Sure know how to pick em...

Being right is not the most important thing in the world, but having a prediction validated is a very satisfying feeling. Prior to the beginning of last golf season, I named ten players worth watching throughout the 2008 year. Let's see whether my eye for talent is as keen as I think it is:

1. Aron Price - won on Nationwide Tour; earned PGA Tour card

2. Ryuji Imada  – won AT&T Championship on PGA Tour

3. John Mallinger  – retained PGA Tour card; 3rd @ AT&T Invitational

4. Jin Park  – struggled

5. Martin Laird  - finished 125th PGA Tour money list

6. Chris Stroud  – had to return to q-school, but regained playing privileges  

7. John Merrick  – retained PGA Tour card; 8th Mayakoba Classic

8. Garret Osborn  – 38th on Nationwide Tour money list

9. Thomas Aiken  – 131st European Tour Order of Merit

10. Garth Mulroy  – 55th Nationwide Tour money list

More positive than negative. However, perhaps a sweeping survey of professional golf should have been a bit more pointed. Perhaps picked one player from any of the major world tours who might make an impact. Yet, a rethink of method comes a bit too late to posit a list for the 2009 season.  

So, what is the point of all this retrospection and prospection? It's bar talk, mostly, a topic as banal as the weather to make passing time more fun. Following the syllogism of speculative comparison is intriguing.

When someone sets to prove a point, make an irrefutable argument, he will rely on evidence to make the case as tight as possible. Sometimes, whether human nature, a slip of the tongue, or irrascible contrarian behavior be the cause, a person will have to defend a proposition he might not have made if he thought before speaking. Then things get interesting as the postulator scrambles to cobble as much as he can to affirm his contention. As he tries to convince whomever happens to listen to the makings of his rant, he must also convince himself, and it is amusing watching the gymnastics, the potential Schadenfreude of seeing him paint himself into a corner.

Then the real fun begins. After seemingly locking into a string of thought and defending it so fiercely for no real reason other than pig-headed pride, he will look for something valid in the uninterrupted drivel he has spewed for what has gone on longer than the standard Prime Minister constructive argument. From there, he will try to 'spiral' up and out of that inextricable position, for knowing he has lost the race down, he can still win it coming back up. 

Of course, it never ends well for the speaker. There is no way to save face at that point, especially when the losses ought to have been cut three beers sooner. So, is there a solution to the puzzle of discourse?

On the one hand, speaking instinctively, with conviction provides the necessary pathos to make a compelling point. Unfortunately, the logical, sensible aspects suffer. Take even a fraction of a second too long, and the answer sounds equivocal, or makes the speaker seem unready for the thrust and parry of banter. In the end, the hapless twit must concede defeat and fall on his sword. He will down another beer, compose himself, wish he had a team of script and speech writers lodged somewhere in his frontal cortex, and get ready as the conversation shifts to football. No way he can lose now.

There is a good chance that DY will have some sort of list concerning golf for (mini) mass consumption at some point this year. Not too sure what it would be. Unfortunatley, DY has come up with a far less innocuous idea for a blog post as he has concluded this one. 

DY will be headed for elsewhwer next week though he reckons the already sporadic drip from his keys will not lapse entirely as it has on previous sojourns to warmer climes. Yardage Out.

Pinning Aronofsky

Though golf (not too much these days) and economics (way too much these day) provide adequate material for this space, occasionally it will drift towards culture or shameless self promotion of my own meager literary exploits. Last weekend, with the obligatory, standard issue two cans of Budweiser 16 ounce tallboys, I went to see The Wrestler, the latest directorial effort of Darren Aronofsky. 

The film makes for old cultural news in bigger media markets where critics and viewers have lauded all of its artistic facets. This space will go against the grain of its own contrarian nature (something it does very rarely), but it will not go against the grain of public opinion and decry it as overrated or poor. Far from it. It was a well-conceived, well-executed bit of cinema. The thrash-trash glam rock songs provided some small solace and comic relief in an otherwise tense tragedy. 

The film is less about professional wrestling as sport-cum-entertainment than it is a character study of an anti-hero. Mickey Rourke's character chose and continues to choose to be the persona he constructed, for he is seemingly incapable to cope with either the tensions or banalities of human existence. Conflicted between Freudian extremes of the imperatives of the superego and the desires of the id, Rourke's character wills out to human failing. Within the traditional textbook definition of a tragic figure, the Ram possesses a great flaw: his commitment to what he has contrived.

