Letter from New Orleans

Here we are in the fourth week of a five-week stay in New Orleans. Anything to get away from New York weather in February. I grew up here, leaving after high school, while Donna spent three decades here running a contemporary art gallery. So rather than visiting, we are returning home.

New Orleans is a slow-paced town. Compared with most other cities, we move deliberately.  We obsess over food and restaurants.  Eating out, the conversation revolves about what we ate last night, what we’re eating now, and what we’re going to eat tomorrow. Life goes on pretty much as it did when I was growing up here.

And the social structure is little changed. In a 2007 Commentary magazine essay entitled, “New Orleans – An Autopsy,” a former grammar school classmate of mine, Ben C. Toledano, ascribed much of the city’s economic diminution relative to our peers to the practices and prejudices of a narrowly based social and economic oligarchy that largely controlled the city.

So the economy continues to be tourism-dominated. Too many people earn minimum wage and too few jobs are created. Too few of the best and the brightest can find opportunities here, and they leave to enrich other communities. Our erstwhile peers when I was growing up -- Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta -- have morphed into major metropolises, with growing populations, greater commercial importance, and higher standards of living. New Orleans just shuffles along.

What a Weekend!  But on the surface, you would never sense those issues.  Particularly this month. Normally, the big deal this time of year is Mardi Gras. But over a single weekend in February, Mardi Gras was eclipsed by two dramatic events: the Saints winning their first-ever Super Bowl, and a reform mayor winning election in a landslide.

Everybody knows the Saints story. They suffered through four decades of futility, and rightfully earned the sobriquet “Aints.” But this year, the planets were in alignment and the fairy tale ended happily for New Orleans.

I've never seen so many people in the city so elated about a single event. It was clearly the biggest morale boost in the 4 1/2 years since Katrina struck.  Thousands of fans surrounded the airport on the team’s return from Miami. Hundreds of thousands attended the celebratory five-hour parade two days later that brought the city to a halt.

By contrast, the Indianapolis Star reported:

Sparse crowd greets Colts on return



By Kevin O'Neal
kevin.oneal@indystar.com

The end of the Indianapolis Colts' season came down to 11 people. Not the 11 players on the field during the Super Bowl, but the 11 who showed up at Indianapolis International Airport.

Unfortunately, success on the football field doesn’t help solve the city's historic problems of miserable governance and economic failure. Yet many people I’ve talked with in the post-Super Bowl euphoria seem to think that good things will happen because of the Super Bowl.  Somehow, they equate an athletic victory with an economic accelerator. This lack of realism underscores one of the problems with New Orleans -- too many live in a dream world.

Hood Robin?  Like many cities, New Orleans and Louisiana politicians consider professional sports teams to be a driver of economic development. This is an argument, shared by many other officials around the country, that simply is not borne out by disinterested analysis. But politicians love sports, they love the idea of having an NFL teams in their community, and they love the seats they get for the games.  So we have this remarkable situation where hard-pressed taxpayers finance über-wealthy owners with stadiums, stadium upgrades, and cash subsidies to stay put.

In the euphoria that followed the Super Bowl victory, a new deal was just announced that further locks in the Saints owners, the Benson family. According to the Feb. 21 Times-Picayune, the terms perpetuate and even enhance older agreements that are mind-boggling. 

"Counting all the impacts of Superdome enhancements, new and remaining state subsidies, property leases and other sources of income, the deal for the Benson family and the Saints adds up to more than $400 million in guaranteed revenue over the next 15 years. Additional financial benefits could flow from co-investors using tax credits and from non-guaranteed office, plaza and parking revenue."

Hundreds of millions of dollars transferred from the state and city to the family – for which they promise, promise, promise not to ever leave New Orleans (never, or until the termination of the contract, whichever comes first).  Rob the poor to pay the rich.  Some deal.

Real Solutions  What about real solutions to the city’s problems?  They start with better governance.  And fortunately, the February 6^th election of Mitch Landrieu as mayor -- the day before the Super Bowl -- could go a long way toward restoring the integrity and competence of the city's governance. I need remind no one about the sad history of corrupt and incompetent mayors.

The most remarkable aspect of the election is that Landrieu won 365 of the 366 precincts, and had almost five times the vote of the runner-up. In a city long victimized by poor racial relations, the fact that Landrieu won across every economic, ethnic, and racial segment bodes well for the city for the next four to eight years.

Football victories by good teams make people feel good. Electoral victories by good people can actually do good.

