I didn't watch all of tonight's Republi-Con finale--I found Venus Williams' tennis match with Angelique Kerber to be much more dramatic, certainly with more potential to surprise continually, but I saw enough.
Tuesday's convention lineup was much more interesting: a suggestion that, though the conventioneers were pretty much monochromatic (if you call white a color) and old, they do have some upcoming leaders with diverse backgrounds--though not much variety in what they said. Last night, I kept a promise to myself not to watch a minute of it.
First, tonight's set-up guys:
Marco Rubio: He looked like the 12-year-old head of the local chapter of Young Republicans. What he said was OK, I guess. When he grows up, he could be a serious contender.
Clint Eastwood (the lefty brought in to face one batter): For his performance tonight, he remains Unforgiven. What he had to say was pretty lame, but the way he delivered it? Even lamer.
The Closer: A good presentation, I'd say. He showed the requisite emotion, did seem into it. Part I: Bathos. Part II: Blather. His main theme was an appeal to those disappointed with Obama's administration. My main thought: If they are disappointed now, they will be positively in despair after four years (Please, O Angel Moroni, don't let it be eight!) of this guy.
Romney is one part Dubya--his policy proposals are entirely warmed-over Bushism; he just humors the Tea Party guys but he's not one of them--and one part Tricky Dick Nixon. He is willing to say or do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
Meanwhile, Rolling Stone is breaking a story, by Tim Dickinson and based on research of FDIC records through the Freedom of Information Act, of how Romney bilked the banks (and the FDIC, when one of the bank creditors folded up) to rescue Bain Capital in the early '90's when it was in danger of going bankrupt. The irony of the story is amazing: Romney got the bailout that he opposed for the auto companies. No doubt RS' version is one-sided, but I think there will be some new 'splaining, duckin' and dodgin', as the facts of this ugly episode are reviewed.
I realize, though, that I have not given Mitt enough credit. There was one thing last night that truly impressed me: the suit jacket that Romney was wearing. The color of that still sticks in my mind--if you have a chance to see any replay of his speech, please take a good look at that jacket and its color. If you can tell me the precise word for the color, I will cite you and give you my thanks, for my vocabulary of colors fails me. It was blue, yes, but that does not do it justice. It was not the usual "navy blue", more or less approximating the field in the background for the stars on the Stars and Stripes, that a typical US politician would wear when doing the loyal red, white, and blue outfit. Romney was doing that, but the blue....it had elements of the crystalline sea-blue of the Grotto Azurro, maybe of a star sapphire. One thing for sure: It was a high-quality, $10K kind of suit jacket.
Romney definitely looks the part. Beyond that, he is "a suit" par excellence! He may be an empty suit, but what a suit!
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
As Life Goes on, Heedless...
...of the nonsense at the Republi-Con in Tampa, let's pretend in this post that it isn't even happening. Not too hard, for me anyway.
2012 Election Update
We'll try to keep this relatively short, as only certain, identifiable things have changed since my last political posting, in the wake of Paul Ryan's selection as VP candidate. I will ignore any possibility of a convention-based bounce; there may be a small one for the Republicans, but there may also be a small one for Democrats which may cancel it.
Apart from that, the big hope for Romney is some kind of performance in the debates (along with Ryan's) that will convince swing voters to trust these guys; so far their campaign, including the post-Ryan selection weeks, has not done it. Recent polling is showing some of the swing states to be closer than before; in my opinion, this is not the movement of swing voters but improvement in the commitment level of Republican-leaning voters in those states. My main evidence is that the national polling gap in favor of Obama has held, but the Republicans are doing better in the polling organizations' assessment of "likely voters". The challenge for the Democrats in the general election campaign is to make the eventual voter results resemble more the registered voter polls. (I saw a reference to a poll result that Obama has a large lead among non-voters; interesting, but useless, information!)
The map has not changed, though: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota remain out of reach for the Republicans; Florida is the Republicans' necessary but not sufficient toss-up state; Romney has a small lead in NC, but Obama continues to hold narrow leads in all the other closely-contested ones (IA, NH, CO, NV, OH, VA, and WI) . Romney winning just FL and NC among these states would give Obama a fairly comfortable 303-235 Electoral vote margin.
Republicans' Senate: Akin to Lose It
Todd Akin's benighted comments about rape have provoked a whole new round of news reporting showing the extreme positions the Republicans have had, and continue to have, with regard to abortion. This distraction has hurt Romney, and may give the Democrats new hope in the battle for control of the House of Representatives. It certainly has given them new hope toward retaining control of the Senate; Akin, who won a close three-way Missouri Republican Senate primary against two more moderate candidates, has basically put himself on the long-odds side of a race, against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, that he otherwise would have been favorred to win. (I gave money to McCaskill for the first time the day after the primary, because that gave me hope she could win--now I'm feeling vindicated in that judgment, though of course my contributions are a pittance in the scale of the big-money TV wars going on.)
