahler concerts at Carnegie Hall in may with the Berlin Staatskapelle under Boulez and Barenboim, I made a commitment to read the entire four-volume biography of Mahler written by Henri-Louis de la Grange. I’m about halfway through this daunting project, which I have found totally riveting. I’ll have more to write on Mahler and his times when the project is complete.
One of the more enlightening aspects of these biographies are the mention of Maher’s contemporary conductors and composers, and the many details that de la Grange brings to light about them. One such artist is Hans Pfistner, and his history and music is fascinating, especially for a composer who has fallen into relative obscurity.
Pfistner was born in Moscow on May 5, 1869 to German-born parents and was brought up and educated in Frankfurt. He composed four operas, beginning in 1895 with Der arme Heinrich. That was followed by Die Rose vom Liebesgarten (“Die Rose) in 1905, Das Christelflein in 1906, and, finally, Palestrina in [Die Rose)
1917. The first three were failures in Berlin, the last, first performed in Munich, was hailed was hailed by critics as the embodiment of German national art. In 1944, Pfitzner settled in Vienna, where he lived out his remaining years there and in Salzburg, where he died on May 22, 1949, just five months prior to his slightly older colleague, Richard Strauss.
Pfitzner found two champions within Mahler’s circle, his protégée Bruno Walter, and his wife Alma. Pfitzner brought his score for “Die Rose” to the attention of the Vienna Hofoper and its director Mahler in 1901. After reading the libretto, Mahler rejected the work saying “Where on Earth did you dig up this text.” Then in December of 1902, Walter brought the score for Pfitzner’s String Quartet in D Major, Op. 13, to Mahler and performed it in a piano transcription. Mahler was impressed. ”Die Rose” was premiered in Germany in 1904. Then Mahler had a change of heart about the opera. Highly impressed by the Op. 13 Quartet, and taking note of Bruno Walter’s enthusiasm for this German composer, and by Alma’s constant support of Pfistner (the two had quite a lot to do with each other, both in Mahler’s presence and in his apartment when she was alone), Mahler decided to put on the work in Vienna, where it premiered on April 6, 1905. Despite the fact that he had earlier publicly disdained the work, Mahler threw 101% of his efforts into the production, determined that it be seen by the Viennese audience in the beat possible light, and cast the roles to the top rung of Hofoper singers. Nevertheless, the Viennese critics lambasted the work, but that was to be expected; the majority of them castigated anything that Mahler had his hands on. That did not deter Mahler, who went on to schedule 17 additional performances during 1905 and 1906.
Pfitzner also composed many other chamber works, mostly of a one-of-a-kind nature. A look through the currently available Pfitzner discography reveals recordings of 3 Cello Concerti, the Oratorio “Von deutscher Seele,” the operas “Palestrina” and “Die Christelflein,” the Violin Concerto, the Piano Trio, a Duo for Violin, Cello & Orchestra, a Scherzo for Orchestra, Lieder, the Symphonies Op. 36A, 44 and 46, a String Quintet and a String Sextet. In addition to his Op. 13 Quartet (1903) cited above, he also wrote two others—C-Sharp Minor, Op. 36 (1925), and C Minor, Op. 50 (1949).
There is a rather famous photographic portrait of Pfitzner dating from 1912, and a quick inspection of it shows a rather handsome 46-year-old man, with sharp features and a demonic look. He was never a happy man, an ultra-German nationalist and Nazi-sympathizer who offended most of his associates, and even his friends. He had what could be called a persecution complex, and eventually insanity took over his final years.
Somewhere, in the deep, dark recesses of my memory, is a live performance I heard of one of the Quartets, but a search through the last 18 music season programs failed to locate it. It must have been way too long ago to recall anything of it, thus I listed with great attention to the recording I acquired some three weeks ago of the two Quartets, Op. 13 and Op. 50. I’ve been through them twice, and will need at least one more hearing for fuller understanding. I totally agree with Gustav Mahler that the earlier quartet [interestingly dedicated to Alma Mahler] is a wonderfully conceived work, appropriate to its post Romantic cousins of that period, and with signs of real individuality. The Op. 50 Quartet is another matter. Here, in 1949, all signs of individuality are gone, and what remains could easily have been written by Brahms [first, third and fourth movements] and Beethoven [second movement]. It is so at variance with music that had been written in the 1940s (Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc.) as to seem totally out of place. At the same time, it is highly melodic and totally listenable, what makes me think of it as a freak in a time warp.
I would love to hear “Die Rose,” for if Mahler could put forth such an effort on it’s behalf, it has to have more that a little bit of merit. But, alas, no recording is currently available. Perhaps a trip to the Julliard Library will cure that interest.
Looking Back on a Musical Oddity
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, September 16, 2009
After attending several Mahler concerts at Carnegie Hall in may with the Berlin Staatskapelle under Boulez and Barenboim, I made a commitment to read the entire four-volume biography of Mahler written by Henri-Louis de la Grange. I’m about halfway through this daunting project, which I have found totally riveting. I’ll have more to write on Mahler and his times when the project is complete.
One of the more enlightening aspects of these biographies are the mention of Maher’s contemporary conductors and composers, and the many details that de la Grange brings to light about them. One such artist is Hans Pfistner, and his history and music is fascinating, especially for a composer who has fallen into relative obscurity.
Pfistner was born in Moscow on May 5, 1869 to German-born parents and was brought up and educated in Frankfurt. He composed four operas, beginning in 1895 with Der arme Heinrich. That was followed by Die Rose vom Liebesgarten (“Die Rose) in 1905, Das Christelflein in 1906, and, finally, Palestrina in [Die Rose)
1917. The first three were failures in Berlin, the last, first performed in Munich, was hailed was hailed by critics as the embodiment of German national art. In 1944, Pfitzner settled in Vienna, where he lived out his remaining years there and in Salzburg, where he died on May 22, 1949, just five months prior to his slightly older colleague, Richard Strauss.
Pfitzner found two champions within Mahler’s circle, his protégée Bruno Walter, and his wife Alma. Pfitzner brought his score for “Die Rose” to the attention of the Vienna Hofoper and its director Mahler in 1901. After reading the libretto, Mahler rejected the work saying “Where on Earth did you dig up this text.” Then in December of 1902, Walter brought the score for Pfitzner’s String Quartet in D Major, Op. 13, to Mahler and performed it in a piano transcription. Mahler was impressed. ”Die Rose” was premiered in Germany in 1904. Then Mahler had a change of heart about the opera. Highly impressed by the Op. 13 Quartet, and taking note of Bruno Walter’s enthusiasm for this German composer, and by Alma’s constant support of Pfistner (the two had quite a lot to do with each other, both in Mahler’s presence and in his apartment when she was alone), Mahler decided to put on the work in Vienna, where it premiered on April 6, 1905. Despite the fact that he had earlier publicly disdained the work, Mahler threw 101% of his efforts into the production, determined that it be seen by the Viennese audience in the beat possible light, and cast the roles to the top rung of Hofoper singers. Nevertheless, the Viennese critics lambasted the work, but that was to be expected; the majority of them castigated anything that Mahler had his hands on. That did not deter Mahler, who went on to schedule 17 additional performances during 1905 and 1906.
Pfitzner also composed many other chamber works, mostly of a one-of-a-kind nature. A look through the currently available Pfitzner discography reveals recordings of 3 Cello Concerti, the Oratorio “Von deutscher Seele,” the operas “Palestrina” and “Die Christelflein,” the Violin Concerto, the Piano Trio, a Duo for Violin, Cello & Orchestra, a Scherzo for Orchestra, Lieder, the Symphonies Op. 36A, 44 and 46, a String Quintet and a String Sextet. In addition to his Op. 13 Quartet (1903) cited above, he also wrote two others—C-Sharp Minor, Op. 36 (1925), and C Minor, Op. 50 (1949).
There is a rather famous photographic portrait of Pfitzner dating from 1912, and a quick inspection of it shows a rather handsome 46-year-old man, with sharp features and a demonic look. He was never a happy man, an ultra-German nationalist and Nazi-sympathizer who offended most of his associates, and even his friends. He had what could be called a persecution complex, and eventually insanity took over his final years.
