Mid-Monthly Review 1:2

We’re late, and most of the content is from March (the short month was also a weak month from a news standpoint: we’ve already dealt with Quailgate and Dubaigate). We’re introducing a new recurring feature on Common-Sense Consumerism, which I hope will please all and instruct the young.

NCAA’s: More than a Bracket to Me

The first weekend of the tourney was a joy, with an overload of close games apparent to the most casual observer. It made it a bit more tolerable being laid up with a cold relapse through the best skiing weekend of the winter.

Well, I did get out to the slopes on Sunday—and that’s when the really crazy stuff broke loose. I lost two of my final four in my most visible bracket entry—Pitt and UNC—and am holding on to respectability by my thumbs.

From the bracket handicapping point of view, this was a very interesting year, with no clear favourite, eight to ten top teams, and everyone else very capable of beating each other.

I tried various strategies, just to get a feel for the variety of scenarios that could emerge. The five free entries ESPN gives in its contest, supported with friendly software, give one an easy way to experiment.

The strategy which has worked best this year is the one I’d call “Chalk Plus”—picking the favorites in most, ignoring long shots. The key to success in the first two rounds was identifying the soft spots in the chalk, those cases where there was a solid challenger to take spots seeded to vulnerable teams. West Virginia over Iowa, Washington over Illinois, Wichita over Tennessee, Georgetown over Ohio State. I did identify these opportunities in some of my entries, but didn’t choose them consistently or in the right combination for a winning entry: the best of my five on ESPN is 95th percentile, which is OK but not outstanding: (straight chalk would get you around 66th).

As for the longshots, Bradley and George Mason, forget it. Basically nobody had either team (I saw one case, where a 3-year-old had them both: we can only hope that those were random picks!), and their bracket impact will therefore be null as long as they’re in.

Results of the first two rounds show once again that the biggest problem with the tournament is the conference tournament mess the weekend before. Get rid of them all!
I like the suggestion to go to a single-elimination tournament with all the Division I teams. This is done very well in a few state championships.

My thumbs, by which I’m hanging: my main picks—the ones others will see—have Villanova beating Duke in the final; I still like those picks (I have to promise not to edit this out Friday night!) One of my upset specials had Texas over BC—a spectacular recoup of a lousy set of picks, if it happens. I found it amusing to read a friend’s post where he claims a probable victory. At this point, it’s pretty much impossible to claim victory, particularly in such a wide-open field.

Feingold’s Censure Motion

As far as its content, I’m 100% in favour of it. Bush’s use of unwarranted eavesdropping is something the Republican-controlled Senate sought to keep under wraps and work out behind closed doors, and it is totally in the interest of the American people to examine it and legislate on this in the light of day. Barring that, and barring its consideration is exactly the objective of Pat Roberts and the other Bushites (Roberts gets named nine of spades in the deck for his role), then pointing out that the spying violated our law is the next best thing.

I think we can all get past the bogus constitutional and statutory smokescreens the Bushtits have come up with, when they have bothered to attempt to justify their ignoring the FISA provisions. There also seems a consensus that the eavesdropping itself could have been justified, and would have been approved retroactively where warrants were needed if the administration had merely attempted to follow the law. Something I’d call “criminal intent” is missing here from what you’d want if impeachment were seriously under consideration (as it could still be, for example, with regard to the Iraq invasion, where the professed motives have been thoroughly debunked and the hidden ones, so far, remain hidden). The censure motion in this case is more like a finding that the President’s actions were in contempt of the law.

Feingold seems to have considered carefully the terms and the nature of his challenge and acted only after it became clear the Republicans in the Senate would block any open consideration of the eavesdropping program. His record for being right on these tough issues—like the USA Patriot Act, campaign reform, the Iraq authorization, etc.—is unmatched. Given all this, it’s clear to me that censure is the right action, and the motion’s passage might be possible if it were viewed through other than a partisan screen.

The politics of it, though, seem all too apparent. Feingold’s apparent political motives would be to put himself in the spotlight (and this move’s certainly got the blogs’ electronic wind behind the motion, and behind him) and put senators like Hillary on the spot. Unfortunately, there seems little reason to think any Republican would view the motion other than a partisan attack—I haven’t really heard the motion’s proponents reach out to moderate Republicans to give it consideration—so it has no chance of passage. Under those circumstances, Democrats will find it easy to fudge a reason to vote against, or just vote for it without the public examination of the issue which was the motion’s purpose.