A probable shift of one seat changes the calculus substantially: By my calculations, assuming the huge money sloshing for Republican candidates in Florida, Connecticut and Ohio can't move those races against favored incumbents, and giving the Republicans credit for likely (but not certain) pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota, the Republicans would need to win five of these seven political contests:
Armstrong Obit
Enough of that stuff. I commemorate the life and heroism of Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on the moon (that we know of, anyway). The moon landings were a prodigious accomplishment, unthinkable today given the quality of computers back then: two parts engineering, one part pure guts.
Of course we know today that there was little to be gained there except the honor, the prestige, and the competitive drive to get there before the Soviets (I guess they weren't really very close, or maybe they just gave up after they lost the race). Perhaps that was obvious then, too, but Armstrong and his gang never questioned any of their objectives.
Armstrong loathed the fame and basically hid out for the rest of his life. In that sense, I think one could say that he won his battle with celebrity.
I was at Capulin National Monument (northeastern New Mexico) on July 20, 1969, camping with my family. We managed to find a workable black-and-white TV arrangement for the moonwalk (I don't think color would've added much, beyond the stars and stripes). I remember my father talking about the radio show he listened to as a child, with the tag line, "Jack Armstrong--the All-American Boy!"
Speaking of dead, and Armstrong, how about Lance Armstrong? I will give him this--they never proved a thing against him. Faced with a lengthening list of those willing to bear witness against him, though (and, if I'm not mistaken, dealing with his partner Sheryl Crow's illness), he did a public version of nolo contendere, giving in to the perception of guilt. As far as I'm concerned, even if he did cheat, he earned all those millions--he worked his ball off. (Sorry!)
Foo'ball
All football seems to be starting at about the same time: the NFL and college this coming weekend, the European soccer leagues the weekend before last (just the US pro soccer league is out of synch, but I find their decision not to play with just shorts in the wintertime to have more merit than the Europeans' plan). Really briefly:
College: USC has rebuilt its college program after being hit hard for violations after the departure of Coach Carroll to the NFL. A team other than the SEC being favored is a novelty, but I'm skeptical--Alabama and LSU should be about as good as they have been every other recent season. I promise to write absolutely nothing about the postseason of college football this year--a total print boycott.
NFL: Eli Manning shut everybody up, but good (including me!), by leading the Giants to another Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. There is no way I am going to predict anything this year, but I admit to being curious how my new local team will do, especially against their archrival the Green Bay Packers, against whom I've had a thing for close to 50 years. Go Bears.
English Premier League: The prevailing assumption is that it will be a battle between the team that dramatically won in the last minutes of the final game last year, Manchester City, and its crosstown rival, Manchester United. United filled a big gap by buying Arsenal's best player, Robin van Persie--probably a guy who belongs there--but is off to a fairly slow start.
Instead, my team Chelsea, who finished fifth last year, has the early lead. Having finally won its European Championship (I don't think there will be another one anytime soon), Chelsea should focus firmly on the League, because I think they could do it. Chelsea will need to play it smart, as many of their key players are getting old--like John Terry, Michael Essien, Frank Lampard--so they will need to somehow conserve them for important league games, while doing justice to their Champions League title in those games. I say it would be smart to bow out relatively early, like in the round of 16, and to go with heavy doses of reserves/second-teamers (they have a lot of them) in games for the FA Cup and League Cup. That's what (MU coach) Alex Ferguson does, and though I despise him with a passion, he's right to do it: with the schedule the top teams have, you have to prioritize or you lose out on everything. Chelsea used up a decade's worth of European good luck (offsetting a decade of bad luck) last year; they should focus on grinding out another Premier League title this year.
Basketball
It's time to go negative again vs. the Lakers, with one caveat: I want to get a basketball jersey with "15" and "World Peace" on it, even if the LAL get the proceeds. This deal--in which they got Dwight Howard and didn't even have to give up Pau Gasol--reminds me of the shenanigans which led to Magic Johnson being drafted onto their team in the '80's. This decade, it will probably have to be Lakers vs. Heat (instead of vs. Celtics), once again forcing me to choose between unacceptable alternatives. I will be rooting for Anyone But Miami in the East and Anyone But Lakers in the West, then for Miami if it comes down to those two. I expect Andrew Bynum to disappoint tremendously in Philly, but I like the Nuggets' pickup of Iguodala. The Orlando Magic? For to laugh--see ya; buh-bye. They totally blew the Howard negotiations, from start to finish; they can blame it on Howard, or on Superman or Batman, for all I care.
Baseball
I don't want to get too cocky, but there's a decent chance I will end up with eight of the ten playoff teams correct, and an outside shot (depending on the Angels making a late surge) at nine. The only one I definitely got wrong was having the Phillies instead of Washington. There is still substantial doubt about several of the others; in particular, the Tigers have continued to disappoint while the White Sox have continued to disappoint my expectation that they would disappoint.