Somewhere, in the deep, dark recesses of my memory, is a live performance I heard of one of the Quartets, but a search through the last 18 music season programs failed to locate it. It must have been way too long ago to recall anything of it, thus I listed with great attention to the recording I acquired some three weeks ago of the two Quartets, Op. 13 and Op. 50. I’ve been through them twice, and will need at least one more hearing for fuller understanding. I totally agree with Gustav Mahler that the earlier quartet [interestingly dedicated to Alma Mahler] is a wonderfully conceived work, appropriate to its post Romantic cousins of that period, and with signs of real individuality. The Op. 50 Quartet is another matter. Here, in 1949, all signs of individuality are gone, and what remains could easily have been written by Brahms [first, third and fourth movements] and Beethoven [second movement]. It is so at variance with music that had been written in the 1940s (Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc.) as to seem totally out of place. At the same time, it is highly melodic and totally listenable, what makes me think of it as a freak in a time warp.
I would love to hear “Die Rose,” for if Mahler could put forth such an effort on it’s behalf, it has to have more that a little bit of merit. But, alas, no recording is currently available. Perhaps a trip to the Julliard Library will cure that interest.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Davis Cup--Fed Cup--Why Not A Combination
As the ATP and WTA stands now, we have seperate competitions among world teams, held annually. We also have the Olympic Games, held once every four years.
My son is an ATP Pro, and we have disscused the alternative of having a men's and women's combined team world tournamnet along the lines of the Davis Cup. He says there have been proposals for such an event, but that nothing has come to fruition.
Thus my question is, why not skip the Davis Cup and Fed Cup in Olympic years, leaving three other years for world competition. One year you would have Davis Cup, the next the Combined Cup, the third the Fed Cup and the fourth the Olympic Games?
As it is right now, with ATP 1000 tournaments on the increase, and World Team Tennis becoming, rightfully, more popular, touring professionals are stressed to the breaking point. I can also see The Madrid Masters possible becoming a Grand Slam Event. The facilities there are fabulous, and are only going to get better. With the number of great and on-coming Spanish players, why should'nt Spain have it's own Grand Slam? The same will be true for Argentina, but they will need facilities, so that may be further in the futures.
The bottom line is that the World Tennis Federation should do whatever is necessary to promote the game, as the USTA has done. Our leaders should always be planning for the future, and as one sees the tremendous popularity of the U.S. Open continue to grow by leaps and bounds, both in terms of record-setting attendance and increased network TV Coverage both nationally and world-wide, would it not be a wise idea to take advantage of the attraction that professional tennis is now generating.
Bill B.
Somers, New York
September 15, 2009
My son is an ATP Pro, and we have disscused the alternative of having a men's and women's combined team world tournamnet along the lines of the Davis Cup. He says there have been proposals for such an event, but that nothing has come to fruition.
Thus my question is, why not skip the Davis Cup and Fed Cup in Olympic years, leaving three other years for world competition. One year you would have Davis Cup, the next the Combined Cup, the third the Fed Cup and the fourth the Olympic Games?
As it is right now, with ATP 1000 tournaments on the increase, and World Team Tennis becoming, rightfully, more popular, touring professionals are stressed to the breaking point. I can also see The Madrid Masters possible becoming a Grand Slam Event. The facilities there are fabulous, and are only going to get better. With the number of great and on-coming Spanish players, why should'nt Spain have it's own Grand Slam? The same will be true for Argentina, but they will need facilities, so that may be further in the futures.
The bottom line is that the World Tennis Federation should do whatever is necessary to promote the game, as the USTA has done. Our leaders should always be planning for the future, and as one sees the tremendous popularity of the U.S. Open continue to grow by leaps and bounds, both in terms of record-setting attendance and increased network TV Coverage both nationally and world-wide, would it not be a wise idea to take advantage of the attraction that professional tennis is now generating.
Bill B.
Somers, New York
September 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Representative Joe Wilson & Democratic Party Discipline
OK folks;
With all the issues the Congress has on its plate, don't you think that the House and the Media are squandering their prcious time in addressing that body's possible resoltion against that representative's stated opposition to an Obama Program. I'm sure that our President had no objections to the Congressman's outburst. He can deal with opposition, and Wilson has the right of free speach, which Obama would be the first to defend.
Yet here we are, watching the media and Congress waste precious time dealing with a non-issue when there are so many important policy initiatives to be considered.
Come on guys, let's deal with issues of National importance!
With all the issues the Congress has on its plate, don't you think that the House and the Media are squandering their prcious time in addressing that body's possible resoltion against that representative's stated opposition to an Obama Program. I'm sure that our President had no objections to the Congressman's outburst. He can deal with opposition, and Wilson has the right of free speach, which Obama would be the first to defend.
Yet here we are, watching the media and Congress waste precious time dealing with a non-issue when there are so many important policy initiatives to be considered.
Come on guys, let's deal with issues of National importance!
Reflections on The 2009 U. S. Open
The 2009 U. S. Open—Reflections
What a fabulous three weeks of Grand Slam Tennis! All involved really outdid themselves. I’ve been going yearly to The Open since it was an Amateur Championships back in 1965, and watching it on TV since the days of Vic Sexias. This year’s edition was my favorite of all time, just pure tennis enjoyment. The TV coverage was excellent, with three networks providing coverage [CBS, ESPN and The Tennis Channel], and a live feed from 5 courts simultaneously on the U. S. Open IBM Web Site. Attendance set all-time records for attendees.
On site, there were few visible signs of capital improvements, with the exception of the completion of the indoor facility, which has a minimum effect on the three-week Tournament. The USTA is currently involved with a feasibility study regarding a possible installation on Ashe of a retractable roof, or failing that, the construction of a medium-size arena with such all-weather capabilities.
One personal suggestion I could offer would be an expansion of seating on the field courts, especially courts 8 through 17, which back up to the Adjacent Flushing Meadow Park grounds. The fact that the south exposure of those courts could be increased onto those grounds should make the expansion very possible with baseline seating on that side. Most of the field courts were packed again this year, only more so.
The court action during the Tournament was riveting. Several qualifiers stood out and were well worth watching during their 4 days of play, including Thomas Bellucci of Brazil, Horatio Zeballos of Argentina, and Josselin Ouanna of France, all making it to the second round. Marco Chudinelli of Switzerland topped the qualifiers by moving on to the third round before loosing to Daveydenko.
Then there was the emergence of young American Melanie Oudin, ranked number 70, making it all the way to the Quarters, the amazing run by wild-card Kim Clijsters a fan favorite who had won the Open in 2005 and was in only her third week of a comeback. Kim bested Viktoriya Kutzova, Marion Bartolli, Kirsten Flipkins, Venus Williams, Li Na, Serena Williams (who lost on penalty points after her unfortunate confrontation with a lines-woman) and finally Caroline Wozniacki in the finals. What a run, and “the crowd went wild.”
On the men’s side, John Isner continues to improve, highlighted by an unbelievable third round five set victory over Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic put on quite a show after his night match victory over Fernando Gonzalez, aided and abetted by Johnny Mac, and Roger Federer continued his astounding play right up to the Monday finals against the now over-powering Juan Martin del Potro. Roger left his “A” game in the locker room, serving a very dismal 50% on first serves, as against his earlier rounds average of 65%, committing 11 double faults and ended up with an unforced error to winners ratio of a negative 10%. Still, there is no denying the fact that the power and grit of the del Potro game had a lot to do with these numbers. The Argentinean was playing in his first Grand Slam finals and was obviously feeling the pressure. But he pulled himself together, stuck to his game plan, and played a wonderful match.
The Woman’s Doubles was totally dominated by the Williams Sister, who lost only one set en route to the Championship. Though ranked only 4th in the bracket, mainly due to their sparse play as a doubles team and their limited tournament schedule throughout the year, this teaming is far and away the best women’s team to play this year, if not in tennis history.
Disappointments were Andy Murray, Andy Roddick, and Rafa Nadal, whose blowout by del Potro in the Semis came as a shock.
All in all, a memorable Open. Even with two full days of rain at the end, the weather was very cooperative and the six days I spent in Flushing Meadows could not have been better.
Bill Breakstone
September 15, 2009
What a fabulous three weeks of Grand Slam Tennis! All involved really outdid themselves. I’ve been going yearly to The Open since it was an Amateur Championships back in 1965, and watching it on TV since the days of Vic Sexias. This year’s edition was my favorite of all time, just pure tennis enjoyment. The TV coverage was excellent, with three networks providing coverage [CBS, ESPN and The Tennis Channel], and a live feed from 5 courts simultaneously on the U. S. Open IBM Web Site. Attendance set all-time records for attendees.
On site, there were few visible signs of capital improvements, with the exception of the completion of the indoor facility, which has a minimum effect on the three-week Tournament. The USTA is currently involved with a feasibility study regarding a possible installation on Ashe of a retractable roof, or failing that, the construction of a medium-size arena with such all-weather capabilities.