Challenges and Opportunities  And some good things can happen, will happen, and are even happening already. Chief among the needs is reducing the city's crime rate. New Orleans has often been near the bottom nationally in many rankings-- e.g., education, poverty, job creation.  Unfortunately, however, we lead the country in one ranking – per-capita murder rate. That is not a leadership we're particularly proud of, and it’s certainly not one that tends to attract convention planners or company relocators. But I’m convinced that it’s a problem that is fixable -- by a competent civic leadership -- and will be fixed.

And thanks to Katrina -- yes, I said thanks to Katrina -- the K-12 public educational system is one of our rays of hope. After the storm, the state government took over one of the worst K-12 educational systems in the country and facilitated the establishment of charter schools (all  union-free). Over half the schools now are charters – highest in the country -- and the numbers continue to increase. And the charter students' performances and attendance figures also are rising dramatically. (Note the piece I wrote two years ago on the Edible Schoolyard charter school.) See, we actually lead in something other than the murder rate. Indeed, New Orleans has become a national laboratory for reforming the public school system.

Leaving Behind the Banana Republic Economy Job creation is a far more difficult job. The city has suffered a brain drain since the 1930s when Huey Long perfected a culture of corrupt government that has spread throughout the state.  One result – Louisiana and New Orleans have been abysmal failures at keeping their talent or inducing outside companies with high-paying jobs to be moved here.  Every other southern state has been more successful. We have been unable to change our brain drain into a brain gain, or to create economic engines of growth.

But that could change now in New Orleans. As vital services restored, as the crime rate drops, as a new educational system develops, and with a renewed emphasis on economic development, the city can start eliminating the negatives and accentuating the positives.  It can play up one of its unique attributes -- it's a desirable and stimulating place to live.

Here’s Question for You Tell me honestly, if you were CEO of a company in Somewhere, USA, seeking to start up, expand or relocate, would you rather spend your remaining years being bored to tears in 99% of the cities in the US, or would you rather live in a city with incomparable élan, musical heritage, multicultural populace, unique architecture, and fabulous restaurants? Would you like to dine out Saturday night at Denny’s, or maybe the local Holiday Inn dining room, or would you rather delight in the fare at Commander’s Palace in the Garden District, or Galatoire’s in the French Quarter, or Gautreau’s uptown, or one of hundreds of other bastions of a Creole-cum-Cajun-cum-French-cum-Southern cuisine unique to the world?

Parades  And parades. Lots of parades.  New Orleanians love, love, love parades.

New Orleanians will parade for any reason. For all reasons. They parade when people die, they parade when football teams win, they parade for weeks before Mardi Gras, they parade all day on Mardi Gras, and they even parade for their animals. A week ago we walked to the French Quarter and watched the Krewe of Barkus go by -- yep, a parade of dogs.  

And there's the Krewe du Jieux, which I learned of in the online publication, Tablet, in a piece written by Justin Vogt. At its parade, you can spot the sign, "Jew Dat."  Naturally, it already has a spin-off, the Krewe du Mishigas.  Given that old habits die hard, it's highly unlikely that the kings of Comus (the most social, old money and secretive krewe) and Jieux will meet at midnight on Mardi Gras any time soon.  But, hey, who knows?  The Saints won the Super Bowl.

Streets  A note on some favorite New Orleans street names.

Uptown, three streets that cross St. Charles Avenue in succession: Webster, Henry Clay, and Calhoun. How fitting that the Yankee Daniel Webster and the Southerner John Calhoun are separated by the “Great Compromiser,” Henry Clay.

In a city with such a rich artistic heritage, it's only appropriate that all nine muses are represented by streets. Indeed, just below the Garden District you'll find, in succession, these streets: Urania, Polymnia, Euterpe, Terpsichore, Melpomene, Thalia, Erato, Clio, and Calliope.  Of course, the natives pronounce almost all of them all wrong -- it's part of their charm. But, then, New Yorkers don't even know how to pronounce their own Houston St. (they call it "how stun").

Last, I'm enamored of Broad Street and Toulouse Street.  Why?  Because they formed the answer to a clue in a treasure hunt I participated in during high school. The clue was "baggy trousers."  The answer was obvious.  We immediately drove to the intersection of "broad and too loose."


Speaking of Job Creation  From the Feb. 21 Times-Picayune:

CORRECTION: I am sorry to disappoint all the readers who wished to apply for the position, but New Orleans does not employ a “sex assessor.” That was a misprint in Wednesday's column. It should have read “tax assessor.”