To play the part, Rourke transformed his body. The only suspension of disbelief within the fictional world of the film is accepting that the man on screen once was the skinny imp in Rumble Fish, Angel Heart, and The Pope of Greenwich Village. Both the commitment of the character on screen as well as the actor off screen are remarkable. This begs the question: does having an incredible amount of commitment to a job or a cause mean that one will ultimately do it well?

Often, commitment is a necessary precursor to doing something well. Virtuosity combines talent and hard work. Yet, there are plenty of washouts in all fields who no matter how much individual effort they apply, they do it all for naught. Since society ascribes virtue to the hard work and sacrifice which comprise commitment, it has an ethical dilemma when honestly assessing the result of the process. Hence is the double bind of the means and ends being able to justify each other. 

Did Rourke act his part well or was the external transformation to fit the part the more extraordinary accomplishment? In certain aspects, the performance equalled or surpassed the physical transformation required for the part. Though the hulking presence dominates the eye, the subtleties of the performance and their thematic significance do eventually come to the fore. The Ram straddles the fence over going straight or perpetuating the farcical persona as a way of clinging to a familiar plane of his own space and time. His willingness to degrade and to mortify his own flesh come as easy decisions to him even at the expense of finding something outside himself.

French novelist Margeurite Duras wrote, "What is really frightening is the idea of a man eternally in his own presence." The character created by Rourke, Aronofsky and screenwriter Robert Siegel takes such horror and pain further. What is even more frightening is his pathological aplomb for selfishness. He fails to redeem himself in his personal realm of the unknown: a semblance of fatherhood to a grown, estranged daughter.  The Ram is content to remain isolated in the metier of spandex tights because the alternative means anonymity.

The film bespeaks the desolation and short life spans characteristic of American public lives as well as the increasing validity of choosing the life less ordinary and prevalence of the 'dig me' mentality. Yet, the Ram accepts and endures the consequences of his decisions instead of begging and praying for a dea ex machina to deliver him from himself. Despite the selfish tendencies, the character - a seemingly one-dimensional meathead - certainly has the breadth of consistency rather than the depths of complexity. He understands himself, who he is, and what the limitations are at the nexus of understanding and identity. He is aware without overt introspection. 

Paradoxically, Rourke has been able to do what the character he portrayed could not. The result reconciled with the process for Rourke, but the Ram merely kept beating his head against a wall where no amount of effort brought success. It seems counterintuitive to find the happy ending of redemption in reality instead of in the narrative.

Settling debts

The biggest problem for those most closely affected by the economic crisis is pricing assets. Prices give signals to markets and regulators, and without a reliable pricing mechanism, making policy or transactions is virtually impossible. Figuring out what all the bad stuff is worth has been vexing for government authorities and investors. The Federal Reserve and Treasury, having recently reconsidered purchasing the toxic assets which have crippled credit markets instead of straight transfer payments to banking institutions, cannot accurately determine what the value is of the underlying assets which comprise the subprime-backed securities. Investors, also ignorant of what the stuff is worth, cannot restructure existing deals as well as make new ones without knowing how much capital must go towards taking the loss of holding securities no one wants. 

An idea, though possibly mooted before, would be to aggregate the values of each sub-prime mortgage when it was underwritten. Next, exclude the value of the loans which have gone bad. Divide the dud loans by the total, and that would give a base line risk premium. In any security containing a tranche of subprime backed debt, the weighted average of the interest rates of the underlying components would give an interest rate for that security. Though this might be imperfect and slightly less sophisticated than what analysts and quants expect out of pricing securities, it presents a least bad option. With a sound, mathematical fundamental logic, priced securities can give some signals to the stalled markets for these products. Moreover, Fed and Treasury will not have to continue this bastard version of 'helicopter monetarism.'

Such a move has its benefits. Existing CDOs and CDSs, which no one wants to touch, might generate some interest if spreads between high rated and junk debt is rationalized a little better. At this juncture, perhaps the price of inaccuracy might be a reasonable trade-off when balanced against the pervasive uncertainty which has ground structured finance to a halt. The reluctance to 'man up' and cope with bad decisions has resulted in widespread nationalization. New monitoring of ratings agencies must doubtless accompany any bailout program.

