For the most important issue emerging from the 2012 election campaign, you would search vainly in both the transcripts of the 18 (so far) Republican debates and President Obama's overly-lengthy State of the Union address this week. Also, disappointingly, nothing on the topic can be found in Esquire's "79 Things We Can All Agree On" that I discussed (see the next post down), even though it is something that a huge majority of people would agree--and I'm talking about Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling following on the 2008 campaign, swept away the campaign finance restrictions on private organizations, not affiliated with individuals' electoral campaigns. I have condemned the ruling, not so much on the legal merits (about which I don't claim to be expert) but on the horrendous impact it would have on national campaigns, which already are enormously over-expensive and with the quality of the effect of all that spending continuously deteriorating.
What I basically expect, and there is already plenty of evidence of it, is that the unlimited spending from the uncontrolled Super PAC organizations is going to produce a very strong reaction from the public. There will be a decline in turnout from usual Presidential election years because of all the negativity (and possibly from other methods the Republicans are trying to use in some states to suppress voting), but the stronger reaction will be revulsion at the sewage put on the television ads and their frequency during the general election campaign.
I see no chance at all that there will be any serious ceasefire in the money war going on this year (Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown have made a truce regarding their Senate campaign in Massachusetts, but that could easily be broken if one or the other finds things not going well under the restriction). The Super PAC's will weigh in most heavily on some of the closely-contested Senate and House races. Will the influence of negative advertising paid by outside money benefit the campaigns of its big-money backers--as it has often done in the past--or will voters recognize they are being bought and sold and produce a backlash? I am not optimistic about that, but I am hopeful that the bad taste that will remain in all of our mouths (or at least those of the districts whose stations will bombard us with poisonous gas) will lead us to speak out and purge the vitriol.
There are two main directions this reaction should take in 2013--To the Supreme Court's equating of speech with money, and of corporations having the same rights as people, the only response sufficient would be a constitutional amendment to the effect that "Corporations are not people; and only people can contribute to electoral campaigns." This will be difficult, but it needs to be established--this is the only way. When the public will is sufficiently motivated on a bipartisan basis, an amendment can be passed in months--an example being the repeal of Prohibition. There are a couple of online petitions I have seen and supported, one from Sen. Sherrod Brown and one from a group called Democracy for America and signed by Bernie Sanders. I know my Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is supporting some action. As I believe this is--and must be--a movement with bipartisan support, I will also be looking for initiatives coming from Democrats and Independents (besides Bernie) that I can support. Basically, I want to use this year to show consistently my support for change, and I expect the blowback to materialize next year, with serious debate and votes on initiatives.
Unfortunately, even a constitutional amendment will not be enough to clean up our elections. PAC's and companies could still buy time for unofficial statements on political issues that are not specifically endorsing or attacking individual candidates; these ads were already prevalent before Citizens United. There is legislation to provide for Federal financing of campaigns for Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, but I don't think it will get too far: incumbents like the advantages they have which this legislation would reduce, and libertarians don't like the idea of the government paying for elections.
What I want is the equivalent of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Elections should be reduced to a period of three months (six including the primaries), with no paid advertisement whatsoever on political topics. The television stations should be required to put the candidates on in public forums (and get paid for their time). On this issue, I am willing to support measures in the interim which offset the disastrous trend that I see, but I will not let go of it until this poison on our political system is purged.
My Donation Strategy in 2012
I ignored virtually all appeals for money last year--I'm not interested in fattening anyone's war chest, as that just makes them more eager to do battle with their money. I will not be able to lay off entirely this year, as this election is--or could be--very consequential; however, I intend that any money I give this year will be accompanied by a personal statement (there are lots of opportunities to do it) that my #1 issue is campaign financing, and that I expect the candidates I support to be in favor of humans' political expression in years to come.
Today's Primary
I've already expressed my opinions enough: I don't expect today's Florida primary to change anything. Newt, Santorum, and Paul will hang around for a longer or shorter time, possibly doing some additional damage to Romney, but I feel that the outcome is inevitable. For the record, my prediction for Florida: Romney 41, Gingrich 34, Santorum 13, Paul 11. Santorum has done pretty well and will get some sympathy vote despite this being a winner-take-all primary in which he has no chance. Paul has already moved on to Maine, a caucus state in which he believes he can score some delegates.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
79 Things Upon Which "We" All Can Agree
Last week, returning from a business trip, I needed a magazine to read. Esquire had a cover with the heading "An Issue for our Divided Times" and the related cover story "Agree: Bill Clinton and 78 Other Thing We Can All Agree On".
I picked it up: I'm looking for areas to broaden the "new consensus", and ya gotta like the preposition they ended their title with(see above!) Anyway, Bill Clinton was a good choice for their theme: even Newt Gingrich, his nemesis, seems to remember Clinton fondly, and, since he got a bit older, Clinton's testosterone seems to have given him a break, releasing him from his sex addiction (or was it the open-heart surgery and the vegetarian diet that did it?), and allowed him to turn his talents wholly to worthy pursuits.
So, yeah, I read the opening interview with Bubba and the editors' promise that they would present 78 other "things that, regardless of party, region, or class, we can agree are great, lousy, true, false, beautiful, stupid, delicious, or crazy."
Alas. There wasn't much more upon which to build a political consensus. Turns out "we" are the Esquire readership--or their perception of it--which is a moderate, metrosexual, manly sliver of our society. Not that I have anything against that particular fragment; they're better than many. It's just not a sort of a "we" that one would recognize as being representative of American society.
Very little of it was political, none of it a statement as clear as their choice of Clinton. Most of it, as you'll see, was tendentious opinion about stuff that doesn't matter much or about their taste in the arts, drinking, and fashion. You'll also see that they started pretty well (put their good ones up front), then lost the thread, and then they wandered into a bunch of random short pieces they had lying around.
I'll try to categorize the other 78 (either quoted or paraphrased) in a few groups and give a little backing thought to my classification. Starting positively,
We Do/Should All Agree:
#1 Bill Clinton. see above
#5 "The electoral college should be abolished." Score one for Esquire!
#7 "Boss (on Starz) is as good as anything...on HBO." (see my recent post on that show, and note my comments on the Oscar nominations made this week)
#21 "the worst...Followed closely by the NCAA." (see #20 below, or my posts on the subject)
#22 "SNL is pretty good these days." Could've been written 25 or so of the past 35 years, but I will admit that my children have caught the bug in the last year or so.
#24 Navy Seals. OK, I get the point of this one (OBL); you need say no more.
#26 "Tina Fey is a national treasure."
#40 The National Parks.
#42 "Turkey: Also the Man." Corny line, but the sentiment is right (see #41 below, and Rick Perry should read the argument--it's short, Rick.)
#56 Bruce Springsteen. Yes; anyway, this is someone on whom everybody used to agree, 25-30 years ago.
#66 "There's no way to master all the...data in the world." They've got an article about someone who's trying to do that, and they're justifiably skeptical.
#69 "...Dr. Ralph Steinman deserved his Nobel Prize." He's the guy who died after they decided to award him, before he found out about it. No reason to penalize him just because his luck was all-time bad.
#73 "Larry Summers is an a--hole." Even Larry would agree, objectively speaking.
#75 Martin Scorsese. Probably someone doesn't like his movies; that person would probably hate all movies.
We Agree to Some Extent, That Is, I Agree:
#4 "The Sarah Palin episode in American politics is a bafflement." Yes, but I disagree that it's over.