One area of interest in the postseason coming up quickly will be the performance of the four wild cards. Reacting to the success in recent years of wild cards, both an attractive broadening of the pennant races, and an issue due to the relative underperformance of division winners, MLB's owners and commissioner decided to add an extra wild card in each league, but to handicap both wild cards with an unfavorable schedule. They rushed the change in, a one-game play-in game, followed immediately by a series with a home-field disadvantage. I won't predict anything until I know the matchups, and even then, I won't feel confident. Of course, I will be forced to pick the Reds (even if I don't believe it) if they do indeed win their division.
Tennis
This year's U.S. Open looks to be very interesting. Roger Federer comes in very strongly, looking to avenge his tough loss in the semifinals last year; Rafael Nadal is sitting it out, and Novak Djokovic has not been playing his best. So, my picks would be 1) Federer; and 2) Andy Murray, who just broke through with a big win in the Olympics singles competition.
As for the women, Serena Williams is a big favorite to make the final through a relatively weak half of the draw. The sentimental pick to face her would be Kim Clijsters, who has announced this would be her last tournament before retiring. Clijsters has a tough half of the draw to get through, but she has a long winning streak in this tournament. Serena lost a controversial final to Clijsters a couple of years ago, so she's looking for revenge, too. The way she's playing, I can't see anyone--Kvitova or Azarenka are other likely finals' opponents--beating her, but there could be an injury or some sort of emotional blow-up.
2012 Election Update
We'll try to keep this relatively short, as only certain, identifiable things have changed since my last political posting, in the wake of Paul Ryan's selection as VP candidate. I will ignore any possibility of a convention-based bounce; there may be a small one for the Republicans, but there may also be a small one for Democrats which may cancel it.
Apart from that, the big hope for Romney is some kind of performance in the debates (along with Ryan's) that will convince swing voters to trust these guys; so far their campaign, including the post-Ryan selection weeks, has not done it. Recent polling is showing some of the swing states to be closer than before; in my opinion, this is not the movement of swing voters but improvement in the commitment level of Republican-leaning voters in those states. My main evidence is that the national polling gap in favor of Obama has held, but the Republicans are doing better in the polling organizations' assessment of "likely voters". The challenge for the Democrats in the general election campaign is to make the eventual voter results resemble more the registered voter polls. (I saw a reference to a poll result that Obama has a large lead among non-voters; interesting, but useless, information!)
The map has not changed, though: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota remain out of reach for the Republicans; Florida is the Republicans' necessary but not sufficient toss-up state; Romney has a small lead in NC, but Obama continues to hold narrow leads in all the other closely-contested ones (IA, NH, CO, NV, OH, VA, and WI) . Romney winning just FL and NC among these states would give Obama a fairly comfortable 303-235 Electoral vote margin.
Republicans' Senate: Akin to Lose It
Todd Akin's benighted comments about rape have provoked a whole new round of news reporting showing the extreme positions the Republicans have had, and continue to have, with regard to abortion. This distraction has hurt Romney, and may give the Democrats new hope in the battle for control of the House of Representatives. It certainly has given them new hope toward retaining control of the Senate; Akin, who won a close three-way Missouri Republican Senate primary against two more moderate candidates, has basically put himself on the long-odds side of a race, against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, that he otherwise would have been favorred to win. (I gave money to McCaskill for the first time the day after the primary, because that gave me hope she could win--now I'm feeling vindicated in that judgment, though of course my contributions are a pittance in the scale of the big-money TV wars going on.)
A probable shift of one seat changes the calculus substantially: By my calculations, assuming the huge money sloshing for Republican candidates in Florida, Connecticut and Ohio can't move those races against favored incumbents, and giving the Republicans credit for likely (but not certain) pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota, the Republicans would need to win five of these seven political contests:
- Montana--Jon Tester fighting an uphill battle to retain his Democratic seat;
- Indiana-- Dick Lugar's Republican seat is a possible flip to Democrats, who nominated a moderate (Joe Donnelly) to run against a Tea Party extremist (Richard Mourdock);
- Massachusetts--I would now rate Scott Brown a slight favorite to retain his Republican seat over Elizabeth Warren;
- Nevada--Republican appointee Heller is now a slight favorite to hold the seat against Shelley Berkley;
- Virginia--The closest race of all, the Democrats trying to defend Jim Webb's seat--it's impossible to pick a winner between Republican George ("Macaca") Allen and Tim Kaine;
- Missouri--The aforementioned Akin taking the seat of Sen. McCaskill (it could still happen, even with the general and total repudiation of Akin by his national party);
- and, either the Republicans win the Vice Presidency of the US (to break a Senate tie), or the battle to win the soul, and, more importantly, the vote on leadership control, of the probable Maine winner, independent Angus King (taking Republican Olympia Snowe's seat), or win the Maine seat outright.
Armstrong Obit
Enough of that stuff. I commemorate the life and heroism of Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on the moon (that we know of, anyway). The moon landings were a prodigious accomplishment, unthinkable today given the quality of computers back then: two parts engineering, one part pure guts.
Of course we know today that there was little to be gained there except the honor, the prestige, and the competitive drive to get there before the Soviets (I guess they weren't really very close, or maybe they just gave up after they lost the race). Perhaps that was obvious then, too, but Armstrong and his gang never questioned any of their objectives.