The big question is what to do with the borrowers responsible for paying back loans they ought not to have received. Does such a program amount to paying the mortgages for anyone who does not deserve that sort of relief? This concept is not a federal buyback of dud house loans. It would provide a valuation basis for things that are quite difficult to price. If proliferation of subprime mortgage underwriting was at the root of the problem, tracing back to the origin will clarify some things. As far as quelling concerns on the demand end, lenders and regulators should use whatever measures exist to keep even a meager flow of partial interest payments coming through a strict custodial system. This plan does come with its own opportunity costs: bank officers cannot allocate time to more productive endeavors if they are to spend time as glorified collection agents. However, necessity wins out in the current scenario, especially since the credit industry cannot focus on more profitable projects in a climate of uncertainty largely a product of its own machinations. Perhaps the shame of losing prestige might be enough to curb moral hazard in the future. 

It is perplexing that a simple solution to a complex problem did not receive more consideration. Then again, the haste with which the Fed and Treasury have pushed through a somewhat random number warrants questioning. Though thousands of citizens petitioned their representatives and senators to block the bailout, lawmakers acquiesced to the requests of Bernanke and Paulson (Paulanke). Questions naturally arise: Is the true scale of the financial market calamity too frightening to unleash on an already nervous public? Was the decision seen as a sop to bankers who provide a consistent donation stream into politicians' war chests? Is the price of inaction worth doubling the debt ceiling? Have the last eight years ingrained an anti-intellectual culture which discourages clash and debate? 

 

Largely, this financial crisis represents a spiral in the breaching of taboos. Lenders used to never loan money to anyone who could not provide proof of income or assets. One used to have to earn access to a lot of credit, and that process encouraged an ethos of productive behavior such as saving and investment. Greater inclusion in the market benefits consumers and producers, but bad money does drive out good. Ratings agencies once had unimpeachable, neutral reputations. Instead, they broke through the firewall between raters and the firms they rate much like the close relationships accountants and the firms they audited precipitated in a previous period of corporate failure through criminality. Blind faith in free market orthodoxy resulted in budget cuts for agencies such as the SEC and DOJ Antitrust division, and the unintended consequence of which was an inability to probe market anomalies in real time. Investment banks had leverage exposure many order of magnitude higher than their market capitalization. Este nihil sanctum? 

With luck, the borrowing binge on the micro and macro levels will end. However, no politician has posited a plausible way of accelerating debt service. Failing to commit to deep austerity measures sends a damaging cultural signal with far deeper consequences than the inability of the markets to receive a signal at all.  

Building a better bubble

A few nights ago, American PBS aired Ascent of Money, a non-fiction film presentation of Dr. Niall Ferguson's book of the same title. This fast-paced, somewhat erratic 2 hour film provided some history about the evolution of the role of finance in economic development. Perhaps the 6 episode series which aired on British Channel 4 might have been more comprehensive, less jagged, more thematically coherent, but the survey of historic financial collapses substantiated two notions: the prevalence of a herd mentality which drives asset prices and that markets and market makers have a great grasp of mathematics, but a bad sense of history.

Since markets and businesses are not immune to cyclical shocks, there are lessons to be learned from prior downturns. For example, tight monetary policy after the 1927 stock market crash failed to right the economy, in fact it made it worse. Central bankers have not made the same mistake since. More recently, the export-based, Asian 'tiger' economies experienced a financial crisis in 1998. Though a single cause to the crisis is still disputed, high levels of external debt, fixed exchange rates, and a sharp fall in 'hot money' capital inflows all contributed to the collapse of the Thai, Indonesian, and South Korean economies which required IMF intervention. During the last decade of recovery, these three countries as well as China and Vietnam have accumulated massive dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves which will insulate exporters from demand shocks. Again, another lesson learned.

Despite only scant treatment of how the 1998 Asian crisis relates to the present day, Dr. Ferguson, in the latter portion of the documentary, hints that the byproduct of high savings rates and Asian central bank 'sterilization' policies will further strain the tenuous Sino-American economic relationship, cleverly dubbed 'Chimerica'. Of course, albeit briefly, he drew the parallels between this two-headed entity to the mythological creature of similar name.

What can one extrapolate from the status quo? In the present situation, high Chinese consumer savings rates make it possible for the People's Bank of China to purchase more US Treasury bonds. This policy keeps the yuan from strengthening too quickly as well as maintains the competitiveness of Chinese exports. The idea is pretty incestuous where the seller finances the debt of buyer while simultaneously selling the buyer goods. Though China became a net importer several years ago, its export sector makes up a great deal of national income. If the government did not bolster exports through intervention, then China would not be able to run current account surpluses. So what might happen as China's economy will eventually switch to higher productive industries, as the government pledged billions to economic stimulus through infrastructure improvement, and as domestic demand becomes the driver of economic growth?

