Chelsea's 3-2 win over Liverpool (1-1 in regular time, 4-3 aggregate) puts them in the final against Manchester United. The heroes were many, but most prominent were Drogba, Lampard, Ballack, Terry, Makalele.
This win, combined with the one over Manchester United over the weekend, should make this season a qualified success. Major wins against big teams in the clutch, that's the mark of a great team. Still, there will be those who insist that Chelsea must win "hardware"--trophies. The Champions League one looks like a better shot, and one they can actually have some control over. The Premiership championship depends on Man U. faltering against lesser teams, so don't count on it. The Champions League trophy also seems to be the one the owner covets above all else.
Will Roman Abramovich show in Moscow? Is he likely to be arrested or something if he does? He was conspicuously absent in the Manchester United game over the weekend (and I saw no shots of him at the rainy match today at Stamford Bridge).
I think it's May 21. Key day. There's nothing better than seeing Chelsea win and Manchester United lose at the same time, and that's what will motivate me--not the "hardware" or the fate of our coach.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Wright Stuff
I have watched this thing rise up again with a sense of acute distaste. At first, Rev. Wright's comments were not too provocative, but, as if someone was goading him to break through into pure audacity, he then has to say the bit questioning Obama's sincerity, suggesting that Obama really believes AIDS was a racist plant to attempt genocide, but that he can't admit it because he's running for President.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Endgame: 1.1
According to the most scientific counts I can find, there are 408 pledged delegates yet to be chosen from the 8-10 territorial entities yet to vote. Short of a dramatic move (like Obama somehow making a successful play to the Puerto Rican Democratic voters, like pledging to work for statehood--which I personally recommend--see If I were Running Things, Pt. 1), it seems conservative and reasonable to expect that he will win at least 45% of these contested delegates. This would bring him, by the latest counts, to 1909, with 2024 needed. He would thus need to pick up 115 of the 302 uncommitted superdelegates (or net out to that number of additional pledges, if some switch candidates). Hillary, with the same assumptions (i.e., 55% of the remaining pledged from primaries and caucuses) would need 207 of those 302. Thus, the expectation that Obama will ultimately win the nomination.
Considering the Michigan and Florida mess, and its impact, makes it a clear imperative that those states' delegations composition will not be considered until after the nominee is determined. As it stands even today, the count with those two states suggests only an 11-delegate lead for Obama, with 55 pledged delegates from the "uncommitted" line in the Michigan primary (I've read about half are Obama supporters), and an extraordinarily high percentage (some 63%) of superdelegates from the two states uncommitted. There are several booby traps there, blasting caps--"Don't touch 'dem!" as Willie Mays used to say to us kids in the TV commercial.
I have three top choices for Obama's VP nomination--I assume he will do the right thing and formally offer the spot on the ticket to Hillary, once he is absolutely certain she will decline--who I've got to name:
1) Sen. Jim Webb (VA)--yes, I bought the Kool Aid. Counters McCain's Defense enthusiasms with someone who knows the military reality from the inside.
2) Ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN)--The major figure from this newly-pivotal state who has endorsed Obama. He's also the most knowledgeable and experienced generalist on national security in the party, who has only enhanced the reputation he earned by taking a leading role in winning the Cold War in the years since his Congessional retirement in 2001 by leading up resolutely non-partisan efforts to diagnose 9/11's failures and to help the Bushites from the Iraq morass (of course, the latter assistance was politely ignored).
3) Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS)--that's Kansas' initials, I think. Executive experience desired.
Each brings help in a very interesting state, one that fits perfectly into the Obama general election strategy, which I see as applying real pressure to McCain (and his inferior financial status) in as many states as possible, looking for cracks. The key is if he can deliver the increased Democratic enrollment in November that seems to have been present throughout the primary season. This means, at a minimum, a decent convention (apart from some generally-ignored platform battles, maybe) and a strong endorsement, with no monkey business, from Edwards and HRC.
If it works, he could win without Ohio or Florida (or Michigan or Pennsylvania, though certainly not without any of them). Obama can compete in states like Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, even Kansas, Indiana, and Montana, that have been written off before the election started in the recent past. This will bring Presidential Electoral College politics into the 21st Century (contradiction as that may seem: bringing the 19th century into the 21st!)
I think the smartest move would be Sebelius: she looked very impressive (though diminutive) the couple of times I've seen her on national TV, and it would be the best way to assuage any hurt feelings among Hillary's supporters. Bill Richardson might've done as well for him, but he has lost favor with the Clintonistas.
Once again, kudos to "2008 Democratic Convention Watch", which dares to name names on all the committed and uncommitted-but-named superdelegates (see Superdelegate Endorsement List). This fact of this kind of accountability gives some hope for a respectable outcome to a disreputable process.
A Friend of the Earth: Pt 1
I got my hands on a short novel by T. Coraghessan Boyle (T.C. afterwards), A Friend of the Earth, published 2000. It was already overdue when I found it, so I read it in somewhat of a hurry.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Chelsea Rule OK!
That would be the traditional graffiti and side-comment cheer for the Blues, at least in its modern-day expression (exclamation point is optional). Links rule, e.g., http://forums.skysports.com/members/posting.aspx?s=1&b=2&c=2&f=20&t=28196&m=316357&p=1&q=y#post, not to mention the well-titled canonical variation "Chelsea Rules. OK?" (http://toksie.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Post-PA Alignment
PA--Exactly as before, more or less as predicted (9.4% margin instead of 7%).
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Eve of PA
We're predicting a Clinton win, 53-46. 2% Std Dev. on that, so 90% chance Obama's will be between 42-50. The consensus of polls (with one or two exceptions) is around a 5-7 point lead for HRC. Obama will exceed the turnout of young people, blacks that the polls have, but Clinton will get more from the late white male deciders. The margin of delegates for HRC will be negligible.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
John Adams: An Inspiration for Our Times?
Great miniseries on HBO: last episode on Sunday (preceded by telecasting of the previous six). Kudos for the casting, virtually throughout, and ranging from Washington (David Morse with Marlon Brando cheeks); Jefferson (a lengthy, excellent performance by Stephen Dillane, giving a key depiction of the Great One from the point of view of someone who had a unique perspective--as friend, counsel, and rival over 50 years--of which the last episode will need to cover 26 years; Franklin (Tom Wilkinson--looked and sounded perfect); and, in the last episode, soon-to-be Chief Justice for All Times John Marshall (amazingly, not credited on the iMDB site!). This, of course, beside the excellent choices of the lead characters Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
NBA update
The NCAA tourney is over--I feel robbed that Memphis didn't win the title it deserved--but the other two contests I've been following the last couple of months (see stoner: Spring Sports Excitement) are as hot as ever.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Bad Day for George
George Stephanopoulos must have gotten short-changed on sleep before taping his show for this weekend.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
What, Me Bitter?
Here's the text of Obama's gaffe, as reported by semi-hostile Mayhill Fowler on Huff Post:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Diana: My First and Last Words
No, it's not that I intend that the name of the late Princess of Wales' name, the goddess of the hunt, be my final utterance before I join her in Heaven. It's that I've never discussed the subject before seeing today's story
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/07/international/i083611D38.DTL)
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