Armstrong loathed the fame and basically hid out for the rest of his life. In that sense, I think one could say that he won his battle with celebrity.
I was at Capulin National Monument (northeastern New Mexico) on July 20, 1969, camping with my family. We managed to find a workable black-and-white TV arrangement for the moonwalk (I don't think color would've added much, beyond the stars and stripes). I remember my father talking about the radio show he listened to as a child, with the tag line, "Jack Armstrong--the All-American Boy!"
Speaking of dead, and Armstrong, how about Lance Armstrong? I will give him this--they never proved a thing against him. Faced with a lengthening list of those willing to bear witness against him, though (and, if I'm not mistaken, dealing with his partner Sheryl Crow's illness), he did a public version of nolo contendere, giving in to the perception of guilt. As far as I'm concerned, even if he did cheat, he earned all those millions--he worked his ball off. (Sorry!)
Foo'ball
All football seems to be starting at about the same time: the NFL and college this coming weekend, the European soccer leagues the weekend before last (just the US pro soccer league is out of synch, but I find their decision not to play with just shorts in the wintertime to have more merit than the Europeans' plan). Really briefly:
College: USC has rebuilt its college program after being hit hard for violations after the departure of Coach Carroll to the NFL. A team other than the SEC being favored is a novelty, but I'm skeptical--Alabama and LSU should be about as good as they have been every other recent season. I promise to write absolutely nothing about the postseason of college football this year--a total print boycott.
NFL: Eli Manning shut everybody up, but good (including me!), by leading the Giants to another Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. There is no way I am going to predict anything this year, but I admit to being curious how my new local team will do, especially against their archrival the Green Bay Packers, against whom I've had a thing for close to 50 years. Go Bears.
English Premier League: The prevailing assumption is that it will be a battle between the team that dramatically won in the last minutes of the final game last year, Manchester City, and its crosstown rival, Manchester United. United filled a big gap by buying Arsenal's best player, Robin van Persie--probably a guy who belongs there--but is off to a fairly slow start.
Instead, my team Chelsea, who finished fifth last year, has the early lead. Having finally won its European Championship (I don't think there will be another one anytime soon), Chelsea should focus firmly on the League, because I think they could do it. Chelsea will need to play it smart, as many of their key players are getting old--like John Terry, Michael Essien, Frank Lampard--so they will need to somehow conserve them for important league games, while doing justice to their Champions League title in those games. I say it would be smart to bow out relatively early, like in the round of 16, and to go with heavy doses of reserves/second-teamers (they have a lot of them) in games for the FA Cup and League Cup. That's what (MU coach) Alex Ferguson does, and though I despise him with a passion, he's right to do it: with the schedule the top teams have, you have to prioritize or you lose out on everything. Chelsea used up a decade's worth of European good luck (offsetting a decade of bad luck) last year; they should focus on grinding out another Premier League title this year.
Basketball
It's time to go negative again vs. the Lakers, with one caveat: I want to get a basketball jersey with "15" and "World Peace" on it, even if the LAL get the proceeds. This deal--in which they got Dwight Howard and didn't even have to give up Pau Gasol--reminds me of the shenanigans which led to Magic Johnson being drafted onto their team in the '80's. This decade, it will probably have to be Lakers vs. Heat (instead of vs. Celtics), once again forcing me to choose between unacceptable alternatives. I will be rooting for Anyone But Miami in the East and Anyone But Lakers in the West, then for Miami if it comes down to those two. I expect Andrew Bynum to disappoint tremendously in Philly, but I like the Nuggets' pickup of Iguodala. The Orlando Magic? For to laugh--see ya; buh-bye. They totally blew the Howard negotiations, from start to finish; they can blame it on Howard, or on Superman or Batman, for all I care.
Baseball
I don't want to get too cocky, but there's a decent chance I will end up with eight of the ten playoff teams correct, and an outside shot (depending on the Angels making a late surge) at nine. The only one I definitely got wrong was having the Phillies instead of Washington. There is still substantial doubt about several of the others; in particular, the Tigers have continued to disappoint while the White Sox have continued to disappoint my expectation that they would disappoint.
One area of interest in the postseason coming up quickly will be the performance of the four wild cards. Reacting to the success in recent years of wild cards, both an attractive broadening of the pennant races, and an issue due to the relative underperformance of division winners, MLB's owners and commissioner decided to add an extra wild card in each league, but to handicap both wild cards with an unfavorable schedule. They rushed the change in, a one-game play-in game, followed immediately by a series with a home-field disadvantage. I won't predict anything until I know the matchups, and even then, I won't feel confident. Of course, I will be forced to pick the Reds (even if I don't believe it) if they do indeed win their division.
Tennis
This year's U.S. Open looks to be very interesting. Roger Federer comes in very strongly, looking to avenge his tough loss in the semifinals last year; Rafael Nadal is sitting it out, and Novak Djokovic has not been playing his best. So, my picks would be 1) Federer; and 2) Andy Murray, who just broke through with a big win in the Olympics singles competition.