The prospect of Asian central banks calling in American debt is unlikely, however, the volume of US treasuries held in foreign countries will likely decrease despite an eventual increase in US interest rates. The worrisome prospect is probably the last and most plausible change to the status quo. Economic growth will precipitate in some institutional changes, though not necessarily all for China, of the 'softer' aspects of society such as definition of civil and property rights; more efficient delivery of public service through government or market mechanisms; and better legal protection of contracts and settlement of disputes. The Chinese government has obligations to preventing social unrest as well as to foreign governments and transnational firms. Presently, it does the bare minimum to forestall social revolution, but as Chinese industry matures by utilizing higher productive technologies, government obligations to foreigners will not be as important since it will have a huge domestic market which may be poor now, but will become a grwoth driving, consumer society in the future. Its policies and strategies will move more inward when Chinese firms can receive a good rate of return domestically.

As China will eventually decouple from foreign firms certain bits of its economic growth agenda, the domestic markets of those foreign firms will suffer, particularly that of the United States. The American economy has shown its resilience against financial meltdown, but the government has had to borrow extensively to do so. When foreign appetites for American debt wane, future borrowing costs will be significantly higher. There may be negative real interest rates presently, but that will not last indefinitely. A future with a weak currency, a high propensity to import, and high interest rates will cripple an American economy so dependent on financial instruments as both means facilitating production and consumption. In such a future, will social unrest become an American rather than a Chinese problem? Could it lead to war?

The fundamental point of the documentary is that money borrowed ought to be paid back. Trying to reinvent this system has resulted in calamity. It is tough to believe that the solution to clearing the bad debt caused by securitization of sub-prime mortgages is more debt, but the Depression taught the world the dangers of freezing credit markets. Yes, dispersing risk amongst variegated holders with different exposures has theoretical benefit, but the transfer mechanism is a circuit, not a ray. When everyone is trying to get paid, but no one can get paid, all the creative financial engineering is meaningless. At some point, the government under the new administration must come forward and admit that the most crucial objective of the next term is not climate change, terrorism, or conducting a war. It is servicing debt, and it will require a combination of higher taxes and less spending. Here's to a future where assuming responsibility such as debt is once again a virtue, and dickless, rich kid politics - failure to bite the bullet, squeamishness to take the pain, and being saved by the bell conveniently to duck the punishment - will never get another chance to fuck up the lives of millions.

A grossly fantastic look at 10 days from now...

Huddled in a dark corner of the Fox News editiorial offices, the podgy hulk of Roger Ailes listens for a knock, a phone call, an email, that will not come. Amidst empty boxes of Krispy Kreme donuts, he watches furtively throught the pixelated blackness, as muted television monitors behind him broadcast any news unrelated to the impending transfer of power within the American executive branch. Worse yet, his crack team of well-scrubbed, pure -bred, blond haired, blue eyed stringers has not yet turned up a story to scandalize the incoming president. The tension rises propotionatley to his ever expanding girth and soaring blood pressure. He feels an icy, tingling grip course over the left side of his body. Worse yet, what paeans does the Minimus of modern news organization have left to trumpet? After five years of ill-conceived foreign and economic policy - the historical points of pride of the Republican party, he has admitted to himself that he ain't got much. He cries out to his secretary to get him another two dozen, one glazed, one assorted, and to make sure there are at least four raspberry filled. "Ten more days, then I can start my diet," muses the former Nixon apparatchik.

"I'm safe for fifty years. I can start eating butter again. There was me and then there was the rest of them. I outlasted them all. Fleischer, Card, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, pussies. Tony Snow took the coward's way out, but not me. Damn shame I didn't have the chance to topple a country with nice beaches and girls that run around topless and install myself as supreme leader for eternity. Oh yeah, Lynn's still around. But was it all worth it? I could be the first public servant after leaving office to be fragged by his Secret Service detail. Nonsense. I'll never die," The Vice-President makes no effort to disguise his ubiquitous, mocking sneer. Decorated with the stuffed remnants of animal carcasses, honorary university degrees, a shotgun rack, and an oil painting of a muscular gladiator killing a lion, the walls of this secret chamber convey a theme of ritualised death and homo-eroticism. Cheney takes a shotgun down from the wall and polishes it as a tour group viewing the Executive Mansion wonders about the soft, disturbing, orgasmic moans, almost the sounds of arctic birds mating, leak from the crevices in the paint.