A Modest Proposal: A Real High-Speed Rail Program

Once upon a time in America, we built great things.  We created nation-building canals, giant dams, coast-to-coast railroads, massive bridges, unprecedented war machines, national highways, and awe-inspiring spaceships.  These projects were expensive and they took a long time to complete – years, even decades.  But they served a useful purpose, were popularly accepted, and have had a profound impact on strengthening the infrastructure of our country and enriching our lives.

In 1825, the Erie Canal, financed by New York State, connected Lake Erie to the Hudson River. The 363-mile waterway effected a huge reduction in transportation costs, helped open up the West, and established New York as the leading port in the country.

In 1863, the transcontinental railroad was completed, linking the East and West coasts.

In 1914, the United States finished construction of the Panama Canal, one of the largest engineering projects in history. Under the aegis of Theodore Roosevelt, its impact was enormous, shortening ships’ voyages between Atlantic and Pacific oceans from thousands of miles to 48 miles.

During the Great Depression, a host of new initiatives helped create jobs and restart economic growth. Hoover Dam (right), then the largest in the world, was completed and Grand Coulee Dam started. Among the more successful FDR programs were the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Works Projects Administration. The WPA built thousands of schools, hospitals, bridges, parks, sports stadiums, sewer lines and myriad other public works. At its peak, it employed over three million. Funding reached $2 billion annually ($30 billion today adjusted for inflation).

World War II led to the Manhattan Project, which ultimately spawned nuclear power as a byproduct. Radar was perfected. Aircraft and ship production reached unprecedented levels.

Perhaps the last major infrastructure effort by the United States in the last 50 years was the interstate highway system. President Eisenhower signed into law the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.The program featured a 41,000-mile network of limited-access roads linking 90 percent of all cities with populations of more than 50,000.  The Federal Government contributed $25,000,000,000 [$192 billion in current dollars!] among the states over the following thirteen years.

The Apollo program, initiated by President Kennedy in 1961, was successfully realized in 1969 with the successful landing of men on the moon. Apollo was a reaction to the twin scares from the Soviet Union’s space program. First was the shock of the unmanned Sputnik in October 1957, the world’s first artificial satellite. Second was the flight by Yuri Gagarin in April 1961.  He became the first man in space. Just over a month later, Kennedy announced the Apollo program, thereby initiating a race to the moon (a race, by the way, that the Soviets never bothered to enter).

While the Apollo program was successful in exciting the public and in developing a capability for human spaceflight, it was less successful when undergoing a cost-benefit analysis, particularly compared with robotic spaceflight. The latter has about two orders of magnitude lower cost than human flight, with about two orders of magnitude higher productivity and scientific research. Unmanned satellites have revolutionized communications, navigation, weather forecasting, mapping, and astronomy.  Not as sexy as humans flying around in spaceships, but a much bigger bang for the buck. 

Looking at the list of infrastructure achievements, most were phenomenal. Some were responses to hot or cold war challenges. Others were peacetime improvements to our infrastructure that yielded a stronger and more vibrant nation. They created jobs, strengthened the economy, and helped raise our standard of living.

But as they say, what have you done for me lately? In the 54 years since the interstate highway legislation passed Congress, nothing even close has followed. Five decades, zilch.

It’s not that we don’t spend money.  In the last two years we’ve spent massive taxpayer funds -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- allegedly in the public interest.  But regrettably, not for productive projects, not for infrastructure, not to accentuate the positive, but rather to eliminate the negative.  Unprecedented public funding has been used to rescue dying, mismanaged and inefficient industries. We poured enormous amounts into the financial sector. We saved the legacy automobile industry in order to preserve jobs. A short-term success, but a long-term mistake. 

Let's see what Intel’s former CEO, Andy Grove, said about this in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, likening the technological revolution that hit the computer industry three decades ago to the one now reshaping the auto industry:

The transformation of an entire industry does not happen very often. It only occurs when a number of factors align, such as a change in consumer demand, a shift of parts of the major supply chain from one country to another, and the emergence of key technological changes…

This is what happened in the computer industry in the 1980s and '90s [when all the mainframe companies were hemorrhaging money]…

Imagine if in the middle of the computer transformation the Reagan administration worried about the upheaval and tried to rescue this vital industry by making huge investments in leading mainframe companies. The purpose of such investments would have been to protect the viability of these companies. The effect, however, would have been to put the brakes on transformation and all but ensure that the U.S. would lose its leadership role…

The PC changed [the industry.] In just a few years, the industry was pulled apart and reassembled…

The government's investment in General Motors might be directly helpful if the auto industry only had the recession to contend with. But that is not the case. The industry faces the confluence of a world-wide recession, rising fuel prices, environmental demands, globalization of manufacturing, and, most importantly, technological change involving the very nature of the automobile…

Electric cars have become viable and will likely only become more capable in the future... Electric cars may match the needs of our time better and become more desirable than cars relying on the internal combustion engine…

The U.S. government is investing in the automobile industry with the intention of preventing jobs from being lost. This may improve GM's ability to operate within today's structure. But there is no comparably large investment being made to develop the capabilities that could serve the company in a new era of electric cars.