#9 "Sooner or later, the Monday after Super Bowl must become a national holiday." The Stupid Bowl should be played every year on Feb. 13--they don't need it to be a holiday because it starts in the evening!--and Feb. 14 the men should make up for it with a holiday for their women.
#12 "Kids, Career, Marriage: In That Order." That's fine for those with kids, I guess, but that's not everybody.
#13 "Kevin Durant is the best combination of talent and personality in sports today." He's good, all right, but what about Derrick Rose?
#19 "...you can always find one area of agreement between polar opposites." Cute graphic with Venn diagrams--the best one is the intersection of Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga, being "Shoulder pads have their uses."
#23 "The United States needs an active manned space program. With its own spaceships." Well, not exclusively so, but we should have our own.
#37 "Men are Men." Dissing the trend of faddish articles about the disappearance of men; I do agree about the recent lead article "The End of Men", in The Atlantic, by a woman who led men on about commitment for most of her life and then decided it was better that she should never marry.
#41 "Mark Wahlberg is the man." I've grown to respect him since Boogie Nights.
#44 "Howard Schultz is the most interesting billionaire in America." He's OK, but there are others.
#54 "Screening for Cancer, like screening for a lot of other diseases, ain't all it's cracked up to be." The point being, what's the point of detecting if you can't do anything about it? It does absorb a lot of money, certainly.
#57 "In retrospect, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest mistakes our country has made in our lifetimes." Some of us are old enough and would argue that Vietnam was a bigger mistake (at least 5X the US deaths); and, to nitpick, the first war with Iraq was no mistake.
#58 "Most people really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a handgun."
#63 "Marijuana should be as legal as cigarettes or alcohol."
#68 Roast Chicken. Well, I like it, anyway.
#70 "There is nothing we all agree on." They give some good examples of things most, but not all, people agree about, but then why did they make this whole piece trying to argue the contrary? Because it would/might sell more magazines, surely.
#71 "We can all agree to hate a few things." They give 15 examples, and true to form, it's about 20% each for Yes/Maybe/No Way/Who Cares?/What are you talking about? This post is already too long, or I'd give examples, and Esquire hasn't put the list on its website yet.
#79 "Things are not so bad." I agree, though I don't think that many others do--but does that make the pessimists right? I'll give Esquire some credit here for arguing a minority point of view, though it's hardly the case that "we" all agree.
Totally disagree:
#3 Chris Christie owes his popularity to being fat. Quite the contrary.
#6 "Bono should sing more, talk less, and never write at all." Sure, sing, but I actually like his writing in the Times. They're jealous they didn't score him.
#10 "The Obama presidency has been a disappointment for everyone involved." I read that as meaning "for everyone" (and of course I disagree); if they mean everyone in the Administration I think they have to back that up a bit.
#11 "Even if he's accomplished more...than any of his five predecessors." That's what I was talking about!
#14 "Whoever rebranded rich people as 'job creators' should win some kind of award..." No, that person should be fired, then shot, then eaten.
#20 "Banks are the worst." My self-serving opinion: not all banks! More objectively: Insurance companies are the worst, and particularly health insurance.
#25 "Baltimore is America's next great underdog city..." I've heard some people speak well of it, but I'm not convinced of its greatness nor its uniqueness. Cleveland?
#27 "Economics isn't dismal; it's foolish." No, you are! It's not foolish to try to understand economic behavior, it's just sad that there is so little agreement about this "science"--for example, it should not be allowed for someone who calls himself an economist to say that reducing tax rates will not reduce tax revenue.
#45 "Nobody ...replaced..what the young Eddie Murphy brought to movies." Certainly it wasn't done by the older Eddie Murphy, but I do think there are claimants.
#46 "The same can probably be said for Julia Roberts." I was never a big fan, though she did a good Erin Brockovich impersonation.
#48/#49 "Everybody roots for Jennifer Anniston...and wonders why nothing...ever works out for her." I like her OK--no strong feelings--but not everyone does.
#50 "Same for Billy Joel." OK, the same for me, too, but from a different starting point: not everyone feels the same.
#51 Woody Harrelson: Who Doesn't Love Him? OK, the same again. Some really don't like him. Actually, Esquire just wanted to use the interview they had with him. It was kind of interesting, not as surprising as they think: he's trying to live clean but finds it hard to do.
#55 "Past Results are no indication of future performance." examples being Robert Downey, Jr., Indianapolis Colts, Lindsay Lohan, and Mitt Romney's former position in favor of abortion. As an empiricist, I must object and argue that the seeds of the reversal of fortune of each were always present.
#59 "There are so many instances when medium rare is not the call." If they're talking about beefsteak, I disagree: it's always the call.
#60 "They Greeks can f--k off for all we care." Some--Greeks, people who care about their indirect effects on the US economy--would disagree, and I'm one (no, not Greek).
#61 "After all this...scripted dramatic television is the most satisfying of all the entertainment media." I'll take movies, music, and TV sports over that one.
#76/#77/#78 "Tim Tebow has us all riled up about football (and God) again....soccer is really going to be big in this country...even though we all agree that's not true." Three statements that couldn't all be true, though they could be, and are, all false.
Couldn't Care Less:
#15 "The 100th birthdays of Julia Child, David Packard, and Fenway Park are worthy of celebration." Most would choose 1 of the 3.
#16 "Not to mention those of Arizona and New Mexico." 1 of 2, and I'm partial to that one.
#28/#29/#30 (see #27) Ezra Klein worship. He's OK, but the whole thread was lame.
#32/#33 Russell Banks. Lyle Lovett. No explanation--tell me why. Like or no like?
#34/#35/#36 "It's still better to read the paper on paper...Especially The New York Times, the only essential newspaper left. Except for the Harrisburg Patriot-News." Basically, just filler: on #34, I'm changing my mind; on #35 I can't really say it's the only one, and I've been reading it almost exclusively online for years, and regarding #36, I know nothing about Harrisburg's paper; do you think anyone else does?
#38 "You can ask a man anything except how much money he made last year." Go ahead and ask, if you want. What about asking a woman?
#52/#53 "No cocktail should take more than 45 seconds to make"; picture, recipe of some (unnamed) cocktail with egg whites, sugar, half and half, Heyman's Old Tom gin, etc.
#62 "Berenice Bejo should be in more movies". They have a nice picture of her in a negligee and a short interview. (she's the wife of the director of The Artist and stars in it)
#64 "Everybody loves a good dip." They have a recipe they like for pimento (sp) cheese dip.
#67 They've got an article about a new Jeopardy! hero who taught himself all the subjects he didn't know.
Buh?
#2 "J.B. Smoove and Larry David are the best black-white duo since Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder...."
#8 Siri. No further comment necessary? Do we love it, hate it, or ignore it? I couldn't tell. Maybe I should ask Siri what they are talking about...
#17 "Speaking of Arizona Muse." (see #15/16 above)
#18 The Egg McMuffin. See #8 Siri above. They show a picture with lots of them; is that supposed to make me hungry or puke?
#31 "The moment you hit the water." Sometimes good, sometimes (like when it's freezing, when you bellyflop, when you fall from 300 ft. up) not so much.
#39 "The Tiny-Suit thing is getting a little silly." I have no idea what they are talking about.
#43 "Ashley Greene can go any way she wants to, it's all up to her." picture of a fetching woman in a body suit (last month's cover model?)