She crosses her legs high, almost seriously considers the offer, blushes to herself at her own immodesty. Sure, the letter, written on Playboy company stationery, arrived by special FedEx delivery, stressed the pictorial would be artistic, tasteful, all the usual promises. Even for a minute, she ponders the $20 million. Her fingers twirl the ends of her bobbed, blond highlights. Yet, this shameless, ancient proposition of sex for money leaves her feeling less filthy than having to defend the actions and motivations of a man her intellectual inferior. "I sure know how to pick 'em," she thinks, suppresses an outward smile. Absentmindedly, girlish, she starts playing with her necklace. It rides up the nape of her neck, and she places the unbroken chain into her mouth. She glances out her office window, the upper corners of the oane glass glazed by winter frost. Dana Perino spies her faint, transluscent reflection, "Saying no to this should have been easier." She has no idea what 'this' could be except that it was not left far behind.

We now join our regularly scheduled broadcast of 'Bullitt' already in progress...

It is about time this space had a piece about competitive golf. More importantly, especially at this point in time and space, the work ought to have neither a retrospective nor prospective angle. So, what is the state of professional, competitive golf?

Though other professional sports leagues rely on outside sponsorship to generate revenue, the PGA Tour of America cannot due to its status as a non-profit organization under US tax code. So, how does the PGA Tour manage to maintain itself through its unique business model? First and foremost, it has cultivated a strong, recognizable, global brand. Without it, the Tour could not operate to the scale and scope at which it currently does. The strong brand allows for broad licensing deals for partners with the Tour itself as well as its subsidiary companies and those that bear its mark such as an in-house media production company and a clothing line, Second, the Tour may have been one of the first 'virtual' corporate entities. Rather than a provider of services or a producer of goods, the Tour coordinates all that is necessary to stage golf tournaments starting with finding sponsors to pay for purses, arranging contracts with media companies for broadcast; technology firms for logistical support; vendors for concessions; automobile makers for player courtesy cars; sanitation and ecology; security; various insurance protection for eventualities ranging from weather to theft; finance for players, officials, and caddies; and provide salaried rules officials to settle competition questions. The Tour also involves itself with remitting tournament profit to charity and player services such as pension funds, travel, insurance programs. One would think the labor costs would spiral out of control, but volunteers eager to participate in a major sporting event and to show off community pride comprise most of its weekly workforce. The breadth of its contractual obligations and responsibilities are no different than any other large transnational firm. Its prescient business model as well as the good timing of its administrators to lock up lucrative broadcast rights have made it seemingly impervious to the economic downturn.

The Nationwide and Champions Tours - partially subsidized by the main Tour - have lost tournaments like its parent, but if the those tours did not have the backing of the main Tour, then sponsorship would quickly dry up. The Champions Tour lost three events largely due to bad timing of expiring contracts which were not renewed. The Nationwide Tour lost its Richmond, VA, Chicago, IL, Livermore, CA, Rochester, NY and Eugene, OR stops, and they were replaced by an additional event in New Zealand, a new site and sponsor for Northern California, Kansas City and Southern California. The net loss of one tournament was not bad given the bottom falling out of the US economy. With companies, particularly financial giants such as Bank of America, GM and Wachovia, hurt by exposure to bad securities, sponsorship of a golf tournament would seem to signal misuse of shareholder money. It is impressive that the Tour managed to find ways to keep the Champions and Nationwide from collapsing. 

Yet, assessing the present situation, what sort of signal does the Tour and its players send when many are struggling with mounting debt and uncertainty? Davis Love III mentioned how fortunate Tour players would be receiving pay raises during the economic downturn. No one made much of this remark, but it does sound quite hollow coming from a man who flies private. Since golfers actually have to perform to get paid unlike other athletes, the public is less likely to resent their financial gain based on merit rather than the result of a savvy agent negotiating a contract. However, when 104 players earned over a million dollars in 2008, deflecting attention from the financial aspect of the sport would have been the gentlemanly thing to do. 