China appears to be making a different bet… China is putting a great deal of effort into developing and manufacturing batteries. Essentially, it is betting that it can take the lead in creating the foundation technology of what will likely be the new structure of the auto industry.

One Investment Idea -- Battery Technology


I agree with Grove.  A massive federal investment in developing new battery technology would pay great dividends. One by one, the world's automakers are exploring with varying degrees of enthusiasm all-electric vehicles. But to make them truly practical – not just a second-car option -- a new generation of battery technology is required. The energy density and recharge time of today’s lithium-ion batteries are simply not adequate to allow for widespread replacement of internal combustion autos.

As the owner of an all-electric car (a 2008 Tesla Roadster), I can enthusiastically testify as to the excitement of driving the car -- it accelerates from 0 to 60 miles an hour in 3.9 seconds. But the limited range (200-plus miles if you drive it prudently) creates "range anxiety." That is, as approach its maximum range, you start getting really anxious.  You're not sure just how far you can go before you deplete the battery. And you don’t want to get stranded; there's no quick fill-up at a nearby filling station.  The recharge time from dead battery to fully charged ranges from four hours (with a 220V, 70 amp line) to 40 hours (with a standard 110V line).

We need a massive investment in new battery technology.  Batteries unfortunately are not beneficiaries of Moore’s Law, an observation that over the last five decades semiconductors have doubled their performance every year-and-a-half to two years. We need battery breakthroughs, but if someone is making a massive investment in battery technology, it’s not in this hemisphere.


Another Investment Idea -- A Real High-Speed Rail Program

There is one new infrastructure plan that’s getting a lot of attention right now -- high-speed rail. Indeed, last week the US Department of Transportation announced that it was awarding $8 billion to states across the country “to develop America's first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service. The President’s bold vision for high-speed rail is a game changer,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Sound good? It sure does. Until you look at the numbers. It turns out that $8 billion, plus an additional $1 billion per year for five years, is still chump change compared to what's needed and what other countries are doing to create nationwide high-speed rail service. In fact, it’s a number well short of. say, the $17 billion we spend annually on candy.  The paltry size of the proposed new rail program is maddening: it’s big enough to get people excited, but not enough to really make a difference.  And it doesn’t begin to compare with what’s happening elsewhere in the world.

We're all familiar with what's happening abroad. Japan has had its bullet trains for decades. France has the TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse), and similar programs thrive in Germany, Spain, Italy, South Korea and Taiwan. But the real game changer, as with so many other advanced developments, is happening in – you guessed it -- China.

Recently, China leaped ahead of the world by opening the world’s fastest long-distance passenger train service. The Harmony Express covers the nearly 700 miles from Guangzhou to Wuhan in less than three hours, compared with 11 hours previously. By comparison, the fastest American service, the Acela, takes the same time to travel the 225 miles between New York and Washington, D.C.  One-third the distance in the same time.  That’s embarrassing.

But the Harmony is just a harbinger. As Fortune reported last August, China's high-speed rail program calls for 16,000 miles of new track to be installed by the year 2020. Their spending in 2010 alone will be $50 billion. Total program spending will reach hundred of billions of dollars.

The next major link will be between Beijing and Shanghai. Traveling at a peak speed of 220 miles an hour, the train will traverse the 665 miles, including stops, in less than four hours.

Imagine traveling on the ground from New York to Chicago, a comparable distance to Beijing-Shanghai, in less than four hours. No airport hassle, few weather delays, no ramp waits, more civility. And remember this, if you want to get discouraged: Today’s commercial air experience is worse than it has ever been -- but better than it will ever be. Trains, anyone?

Not everyone is enamored of high-speed rail for the United States. Indeed, in an op-ed piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, one critic of high-speed rail claims that it is "driven by little more than a romantic notion to confer a European ambience on American cities." He criticizes the DOT plan for being too ambitious.  (Too ambitious?) And I find it interesting to read through an 834-word essay railing (so to speak) against high-speed rail, yet mentioning nothing about the revolutionary (so to speak) program in China. 