As for the women, Serena Williams is a big favorite to make the final through a relatively weak half of the draw. The sentimental pick to face her would be Kim Clijsters, who has announced this would be her last tournament before retiring. Clijsters has a tough half of the draw to get through, but she has a long winning streak in this tournament. Serena lost a controversial final to Clijsters a couple of years ago, so she's looking for revenge, too. The way she's playing, I can't see anyone--Kvitova or Azarenka are other likely finals' opponents--beating her, but there could be an injury or some sort of emotional blow-up.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Republi-Con Preview
Don't Go There
The best news for all concerned came from the weather--God speaking directly to us?--when the threat of Hurricane Isaac hitting the Tampa area led the Republicans' convention planners to cancel Monday's activities. There wasn't much on there, anyway; the national networks weren't even going to carry it. Now Tuesday could still be threatened by the storm, but the Republicans plan to go forward with that day's schedule come hell or high water--or both.
In thinking about what I could recommend to my dear reader for their viewing of the convention, initially I drew a blank. Congressman/VP nominee Paul Ryan's speech could be interesting if he were to be allowed to say what he really thought the country should be doing, but he will certainly be limited to endorsing the Romney non-plan, so I would strike that off my list. Given the party platform, there could be some entertainment appeal in watching Tea party birdbrains give some sort of freak show about the platform, but I think that sort of thing will be minimized (no Sarah Palin, for example; Todd Akin will probably be warned to keep his distance from TV interviewers, though what they can threaten him with is unclear). Ron Paul (with Ryan, the two have two first-name surnames, a total of three first names, many ideas in common, and no chance of ever cooperating on anything due to their diverse constutencies, age groups, and levels of ambition) may be allowed into the arena, but he won't be permitted to speak or have his name placed into nomination, so nothing there.
Could-Watch TV
Here's what I'm left with: four possibilities. I recommend you watch no more than three of these, a total of about three hours. Like Fox News, more than the recommended dose can lead to insanity. If you find yourself at home, with no obligations for Tuesday-Thursday, do not under any circumstances leave the TV on all day, or your friends may find you drooling or worse.
1) Mitt's acceptance speech: It will be corny, probably bile-inducing, but I admit some curiosity. Romney fans are looking for him to re-brand himself, show himself to be the warm, personable human being they claim he is, as opposed to the clammed-up robot that he has presented in his campaign. I am dubious about the likelihood of that approach working for him. He also has the potential opportunity to present some ideas for the future, which I see being the best possible approach for him. If he harps too much about the failures of the current administration, I will turn it off, regardless.
2) Chris Christie's keynote speech: This is his audition for the 2016 nomination if/when Romney doesn't win (or in the unlikely event that he decides not to run for re-election). Actually, Christie's best and only hope is that Romney doesn't win; if for some reason Mitt were dead, incapacitated, or (least likely) decided his full ambitions were satisfied by one term in office, Ryan would be the clear favorite. Christie's opportunity will come if the rightward swing in the party is repudiated this year; he knows it, we know it, so the trick will be to get that across to the American people while appearing to endorse the current thread of party groupthink.
3) Marco Rubio's nominating speech for Romney: I think this was a pretty good idea for the party planners. Rubio's a guy who would like everyone to know him better, and that feeling may be reciprocated in the public. Instead of plugging himself, he can show himself to be a good team player. And, it could be the start of a late-inning play to try to take back some Hispanic votes (especially in super-critical Florida) before it's too late.
4) Ann Romney's speech: This is probably the single most interesting aspect of the convention. Ms. Romney is broadly considered a Stepford wife (reference to obscure '70's movie--with even more obscure 2004 remake!--about suburban wives who were replaced by robots, with nobody noticing the switch), and I think the characterization is unfair. She is a good, loyal Mormon wife, which means cheerfully accepting baby-making house slave roles, but I believe she has a good head on her shoulders. This is an opportunity for her to show what she can do with it, as well as being a convention curiosity item--and perhaps it may be a gauntlet thrown down to First Lady Michelle Obama, who might feel she has to respond with her own speech in a couple of weeks. I'm guessing Ann's results will not compel Michelle to act, and she will choose to try to stay above it all (her clear preference), but we will see.
Actually, though I have no great interest in the RepubliCon proceedings, these potential highlights I've named may hold greater interest than most of the Democratic convention coming up. It may be an even greater challenge for the Dems to come up with something interesting then.
The best news for all concerned came from the weather--God speaking directly to us?--when the threat of Hurricane Isaac hitting the Tampa area led the Republicans' convention planners to cancel Monday's activities. There wasn't much on there, anyway; the national networks weren't even going to carry it. Now Tuesday could still be threatened by the storm, but the Republicans plan to go forward with that day's schedule come hell or high water--or both.