Even at their most obnoxious, golfers tend not alienate fans of their sport quite so egregiously. When David Duval and Hunter Mahan made disparaging remarks about the Ryder Cup - a non-PGA Tour sanctioned event, the Tour performed damage control. Players are typically careful in their media remarks so as not to become locker room bulletin board material, but the Tour has responded swiftly in instances where its administrators felt comments would damage the brand as well as the Tour's relationship with its partners. In a way, that is right, for the emphasis remains on the battle on the course rather than in the press. The flip side, though, is that it is hard to believe that ideological unanimity exists, that no one deviates from a concept mentality. 

Playing the game at a high level requires a maximum of mental concentration, and the Tour has made the competitive environment ideal for those sufficiently talented and disciplined to get there and stay there. Why bother with dissent when there is nothing to bitch about? Even when things are not so good with the Tour, the relative degree to which an undesirable situation has come about is far less than it would be in a milieu where the situation changed from good to bad. Also, how bad can group think be when the group has little impact on anyone but its members? In principle, such seductive logic fails many ethical and moral tests. In practice, it seems to work out fine for everybody. 

So what happens, and this does not contradict the prospection condition, when something ought to be said that the Tour administrators might find unpopular? What type of occasion would warrant a deviation from the party line? It is hard to even speculate about anything going conceivably wrong on such a tight ship. However difficult it is to imagine a controversy in golf or more plausibly the leaking of such a controversy to the press under the status quo of the Tour, that does not mean it cannot happen. As recent history reveals, no organization, especially one so cliquish and homogeneous, is immune from collapse despite a seemingly apparent improbability of doing so.

Strong Openings

DY has always had qualms with chronology. Passage of time is inevitable, and marking it has manifold benefits, but associating passage of a given increment of time with ritual seems arcane.

Birthdays used to be a big deal when life expectancy was far shorter than present levels and infant mortality was quite high. To live past maturity meant something important when day to day survival preoccupied people's behavior. To have lived a full year, 2% of a life even at the start of the 20th century, was truly an accomplishment given the levels of hygiene, preventative medicine, prevalence of disease, and food safety. By no means do longer life expectancies have an inflationary effect and 'cheapen' the value of a year of life, but safer societies make survival easier. 

Perhaps post-modern man derives most of his angst from such a paradox: not only does the pressure to pick a direction from an abundant variety of choices create confusion, but also the evolutionary disconnection resulting from the environment changing at a rate much faster than his own biology compounds it. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, man, like his protagonist Billy Pilgrim, "has become unstuck in time." Where he still has the primordial tendencies of competition, the terms that define even small victories against the elements and others of his species have changed. The struggle takes place in an ambiguous, mental space rather than the physical realm of teeth, nail, and fist twisting flesh, spilling blood. Might still makes right, but the measure of power is very different.

Yet, despite the crisis, man has not lost his appetite, imagination or capacity for brutality. Has all the extra leisure time granted to man from not having to track and to hunt, or to sweat all day in fields to feed himself, allowed him to devise new ways to inflict pain, to protect his status against rivals, to improve his standing within the group? Furthermore, how does this relate to the artificial rituals ascribed to the passage of a span of time?

The New Year somehow has a mystic, implied power of resetting man's situation to a certain extent. Though someone has the will and autonomy, despite cultural or political constraints, to 'reset' the course of one' life without waiting for the calendar to flip, the atavistic instinct to mark time compels people to wait, effectively buying time to continue with an undesirable pattern of behavior. But the shift from physical to mental survival has its own paradox: the exegesis towards reconciling the new evolutionary dilemma blinds man to the instances where survival still matters. On the one hand, man clings to the prospect of a return to a 'natural' state, yet when confronted with one, man is only half equipped to deal or to understand it. Having heard that self-improvement - better diet, daily exercise, - holds the key to 'survival', defined as always as living longer, in the modern world, man in the developed, post-modern world has become dislodged in his own role as well as become out of touch with understanding the lot of the billions for whom quotidian survival is still the preoccupation of life. 

On a philosophical level, this can explain the discord and misunderstanding of developed and developing nations. Though there are over 6.5 billion in the species, the type of struggle varies among the members of the species. 

By the end of this year, when it no longer has the fresh scent, and the strong opening has dissolved into a muddled endspiel, perhaps someone will have squared the circle, but, more likely than not, Gaza will still be inflamed, and DY will find more inane, abstruse topics to keep his narrow readership diverted from their jobs. 

Shop talk about the game of golf will return shortly.

In pace requiescat, Senator Claiborne Pell