One personal suggestion I could offer would be an expansion of seating on the field courts, especially courts 8 through 17, which back up to the Adjacent Flushing Meadow Park grounds. The fact that the south exposure of those courts could be increased onto those grounds should make the expansion very possible with baseline seating on that side. Most of the field courts were packed again this year, only more so.
The court action during the Tournament was riveting. Several qualifiers stood out and were well worth watching during their 4 days of play, including Thomas Bellucci of Brazil, Horatio Zeballos of Argentina, and Josselin Ouanna of France, all making it to the second round. Marco Chudinelli of Switzerland topped the qualifiers by moving on to the third round before loosing to Daveydenko.
Then there was the emergence of young American Melanie Oudin, ranked number 70, making it all the way to the Quarters, the amazing run by wild-card Kim Clijsters a fan favorite who had won the Open in 2005 and was in only her third week of a comeback. Kim bested Viktoriya Kutzova, Marion Bartolli, Kirsten Flipkins, Venus Williams, Li Na, Serena Williams (who lost on penalty points after her unfortunate confrontation with a lines-woman) and finally Caroline Wozniacki in the finals. What a run, and “the crowd went wild.”
On the men’s side, John Isner continues to improve, highlighted by an unbelievable third round five set victory over Andy Roddick, Novak Djokovic put on quite a show after his night match victory over Fernando Gonzalez, aided and abetted by Johnny Mac, and Roger Federer continued his astounding play right up to the Monday finals against the now over-powering Juan Martin del Potro. Roger left his “A” game in the locker room, serving a very dismal 50% on first serves, as against his earlier rounds average of 65%, committing 11 double faults and ended up with an unforced error to winners ratio of a negative 10%. Still, there is no denying the fact that the power and grit of the del Potro game had a lot to do with these numbers. The Argentinean was playing in his first Grand Slam finals and was obviously feeling the pressure. But he pulled himself together, stuck to his game plan, and played a wonderful match.
The Woman’s Doubles was totally dominated by the Williams Sister, who lost only one set en route to the Championship. Though ranked only 4th in the bracket, mainly due to their sparse play as a doubles team and their limited tournament schedule throughout the year, this teaming is far and away the best women’s team to play this year, if not in tennis history.
Disappointments were Andy Murray, Andy Roddick, and Rafa Nadal, whose blowout by del Potro in the Semis came as a shock.
All in all, a memorable Open. Even with two full days of rain at the end, the weather was very cooperative and the six days I spent in Flushing Meadows could not have been better.
Bill Breakstone
September 15, 2009
Travelling Northwestern Montana
Northwestern Montana—
A Trip Through Time and Space
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, August 13, 2009
The Rocky Mountains rise majestically from the high plains to the east and from New Mexico north well into Canada and beyond. Viewed from 36,000 feet on a west travelling jet they come upon one all at once within 100 miles or so east of Denver. Even travelling by land, they wait until the last moment to make themselves known. Once in Denver, they rise abruptly as The Front Range, spectacular in their grandeur some 9,000 feet in vertical elevation above the mile-high city.
Most visitors know the Rockies from this perspective. The high mountain ranges of the Rockies are highest in this Colorado location, and provide the most dramatic views along the entire chain. However, height isn’t everything. Some 600 miles to the north-northwest are the northern Rockies of Montana and Canada, not quite the towering peaks of Colorado but magnificent in their own right. And not only the mountains, but the high plains, so different from Colorado and beautiful beyond comprehension compared to the flat plains to the east of Denver. These are the lands of the buffalo, bison and Native American Indians who depended on those creatures for sustenance.
I recently read four historical novels written by an author who grew up on these high plains during the 1950s and 1960s. He was born and raised in a very small town on the east side of the Continental Divide within 100 miles of the Canadian border. He subsequently attended Northwestern University in Illinois and eventually moved to Seattle, where he began his writing career, a very successful one at that. He never forgot his upbringing on those high plains, and the history of the area that was settled by his forbearers’ in the latter half of the Nineteeth Century. The stories fascinated me, and it didn’t take long before I committed myself to see this country first-hand.
Weather in northwestern Montana is very unpredictable. The summer season is much shorter in the region, and it is not unusual to encounter heavy snows late into the spring, violent lightening storms and resultant forest fires through July and August, and, again, heavy snows at any time in the fall. Just last May of 2009 the high plains received over two-and-a-half feet of snow with twelve-foot drifts that paralyzed the area for close to a week. Thus, early August seemed just about the right time to avoid the chances of running into any of these weather-related occurrences.
My plan was to spend a few days exploring the high plains written about in the novels, then four days in nearby Glacier National Park. The town of Dupuyer was my original destination. It had been settled in the mid-1880s by French descendants from Canada, and thereafter by immigrants from Scotland and the Eastern States who sought land to make a living from and start what they hoped would be a life of promise, if not at the expense of hard work and trying climate conditions.
Dupuyer was and still is at the southern border of the Blackfoot Indian Country, now an extensive Reservation of unparallel beauty encompassing some 100 square miles to the South of Alberta and the east of Glacier National Park. It’s not much of a town these days—some several dozen buildings on U.S. Route 89, including two small restaurants, a small, country grocery store, one church, an elementary school, an automobile repair shop and a population of approximately 300 people. The nearest towns are Valier, 25 miles to the northeast, and Browning, on the Blackfoot Reservation, some 60 miles due north. Forget about McDonalds or Burger King—you’re lucky to even find a gas station, no less a bank!
The town is about a two-hour drive from Great Falls and it’s regional airport. A four-lane highway, Interstate 15, runs north from Great Falls to the Canadian border crossing, 125-miles to the north. The speed limit is 75 MPH, recently set prior to which there was none at all, understandably so, as traffic is just about non-existent and the road straight as an arrow. This applies not only to this Interstate, but all the paved roads in the region.
If one would imagine wide-open country, this is it! But not boring in the least. The area is undulating high grassland, intersected by the occasional river or creek coming out of the Rockies that lie some 50 miles to the west. The locals refer to it as “Two Medicine Country,” taking the name of the major tributary, which flows from the mountains and joins, first, the Marias River, and then the Missouri some 100 miles to the east. There are few bison left on these grasslands, but cattle galore, mostly Black Angus.
About 70 miles to the northeast, the high plains are interrupted by the Sweetgrass Hills, which rise some 3,000 feet out of the prairie, the highest lone mountains amongst these wide open spaces. They were my first destination the morning of my second day in Montana, and remote and beautiful they were. The paved road leading straight to them turned to dirt some ten miles away, and as I passed a farmyard, two hands looked at me and my Ford Mustang as if I were crazy being out there, and as the road turned into a two-track path, I started to agree with them. But ten miles further on, we were back on a decent dirt track and a half-hour later, a paved highway that led back west to Interstate 15. There’s nothing like having a real good map in hand as security, and my DeLorme Gazetteer was my trustworthy guide.
Back in Dupuyer, I explored the surrounding countryside within a twenty-mile radius on dirt roads that were perfectly passable and traversed the lands described in the novels. There was little left of the settlements of Scott homesteads from the late 1800s, just a deserted log cabin or two along the way. Sheep raising had been the business back then, and none were to be seen at all—just miles and miles of grassland with Black Angus as far as the eye could see.
My hosts at the Bed and Breakfast named Inn Dupuyer were Rita and Joe Christian, life-long residents of the area. The Inn itself was a charming, expanded farmhouse, recently renovated, but preserving the wide-board flooring and log and stucco walls that dated from the 1920s. Joe is a cancer survivor who spent a harrowing winter travelling for treatment down to Great Falls, and is Supervisor for Pendora County. What with the medical treatments Joe needed, the Christian’s had cut way back on the B&B business, but with Joe’s prognosis as good as it now is, he and Rita plan to get right back with it.
The following morning, I was on the road early and headed
for Glacier. US 89 took us north to US 2 and Browning, a much larger town and headquarters of The Blackfeet Nation. It was and remains an eastern stop on The Great Northern & Santa Fe Railroad, the northern most transcontinental rail between the Midwest and West Coast. Driving northwest from Browning on US 2 and then US 89, the road climbs the brief foothills of the Rockies, passing over The Hudson Divide, a 6,000 foot high butte that separates the watersheds of the Columbia River Basin from the waters heading northeast into the Hudson Bay watershed. To the south lies the Missouri and Mississippi basin, leading eventually to the Atlantic. The dividing line is actually Triple Divide Peak on the Continental Divide, where mere inches are the difference between a raindrop heading north, northwest, or southeast.