#47 Watermelon. Some like it, some loathe it, even without the seeds.
#65 "Counter-terrorism is getting complicated." It always has been. They have a researched article on four old white geezer would-be militiamen who got stung by a provocateur and a guy from Homeland Security on the make. It's just complicated because they're white and not Muslim.
#72 Tim Gunn. They have his picture; I don't recognize him at all.
#74 "Sinclair Lewis was right: It carries the cross and comes wrapped in the flag." I looked this up: the reference is to "When fascism comes to America...", but this is a truism: it was the case when fascism came anywhere, that's always how it came. So we can agree, but it doesn't mean much.
The Final Tally:
We all Should/Do Agree--14
We Agree To Some Extent, That Is, I Agree--17
Totally Disagree--21
Couldn't Care Less--16
Buh?--11
I picked it up: I'm looking for areas to broaden the "new consensus", and ya gotta like the preposition they ended their title with(see above!) Anyway, Bill Clinton was a good choice for their theme: even Newt Gingrich, his nemesis, seems to remember Clinton fondly, and, since he got a bit older, Clinton's testosterone seems to have given him a break, releasing him from his sex addiction (or was it the open-heart surgery and the vegetarian diet that did it?), and allowed him to turn his talents wholly to worthy pursuits.
So, yeah, I read the opening interview with Bubba and the editors' promise that they would present 78 other "things that, regardless of party, region, or class, we can agree are great, lousy, true, false, beautiful, stupid, delicious, or crazy."
Alas. There wasn't much more upon which to build a political consensus. Turns out "we" are the Esquire readership--or their perception of it--which is a moderate, metrosexual, manly sliver of our society. Not that I have anything against that particular fragment; they're better than many. It's just not a sort of a "we" that one would recognize as being representative of American society.
Very little of it was political, none of it a statement as clear as their choice of Clinton. Most of it, as you'll see, was tendentious opinion about stuff that doesn't matter much or about their taste in the arts, drinking, and fashion. You'll also see that they started pretty well (put their good ones up front), then lost the thread, and then they wandered into a bunch of random short pieces they had lying around.
I'll try to categorize the other 78 (either quoted or paraphrased) in a few groups and give a little backing thought to my classification. Starting positively,
We Do/Should All Agree:
#1 Bill Clinton. see above
#5 "The electoral college should be abolished." Score one for Esquire!
#7 "Boss (on Starz) is as good as anything...on HBO." (see my recent post on that show, and note my comments on the Oscar nominations made this week)
#21 "the worst...Followed closely by the NCAA." (see #20 below, or my posts on the subject)
#22 "SNL is pretty good these days." Could've been written 25 or so of the past 35 years, but I will admit that my children have caught the bug in the last year or so.
#24 Navy Seals. OK, I get the point of this one (OBL); you need say no more.
#26 "Tina Fey is a national treasure."
#40 The National Parks.
#42 "Turkey: Also the Man." Corny line, but the sentiment is right (see #41 below, and Rick Perry should read the argument--it's short, Rick.)
#56 Bruce Springsteen. Yes; anyway, this is someone on whom everybody used to agree, 25-30 years ago.
#66 "There's no way to master all the...data in the world." They've got an article about someone who's trying to do that, and they're justifiably skeptical.
#69 "...Dr. Ralph Steinman deserved his Nobel Prize." He's the guy who died after they decided to award him, before he found out about it. No reason to penalize him just because his luck was all-time bad.
#73 "Larry Summers is an a--hole." Even Larry would agree, objectively speaking.
#75 Martin Scorsese. Probably someone doesn't like his movies; that person would probably hate all movies.
We Agree to Some Extent, That Is, I Agree:
#4 "The Sarah Palin episode in American politics is a bafflement." Yes, but I disagree that it's over.
#9 "Sooner or later, the Monday after Super Bowl must become a national holiday." The Stupid Bowl should be played every year on Feb. 13--they don't need it to be a holiday because it starts in the evening!--and Feb. 14 the men should make up for it with a holiday for their women.
#12 "Kids, Career, Marriage: In That Order." That's fine for those with kids, I guess, but that's not everybody.
#13 "Kevin Durant is the best combination of talent and personality in sports today." He's good, all right, but what about Derrick Rose?
#19 "...you can always find one area of agreement between polar opposites." Cute graphic with Venn diagrams--the best one is the intersection of Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga, being "Shoulder pads have their uses."
#23 "The United States needs an active manned space program. With its own spaceships." Well, not exclusively so, but we should have our own.
#37 "Men are Men." Dissing the trend of faddish articles about the disappearance of men; I do agree about the recent lead article "The End of Men", in The Atlantic, by a woman who led men on about commitment for most of her life and then decided it was better that she should never marry.
#41 "Mark Wahlberg is the man." I've grown to respect him since Boogie Nights.
#44 "Howard Schultz is the most interesting billionaire in America." He's OK, but there are others.
#54 "Screening for Cancer, like screening for a lot of other diseases, ain't all it's cracked up to be." The point being, what's the point of detecting if you can't do anything about it? It does absorb a lot of money, certainly.
#57 "In retrospect, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest mistakes our country has made in our lifetimes." Some of us are old enough and would argue that Vietnam was a bigger mistake (at least 5X the US deaths); and, to nitpick, the first war with Iraq was no mistake.
#58 "Most people really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a handgun."
#63 "Marijuana should be as legal as cigarettes or alcohol."
#68 Roast Chicken. Well, I like it, anyway.
#70 "There is nothing we all agree on." They give some good examples of things most, but not all, people agree about, but then why did they make this whole piece trying to argue the contrary? Because it would/might sell more magazines, surely.
#71 "We can all agree to hate a few things." They give 15 examples, and true to form, it's about 20% each for Yes/Maybe/No Way/Who Cares?/What are you talking about? This post is already too long, or I'd give examples, and Esquire hasn't put the list on its website yet.
#79 "Things are not so bad." I agree, though I don't think that many others do--but does that make the pessimists right? I'll give Esquire some credit here for arguing a minority point of view, though it's hardly the case that "we" all agree.
Totally disagree:
#3 Chris Christie owes his popularity to being fat. Quite the contrary.
#6 "Bono should sing more, talk less, and never write at all." Sure, sing, but I actually like his writing in the Times. They're jealous they didn't score him.
#10 "The Obama presidency has been a disappointment for everyone involved." I read that as meaning "for everyone" (and of course I disagree); if they mean everyone in the Administration I think they have to back that up a bit.
#11 "Even if he's accomplished more...than any of his five predecessors." That's what I was talking about!
#14 "Whoever rebranded rich people as 'job creators' should win some kind of award..." No, that person should be fired, then shot, then eaten.
#20 "Banks are the worst." My self-serving opinion: not all banks! More objectively: Insurance companies are the worst, and particularly health insurance.
#25 "Baltimore is America's next great underdog city..." I've heard some people speak well of it, but I'm not convinced of its greatness nor its uniqueness. Cleveland?
#27 "Economics isn't dismal; it's foolish." No, you are! It's not foolish to try to understand economic behavior, it's just sad that there is so little agreement about this "science"--for example, it should not be allowed for someone who calls himself an economist to say that reducing tax rates will not reduce tax revenue.
#45 "Nobody ...replaced..what the young Eddie Murphy brought to movies." Certainly it wasn't done by the older Eddie Murphy, but I do think there are claimants.