In thinking about what I could recommend to my dear reader for their viewing of the convention, initially I drew a blank. Congressman/VP nominee Paul Ryan's speech could be interesting if he were to be allowed to say what he really thought the country should be doing, but he will certainly be limited to endorsing the Romney non-plan, so I would strike that off my list. Given the party platform, there could be some entertainment appeal in watching Tea party birdbrains give some sort of freak show about the platform, but I think that sort of thing will be minimized (no Sarah Palin, for example; Todd Akin will probably be warned to keep his distance from TV interviewers, though what they can threaten him with is unclear). Ron Paul (with Ryan, the two have two first-name surnames, a total of three first names, many ideas in common, and no chance of ever cooperating on anything due to their diverse constutencies, age groups, and levels of ambition) may be allowed into the arena, but he won't be permitted to speak or have his name placed into nomination, so nothing there.
Could-Watch TV
Here's what I'm left with: four possibilities. I recommend you watch no more than three of these, a total of about three hours. Like Fox News, more than the recommended dose can lead to insanity. If you find yourself at home, with no obligations for Tuesday-Thursday, do not under any circumstances leave the TV on all day, or your friends may find you drooling or worse.
1) Mitt's acceptance speech: It will be corny, probably bile-inducing, but I admit some curiosity. Romney fans are looking for him to re-brand himself, show himself to be the warm, personable human being they claim he is, as opposed to the clammed-up robot that he has presented in his campaign. I am dubious about the likelihood of that approach working for him. He also has the potential opportunity to present some ideas for the future, which I see being the best possible approach for him. If he harps too much about the failures of the current administration, I will turn it off, regardless.
2) Chris Christie's keynote speech: This is his audition for the 2016 nomination if/when Romney doesn't win (or in the unlikely event that he decides not to run for re-election). Actually, Christie's best and only hope is that Romney doesn't win; if for some reason Mitt were dead, incapacitated, or (least likely) decided his full ambitions were satisfied by one term in office, Ryan would be the clear favorite. Christie's opportunity will come if the rightward swing in the party is repudiated this year; he knows it, we know it, so the trick will be to get that across to the American people while appearing to endorse the current thread of party groupthink.
3) Marco Rubio's nominating speech for Romney: I think this was a pretty good idea for the party planners. Rubio's a guy who would like everyone to know him better, and that feeling may be reciprocated in the public. Instead of plugging himself, he can show himself to be a good team player. And, it could be the start of a late-inning play to try to take back some Hispanic votes (especially in super-critical Florida) before it's too late.
4) Ann Romney's speech: This is probably the single most interesting aspect of the convention. Ms. Romney is broadly considered a Stepford wife (reference to obscure '70's movie--with even more obscure 2004 remake!--about suburban wives who were replaced by robots, with nobody noticing the switch), and I think the characterization is unfair. She is a good, loyal Mormon wife, which means cheerfully accepting baby-making house slave roles, but I believe she has a good head on her shoulders. This is an opportunity for her to show what she can do with it, as well as being a convention curiosity item--and perhaps it may be a gauntlet thrown down to First Lady Michelle Obama, who might feel she has to respond with her own speech in a couple of weeks. I'm guessing Ann's results will not compel Michelle to act, and she will choose to try to stay above it all (her clear preference), but we will see.
Actually, though I have no great interest in the RepubliCon proceedings, these potential highlights I've named may hold greater interest than most of the Democratic convention coming up. It may be an even greater challenge for the Dems to come up with something interesting then.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Olympics Postview
As the London Olympics recede in the rear-view mirror, it's a good time to reflect before moving on to more pressing matters.
The Title IX Olympics
In terms of overall medal performance in the 2012 Summer Olympics, the most visible, significant result was the outstanding performance of American women. Much attention was given to the US' medal leading total, and to the 40 gold medals; little was given to the fact that women won 29 of those gold medals. With the exception of swimming and diving, the American women outpaced the men in terms of the results in sport after sport. Some examples: gymnastics: women 3 golds, men a couple of bronze medals; volleyball: women a gold and two silvers, men nothing; soccer: women gold, men didn't qualify; track relay races: women two golds, men two silvers; tennis: women two golds, men one (Bryan brothers). Both teams won gold in basketball, but the women's performance was considerably more dominant than the men's (which wasn't bad at all).
The point is not to demean the men's performance, just to point out that the US women stood out above their competition in a way the men did not. In terms of a reason why, I concluded that this is the payoff for some thirty years of Title IX requirements that women's sports get as much money as men's. Over time, this has provided the basis, in a wide variety of sports, for American women to develop world-leading talent. In men's sports, on the other hand, the money--facilities, coaches, and scholarships--mostly goes to the big revenue generators, basketball and football, with sports like track and field, or soccer, or tennis getting the leavings in most colleges.
(I mentioned this to a colleague, who told me that NPR had made the same characterization as my subhead title, but I came up with it independently, so I stick with it--without shame.)