The best view of the entire trip was at the crest of this Hudson Divide looking west to the high mountain valleys of Glacier National Park and the 10,000+ foot high Stimson Peak, the second highest in the Park outside of Mt. Cleveland. This was the only location I could find with a direct view of Stimson and its nearby glaciers. From this point, the highway descended to lower St. Mary’s Lake, and on to the north into the Park and Sherburne and Many Glacier Lakes. On the eastern shore of Many Glacier is one of Glacier Park’s three historic lodges, two built by The Great Northern Railroad to attract early 20th Century tourists to this American Switzerland. Many Glacier, MacDonald and Glacier Park Lodges were all constructed between 1910 and 1913, and are marvels of engineering with their huge log supporting pillars and beams.
The more recent St. Mary’s Lodge lacked the historic interest, but had a kitchen that was by far the best of the lot. It’s namesake lake is also the most picturesque with a view due west to the high peaks of the Park. From the Park Entrance at the east terminus of the lake, Going-To-The-Sun-Mountain-Highway travels along the northern edge of the Lake to Logan’s Pass, at an elevation of 6,700-feet. The vertical rise from St. Mary’s on this east side of the Divide is 2,500-feet; add another 2,500-feet on the descent to Lake MacDonald on the western slope, as the Flathead Valley there is at considerably less elevation.
At Many Glacier Lodge that morning, I purchased the first of many books and photographs of Glacier at their Gift Store. One book, GLACIER: A Natural History Guide by David Rockwell, proved to be an invaluable study of the Park’s geology and wildlife, and provides a detailed description of the interdependence of both upon the existence and future natural welfare of this and any natural environment.
The Park’s geology is fascinating, and far different from the Colorado Rockies formation. I mentioned to Joe Christian on the last evening of my stay that the hardest concepts for us to comprehend were those of time and distance. First, the time span between our Universe’s creation and now; second, the distances involved from our point of reference to another—the space between where we stand now and other continents, or other planets or galaxies. Such is the case with the geologic development of the Earth’s natural features. The mountains of Glacier National Park were a result of tectonic plate movement that developed over a time span of almost 2 billion years. To make it as simple as possible, a vast lakebed was formed that long ago some 70 miles to the west of Glacier. Sediment accumulated over 1.25 billion years. Then the earth’s plates moved, with the Pacific Plate subducting under the North American plate and falling into the earth’s mantle. What was then the North American Continent was slammed by landmasses in the Pacific, creating enormous pressures that folded the western North American landmasses creating our Rockies. In the Glacier Park area, the ancient Belt Seabed was pushed over the then existing young mountains to create what are now the peaks of Glacier. This was named the Lewis Overthrust.
Scientists discovered in the late 1970s that contrary to pre-existing theories, where it was assumed that older rock always laid below newer formations, in fact in many cases the old overlay the new. It took another 20 years for these scientists to realize what plate tectonics could possibly do; that older rock could be uplifted on top of the younger sediments, as was the case at Glacier. The Belt Lake sediments actually moved 70 miles to the east and now lay on top of the Glacier Park peaks. This is perfectly visible when one looks at these mountains, and sees the dividing line (or fault) that rises from west to east two-thirds up most of the mountain ridges.
Of course, a lot more was in play here, but those details are best left with the geologists.
My trip to the west side of the Divide took me over Logan Pass. It is one thing to drive over a high pass such as Logan, with two narrow lanes at the lee side of which was a three-foot high stone guard rail after which was a 3,000-foot drop-off to Macdonald Creek at the bottom of the glacier-carved valley. The driver doesn’t really get to see too much, rather must concentrate on keeping the car on the road and watching for on-coming vehicles. There’s a far better way to get the picture, and that is to make the trip in one of the old touring buses that exist only in Glacier. They’re called “Jammers”, and were originally built in 1936 by The White Motor Coach Company. Thirty-five of these buses were purchased back then, and all but two were renovated by The Ford Motor Company between 1999 and 2002. The drivers undergo orientation and training, and provide passengers with a narrative of the Park’s geology, history and wildlife. Stops are made along the way to explore nearby geologic features. Another alternative is to take advantage of boat tours on the Park’s lakes in historic steamers, also dating to the 1930s. When out in the middle of these lakes, one gets a far better view of the mountains away from the shorelines. I took advantage of both, well worth the minimal investment.
Time is taking another toll on these, and many other mountains. As one Park Ranger said in a speech at the Logan Pass Station, “I’ve been in these mountains for over 40 years. I’ve seen hard winters, and mild ones. I always presumed things would return to normal. I was in a state of denial as the glaciers decreased in volume over that time. Well, there’s no denying the fact that changes on a vast scale are in progress. There used to be over one hundred glaciers in the park in recent history; now there are only 35, and those will all be gone within 20 years.” The effect of these changes are linked with the fauna and wildlife of the Park in ways that can only be understood by careful scientific study. But they affect animals and insects from the smallest to the largest. When a species of tree, such as the whitebirch pine disappears due to infection and climate change, an entire population of birds and mammals are threatened, animals that the environment of the Park depend upon for reforestation.
Besides the mountains, the lakes, the forests, the wildlife and the high alpine tundra, the Going-To-The-Sun road itself is a man-made wonder well worth knowing about. Built by the National Park Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps during a seven-year period stretching from 1927 to 1933, it is an award-winning feat of engineering remarkable for it’s time and set a precedent for mountain road construction that lasts to this day. A fascinating book, “Going-to-the-Sun Road: Glacier Park’s Highway to the Sky” by C. W. Guthrie, is illustrated with wonderful historic photographs, and is a remarkable tale of dedication to the natural environment, human fortitude and engineering expertise at a time when machines were primitive by today’s standards.
The National Park Service followed a policy of fire suppression up until the early 1980s. It was thought that fires must be contained to preserve as best as possible the natural state of any park forest. When it was discovered that the native Indians had actually set fires to burn down overgrown forests, the Park Service re-thought it’s position on fire suppression. They quickly realized that fires were important to the well-being of forests, in that the ash laid down serves as a nutrient for re-growth and re-forestation. At the same time, they open up the canopy to light, which enables original species of trees to grow again, which in turn provides a more varied environment for wildlife of all sorts. Thus now, the Park Service only intervenes if public safety and private or Park buildings are endangered.
My four days in Glacier were complimented by side trips to Bigfork on Flathead Lake, Kalispell, and Whitefish Montana, all in the Flathead Valley to the west of the Park. The Kalispell to Whitefish region is far more densely populated than the east side of the Divide. There is virtually no open country left there. Here one finds a millionaire’s playground, with huge mountain chalets a la Vail or Aspen. What a difference from the wide-open country of the High Plains to the east of the Divide.
The trip from the Flathead Valley back east to East Glacier runs up over Marias Pass at 5,200 feet of elevation. This pass was built by the Great Northern Railway, entirely dedicated to rail traffic back in the late 1800s. The US 2 Highway was a later arrival. Marias is the pass of lowest elevation on the entire Rocky Mountain Divide, and it was surprising to witness the amount of rail traffic still using it today. Over 35 freight trains and one Amtrak passenger train use this Pass every day.
My penultimate evening was spent at Glacier Park Lodge at the East Entrance to the Park. This magnificent lodge was built by the Great Northern in 1912-1913 and is situated just east of the Park Entrance on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. The sixty gigantic timbers which support the Lodge and its 150-foot-high main entrance and atrium, were probably 500 to 800 years old when they were cut and all of them still retain their bark. At the southern end of the gallery is a huge stone fireplace, which is kept burning all day. One could stand upright within it, and whole logs are burned, not split wood at all. That evening, I sat in front of the fire with a family from Minnesota and talked of Montana and our trips, plus a little politics on the side. One meets such a diverse group of people on a trip like this, a golfer from Spokane, a husband and wife who are professors at Stamford, one in art and her opposite head of the computer science department and former chief scientist for the US Air Force, the Blackfeet Indian owner of Pierre’s Bar & Grill in Dupuyer, and on and on.
Quite a week’s trip, and the Good Lord willing, many more to come.
A Trip Through Time and Space
by Bill Breakstone, Somers, New York, August 13, 2009
The Rocky Mountains rise majestically from the high plains to the east and from New Mexico north well into Canada and beyond. Viewed from 36,000 feet on a west travelling jet they come upon one all at once within 100 miles or so east of Denver. Even travelling by land, they wait until the last moment to make themselves known. Once in Denver, they rise abruptly as The Front Range, spectacular in their grandeur some 9,000 feet in vertical elevation above the mile-high city.