#46 "The same can probably be said for Julia Roberts." I was never a big fan, though she did a good Erin Brockovich impersonation.
#48/#49 "Everybody roots for Jennifer Anniston...and wonders why nothing...ever works out for her." I like her OK--no strong feelings--but not everyone does.
#50 "Same for Billy Joel." OK, the same for me, too, but from a different starting point: not everyone feels the same.
#51 Woody Harrelson: Who Doesn't Love Him? OK, the same again. Some really don't like him. Actually, Esquire just wanted to use the interview they had with him. It was kind of interesting, not as surprising as they think: he's trying to live clean but finds it hard to do.
#55 "Past Results are no indication of future performance." examples being Robert Downey, Jr., Indianapolis Colts, Lindsay Lohan, and Mitt Romney's former position in favor of abortion. As an empiricist, I must object and argue that the seeds of the reversal of fortune of each were always present.
#59 "There are so many instances when medium rare is not the call." If they're talking about beefsteak, I disagree: it's always the call.
#60 "They Greeks can f--k off for all we care." Some--Greeks, people who care about their indirect effects on the US economy--would disagree, and I'm one (no, not Greek).
#61 "After all this...scripted dramatic television is the most satisfying of all the entertainment media." I'll take movies, music, and TV sports over that one.
#76/#77/#78 "Tim Tebow has us all riled up about football (and God) again....soccer is really going to be big in this country...even though we all agree that's not true." Three statements that couldn't all be true, though they could be, and are, all false.
Couldn't Care Less:
#15 "The 100th birthdays of Julia Child, David Packard, and Fenway Park are worthy of celebration." Most would choose 1 of the 3.
#16 "Not to mention those of Arizona and New Mexico." 1 of 2, and I'm partial to that one.
#28/#29/#30 (see #27) Ezra Klein worship. He's OK, but the whole thread was lame.
#32/#33 Russell Banks. Lyle Lovett. No explanation--tell me why. Like or no like?
#34/#35/#36 "It's still better to read the paper on paper...Especially The New York Times, the only essential newspaper left. Except for the Harrisburg Patriot-News." Basically, just filler: on #34, I'm changing my mind; on #35 I can't really say it's the only one, and I've been reading it almost exclusively online for years, and regarding #36, I know nothing about Harrisburg's paper; do you think anyone else does?
#38 "You can ask a man anything except how much money he made last year." Go ahead and ask, if you want. What about asking a woman?
#52/#53 "No cocktail should take more than 45 seconds to make"; picture, recipe of some (unnamed) cocktail with egg whites, sugar, half and half, Heyman's Old Tom gin, etc.
#62 "Berenice Bejo should be in more movies". They have a nice picture of her in a negligee and a short interview. (she's the wife of the director of The Artist and stars in it)
#64 "Everybody loves a good dip." They have a recipe they like for pimento (sp) cheese dip.
#67 They've got an article about a new Jeopardy! hero who taught himself all the subjects he didn't know.
Buh?
#2 "J.B. Smoove and Larry David are the best black-white duo since Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder...."
#8 Siri. No further comment necessary? Do we love it, hate it, or ignore it? I couldn't tell. Maybe I should ask Siri what they are talking about...
#17 "Speaking of Arizona Muse." (see #15/16 above)
#18 The Egg McMuffin. See #8 Siri above. They show a picture with lots of them; is that supposed to make me hungry or puke?
#31 "The moment you hit the water." Sometimes good, sometimes (like when it's freezing, when you bellyflop, when you fall from 300 ft. up) not so much.
#39 "The Tiny-Suit thing is getting a little silly." I have no idea what they are talking about.
#43 "Ashley Greene can go any way she wants to, it's all up to her." picture of a fetching woman in a body suit (last month's cover model?)
#47 Watermelon. Some like it, some loathe it, even without the seeds.
#65 "Counter-terrorism is getting complicated." It always has been. They have a researched article on four old white geezer would-be militiamen who got stung by a provocateur and a guy from Homeland Security on the make. It's just complicated because they're white and not Muslim.
#72 Tim Gunn. They have his picture; I don't recognize him at all.
#74 "Sinclair Lewis was right: It carries the cross and comes wrapped in the flag." I looked this up: the reference is to "When fascism comes to America...", but this is a truism: it was the case when fascism came anywhere, that's always how it came. So we can agree, but it doesn't mean much.
The Final Tally:
We all Should/Do Agree--14
We Agree To Some Extent, That Is, I Agree--17
Totally Disagree--21
Couldn't Care Less--16
Buh?--11
Thursday, January 19, 2012
A Spherical Oscar Re-Preview
The Golden Globes awards last Sunday provide a good view into the Oscars. Not so much into the nominations, which will be announced soon and should be already fully baked, but the format of the Globes' top movie awards, though, with separate categories for Drama vs. for Comedy/Musical, helps identify the two top contenders for Best Picture, Actor and Actress. (Other categories like Director, the Musical ones, and Supporting Actor/Actress, strangely, are combined into one award; also Screenplay, which Oscar breaks into Original and Adapted).
So, it would seem that Best Picture will end up a showdown between The Artist and The Descendants, that Best Actor will be between Artist's Jean Dujardin and Descendants' George Clooney, and that Best Actress will end up being a battle between The Iron Lady's Meryl Streep and My Week With Marilyn's Michelle Williams. I would buy into each of those as a current state of play assessment.
While the movie-about-a-movie gambit in Artist plays well with Hollywood's movie industry population, I do not think its silent French accents will do quite as well as it did with its foreign press (the voters for the Golden Globes). I see it winning for Musical Score and Art Direction, but Clooney, Payne and Company winning the big awards. Director could be interesting: Marty Scorsese won for Hugo at the Globes and his chances should not be discounted, but he was (finally) recognized a couple of years ago for The Aviator, so he's not owed. Woody Allen would get some consideration--he should be nominated--but for his habit of dismissing award shows. I like Alexander Payne's chances, but I'd be thrilled if Terence Malick pulled off a surprise (for Tree of Life) and will be disappointed if he is not at least nominated.
The Globes showed that sentiment is running low for J.Edgar, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (was it too late to be considered for the Globes?) The Help would have been a serious contender for top honors except that it was released too soon. It's too soon for me to admit that my initial foray into the previews, before most of the movies were even released, missed the mark, but it doesn't look good for my advocacy of Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
The award for Best Animated Film is usually a formality, but this year's contest could be a spirited one between the production starpower of Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson for The Adventures of Tintin, challenged by two critically-approved comedies, Puss 'N Boots and Rango. My kids' vote is for P'NB: that's who should decide the category (not my kids, specifically, but kids).
Finally, I think the Globes' Foreign Language film award for A Separation from Iran would be a likely indicator (though the Oscars' electorate is mostly American, and thus automatically anti-Iranian, the movie's director made a good move by choosing to make a political statement on behalf of his people--and implicitly against the regime). Wim Wenders' Pina was not nominated for the GG's but may have an outside chance in the Oscars.
Besides being a good indicator of final Oscar winners, the Golden Globes also tops off the television award season with a few select awards. The only one I want to comment on was the one given to Kelsey Grammer for Best Actor in a Series for his role in Boss. This searing drama--seen, I'd imagine, by few people on the Starz network--and Grammer's performance as a ruthless, corrupt Chicago mayor fighting off intrigues from his rivals and a hidden, debilitating illness is far from a reality show, much more dramatic than something like The Wire--almost Shakespearean in its archetypal situation and its high-stakes political battles. The show hooked me from the start and left me with my jaw dropped by the end of most of its eight episodes.