Top Results - Of the five big possible stories I previewed, clearly the biggest for me was #5, the strong performance of American women; I think the performances of the women's soccer team and gymnastics team stand out. #4, Phelps vs. Lochte, was basically a one-week story, hyped to the hilt, though the Phelps record over all his Olympic appearances will remain a monument to his willingness to endure--the training, the pressure, the media attention--and to the excessive number of medals awarded in swimming. #3, the diverse nature of post Cold War Olympics success, was certainly there, without too much fuss, though. #2, the potential for a USA men's basketball defeat, was also there: both Spain and Lithuania (the latter, in a group non-elimination game) had divined the formula to beat the US, they just couldn't pull it off. In the end, it was the depth of the USA squad--which meant that a foul-laden war of attrition worked in our favor--and the sterling qualities of LeBron James which brought home the gold and saved them all embarrassment. #1, the British being unhospitable cheaters, did not happen: somewhat to my amazement, the British did extremely well (compared to recent Olympics results) but there was little complaint about it. The only instance I can recall was when their hotshot moviestar diver was given an extra chance on one of his dives when he fluffed it and complained of photography flashes getting in his eyes. The diver, Tom Daley, got a bronze medal, which probably annoyed the Chinese diving team, but they didn't make a public fuss.
In terms of individual or team performances, I want to mention (15-year old) Katie Lydecky again (800m swimming gold); Usain Bolt's redemption (three gold medals, an unprecedented repeat in the 200/100m races) and Muhammad Ali-style self-anointment as "a legend", the Russian men's volleyball team's gold medal in which they came from two sets down--and launched a potential superstar, their 7-foot-2 spiker Dmitri Muserskiy; and the unexpected re-emergence of the USA's competitiveness in middle distance running, which was itself upstaged by British 10k/5k gold medalist Mohammed ("Mo") Farah. Mo, born a Somali, was probably the biggest star of the whole sports show from the British point of view.
Coverage gripes - Fortunately the memory of the bad taste the NBC prime time telecasts give me is receding, too. The whole "we know who won, we're not going to tell you" smirking tone just makes me crazy. They did have a bunch of stuff on live during the day, but it was all stuff that was guaranteed not to be worthy of prime time, for which the content is heavily edited, and badly edited, old news. I don't need to say more, do I? If I need complain more, let me sum it up in two words: Bob Costas.
This is probably the place to mention the opening and closing ceremonies. It is fortunate I like British music so much; otherwise, I would have found them intolerable. These are always the occasion of excessive bragging by the home country; the British do have a lot to brag about in their history, but compared to Beijing or Sydney, for instance, there was little consideration of any kind of bright and shining future. Isn't there one?
Flying Forward to Rio--I'm hoping NBC will try a different approach in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil is 2 hours ahead of Eastern time, I believe, which will give them the chance to turn around results with only slight delay--for example, they could begin the telecast of something like gymnastics before it ended for that day. Maybe even show something live in prime time, guys?
Brazil is a bold choice indeed to host an Olympics. It continues a trend--which I consider a favorable one, as long as they don't follow my preference to hold it always in Athens and eliminate the national organizations--to feature emerging nations willing to take on the big challenge. Rio, 2016 is a worthy follower on the examples of Tokyo, 1964; Seoul, 1988; Sydney, 2000; and Beijing, 2008. They will have to do a lot of work to clean the city and its slums up for international inspection, but it is a big, spread-out city which will provide plenty of opportunity for urban renewal in spectacular vistas.
2020 selection is coming up soon, and the finalists are Tokyo, Madrid, and Istanbul. The betting favorite is Tokyo, which needs something to gear up its economy, but the same argument is somehow used against Madrid, and I cannot agree with that. Now, Istanbul would be an exciting choice and continue the Brazil line of thinking, but Turkey has been granted the European soccer championship that year and there is a rule (which I consider a stupid one) against both of those occurring in the same year, so they'd have to give it up to get the Olympics. The Turks are big-time soccer enthusiasts, so they may be happier without the Olympics, for now. So, I'm thinking Spain may get the surprise nod: it probably depends on largesse (read: money) doled out for lavish functions and lavish IOC functionaries, and that might appear the best (read: cheapest) investment yet for German Eurodollars.
Continental medal standings
Rather than giving any ink at all to the unofficial--but much too real and important--national medal standings (in my opinion, the clear winner was The Former Soviet Union, though you won't hear that perspective from anyone else, ever!), I've been following the standings by continent and my hypothesis that Europe dominates it. Here is a compelling reason to make the European Union sovereign; it would take over the top of the Olympics standings!
Here are my extremely unofficial final tabulations:
Europe* 97 Gold 108 Silver 110 Bronze (315 Total)
Asia* 68 Gold 65 Silver 71 Bronze (204 total)
North America+ 61 Gold 47 Silver 58 Bronze (166 total)
Australia/Oceania 12 Gold 19 Silver 17 Bronze (48 total)
Africa 11 Gold 12 Silver 11 Bronze (34 total)
South America 6 Gold 9 Silver 15 Bronze (30 total)
My conclusion is that Brazil and the rest of South American should be expected to pick up the pace and aim at fourth place in continental performance in 2016.