Critics claim rail travel will always be inefficient and costly.  But to compare the economics of old passenger-rail technology to the new high-speed revolution is like comparing internal-engine, propeller-driven aircraft to modern day jets.  High-speed rail will offer new economics and new passenger experience.

Unfortunately, you'll just have to imagine a world-class high-speed rail program in America, because it ain't gonna happen.  Not in my lifetime. Simply put, major infrastructure projects take years or even decades to complete, a period far longer than most politicians' terms of office. The costs of big projects are current, the benefits are in the future. 

Spending a billion or two a year on high-speed rail sounds good, but it will just provide ammunition for the critics. Money will be spent, but nothing dramatic will happen. It’s another attempt to do it on the cheap. Too bad.

It's time for inspired vision. For innovative thinking. For big ideas. And in the United States, not just in China.


Your thoughts on a big new idea?  Just comment below:

Banking Thoughts

I’m not sure how banks really function.  I’m watching the Bernanke hearings now on C-SPAN, and I’m beginning to realize that neither the questioners (Senators) nor the witness (Bernanke) seems to know that much more.  Yes, they all profess to be knowledgeable about what happened, and they claim to know what to do in the future, but weren’t these the same people who were around when the seeds of destruction were being planted a few years ago?  It doesn’t give one a lot of comfort.

I never used to give a passing thought to banks, or to bankers.  Then, when the crisis struck, it made me start to worry more about the financial system and the cause of its collapse.  Was it the government’s fault?  Nope.  The government said it was Wall Street’s.  Was it Wall Street’s fault? Nope. You guessed it. Wall Street blamed the regulators. But someone had to be culpable, yet no one wanted to take credit.  Wonder why?

I had been starting to get a little comfortable with our financial leadership a few weeks ago when Time magazine anointed the Fed chairman as its Person of the Year.  But then I recalled an earlier Time cover, Feb. 15, 1999, with photos of an earlier Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, along with Treasury’s Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. 

There were two captions on the cover: “The Committee to Save the World,” and “The inside story of how the Three Marketeers have prevented a global economic meltdown – so far.”  I’m not sure which caption was funnier.  A year later, as you may remember, all hell broke loose as one of our increasingly frequent financial bubbles burst. So much for the Three Marketeers.

Over the decade, the Fed leadership had changed from Greenspan to Bernanke. Yet here was Summers himself, back this time as National Economic adviser.  And Tim Geithner, a protégé of all the aforementioned, took over Treasury.  So our economic leadership has “progressed” from Greenspan, Rubin and Summers to Bernanke, Geithner and Summers.  In effect, the guys who got us here are back in the chicken coop again.  Change you can believe in? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The conventional wisdom is that Bernanke is irreplaceable and should be reappointed in order to assure stability in the financial markets; there is absolutely no one else who can do the job.  Somehow, I find it hard to believe that in a country of 300 million-plus, there is no other person who can run the Fed, that Bernanke is indispensable.  As Charles de Gaulle said, “The cemetery is full of indispensable men.”

Meanwhile, Geithner has his own issues.  Back in the bad old Soviet days, western Kremlinologists used to study photographs of the Politburo to discern who was gaining in favor -- by standing nearer Stalin -- and who was losing.  Those who moved over time from the center to the outside were likely headed for the Gulag.  This White House photo taken last week during Volcker’s visit suggests – based on Geithner’s distance from the President, not to mention the concerned expression on his face – that Cyrillic lessons might be in order.

Or as Politico.com put it last week:

Many in political Washington immediately suspected that the new ideas reflected a diminution of influence of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House economic advisor Larry Summers, and the ascendancy of former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who has advocated a tougher approach to the “too big to fail” problem for a year or more. In fact, Obama referred to one part of the proposal as “the Volcker rule.” 

Anyway, I’m going back to TV to watch more of the Senate hearings.  I’m dying to learn whether “somebody knows something” or it’s just more of “nobody knows anything.”

But I have recently learned something about the way that banks run their businesses.  They run them strangely.  Even though they’re lending very little to anyone but those with prime credits, the banks seem to be expanding their retail space at a feverish pitch.  At least in Manhattan.  It seems that whenever a street-level space becomes vacant – a not infrequent occurrence these days – some bank snaps up the location.

I just surveyed the area up and down Broadway within three to four blocks of our apartment building, and discovered 10 bank branches, many opened in the last few years.  They outnumber Starbucks in the same stretch five to one.