Ricky Gervais' hosting was deemed somewhat tame this year. I think it was mostly perception--the element of surprise was gone for those watching him; the talent was laying for him (and for Harvey Weinstein, who was getting abused mercilessly all night for his usual vote manipulative tactics). It seemed that the crowd of stars, starlets, and production folk were having a great time getting sloshed. More power!
So, it would seem that Best Picture will end up a showdown between The Artist and The Descendants, that Best Actor will be between Artist's Jean Dujardin and Descendants' George Clooney, and that Best Actress will end up being a battle between The Iron Lady's Meryl Streep and My Week With Marilyn's Michelle Williams. I would buy into each of those as a current state of play assessment.
While the movie-about-a-movie gambit in Artist plays well with Hollywood's movie industry population, I do not think its silent French accents will do quite as well as it did with its foreign press (the voters for the Golden Globes). I see it winning for Musical Score and Art Direction, but Clooney, Payne and Company winning the big awards. Director could be interesting: Marty Scorsese won for Hugo at the Globes and his chances should not be discounted, but he was (finally) recognized a couple of years ago for The Aviator, so he's not owed. Woody Allen would get some consideration--he should be nominated--but for his habit of dismissing award shows. I like Alexander Payne's chances, but I'd be thrilled if Terence Malick pulled off a surprise (for Tree of Life) and will be disappointed if he is not at least nominated.
The Globes showed that sentiment is running low for J.Edgar, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (was it too late to be considered for the Globes?) The Help would have been a serious contender for top honors except that it was released too soon. It's too soon for me to admit that my initial foray into the previews, before most of the movies were even released, missed the mark, but it doesn't look good for my advocacy of Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
The award for Best Animated Film is usually a formality, but this year's contest could be a spirited one between the production starpower of Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson for The Adventures of Tintin, challenged by two critically-approved comedies, Puss 'N Boots and Rango. My kids' vote is for P'NB: that's who should decide the category (not my kids, specifically, but kids).
Finally, I think the Globes' Foreign Language film award for A Separation from Iran would be a likely indicator (though the Oscars' electorate is mostly American, and thus automatically anti-Iranian, the movie's director made a good move by choosing to make a political statement on behalf of his people--and implicitly against the regime). Wim Wenders' Pina was not nominated for the GG's but may have an outside chance in the Oscars.
Besides being a good indicator of final Oscar winners, the Golden Globes also tops off the television award season with a few select awards. The only one I want to comment on was the one given to Kelsey Grammer for Best Actor in a Series for his role in Boss. This searing drama--seen, I'd imagine, by few people on the Starz network--and Grammer's performance as a ruthless, corrupt Chicago mayor fighting off intrigues from his rivals and a hidden, debilitating illness is far from a reality show, much more dramatic than something like The Wire--almost Shakespearean in its archetypal situation and its high-stakes political battles. The show hooked me from the start and left me with my jaw dropped by the end of most of its eight episodes.
Ricky Gervais' hosting was deemed somewhat tame this year. I think it was mostly perception--the element of surprise was gone for those watching him; the talent was laying for him (and for Harvey Weinstein, who was getting abused mercilessly all night for his usual vote manipulative tactics). It seemed that the crowd of stars, starlets, and production folk were having a great time getting sloshed. More power!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I've Seen Enough
I watched the Republican candidates' debate the other night on Fox News, and my conclusion is that I don't need to see any more of them. The entertainment value of these telecasts has dissipated, and their political importance is evaporating very quickly.
The name of the game Monday night (MLK Day) was for each candidate to try to one-up the others by showing he was more "conservative"--in the South Carolina context, this meant more militaristic, more xenophobic, lower on taxes for their flat rates, cutting more from government assistance programs, putting responsibilities and authorities with states rather than the Federal government. Everyone except Ron Paul joined in the game at every opportunity, and the large, vocal crowd applauded the red meat being thrown out to it.
Mitt Romney, with a big opportunity to exploit his opponents' divisions, win a plurality in South Carolina, and get an even stronger hold on the lead for the nomination, generally showed himself willing to match his most rabid opponents. A good example was his flat refusal to consider negotiations with the Taliban. As President, he will no doubt see things differently, but in SC it was more politic to refute his foreign policy advisor's position (he blamed it on VP Biden and ignored his advisor's position stated in the question) and stick with a determination to fight and eliminate them (something well beyond our capability). He was caught out once, by Rick Santorum, advocating a tougher position on voting by felons than he actually administered as Massachusetts Governor, but that's one issue that is truly a state-administered one, so his position as President would be legally irrelevant.
Paul was certainly willing to play when it came to taxes--the others merely suggested tax reductions, but he said "why not a 0% rate?"--to service and aid reductions, and to devolution to states. He challenged the consensus and the crowd, though, on our military policy. He argued against "these undeclared wars", the huge quantity of overseas bases, and the concept that spending more on military brings improved defense of our country. His argument to apply a Golden Rule toward other nations was heckled and booed, but Paul is contributing something new to the debate of what is truly "conservative", something the national party is unwilling to consider but that many of the party faithful--and probably a growing number--will find attractive.
The worst of the worst was Rick Perry. Pandering to the evangelical base by arguing that the Obama Administration has "a war on religion" and that we can have "no space" between our policy in the Middle East and Israel's--something which is hardly going to assist us in making peace there--these things are nothing more or less than we should expect from his limited political strategy options at this point. Fox's Brett Baier threw him a poisoned piece of bait with a question about religiously-motivated violence in Turkey, and Perry went for it. He accused Turkey of being like "Islamic terrorists", questioning whether he would allow them to stay in NATO. The Muslim-baiting got by the crowd without a murmur, but the comments did not escape the notice of political forces in Turkey, one of our critical allies, a democracy, a major regional power in the Middle East and one generally having a positive influence on international affairs. Again, his pandering to the evangelicals is totally expected, but his willingness to advocate outrageous and poorly-considered policies is, once again, clear evidence that he is in over his head. Fortunately, it seems he has no chance of success in SC, and I would presume he will pull out shortly (as he did--for 12 hours or so--after his failure in Iowa).
As for the other two jokers, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, there are several points to make. One is that both can be reliably expected to be "bold" in coming up with extreme positions. They are very interested in pointing that out, and they are having some success--apart from the activity of hammering away at the presumptive nominee and exposing his weaknesses. I think there is emerging the possibility of a tag-team strategy between the two which would have some hope of countering Romney, state by state: Gingrich would hammer Romney in the "Santorum states", Santorum hacks at Romney in "Gingrich states". Newt's states would be the Southern ones, Santorum's the Midwest, Rust Belt, and others where the social issues predominate. If their combined efforts--and they are very close allies, probably just couldn't agree that one should drop out in favor of the other--can keep Romney from winning most of the states by focusing the "anti-Romney, non-Paul" forces in each on a single candidate, they might be able to prevent Romney's attaining the votes for a first-ballot victory.
I don't really see that as a big success, though; either would likely be a worse President than Romney, if it came to that; from the Republicans' point of view, either would be a weaker opponent to Obama. And it would put Ron Paul in the potential role of kingmaker--it probably wouldn't work to the benefit of either Santorum or Gingrich.