Most visitors know the Rockies from this perspective. The high mountain ranges of the Rockies are highest in this Colorado location, and provide the most dramatic views along the entire chain. However, height isn’t everything. Some 600 miles to the north-northwest are the northern Rockies of Montana and Canada, not quite the towering peaks of Colorado but magnificent in their own right. And not only the mountains, but the high plains, so different from Colorado and beautiful beyond comprehension compared to the flat plains to the east of Denver. These are the lands of the buffalo, bison and Native American Indians who depended on those creatures for sustenance.
I recently read four historical novels written by an author who grew up on these high plains during the 1950s and 1960s. He was born and raised in a very small town on the east side of the Continental Divide within 100 miles of the Canadian border. He subsequently attended Northwestern University in Illinois and eventually moved to Seattle, where he began his writing career, a very successful one at that. He never forgot his upbringing on those high plains, and the history of the area that was settled by his forbearers’ in the latter half of the Nineteeth Century. The stories fascinated me, and it didn’t take long before I committed myself to see this country first-hand.
Weather in northwestern Montana is very unpredictable. The summer season is much shorter in the region, and it is not unusual to encounter heavy snows late into the spring, violent lightening storms and resultant forest fires through July and August, and, again, heavy snows at any time in the fall. Just last May of 2009 the high plains received over two-and-a-half feet of snow with twelve-foot drifts that paralyzed the area for close to a week. Thus, early August seemed just about the right time to avoid the chances of running into any of these weather-related occurrences.
My plan was to spend a few days exploring the high plains written about in the novels, then four days in nearby Glacier National Park. The town of Dupuyer was my original destination. It had been settled in the mid-1880s by French descendants from Canada, and thereafter by immigrants from Scotland and the Eastern States who sought land to make a living from and start what they hoped would be a life of promise, if not at the expense of hard work and trying climate conditions.
Dupuyer was and still is at the southern border of the Blackfoot Indian Country, now an extensive Reservation of unparallel beauty encompassing some 100 square miles to the South of Alberta and the east of Glacier National Park. It’s not much of a town these days—some several dozen buildings on U.S. Route 89, including two small restaurants, a small, country grocery store, one church, an elementary school, an automobile repair shop and a population of approximately 300 people. The nearest towns are Valier, 25 miles to the northeast, and Browning, on the Blackfoot Reservation, some 60 miles due north. Forget about McDonalds or Burger King—you’re lucky to even find a gas station, no less a bank!
The town is about a two-hour drive from Great Falls and it’s regional airport. A four-lane highway, Interstate 15, runs north from Great Falls to the Canadian border crossing, 125-miles to the north. The speed limit is 75 MPH, recently set prior to which there was none at all, understandably so, as traffic is just about non-existent and the road straight as an arrow. This applies not only to this Interstate, but all the paved roads in the region.
If one would imagine wide-open country, this is it! But not boring in the least. The area is undulating high grassland, intersected by the occasional river or creek coming out of the Rockies that lie some 50 miles to the west. The locals refer to it as “Two Medicine Country,” taking the name of the major tributary, which flows from the mountains and joins, first, the Marias River, and then the Missouri some 100 miles to the east. There are few bison left on these grasslands, but cattle galore, mostly Black Angus.
About 70 miles to the northeast, the high plains are interrupted by the Sweetgrass Hills, which rise some 3,000 feet out of the prairie, the highest lone mountains amongst these wide open spaces. They were my first destination the morning of my second day in Montana, and remote and beautiful they were. The paved road leading straight to them turned to dirt some ten miles away, and as I passed a farmyard, two hands looked at me and my Ford Mustang as if I were crazy being out there, and as the road turned into a two-track path, I started to agree with them. But ten miles further on, we were back on a decent dirt track and a half-hour later, a paved highway that led back west to Interstate 15. There’s nothing like having a real good map in hand as security, and my DeLorme Gazetteer was my trustworthy guide.
Back in Dupuyer, I explored the surrounding countryside within a twenty-mile radius on dirt roads that were perfectly passable and traversed the lands described in the novels. There was little left of the settlements of Scott homesteads from the late 1800s, just a deserted log cabin or two along the way. Sheep raising had been the business back then, and none were to be seen at all—just miles and miles of grassland with Black Angus as far as the eye could see.
My hosts at the Bed and Breakfast named Inn Dupuyer were Rita and Joe Christian, life-long residents of the area. The Inn itself was a charming, expanded farmhouse, recently renovated, but preserving the wide-board flooring and log and stucco walls that dated from the 1920s. Joe is a cancer survivor who spent a harrowing winter travelling for treatment down to Great Falls, and is Supervisor for Pendora County. What with the medical treatments Joe needed, the Christian’s had cut way back on the B&B business, but with Joe’s prognosis as good as it now is, he and Rita plan to get right back with it.
The following morning, I was on the road early and headed
for Glacier. US 89 took us north to US 2 and Browning, a much larger town and headquarters of The Blackfeet Nation. It was and remains an eastern stop on The Great Northern & Santa Fe Railroad, the northern most transcontinental rail between the Midwest and West Coast. Driving northwest from Browning on US 2 and then US 89, the road climbs the brief foothills of the Rockies, passing over The Hudson Divide, a 6,000 foot high butte that separates the watersheds of the Columbia River Basin from the waters heading northeast into the Hudson Bay watershed. To the south lies the Missouri and Mississippi basin, leading eventually to the Atlantic. The dividing line is actually Triple Divide Peak on the Continental Divide, where mere inches are the difference between a raindrop heading north, northwest, or southeast.
The best view of the entire trip was at the crest of this Hudson Divide looking west to the high mountain valleys of Glacier National Park and the 10,000+ foot high Stimson Peak, the second highest in the Park outside of Mt. Cleveland. This was the only location I could find with a direct view of Stimson and its nearby glaciers. From this point, the highway descended to lower St. Mary’s Lake, and on to the north into the Park and Sherburne and Many Glacier Lakes. On the eastern shore of Many Glacier is one of Glacier Park’s three historic lodges, two built by The Great Northern Railroad to attract early 20th Century tourists to this American Switzerland. Many Glacier, MacDonald and Glacier Park Lodges were all constructed between 1910 and 1913, and are marvels of engineering with their huge log supporting pillars and beams.
The more recent St. Mary’s Lodge lacked the historic interest, but had a kitchen that was by far the best of the lot. It’s namesake lake is also the most picturesque with a view due west to the high peaks of the Park. From the Park Entrance at the east terminus of the lake, Going-To-The-Sun-Mountain-Highway travels along the northern edge of the Lake to Logan’s Pass, at an elevation of 6,700-feet. The vertical rise from St. Mary’s on this east side of the Divide is 2,500-feet; add another 2,500-feet on the descent to Lake MacDonald on the western slope, as the Flathead Valley there is at considerably less elevation.
At Many Glacier Lodge that morning, I purchased the first of many books and photographs of Glacier at their Gift Store. One book, GLACIER: A Natural History Guide by David Rockwell, proved to be an invaluable study of the Park’s geology and wildlife, and provides a detailed description of the interdependence of both upon the existence and future natural welfare of this and any natural environment.
The Park’s geology is fascinating, and far different from the Colorado Rockies formation. I mentioned to Joe Christian on the last evening of my stay that the hardest concepts for us to comprehend were those of time and distance. First, the time span between our Universe’s creation and now; second, the distances involved from our point of reference to another—the space between where we stand now and other continents, or other planets or galaxies. Such is the case with the geologic development of the Earth’s natural features. The mountains of Glacier National Park were a result of tectonic plate movement that developed over a time span of almost 2 billion years. To make it as simple as possible, a vast lakebed was formed that long ago some 70 miles to the west of Glacier. Sediment accumulated over 1.25 billion years. Then the earth’s plates moved, with the Pacific Plate subducting under the North American plate and falling into the earth’s mantle. What was then the North American Continent was slammed by landmasses in the Pacific, creating enormous pressures that folded the western North American landmasses creating our Rockies. In the Glacier Park area, the ancient Belt Seabed was pushed over the then existing young mountains to create what are now the peaks of Glacier. This was named the Lewis Overthrust.