The good news?  Lots of ATMs.

Broadway & 63rd

Broadway & 63rd

Broadway & 62nd

Broadway & 61st

Broadway & 60th -- Home

Broadway & 58th

Broadway & 58th

Broadway & 57th

Broadway & 56th

Broadway & 56th

Broadway & 56th

Letter from Broadway

Suppose you’re a Broadway producer.  You're backing a show. Not a tourist-friendly musical, not a sitcom-like comedy, but a really serious drama. Troubled longshoreman. Set in Brooklyn. Doesn’t end happily. Tell me, honestly, what are the of odds that you would expect to wake up after opening night to see these quotes from reviewers:

"Theatrical lightning bolt"
"A singular astonishment"
"Extraordinary"
"Exquisitely played"
"Nothing short of remarkable"

It happened.

We attended the opening of A View from the Bridge, a revival of the 1955 play by Arthur Miller. Directed by Gregory Mosher [disclosure – a friend], it stars Liev Schreiber, Scarlett Johansson [disclosure – not a friend] and Jessica Hecht. The experience reminded me of how exhilarating well-written, well-acted and well-directed live theater can be. It also reminded me of why we live in high-tax, lousy-weather New York.

I won't review the play here; it’s above my pay grade. Rather, I urge you to read the reviews by the professional critics, almost all of whom were positive. The reviews ranged from admiring at worst to raves at best. In particular, I commend to your attention those in the Feb. 1 New Yorker, the Jan, 25 Washington Post, and the Jan. 25 New York Times. [The New Yorker’s online review in their digital edition is available only to registered users.] Just to whet your appetite, here is an excerpt from the opening paragraph of John Lahr’s review in The New Yorker:

"Deftly directed by Greg Mosher, A View from the Bridge is a singular astonishment: a kind of theatrical lightning bolt that sizzles and startles at the same time, illuminating the poetry in the play’s prose and the subtlety in its streamlined construction. A View from the Bridge may not be Miller’s best play, but this is one of the best productions of his work that I’ve ever seen.” And that’s just the start.

On its merits, the play’s 14-week run would probably sell out. The presence of film star Johansson, making her Broadway debut, assures it. Booking a big Hollywood or TV name is almost a de rigueur casting techniques to assure high Broadway attendance. Well, imagine my surprise (I’m rarely impressed by film stars’ performances on the stage) -- she does well. She more than holds her own. Johansson, in her brunette wig, has attention paid to her.

[For you Arthur Miller fans who recognize my sly reference to “attention must be paid” from Death of a Salesman, I’m not the only one trying to show my cleverness. Ben Brantley in the Times slips this into his review: “There’s no question of not paying them the attention that Miller demands.”]

But it’s Schreiber who is in a class by himself. He has to be considered one of the fine theatrical actors of our time. In A View from the Bridge, we may look at Scarlett, but we’re fixated on Liev. “Schreiber is nothing short of remarkable,” says The Washington Post.

Go see it.

10 Things I Think I Think

(I think I'm stealing the title from Peter King, the excellent NFL sportswriter for Sports Illustrated. His weekly column, Monday Morning Quarterback, is a must read for football nuts. One feature of MMQ is “10 Things I Think I Think,” which I think I have appropriated. I hope that my mentioning his column and furnishing the link offsets my brazen theft.)

1.  I think that the next important election after today's in Massachusetts is the mayoral election on February 6 in New Orleans. Many of you already have February 7 marked on your calendar as the date of the Super Bowl. But as much as residents and ex-pats hold dear the Saints, the city’s real Super Bowl will be fought a day earlier. After eight years of Ray Nagin’s administration (he’s termed out), a new mayor will be elected on February 6. (If no one receives a majority, a runoff will be held between the top two finishers 30 days later.)

Even before Katrina, New Orleans was suffering. A major cause of so many of the city's problems has been the incompetent and often crooked leadership at the local and state levels. This unfortunate tradition was initiated in the early 1930s by Huey Long. Many disciples and wannabes in the subsequent 80 years have perfected it.

The good news for New Orleans is that the time is now ripe to change its attitudes of victimization (the storm did it), impotence (we can’t change the political system), and despair (it’ll never get better). Time to change from laissez les bon temps rouler to make the good times happen.

It’s now February 7. A new mayor is elected (maybe a good guy?). A new Super Bowl champion is crowned (maybe the Saints?). Who knows? As Rick said at the end of Casablanca, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

2.  I think I know why go to the opera. In recent months, Donna and I have begun to make up for the time we missed during the first half of the Met Opera season. Three productions of the six we have seen recently stand out: Il Trittico, The Tales of Hoffmann, and Carmen. The latter two are new productions this season; Il Trittico was revamped a couple of years ago.