In other words, I'm getting used to the idea that Romney will be the major party opponent, and I think any plausible alternative (other than fantasy scenarios like a stalemate, no candidate nominated, complete fracture in the party) would be worse. Romney has plenty of exposed weaknesses that make him look very much like a true successor of Bushism: his advocacy of tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations, his history of flip-flopping, his support of big government Republicanism. We don't need this charade to continue, and its ability to hold our interest is over.
The name of the game Monday night (MLK Day) was for each candidate to try to one-up the others by showing he was more "conservative"--in the South Carolina context, this meant more militaristic, more xenophobic, lower on taxes for their flat rates, cutting more from government assistance programs, putting responsibilities and authorities with states rather than the Federal government. Everyone except Ron Paul joined in the game at every opportunity, and the large, vocal crowd applauded the red meat being thrown out to it.
Mitt Romney, with a big opportunity to exploit his opponents' divisions, win a plurality in South Carolina, and get an even stronger hold on the lead for the nomination, generally showed himself willing to match his most rabid opponents. A good example was his flat refusal to consider negotiations with the Taliban. As President, he will no doubt see things differently, but in SC it was more politic to refute his foreign policy advisor's position (he blamed it on VP Biden and ignored his advisor's position stated in the question) and stick with a determination to fight and eliminate them (something well beyond our capability). He was caught out once, by Rick Santorum, advocating a tougher position on voting by felons than he actually administered as Massachusetts Governor, but that's one issue that is truly a state-administered one, so his position as President would be legally irrelevant.
Paul was certainly willing to play when it came to taxes--the others merely suggested tax reductions, but he said "why not a 0% rate?"--to service and aid reductions, and to devolution to states. He challenged the consensus and the crowd, though, on our military policy. He argued against "these undeclared wars", the huge quantity of overseas bases, and the concept that spending more on military brings improved defense of our country. His argument to apply a Golden Rule toward other nations was heckled and booed, but Paul is contributing something new to the debate of what is truly "conservative", something the national party is unwilling to consider but that many of the party faithful--and probably a growing number--will find attractive.
The worst of the worst was Rick Perry. Pandering to the evangelical base by arguing that the Obama Administration has "a war on religion" and that we can have "no space" between our policy in the Middle East and Israel's--something which is hardly going to assist us in making peace there--these things are nothing more or less than we should expect from his limited political strategy options at this point. Fox's Brett Baier threw him a poisoned piece of bait with a question about religiously-motivated violence in Turkey, and Perry went for it. He accused Turkey of being like "Islamic terrorists", questioning whether he would allow them to stay in NATO. The Muslim-baiting got by the crowd without a murmur, but the comments did not escape the notice of political forces in Turkey, one of our critical allies, a democracy, a major regional power in the Middle East and one generally having a positive influence on international affairs. Again, his pandering to the evangelicals is totally expected, but his willingness to advocate outrageous and poorly-considered policies is, once again, clear evidence that he is in over his head. Fortunately, it seems he has no chance of success in SC, and I would presume he will pull out shortly (as he did--for 12 hours or so--after his failure in Iowa).
As for the other two jokers, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, there are several points to make. One is that both can be reliably expected to be "bold" in coming up with extreme positions. They are very interested in pointing that out, and they are having some success--apart from the activity of hammering away at the presumptive nominee and exposing his weaknesses. I think there is emerging the possibility of a tag-team strategy between the two which would have some hope of countering Romney, state by state: Gingrich would hammer Romney in the "Santorum states", Santorum hacks at Romney in "Gingrich states". Newt's states would be the Southern ones, Santorum's the Midwest, Rust Belt, and others where the social issues predominate. If their combined efforts--and they are very close allies, probably just couldn't agree that one should drop out in favor of the other--can keep Romney from winning most of the states by focusing the "anti-Romney, non-Paul" forces in each on a single candidate, they might be able to prevent Romney's attaining the votes for a first-ballot victory.
I don't really see that as a big success, though; either would likely be a worse President than Romney, if it came to that; from the Republicans' point of view, either would be a weaker opponent to Obama. And it would put Ron Paul in the potential role of kingmaker--it probably wouldn't work to the benefit of either Santorum or Gingrich.
In other words, I'm getting used to the idea that Romney will be the major party opponent, and I think any plausible alternative (other than fantasy scenarios like a stalemate, no candidate nominated, complete fracture in the party) would be worse. Romney has plenty of exposed weaknesses that make him look very much like a true successor of Bushism: his advocacy of tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations, his history of flip-flopping, his support of big government Republicanism. We don't need this charade to continue, and its ability to hold our interest is over.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
With God on Their Side
The much-anticipated Saints-Lions game was indeed a good one, but the clear highlight of NFL's Wild Card weekend was the last game between the Steelers and Tim Tebow's Denver Broncos.
The Broncos played boldly and well, and Tebow's passing put his critics to shame, but the Steelers managed a late comeback to tie the score. I think Pittsburgh's destiny was sealed, though, when they essentially chose to let the clock run out on the last play of regulation time, setting up an ineffectual Hail Mary that never happened on the last play rather than trying an improbably long field goal. Clearly they decided to trust in fate.
Fate was not kind, though. The Steelers lost the coin toss to begin the overtime, and on the first play from scrimmage, the Broncos connected on an improbable 80-yard pass and run touchdown to end it.
Tebow's famous prayers were once again answered. Unlike how I feel about politicians doing it, I don't mind sports heroes giving praise to the Lord(s) as they see Him/Her/It/Them, even if it's kind of boring for the rest of us to hear. They have been blessed in some form, and it is humility that is appropriate, if sincere, that they give credit to something beyond themselves.
My only regret about it is that I hadn't posted my feelings going into the game. I heard all the "experts" picking the Steelers, but I didn't like the combination of Rothlisberger's unreliable leg (I think it was a bit of a factor, though not major), the absence of the Steelers' top running back, Denver's home field, and Tebow's dangerous karma and competitive instincts (they were on full display in the critical game against the Bears I saw some three weeks ago). I did post my qualms about the Steelers' chances in a comment after my last post of 2011.
The Broncos played boldly and well, and Tebow's passing put his critics to shame, but the Steelers managed a late comeback to tie the score. I think Pittsburgh's destiny was sealed, though, when they essentially chose to let the clock run out on the last play of regulation time, setting up an ineffectual Hail Mary that never happened on the last play rather than trying an improbably long field goal. Clearly they decided to trust in fate.
Fate was not kind, though. The Steelers lost the coin toss to begin the overtime, and on the first play from scrimmage, the Broncos connected on an improbable 80-yard pass and run touchdown to end it.
Tebow's famous prayers were once again answered. Unlike how I feel about politicians doing it, I don't mind sports heroes giving praise to the Lord(s) as they see Him/Her/It/Them, even if it's kind of boring for the rest of us to hear. They have been blessed in some form, and it is humility that is appropriate, if sincere, that they give credit to something beyond themselves.
My only regret about it is that I hadn't posted my feelings going into the game. I heard all the "experts" picking the Steelers, but I didn't like the combination of Rothlisberger's unreliable leg (I think it was a bit of a factor, though not major), the absence of the Steelers' top running back, Denver's home field, and Tebow's dangerous karma and competitive instincts (they were on full display in the critical game against the Bears I saw some three weeks ago). I did post my qualms about the Steelers' chances in a comment after my last post of 2011.
Friday, January 06, 2012
With All That Time, This Was the Best You Could Do?