Scientists discovered in the late 1970s that contrary to pre-existing theories, where it was assumed that older rock always laid below newer formations, in fact in many cases the old overlay the new. It took another 20 years for these scientists to realize what plate tectonics could possibly do; that older rock could be uplifted on top of the younger sediments, as was the case at Glacier. The Belt Lake sediments actually moved 70 miles to the east and now lay on top of the Glacier Park peaks. This is perfectly visible when one looks at these mountains, and sees the dividing line (or fault) that rises from west to east two-thirds up most of the mountain ridges.
Of course, a lot more was in play here, but those details are best left with the geologists.
My trip to the west side of the Divide took me over Logan Pass. It is one thing to drive over a high pass such as Logan, with two narrow lanes at the lee side of which was a three-foot high stone guard rail after which was a 3,000-foot drop-off to Macdonald Creek at the bottom of the glacier-carved valley. The driver doesn’t really get to see too much, rather must concentrate on keeping the car on the road and watching for on-coming vehicles. There’s a far better way to get the picture, and that is to make the trip in one of the old touring buses that exist only in Glacier. They’re called “Jammers”, and were originally built in 1936 by The White Motor Coach Company. Thirty-five of these buses were purchased back then, and all but two were renovated by The Ford Motor Company between 1999 and 2002. The drivers undergo orientation and training, and provide passengers with a narrative of the Park’s geology, history and wildlife. Stops are made along the way to explore nearby geologic features. Another alternative is to take advantage of boat tours on the Park’s lakes in historic steamers, also dating to the 1930s. When out in the middle of these lakes, one gets a far better view of the mountains away from the shorelines. I took advantage of both, well worth the minimal investment.
Time is taking another toll on these, and many other mountains. As one Park Ranger said in a speech at the Logan Pass Station, “I’ve been in these mountains for over 40 years. I’ve seen hard winters, and mild ones. I always presumed things would return to normal. I was in a state of denial as the glaciers decreased in volume over that time. Well, there’s no denying the fact that changes on a vast scale are in progress. There used to be over one hundred glaciers in the park in recent history; now there are only 35, and those will all be gone within 20 years.” The effect of these changes are linked with the fauna and wildlife of the Park in ways that can only be understood by careful scientific study. But they affect animals and insects from the smallest to the largest. When a species of tree, such as the whitebirch pine disappears due to infection and climate change, an entire population of birds and mammals are threatened, animals that the environment of the Park depend upon for reforestation.
Besides the mountains, the lakes, the forests, the wildlife and the high alpine tundra, the Going-To-The-Sun road itself is a man-made wonder well worth knowing about. Built by the National Park Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps during a seven-year period stretching from 1927 to 1933, it is an award-winning feat of engineering remarkable for it’s time and set a precedent for mountain road construction that lasts to this day. A fascinating book, “Going-to-the-Sun Road: Glacier Park’s Highway to the Sky” by C. W. Guthrie, is illustrated with wonderful historic photographs, and is a remarkable tale of dedication to the natural environment, human fortitude and engineering expertise at a time when machines were primitive by today’s standards.
The National Park Service followed a policy of fire suppression up until the early 1980s. It was thought that fires must be contained to preserve as best as possible the natural state of any park forest. When it was discovered that the native Indians had actually set fires to burn down overgrown forests, the Park Service re-thought it’s position on fire suppression. They quickly realized that fires were important to the well-being of forests, in that the ash laid down serves as a nutrient for re-growth and re-forestation. At the same time, they open up the canopy to light, which enables original species of trees to grow again, which in turn provides a more varied environment for wildlife of all sorts. Thus now, the Park Service only intervenes if public safety and private or Park buildings are endangered.
My four days in Glacier were complimented by side trips to Bigfork on Flathead Lake, Kalispell, and Whitefish Montana, all in the Flathead Valley to the west of the Park. The Kalispell to Whitefish region is far more densely populated than the east side of the Divide. There is virtually no open country left there. Here one finds a millionaire’s playground, with huge mountain chalets a la Vail or Aspen. What a difference from the wide-open country of the High Plains to the east of the Divide.
The trip from the Flathead Valley back east to East Glacier runs up over Marias Pass at 5,200 feet of elevation. This pass was built by the Great Northern Railway, entirely dedicated to rail traffic back in the late 1800s. The US 2 Highway was a later arrival. Marias is the pass of lowest elevation on the entire Rocky Mountain Divide, and it was surprising to witness the amount of rail traffic still using it today. Over 35 freight trains and one Amtrak passenger train use this Pass every day.
My penultimate evening was spent at Glacier Park Lodge at the East Entrance to the Park. This magnificent lodge was built by the Great Northern in 1912-1913 and is situated just east of the Park Entrance on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. The sixty gigantic timbers which support the Lodge and its 150-foot-high main entrance and atrium, were probably 500 to 800 years old when they were cut and all of them still retain their bark. At the southern end of the gallery is a huge stone fireplace, which is kept burning all day. One could stand upright within it, and whole logs are burned, not split wood at all. That evening, I sat in front of the fire with a family from Minnesota and talked of Montana and our trips, plus a little politics on the side. One meets such a diverse group of people on a trip like this, a golfer from Spokane, a husband and wife who are professors at Stamford, one in art and her opposite head of the computer science department and former chief scientist for the US Air Force, the Blackfeet Indian owner of Pierre’s Bar & Grill in Dupuyer, and on and on.
Quite a week’s trip, and the Good Lord willing, many more to come.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Remembrance of Ted Kennedy
A Life Remembered
A Nation and a Family Say a Final Goodbye to Ted Kennedy
I devoted the day on Saturday to attending the ceremonies [via television) for Ted Kennedy. It was time well spent. Teddy was my least favorite of the Kennedy brothers. For too long, he was a portrait of a man who lived an irresponsible personal life that had dire consequences for his family. Yesterday, a far fuller view of the man, his character and his family emerged.
As many commentators pointed out, the proceedings on Friday night and Saturday were as close to a State Funeral as one could get. I cannot recall such a tribute being made to anyone other that a sitting or former President, and the outpouring of affection for many of those could not even come close to the memorable events of yesterday.
So, what changed in our perception of this very public figure? His record of legislative accomplishments were all there for our inspection, as was his devotion to the less fortunate among us and his commitment to a government that could help those who had exhausted all other avenues of hope. Counterbalancing these virtues were his personal transgressions, top among them the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, which doomed any possibility that the last of the Kennedy brothers could ever succeed to the Office that Jack had won and that Bobbie most probably, would have had he not been assassinated that early day in June.
I knew absolutely nothing about Vicki Reggie Kennedy, had never even seen a picture of the woman who Ted married in 1991. With the help of some insightful commentary by Brian Williams and others, the importance of that relationship became apparent. It was indeed a turning point in Ted’s life. This beautiful and highly intelligent woman became his strongest supporter, advisor, best friend and life mate, and reinvigorated Teddy’s political commitments to all those causes that the Kennedy Family and other liberal Democrats had espoused, at a time when conservative ideology had made them unpopular, to say the least.
With Vicki’s support, Teddy engrossed himself with a renewed vigor to be the voice of the underprivileged in the Senate. He sought compromise as a means to accomplish legislative initiatives. He sought a common ground amongst his political opposites, and began a 20-year campaign to bring together politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. In doing so, he made allies out of enemies, and made friends of all political persuasions. They may not have agreed with him on his legislative initiatives, but they respected his outreach. Their testimonials to his appeals for compromise were there for everyone to see over the prolonged week from his passing to the ceremonies of Saturday, and they came from not only his allies in the Democratic Party, but from most of the leaders of the Conservative minority.
So much for the “public persona.” What emerged form the eulogies offered on Saturday was a picture of a man who had accepted the mantle of his obligations to family. His two bothers had been struck down, tragically and suddenly, in the prime of their lives, and each had wives and children who grieved and were in need of support during their years of maturity. Picture the photograph of John John and Caroline at their father’s funeral, of his own son Teddy Jr., facing a future after his battle with bone cancer and the loss of his leg, of his other son Patrick and his battle with substance abuse, and his daughter’s battle with lung cancer. He was there for all of them, and so many others in his immediate and extended family. How many of us had to bear such responsibilities?
But as the years passed on, there were no complaints from this man, and no denials of his own past frailties. Teddy never denied the responsibilities that he failed to live up to, as witnessed by the previously unknown letter that he wrote to Pope Benedict cited below.
There was much commentary about Ted’s passing as being the end of a family legacy that the last of “the brothers” was gone and an end of an era had finally arrived. I say that such speculation is far too premature. The lives of the younger Kennedy generation have many years to find their place in the public eye, and anyone who listened to Teddy Jr. and Patrick’s eulogies to their father could see.