All three share wonderful singing, engaging stories, and first-rate staging. Much of the staging improvements stem from the Met’s recent policy of engaging theatrical directors to rejuvenate the repertory. Il Trittico was reconceived by Jack O'Brien (Henry IV, Hairspray); The Tales of Hoffmann by Bartlett Sher (The Light in the Piazza, South Pacific); and Carmen by Richard Eyre (former UK National Theatre director, Mary Poppins).

Other indelible memories: The remarkable performances of Patricia Racette and Stephanie Blythe, each performing in all three parts of Il Trittico, and especially Racette’s heartbreakingly moving Suor Angelica. Anna Netrebko’s fabulous portrayal of Antonia in Hoffmann. And Elina Garanca’s very, very sexy Carmen (shown).

3.  I think I’d like to ask the question, What If? A few years ago, I read a fascinating book entitled, What If? Historians were invited to write essays on what-if scenarios: What if Robert E. Lee humbled the Union? What if the Spanish Armada triumphed? What if Napoleon won at Waterloo?

My question is, What if we hadn’t rescued the banks in the 2008-09 bailout?

I'm still skeptical about the rationale for the banking bailouts. We were emphatically warned by our financial leaders that unless these inefficient, incompetently managed, too-big-to-fail banks -- many of which bore responsibility for the economic collapse -- were infused with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, it would absolutely -- no doubt on their parts -- result in a new great depression and the end of the world as we know it.

I'm skeptical of their absolute assuredness.  These people who in late 2008 and early 2009 forecast these visions of total gloom and doom -- the Geithners and Summers and Paulsons of the world -- were the very same people who in mid-2007 were offering these rosy-scenario forecasts:

“…There has been a marked improvement in global economic performance, with strong growth, relatively low inflation, and less volatility in both growth and inflation. This seems to have reduced concern about future fundamental risk, in terms of the potential damage of future shocks and in the ability of governments and central banks to both avoid the policy errors of the past and to competently manage some daunting longer–term policy challenges…

“Changes in financial markets, including those that are the subject of your conference, have improved the efficiency of financial intermediation and improved our confidence in the ability of markets to absorb stress. In financial systems around the world, the capital positions of banks have improved and capital markets are becoming deeper and playing a larger role in financial intermediation. Financial innovation has improved the capacity to measure and manage risk. Risk is spread more broadly across countries and institutions…

“These changes in economic conditions reinforce each other. The long period of relative economic and financial stability has reinforced expectations of future stability, reducing implied volatility and risk premia, increasing comfort with higher leverage, and encouraging flows of capital into riskier assets…

“The dramatic changes we’ve seen in the structure of financial markets over the past decade and more seem likely to have reduced this vulnerability. The larger global financial institutions are generally stronger in terms of capital relative to risk…”

Timothy Geithner, May 15, 2007
[emphasis added]

A year later, all hell broke loose.

So I ask, why should I believe that their 2008-09 forecasts were right any more than I should trust those 100%-wrong forecasts they made in 2007? The one phrase sticking in my mind that best characterizes our financial leaders’ soothsaying ability is that of screenwriter William Goldman (who was referring to those running Hollywood): Nobody knows anything.

4.  I think I know why I feel conflicted about the NFL playoffs. The Saints are my hometown team, the Jets are my local team, the Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and I went to the same high school (in New Orleans), and the Vikings quarterback is almost as old as I am. Actually, I'm not conflicted. I can't imagine anyone not cheering for the Saints -- the hard luck team of a hard luck city. So that's why Mardi Gras, listed on calendars as falling February 16, instead will come nine days early this year – Feb. 7.

5.  I think I know why I continue to be dumbfounded by NFL owners’ disdain for their fans. They ask their fans to pay thousands of dollars for seat licenses in order to pay thousands of dollars more for actual seats. They demand taxpayers to subsidize building construction. And then, in one case, they build a $1.6 billion stadium (Giants/Jets) with no roof – either fixed or retractable! Is it a mystery why more of us choose to avoid traffic jams, cold weather, raucous crowds, and all the other costs and indignities associated with attending a game in person? Instead, we’re lounging comfortably at home, watching HDTV telecasts with drink and remote in hand.

What’s that Aesop fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs?