So, the bottom line is, I won't be very happy when this comes to a vote and, in a more-or-less straight party line vote, the Senate votes not to censure Bush for breaking the law.

Common Sense about Everyday American Objects: Disposable Razors

I have tried various measures of dealing with my daily beard, including letting it grow, and find the least objectionable method to be using the disposables. This column is addressed to those who, like me, accept the throwaway as a better solution than, for example, leaving unusable bits of expensive electric razors all over the countryside.
If you’re on disposables (i.e., an adult man, using them daily to shave) I must beg you please to avoid the seductively advertised products—“the Power of Four”, the “Mach” blade, etc. I have studied this subject very closely and performed many experiments. The best measure of utility of these products—and I’ll defend it to the death—is the number of clean, satisfactory shaves per unit of cost.

Multi-bladed disposables were indeed an improvement in shaving satisfaction—when they went from one blade to two. The difference from two to three to four to infinity, though, is negligible, and I see no value whatsoever for the vibrating whatever. These “innovations” are all about getting more revenue per product sold. Important to the manufacturer, only a negative to you.

In terms of getting performance, there is one critical component. It’s called “One-Touch Cleaning” by Schick, the only manufacturer still producing blades with the feature. It’s a little button on the outside of the razor that pushes a little plastic ridge between the two blades (I’ve never seen it on a three or more). It takes the clog—which is further increased when you use their gooey shaving creams, but that’s another discussion—out from between the two blades so that they can both remain effective. That simple feature—if you get it, see it, and use it--prolongs the utility of the disposables by a factor of two to four (depending on the beard). For only with this feature does the durability of the blade come into play.

The market leader, Gillette, gets a double benefit from not including One-Touch Cleaning: you throw away blades sooner, because of the clog, and therefore you don’t even notice that their blades don’t last as many shaves. Their marketing, though, is truly exquisite, and their profits, robust. Schick, recently purchased by the manufacturers of Duracell, if I’m not mistaken, is in a much trickier position: they keep alive their two-bladed challenger product with One-Touch Cleaning, but they like much more the ride to Consumer Wasteland: more blades, more dollars per, and that’s where they put their advertising. It’s up to you, the consumer, to insist upon the superior product. Otherwise, civilization takes a hit (of unfiltered dirtweed, as ‘twere).

Since we’re on the subject, though, I have to say that my commitment to the two-bladed disposable with One-Touch Cleaning is an exigent thing. When the real improvement comes, I will switch in an instant.

Here’s my vision of what that would be: a shaving mask. The idea would be sort of like the orthotic devices which good footwear places are now customizing to the foot. You would have a shaving pattern chosen: moustache shape, close on the chin and cheeks, trim the sideburn, etc. Place your face into the mask, and the computer-controlled microrazors would execute the pattern, clean the stubble, apply the after-shave and disinfectant. Now that would be something worth paying for!

American World Order

That’s the name of a book review in the NYTimes of March 5. The review, written by Martin Walker of UPI, is of “The Case for Goliath”, by Michael Mandelbaum (review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05walker.html) credits Mandelbaum with an original take on the old “world government” debate: should we have one? What form? How do we get there? How could having one make things better than now?

Mandelbaum’s neo-realist thesis, at least according to Walker, is that we don’t have to have that debate anymore. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have world government, and it is US. As in USA. Or at least, close enough.

The idea is novel, and exciting enough to me that I’m going to go out right away and get the book. Then, I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, what I’m looking to see is if the author has actually thought this through, as if he believed what he said. If the US were to be understood to be, and recognized more or less formally, as global governor, how could that system work better than it does today?

My thought is, the US government would need a sounding board, an international panel of friends from fellow republics, which would have as its main purpose telling us when we’re wrong. That way, we could pause and rethink before we decide to discard a decent respect for world opinion and plunge forward blindly and solitarily. Like with Tony Blair, but less sycophantic.

In fact, just like the Brams of our federal government: I think there would be so many aspirants for this panel, powerless though it would ultimately be, that we’d have to beat them off with a stick.

Dreams of 1994, and the Odds Against

James Traub has a long article in tomorrow's NY Times about the Democrats and their efforts to take control of one or both houses of Congress. My take on the article is that the party is deeply divided on the question of whether to let Democrats be Democrats, and that "framing" has taken over for policies and their advocacy.