Iowa's Republicans did accomplish something with the endless run-up to their exciting, symbolically important, but practically meaningless caucuses this week. The combination of a long campaign and dozens of debates did serve Iowa's traditional purpose of eliminating candidates not ready for the marathon ahead. Cain, Bachmann, and Pawlenty were winnowed out, with Perry and Gingrich's runs probably permanently crippled. These are good things.
Still, the anti-Romney forces in Iowa had a very long time, reviewed several potential options, and the one they ended up choosing was....Rick Santorum? Sanctimonious P. Rick?
This has to be one of the worst ideas for a major party Presidential contender in history. As Larry Sabato pointed out today, Santorum's defeat in 2006 by Bob Casey was historically bad; the 17+ percent margin was the second-worst defeat by an incumbent Senator in two decades.
It's not just that his political positions are odious, though they clearly are. His manner is off-putting, a combination of arrogance, prudery, and whininess that is going to be very unpopular once people get to know him. He affects a stance of moral superiority, yet his ethics are demonstrably defective. He has extreme positions on social issues--about which most Americans are tired of fighting--and nothing useful to say about economic issues, the ones for which Americans truly hunger for ideas. Foreign/military policy? He claims expertise, but again has little to say.
I've held off from condemning his candidacy because his level of support was nonexistent; I mistakenly thought he was going nowhere fast. With his win (I think the recount may show that, instead of losing by 8 votes, he actually won, though the count is just a popularity contest with no delegate implications), he will gain some additional support, some money, but he has no organization, no natural base, no plan. And he's the one who's supposed to stop Mitt Romney?
Gingrich went to New Hampshire for the purpose of going after Romney one more time; I see him dropping out and endorsing Santorum before South Carolina votes. Rick Perry is skipping NH but has decided to contest SC--some claim it is to help Romney, which it will do, nominally (though he won't get many votes). I don't think he has anything that complicated in mind; he's just never lost an election before and doesn't know that once you get beaten, you stay beaten. Huntsman still hasn't given moderates a credible reason why they should choose him, and there aren't that many of them left in the party, anyway.
So, it will quickly boil down to Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, as long as he lasts. If Romney wins SC, Florida and Nevada will follow and it will be over quickly. If Santorum can somehow win SC, though, or yield to someone who can (though I don't know who--Huckabee?), it could go on for awhile. But I think that the Iowa result basically has put Romney onto a path to the nomination that he would have trouble losing.
Still, the anti-Romney forces in Iowa had a very long time, reviewed several potential options, and the one they ended up choosing was....Rick Santorum? Sanctimonious P. Rick?
This has to be one of the worst ideas for a major party Presidential contender in history. As Larry Sabato pointed out today, Santorum's defeat in 2006 by Bob Casey was historically bad; the 17+ percent margin was the second-worst defeat by an incumbent Senator in two decades.
It's not just that his political positions are odious, though they clearly are. His manner is off-putting, a combination of arrogance, prudery, and whininess that is going to be very unpopular once people get to know him. He affects a stance of moral superiority, yet his ethics are demonstrably defective. He has extreme positions on social issues--about which most Americans are tired of fighting--and nothing useful to say about economic issues, the ones for which Americans truly hunger for ideas. Foreign/military policy? He claims expertise, but again has little to say.
I've held off from condemning his candidacy because his level of support was nonexistent; I mistakenly thought he was going nowhere fast. With his win (I think the recount may show that, instead of losing by 8 votes, he actually won, though the count is just a popularity contest with no delegate implications), he will gain some additional support, some money, but he has no organization, no natural base, no plan. And he's the one who's supposed to stop Mitt Romney?
Gingrich went to New Hampshire for the purpose of going after Romney one more time; I see him dropping out and endorsing Santorum before South Carolina votes. Rick Perry is skipping NH but has decided to contest SC--some claim it is to help Romney, which it will do, nominally (though he won't get many votes). I don't think he has anything that complicated in mind; he's just never lost an election before and doesn't know that once you get beaten, you stay beaten. Huntsman still hasn't given moderates a credible reason why they should choose him, and there aren't that many of them left in the party, anyway.
So, it will quickly boil down to Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, as long as he lasts. If Romney wins SC, Florida and Nevada will follow and it will be over quickly. If Santorum can somehow win SC, though, or yield to someone who can (though I don't know who--Huckabee?), it could go on for awhile. But I think that the Iowa result basically has put Romney onto a path to the nomination that he would have trouble losing.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Hopes for a New Year
I've got a lot of them, even limiting myself to those I'd choose to post on this blog. I may post some follow-ups later.
Sports
First, of course, my Reds: Though I'm not crazy about either of the pitcher swaps they made in the offseason (with Cubs and Padres), I think they are going into the 2012 season with both a decent pitching staff and a good everyday lineup. With the Brewers, Cardinals, and Cubs all weakened, I think they could win the division this year. I don't see them as World Series material, but once in the playoffs, there's always a chance (just see the example of the Cardinals last year).
Chelsea has basically blown its chances in the Premier League--last weekend's embarrassing 3-1 loss at home to Aston Villa being just the latest evidence--but, it is the leading surviving team in the Champions League. They should de-emphasize the League matches and focus upon the Champions League--their next matchup will be against Napoli, and that will require all their ability. The Blues have plenty of offense, but have been subject to sudden lapses on defense, way too often.
In college basketball, I have very high hopes for my regular teams: Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and on behalf of my parents' alma mater, Indiana (I'm OK with them since Bobby Knight left). In the next poll, I think SU and UK will be 1-2, with U of L and IU in the top 10. So, I'm not just thinking rooting interest in the Final Four, but a possible title. The Tar Heels and Buckeyes appear to be the chief rivals, and I will enjoy seeing them fall.
NBA-wise, I'm very optimistic about the upcoming season. The players and coaches don't like the heavy, short regular season necessitated by two months' loss of play, but I do.
US Politics
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up about the behavior of this nation's electorate, but I feel that there's a decent chance the Republicans could get a well-deserved repudiation this year. I stand by the viewpoint that they had forfeited their privilege of governing by 2008 and have not done anything to change that since then.
Really the only reason for my optimism is the weak field they are putting out for the Presidential nomination this year. Where President Obama should be in a nearly-desperate situation given the domestic economy (unfair, but it's reality), I see him winning easily against any candidate except Romney, and I see his chances as better than 50-50 even against him.
The bad news is that the campaign up until now could not have gone better for Mitt, and if things don't change soon (by South Carolina), he will have the nomination practically won by Feb. 1. And in the Palmetto State (a/k/a the Hardcore Confederate State), it appears that the right-wingers (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul) will split their votes, giving Romney a chance for a win he clearly should not expect. If he can somehow win there, Florida's primary will wrap it up for him.
Romney will present a challenge in critical Mideastern and Upper Midwestern states (PA, OH, MI, IA, maybe WI) that Obama would badly need for a safe Electoral College victory, and it appears that there will be nearly unlimited funds from Super PAC's to buy an advantage. If Obama loses a couple of those, he might have to pick up VA, AZ or FL (beyond states like CO, NM, NV).
And, the general election campaign could go very badly for Romney, opening the way for a decisive victory on the order of the one Obama produced in 2008 in spite of everything. If that happens, the Democrats could regain the House and hold onto the Senate. I actually think there's a chance for the Democrats to retain a Senate majority even in a close Presidential race.