6.  I think we are not returning to Pyongyang in April. Two years ago, Donna and I traveled there as part of a New York Philharmonic group that was invited by the North Korean government. One of the highlights of the trip from the was my opportunity to get free of the tour and my ever-present minder for a couple of hours and join up with the energetic James Kim, founder and president of the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, and to visit the campus that was then under construction. Kim, a South Korean who holds a US passport, has built a technical university, mostly privately funded, that promises to be an island of relative freedom in that most despotic and Stalinist of governments. PUST will conduct classes in English, use English textbooks, have an international faculty, and allow Internet access. There is no other place even remotely like it in North Korea. If it succeeds, could it make a difference?


A big opening ceremony is planned in April and Dr. Kim graciously invited us to attend. But having been in North Korea once, my initial reaction was, been there, done that. Why do it again? Or as expressed (in a different context) in the lyrics of a song by Stephen Sondheim, I Never Do Anything Twice:

Once, yes, once for a lark
Twice, though, loses the spark

Once, yes, once is delicious

But twice would be vicious

Or just repetitious.

Someone's bound to be scarred

Yes, I know that it's hard

But, no matter the price

I never do anything twice.

I subsequently received another invitation from Dr. Kim, this time to participate in a future international conference in Pyongyang at his University.

We’ll see.

7.  I think I’ve now seen it all. Who was Shakespeare? The vast majority of Shakespearean scholars are convinced that the works attributed to Shakespeare really are written by the man from Stratford-on-Avon. But quite a few luminaries, from Sigmund Freud to Charles Dickens to Mark Twain to contemporary Shakespearean actor and director Mark Rylance believe otherwise. The leading rival to the Stratford man is the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. But others have their constituencies: Christopher Marlow, Francis Bacon and William Stanley, the sixth Earl of Derby. These four have been around, and debated, for centuries. Nothing new here.

But now, another contender has entered the fray, courtesy of a recent issue of The Oxfordian. A quite offbeat contender, at that. Not only a woman, but a Jewish woman. Indeed! Amelia Bassano Lanier, born in 1569 into a family of secret Jews, became the mistress of a cousin of the Queen Elizabeth I and...

Well, if you're really interested in Amelia and how she may have authored Hamlet, King Lear, the sonnets, et al., you can read all about her here and here.

8.  I think I that I couldn’t care less about Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien. And I can’t imagine that anyone else would, other than media people who write about media people for other media people. I have to admit, though, that there is one interesting late-night personality, Craig Ferguson (left), who’s on even later (12:35 PM, after Letterman). Scottish born, Ferguson is wacky, irreverent, quick, and amusing (to us, anyway). And if you're like us, the only way you'll ever see him (and the only way we watch anything) is via DVR.

9.  I think I'm confused about what's PC and what's not. I understand and accept that there are no waitresses anymore, just servers. No more stewardesses, just flight attendants. And no actresses, just actors. At least, judging by those female performers in the theater whom we know, they all refer to themselves as actors. Fine. Except now it’s awards season in Hollywood.  And what do we find? The last bastion of acceptable -- indeed, necessary -- use of the word actress.

 “And now, the award for Best Actress goes to…”

10.  I think one of the more fascinating visual websites is this one about snowflakes, posted by Kenneth Libbrecht, a Caltech physics professor. More than you would ever want to know about snowflakes. I mean, everything about snowflakes. And with remarkable snowflake photos.

Rory Stewart Follow-up

On my January 4 post, Rory Stewart -- Remember This Name, I suggested that this 37-year old wunderkind was headed for the highest levels of British government -- maybe even the highest. (No, not king. Just prime minister.)

The yet-to-be called British election is still perhaps four months away, but the assumption in the British press is that this first-time candidate for M.P. in the "safe" constituency of Penrith and the Border will be elected and will become a national force. Just read these excerpts from a remarkably adulatory 2,500-word piece published in today's Guardian:

"...Among the ranks of all the new ­parliamentary candidates on offer, from all parties, Stewart is blessed – or cursed – by standing out as being by a long way the most extraordinary..."

"...Whether Cameron will be able to listen to someone as honest and unusual as Rory Stewart is unclear. How Stewart will deal with the realities of life in Westminster is anyone's guess. That he will be Britain's most fascinating and most watched new MP is not in doubt..." [Emphasis added.]

The Guardian article is a good read.  And soon, in this country, there will be another good read -- The New Yorker is working on a profile of Stewart.

It's reminds me of the drumbeat crescendo that accompanied another politician, a young American, as he rose in a relatively short time from near obscurity to President.