Now we look to the immediate future. Teddy wrote to the Massachusetts Governor, Devil Patrick, just last week pleading for a prompt appointment of a successor to fill his seat on the Senate floor, so that a voice that had pleaded for so many years for social reform, at a time when health care reform would be coming to a vote in Congress early this Fall, could be heard. No more tribute could be offered to this man than the passing of this legislation.
As we move on now to new challenges on our National stage, we are faced with a turning point in our political viewpoints. The concept of unregulated markets and hands-off economic policies has resulted in near catastrophe. It seems that through insightful intervention by our leaders, of both parties, we have avoided the worst consequences. But we have a long, long way to go before righting our ship of state. We have lost one of our leading advocates for social reform, but there are others to step up to the plate and advocate the changes that are necessary for future economic growth and at the same time support for those of us who are less fortunate. As Senator Kennedy said, “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
Bill Breakstone
August 31, 2009
A Nation and a Family Say a Final Goodbye to Ted Kennedy
I devoted the day on Saturday to attending the ceremonies [via television) for Ted Kennedy. It was time well spent. Teddy was my least favorite of the Kennedy brothers. For too long, he was a portrait of a man who lived an irresponsible personal life that had dire consequences for his family. Yesterday, a far fuller view of the man, his character and his family emerged.
As many commentators pointed out, the proceedings on Friday night and Saturday were as close to a State Funeral as one could get. I cannot recall such a tribute being made to anyone other that a sitting or former President, and the outpouring of affection for many of those could not even come close to the memorable events of yesterday.
So, what changed in our perception of this very public figure? His record of legislative accomplishments were all there for our inspection, as was his devotion to the less fortunate among us and his commitment to a government that could help those who had exhausted all other avenues of hope. Counterbalancing these virtues were his personal transgressions, top among them the tragedy at Chappaquiddick, which doomed any possibility that the last of the Kennedy brothers could ever succeed to the Office that Jack had won and that Bobbie most probably, would have had he not been assassinated that early day in June.
I knew absolutely nothing about Vicki Reggie Kennedy, had never even seen a picture of the woman who Ted married in 1991. With the help of some insightful commentary by Brian Williams and others, the importance of that relationship became apparent. It was indeed a turning point in Ted’s life. This beautiful and highly intelligent woman became his strongest supporter, advisor, best friend and life mate, and reinvigorated Teddy’s political commitments to all those causes that the Kennedy Family and other liberal Democrats had espoused, at a time when conservative ideology had made them unpopular, to say the least.
With Vicki’s support, Teddy engrossed himself with a renewed vigor to be the voice of the underprivileged in the Senate. He sought compromise as a means to accomplish legislative initiatives. He sought a common ground amongst his political opposites, and began a 20-year campaign to bring together politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. In doing so, he made allies out of enemies, and made friends of all political persuasions. They may not have agreed with him on his legislative initiatives, but they respected his outreach. Their testimonials to his appeals for compromise were there for everyone to see over the prolonged week from his passing to the ceremonies of Saturday, and they came from not only his allies in the Democratic Party, but from most of the leaders of the Conservative minority.
So much for the “public persona.” What emerged form the eulogies offered on Saturday was a picture of a man who had accepted the mantle of his obligations to family. His two bothers had been struck down, tragically and suddenly, in the prime of their lives, and each had wives and children who grieved and were in need of support during their years of maturity. Picture the photograph of John John and Caroline at their father’s funeral, of his own son Teddy Jr., facing a future after his battle with bone cancer and the loss of his leg, of his other son Patrick and his battle with substance abuse, and his daughter’s battle with lung cancer. He was there for all of them, and so many others in his immediate and extended family. How many of us had to bear such responsibilities?
But as the years passed on, there were no complaints from this man, and no denials of his own past frailties. Teddy never denied the responsibilities that he failed to live up to, as witnessed by the previously unknown letter that he wrote to Pope Benedict cited below.
There was much commentary about Ted’s passing as being the end of a family legacy that the last of “the brothers” was gone and an end of an era had finally arrived. I say that such speculation is far too premature. The lives of the younger Kennedy generation have many years to find their place in the public eye, and anyone who listened to Teddy Jr. and Patrick’s eulogies to their father could see.
Now we look to the immediate future. Teddy wrote to the Massachusetts Governor, Devil Patrick, just last week pleading for a prompt appointment of a successor to fill his seat on the Senate floor, so that a voice that had pleaded for so many years for social reform, at a time when health care reform would be coming to a vote in Congress early this Fall, could be heard. No more tribute could be offered to this man than the passing of this legislation.
As we move on now to new challenges on our National stage, we are faced with a turning point in our political viewpoints. The concept of unregulated markets and hands-off economic policies has resulted in near catastrophe. It seems that through insightful intervention by our leaders, of both parties, we have avoided the worst consequences. But we have a long, long way to go before righting our ship of state. We have lost one of our leading advocates for social reform, but there are others to step up to the plate and advocate the changes that are necessary for future economic growth and at the same time support for those of us who are less fortunate. As Senator Kennedy said, “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
Bill Breakstone
August 31, 2009
Financial Reform
At Noon today, President Obama made an important speech to Wall Street executives and analyists in Manhattan. The occaision was the one-year anniversary of the Lehmann Brothers bankruptcy, and the subsequent collapse of ours and the world's financial markets. There was much comment and analysis on the morning talk shows prior thereto, including speculation as to whether a bailout of Lehmann could have prevented that collapse. The consensus was that government intervention in the case of Lehmann would not have made a difference, and that the government's refusal to push a deal between Lehmann and Barclays over that terrible weekend could indeed have spurred the Congress to make the moves that had previously been politically impossible.
In anticipation of Obama's speech, The New York Times ran a major editorial on financial reform, and noted that although one year had passed, very little had been accomplished. It is important to read this editorial, and even if you have done so, re-read it again and then consider what our President said in his speech, and did not say, regarding the specific deficiencies in his Administration's proposals as enumerated by the Times editorial Board. The editorial appears below.
September 14, 2009
Editorial
Reforming the Financial System
On Monday, the one-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, President Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech on the financial crisis. He should take justifiable pride in some of the aggressive steps his administration has taken to rescue the financial system and the broader economy.
Yet, the important work of regulatory reform remains undone. The administration has proposed legislation that would bring most of the financial system under a regulatory umbrella, and impose higher capital requirements to cushion against losses. But in specific areas, like consumer protection, Obama officials will have to fight to ensure that lawmakers do not water down the administration’s intent. In another area — the regulation of derivatives — Congress must improve the administration’s proposal. As Congress considers the legislation this fall, here are some key issues:
CONSUMER PROTECTION--The financial crisis would have been less severe — or largely avoided — if regulators had curbed abusive and unsound lending back when bad mortgage loans first began to proliferate. But all too predictably, they failed to act. Prominent overseers like the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had long viewed consumer protection as a regulatory backwater. In keeping with the prevailing antiregulatory ethos, they also tended to equate bank profitability with bank safety and soundness. That led them to view products and practices that boosted bank profits as “good”— even as tricky loans and lax lending standards set the stage for mass defaults, and systemwide collapse.
The strongest of the administration’s proposed reforms — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency — seeks to rectify that regulatory failure. The new agency would take on the consumer protection responsibilities that are currently dispersed among numerous regulators and police the financial system with a sole focus on the best interest of the consumer. It could ensure, for example, that lenders — whether banks or nonbanks — provide simpler alternatives to complex mortgages and could impose restrictions on other forms of credit, like stealth overdraft fees.
Unfortunately, Congress is already being pressured by the financial industry to weaken the proposal. It is imperative that the final legislation explicitly prohibit the new agency from pre-empting stronger state consumer-protection laws. Pre-emption— favored by banks, financial firms and regulators who are cozy with them — has long been used to reduce consumer protection and regulatory oversight. The final legislation must also retain the new agency’s power to examine banks’ books and enforce rules. An agency without full ongoing regulatory authority would be set up for failure.
DERIVATIVES--The multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives was a major catalyst of the financial crisis. Derivatives are supposed to help investors and businesses manage risk, but after a 2000 law largely deregulated them, they also became tools for vast speculation, creating and amplifying risk instead of reducing it.
In general, the administration’s plan to regulate derivatives is serious and far-reaching. But, unfortunately, it is marred by loopholes that would protect banks’ lush profits in derivatives while leaving the system and taxpayers vulnerable to renewed instability.