I kept a stone wall against campaign contributions in 2011 (with one minor exception for Emily's List), but I will be loosening the wallet a bit this year. This is not because I can suddenly afford it, and I hate--absolutely hate--the fact that the Obama Administration has not made a move to challenge the current campaign finance regime (or lack thereof). I'm only going to do it because it's necessary, and I will try to be tactically astute and strategically sound. The fact that Ben Nelson has decided not to run again in Nebraska helps--now I can give to the DSCC without fear that it will be wasted on DINO's. Frankly, I felt that all those appeals to give before some arbitrary deadlines in 2011 were phony and unconvincing.
My hope is that after the totally expected orgy of negative ads and obscene levels of spending in 2012, both parties will turn, exhausted and bleeding, to legislation that will somehow limit the ugliness in future elections. It will be my #1 political priority, and I hope it will enter Obama's list as well--after, of course, he makes the most of the current monstrous system this year.
Finally, on a local level, I'm waiting to see how the Congressional districting turns out in my section of the northwestern Chicago suburbs before I decide whether I will retain my New Mexico voter registration (I certainly could do so), or switch to the area where I'm working and spending most of my time. If I get a chance to vote against Joe Walsh, or against Bobby Schilling (see my 2010 election post for the significance of the latter), that would be interesting. Otherwise, the Senate race in NM will be a close and a critical one.
Economic and International Politics
My hopes are more for GDP growth than reduction in unemployment or a big stock market rally. The key thing is to avoid a new recession, and I think that should be possible.
As far as the Euro is concerned, I will think there may be some triage, with Greece being reluctantly jettisoned (as I've suggested, that could be a big opportunity for Turkey), and with Italy and Spain salvaged. The nations (excepting Britain) are reluctantly going to allow stronger regional control over national budgets, and that is a formula that will ultimately solve the problem. Britain may decide to seek something like an associate membership, along with Sweden, Turkey, Greece, and a couple of others: trying to get the benefits of trade without the political mess.
I'm going to continue along this rather outlandish tangent of predictions and suggest a couple unexpected countries where the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority will rise: Russia (it's started, but I think/hope it will go much further) and Israel. I hope (but don't expect so much) there will be some sort of progress in the talks to make peace in Afghanistan, with participation of some Taliban elements, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
Personally, I want to wish the best for all friends and family--health, wealth, and happiness!
Sports
First, of course, my Reds: Though I'm not crazy about either of the pitcher swaps they made in the offseason (with Cubs and Padres), I think they are going into the 2012 season with both a decent pitching staff and a good everyday lineup. With the Brewers, Cardinals, and Cubs all weakened, I think they could win the division this year. I don't see them as World Series material, but once in the playoffs, there's always a chance (just see the example of the Cardinals last year).
Chelsea has basically blown its chances in the Premier League--last weekend's embarrassing 3-1 loss at home to Aston Villa being just the latest evidence--but, it is the leading surviving team in the Champions League. They should de-emphasize the League matches and focus upon the Champions League--their next matchup will be against Napoli, and that will require all their ability. The Blues have plenty of offense, but have been subject to sudden lapses on defense, way too often.
In college basketball, I have very high hopes for my regular teams: Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and on behalf of my parents' alma mater, Indiana (I'm OK with them since Bobby Knight left). In the next poll, I think SU and UK will be 1-2, with U of L and IU in the top 10. So, I'm not just thinking rooting interest in the Final Four, but a possible title. The Tar Heels and Buckeyes appear to be the chief rivals, and I will enjoy seeing them fall.
NBA-wise, I'm very optimistic about the upcoming season. The players and coaches don't like the heavy, short regular season necessitated by two months' loss of play, but I do.
US Politics
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up about the behavior of this nation's electorate, but I feel that there's a decent chance the Republicans could get a well-deserved repudiation this year. I stand by the viewpoint that they had forfeited their privilege of governing by 2008 and have not done anything to change that since then.
Really the only reason for my optimism is the weak field they are putting out for the Presidential nomination this year. Where President Obama should be in a nearly-desperate situation given the domestic economy (unfair, but it's reality), I see him winning easily against any candidate except Romney, and I see his chances as better than 50-50 even against him.
The bad news is that the campaign up until now could not have gone better for Mitt, and if things don't change soon (by South Carolina), he will have the nomination practically won by Feb. 1. And in the Palmetto State (a/k/a the Hardcore Confederate State), it appears that the right-wingers (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul) will split their votes, giving Romney a chance for a win he clearly should not expect. If he can somehow win there, Florida's primary will wrap it up for him.
Romney will present a challenge in critical Mideastern and Upper Midwestern states (PA, OH, MI, IA, maybe WI) that Obama would badly need for a safe Electoral College victory, and it appears that there will be nearly unlimited funds from Super PAC's to buy an advantage. If Obama loses a couple of those, he might have to pick up VA, AZ or FL (beyond states like CO, NM, NV).
And, the general election campaign could go very badly for Romney, opening the way for a decisive victory on the order of the one Obama produced in 2008 in spite of everything. If that happens, the Democrats could regain the House and hold onto the Senate. I actually think there's a chance for the Democrats to retain a Senate majority even in a close Presidential race.
I kept a stone wall against campaign contributions in 2011 (with one minor exception for Emily's List), but I will be loosening the wallet a bit this year. This is not because I can suddenly afford it, and I hate--absolutely hate--the fact that the Obama Administration has not made a move to challenge the current campaign finance regime (or lack thereof). I'm only going to do it because it's necessary, and I will try to be tactically astute and strategically sound. The fact that Ben Nelson has decided not to run again in Nebraska helps--now I can give to the DSCC without fear that it will be wasted on DINO's. Frankly, I felt that all those appeals to give before some arbitrary deadlines in 2011 were phony and unconvincing.
My hope is that after the totally expected orgy of negative ads and obscene levels of spending in 2012, both parties will turn, exhausted and bleeding, to legislation that will somehow limit the ugliness in future elections. It will be my #1 political priority, and I hope it will enter Obama's list as well--after, of course, he makes the most of the current monstrous system this year.
Finally, on a local level, I'm waiting to see how the Congressional districting turns out in my section of the northwestern Chicago suburbs before I decide whether I will retain my New Mexico voter registration (I certainly could do so), or switch to the area where I'm working and spending most of my time. If I get a chance to vote against Joe Walsh, or against Bobby Schilling (see my 2010 election post for the significance of the latter), that would be interesting. Otherwise, the Senate race in NM will be a close and a critical one.
Economic and International Politics
My hopes are more for GDP growth than reduction in unemployment or a big stock market rally. The key thing is to avoid a new recession, and I think that should be possible.
As far as the Euro is concerned, I will think there may be some triage, with Greece being reluctantly jettisoned (as I've suggested, that could be a big opportunity for Turkey), and with Italy and Spain salvaged. The nations (excepting Britain) are reluctantly going to allow stronger regional control over national budgets, and that is a formula that will ultimately solve the problem. Britain may decide to seek something like an associate membership, along with Sweden, Turkey, Greece, and a couple of others: trying to get the benefits of trade without the political mess.
I'm going to continue along this rather outlandish tangent of predictions and suggest a couple unexpected countries where the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority will rise: Russia (it's started, but I think/hope it will go much further) and Israel. I hope (but don't expect so much) there will be some sort of progress in the talks to make peace in Afghanistan, with participation of some Taliban elements, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
Personally, I want to wish the best for all friends and family--health, wealth, and happiness!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