It took a long time to get to the real point, in the discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel is very bright and knows his stuff, which made it hard to disguise the fact that the House of Representatives elections are fixed in favor of incumbency. No 1994-style sweep seems possible, because there are too few competitive districts. Only the Supreme Court's overturning of the partisan 2004 Texas redistricting could tilt the balance to a level playing field, and I'll let you guess the odds on that occurring: you get two choices (slim or none). 20:1 against the Dems gaining control of the House.

The Senate is a slightly different story: there are enough open seats and competitive races to shift the majority from the 55-44 to something like 50-49 (with Bernard Sanders replacing Jim Jeffords as the Democratic-leaning independent from Vermont). That would be a real victory, even with Ace of Spades Bushite Cheney casting the potential tie-breaking vote, but I'd suggest the odds are about 4-1 against.

We're looking at Rhode Island (CQ: " leans Republican") and Pennsylvania as likely pickups for the Dems (notwithstanding the fact that I have gotten 15 solicitations from prominent Democratic leaders for Bob Casey, Jr., and haven't yet seen his picture or any of his positions on any of the solicitations), and there are some other promising races with strong Democratic candidates: Montana, Ohio, Tennessee (Frist's vacated spot), and Missouri. I think we're headed for heartbreak, though, on election day--one or two incumbent Democrats will be upset, and Ohio and Missouri will disappoint (as usual). In other words, this year's election will be much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Unfortunately, I'm getting used to this. Despite the desperately obvious failure of "the tyranny of Bushite misrule", these elections will be "localized" in most states, with Republican candidates frequently successfully diverting attention away from the federal government's shortcomings under their party's control and focusing on those rare cases where they have been able to separate themselves from the administration (like the Dubai port fiasco).

The stage will be set for 2008 as follows: reduced majorities for Republicans in both houses, the Senate close enough to ensure a near stalemate. The 3-D Presidency of 2007-2009 (Dumb Duck Dubya) will continue with neo-con judicial activism being the principal feature of governance. Hillary will have an enormous warchest going into 2008, as the Republicans can't seem to field an opponent credible enough to require her to spend any of the huge amount she already has. She will need it, as there is no lobbyist, electoral, or campaign reform in sight.

There will be some interest in whether the Republicans will go with an Establishment candidate (as they have in every election since 1940) or whether a neo-Establishment anti-Bushite like McCain will be permitted to win the nomination by the Powers That Be. I'd bet against the latter (what are the odds on George Allen? That's a bet I might take), but I'll admit I'm worried: McCain's got integrity and guts (or did, until his recent sucking up to party power that commenced in 2004); he personifies credibility on national security (so he'd be attractive to swing voters), and his troglodytic positions on domestic and social issues will cause him little harm (being very close to the status quo, and therefore not sounding very revolutionary). His biggest obstacle will be convincing the Republican moneymen that he means it when he offers his support to the Bushites (he doesn't); I'm not convinced they're nimble enough to get the point of an anti-Bushite Republican candidacy (despite its clear potential appeal), simply because Dubya is so close to their heart that they can't believe how badly he is "screwing the pooch".

My tactic this year is to tell the telemarketers from national party organizations and their front groups that I'm investing locally. As for the local races, Bill Richardson should win in a landslide as governor, and Congressman Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman should both win handily. The one seriously contested local race of importance is for the Second Congressional District, based around Albuquerque, where Republican Heather Wilson is running away from her President and is in a tight race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid--one of the dozen or so truly competitive races in the country, as things now stand. Unless Heather makes a dramatic announcement and switches party (100:1 against), I could see throwing a few bucks into Madrid's hat.

Squeaker in Taos

The election for mayor was as close as predicted, but the wrong guy one (see "Bobby Duran, no mas" in the last 15th-monthly). Count stands at 887-867, subject to the recount which will be announced this week, but there is little reason for optimism. The early balloting was held in the mayor's office (!), replete with handouts, pictures, etc. on the brilliant administration to date.

I can't see how anything good will come of it, and Duran's opponent, Gene Sanchez, will probably not run again. Still, these are nonpartisan elections in this overwhelmingly Democratic town, and the councilmen elected (our prediction was on target there, with Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta winning) seem reasonably sincere, both more articulate and clear in their positions than the newly elected (previously appointed) mayor is.