The basic flaw in the plan is that it splits the derivatives market in two. Standardized derivative contracts would be traded on regulated exchanges. Customized contracts would continue to be privately traded — which could open the door to some of the same below-the-radar transactions that have already proved so disastrous. Beyond an odd contract here or there, derivatives should be standardized and exchange traded, period.
The administration’s proposed legislation also would exempt some derivative investors, like many hedge funds, from the requirement to trade standardized contracts on an exchange. This major exception could undermine the entire objective of lowering risk, increasing transparency and fostering efficiency.
That point was made in a recent letter to lawmakers from Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who would have significant responsibility for derivatives under a reformed system. Mr. Gensler has also pointed out that the proposed legislation would exempt certain derivatives called foreign exchange swaps from regulation. That broad exclusion could allow other derivatives transactions to be structured in a way that would avoid regulation.
A light touch on derivatives, when a firm hand is needed, only reinforces the notion that the banks are ultimately in charge. To restore confidence both in markets and in the government, Obama officials and lawmakers must tighten the derivatives reform proposal.
SYSTEMIC RISK REGULATION--The administration proposes empowering the Federal Reserve to supervise and regulate firms whose failure could damage the system as a whole and to seize such firms if failure is imminent.
The proposal is clearly problematic. For one thing, the Fed, in its conduct of monetary policy, can itself be a source of systemic risk. It is widely believed that the Fed’s interest-rate decisions in this decade helped to inflate the housing bubble. In addition, the Fed, as currently configured, may not be sufficiently distanced from the banks to oversee the system objectively.
Unless the administration and the Fed propose policies and procedures to eliminate such conflicts, they are insurmountable. In that case, systemic risk regulation would best be left to a small group of bank regulators working to identify and resolve emerging risks.
Lost in this debate over the Fed’s role is the fact that systemic risk would best be controlled by restoring rules ignored in the deregulatory fervor of the past decade, developing new rules as needed and enforcing them day to day. Also missing from the debate — and the proposed legislation — is a roadmap for restructuring and downsizing too-big-to-fail institutions over time so that they are no longer a threat.
These changes will take time. For now, what is most important is that the broader reform effort get off the ground. Mr. Obama’s speech is the opportunity to relaunch the effort; the hard work still lies ahead.
Analyists on CNBC after Obama's speech how little new specifics were included in the the content, and that the President had talked again in generalities, though well-concieved, but without addressing on a point by point basis the inadequacies of his proposals, as the Times had pointed out.
It seems that our President is repeating the mistakes made this Summer regarding his Health Care Initiative, when he failed to make concise points before the Congressional adjournment, thus allowing his Republican opposition to seize on the moment to viciously attack the Plan in Town Hall Meetings across the Nation.
Although a fervent supporter of the President's initiatives, I have to doubt his repeated lack of will and conviction to do what is necessary to put his plans into effect.
Best,
Bill Breakstone
September 15, 2009
In anticipation of Obama's speech, The New York Times ran a major editorial on financial reform, and noted that although one year had passed, very little had been accomplished. It is important to read this editorial, and even if you have done so, re-read it again and then consider what our President said in his speech, and did not say, regarding the specific deficiencies in his Administration's proposals as enumerated by the Times editorial Board. The editorial appears below.
September 14, 2009
Editorial
Reforming the Financial System
On Monday, the one-year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, President Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech on the financial crisis. He should take justifiable pride in some of the aggressive steps his administration has taken to rescue the financial system and the broader economy.
Yet, the important work of regulatory reform remains undone. The administration has proposed legislation that would bring most of the financial system under a regulatory umbrella, and impose higher capital requirements to cushion against losses. But in specific areas, like consumer protection, Obama officials will have to fight to ensure that lawmakers do not water down the administration’s intent. In another area — the regulation of derivatives — Congress must improve the administration’s proposal. As Congress considers the legislation this fall, here are some key issues:
CONSUMER PROTECTION--The financial crisis would have been less severe — or largely avoided — if regulators had curbed abusive and unsound lending back when bad mortgage loans first began to proliferate. But all too predictably, they failed to act. Prominent overseers like the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had long viewed consumer protection as a regulatory backwater. In keeping with the prevailing antiregulatory ethos, they also tended to equate bank profitability with bank safety and soundness. That led them to view products and practices that boosted bank profits as “good”— even as tricky loans and lax lending standards set the stage for mass defaults, and systemwide collapse.
The strongest of the administration’s proposed reforms — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency — seeks to rectify that regulatory failure. The new agency would take on the consumer protection responsibilities that are currently dispersed among numerous regulators and police the financial system with a sole focus on the best interest of the consumer. It could ensure, for example, that lenders — whether banks or nonbanks — provide simpler alternatives to complex mortgages and could impose restrictions on other forms of credit, like stealth overdraft fees.
Unfortunately, Congress is already being pressured by the financial industry to weaken the proposal. It is imperative that the final legislation explicitly prohibit the new agency from pre-empting stronger state consumer-protection laws. Pre-emption— favored by banks, financial firms and regulators who are cozy with them — has long been used to reduce consumer protection and regulatory oversight. The final legislation must also retain the new agency’s power to examine banks’ books and enforce rules. An agency without full ongoing regulatory authority would be set up for failure.
DERIVATIVES--The multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives was a major catalyst of the financial crisis. Derivatives are supposed to help investors and businesses manage risk, but after a 2000 law largely deregulated them, they also became tools for vast speculation, creating and amplifying risk instead of reducing it.
In general, the administration’s plan to regulate derivatives is serious and far-reaching. But, unfortunately, it is marred by loopholes that would protect banks’ lush profits in derivatives while leaving the system and taxpayers vulnerable to renewed instability.
The basic flaw in the plan is that it splits the derivatives market in two. Standardized derivative contracts would be traded on regulated exchanges. Customized contracts would continue to be privately traded — which could open the door to some of the same below-the-radar transactions that have already proved so disastrous. Beyond an odd contract here or there, derivatives should be standardized and exchange traded, period.
The administration’s proposed legislation also would exempt some derivative investors, like many hedge funds, from the requirement to trade standardized contracts on an exchange. This major exception could undermine the entire objective of lowering risk, increasing transparency and fostering efficiency.
That point was made in a recent letter to lawmakers from Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who would have significant responsibility for derivatives under a reformed system. Mr. Gensler has also pointed out that the proposed legislation would exempt certain derivatives called foreign exchange swaps from regulation. That broad exclusion could allow other derivatives transactions to be structured in a way that would avoid regulation.
A light touch on derivatives, when a firm hand is needed, only reinforces the notion that the banks are ultimately in charge. To restore confidence both in markets and in the government, Obama officials and lawmakers must tighten the derivatives reform proposal.
SYSTEMIC RISK REGULATION--The administration proposes empowering the Federal Reserve to supervise and regulate firms whose failure could damage the system as a whole and to seize such firms if failure is imminent.
The proposal is clearly problematic. For one thing, the Fed, in its conduct of monetary policy, can itself be a source of systemic risk. It is widely believed that the Fed’s interest-rate decisions in this decade helped to inflate the housing bubble. In addition, the Fed, as currently configured, may not be sufficiently distanced from the banks to oversee the system objectively.
Unless the administration and the Fed propose policies and procedures to eliminate such conflicts, they are insurmountable. In that case, systemic risk regulation would best be left to a small group of bank regulators working to identify and resolve emerging risks.
Lost in this debate over the Fed’s role is the fact that systemic risk would best be controlled by restoring rules ignored in the deregulatory fervor of the past decade, developing new rules as needed and enforcing them day to day. Also missing from the debate — and the proposed legislation — is a roadmap for restructuring and downsizing too-big-to-fail institutions over time so that they are no longer a threat.
These changes will take time. For now, what is most important is that the broader reform effort get off the ground. Mr. Obama’s speech is the opportunity to relaunch the effort; the hard work still lies ahead.
Analyists on CNBC after Obama's speech how little new specifics were included in the the content, and that the President had talked again in generalities, though well-concieved, but without addressing on a point by point basis the inadequacies of his proposals, as the Times had pointed out.
It seems that our President is repeating the mistakes made this Summer regarding his Health Care Initiative, when he failed to make concise points before the Congressional adjournment, thus allowing his Republican opposition to seize on the moment to viciously attack the Plan in Town Hall Meetings across the Nation.
Although a fervent supporter of the President's initiatives, I have to doubt his repeated lack of will and conviction to do what is necessary to put his plans into effect.
Best,
Bill Breakstone
September 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