*Does not count any former Soviet Union. The breakdown of the FSU (by the way, total 47 Gold 44 Silver 73 Bronze, or 164 medals, vs. the US 46-29-29=104) is as follows:
Russia 24 Gold 25 Silver 33 Bronze (82 total)
FSU in Europe 12 Gold 12 Silver 20 Bronze (44 total)
FSU in Asia (including Caucusus) 11 Gold 7 Silver 20 Bronze (38 total).
It would be a highly technical, and totally unnecessary, effort to allocate Russia's medals by continent based on their winners' homes or hometowns. Even if all of Russia is considered Asia, Europe wins, 359-324, or in gold medals 109-103.
+ Includes the Caribbean.
The Title IX Olympics
In terms of overall medal performance in the 2012 Summer Olympics, the most visible, significant result was the outstanding performance of American women. Much attention was given to the US' medal leading total, and to the 40 gold medals; little was given to the fact that women won 29 of those gold medals. With the exception of swimming and diving, the American women outpaced the men in terms of the results in sport after sport. Some examples: gymnastics: women 3 golds, men a couple of bronze medals; volleyball: women a gold and two silvers, men nothing; soccer: women gold, men didn't qualify; track relay races: women two golds, men two silvers; tennis: women two golds, men one (Bryan brothers). Both teams won gold in basketball, but the women's performance was considerably more dominant than the men's (which wasn't bad at all).
The point is not to demean the men's performance, just to point out that the US women stood out above their competition in a way the men did not. In terms of a reason why, I concluded that this is the payoff for some thirty years of Title IX requirements that women's sports get as much money as men's. Over time, this has provided the basis, in a wide variety of sports, for American women to develop world-leading talent. In men's sports, on the other hand, the money--facilities, coaches, and scholarships--mostly goes to the big revenue generators, basketball and football, with sports like track and field, or soccer, or tennis getting the leavings in most colleges.
(I mentioned this to a colleague, who told me that NPR had made the same characterization as my subhead title, but I came up with it independently, so I stick with it--without shame.)
Top Results - Of the five big possible stories I previewed, clearly the biggest for me was #5, the strong performance of American women; I think the performances of the women's soccer team and gymnastics team stand out. #4, Phelps vs. Lochte, was basically a one-week story, hyped to the hilt, though the Phelps record over all his Olympic appearances will remain a monument to his willingness to endure--the training, the pressure, the media attention--and to the excessive number of medals awarded in swimming. #3, the diverse nature of post Cold War Olympics success, was certainly there, without too much fuss, though. #2, the potential for a USA men's basketball defeat, was also there: both Spain and Lithuania (the latter, in a group non-elimination game) had divined the formula to beat the US, they just couldn't pull it off. In the end, it was the depth of the USA squad--which meant that a foul-laden war of attrition worked in our favor--and the sterling qualities of LeBron James which brought home the gold and saved them all embarrassment. #1, the British being unhospitable cheaters, did not happen: somewhat to my amazement, the British did extremely well (compared to recent Olympics results) but there was little complaint about it. The only instance I can recall was when their hotshot moviestar diver was given an extra chance on one of his dives when he fluffed it and complained of photography flashes getting in his eyes. The diver, Tom Daley, got a bronze medal, which probably annoyed the Chinese diving team, but they didn't make a public fuss.
In terms of individual or team performances, I want to mention (15-year old) Katie Lydecky again (800m swimming gold); Usain Bolt's redemption (three gold medals, an unprecedented repeat in the 200/100m races) and Muhammad Ali-style self-anointment as "a legend", the Russian men's volleyball team's gold medal in which they came from two sets down--and launched a potential superstar, their 7-foot-2 spiker Dmitri Muserskiy; and the unexpected re-emergence of the USA's competitiveness in middle distance running, which was itself upstaged by British 10k/5k gold medalist Mohammed ("Mo") Farah. Mo, born a Somali, was probably the biggest star of the whole sports show from the British point of view.
Coverage gripes - Fortunately the memory of the bad taste the NBC prime time telecasts give me is receding, too. The whole "we know who won, we're not going to tell you" smirking tone just makes me crazy. They did have a bunch of stuff on live during the day, but it was all stuff that was guaranteed not to be worthy of prime time, for which the content is heavily edited, and badly edited, old news. I don't need to say more, do I? If I need complain more, let me sum it up in two words: Bob Costas.
This is probably the place to mention the opening and closing ceremonies. It is fortunate I like British music so much; otherwise, I would have found them intolerable. These are always the occasion of excessive bragging by the home country; the British do have a lot to brag about in their history, but compared to Beijing or Sydney, for instance, there was little consideration of any kind of bright and shining future. Isn't there one?
Flying Forward to Rio--I'm hoping NBC will try a different approach in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil is 2 hours ahead of Eastern time, I believe, which will give them the chance to turn around results with only slight delay--for example, they could begin the telecast of something like gymnastics before it ended for that day. Maybe even show something live in prime time, guys?
Brazil is a bold choice indeed to host an Olympics. It continues a trend--which I consider a favorable one, as long as they don't follow my preference to hold it always in Athens and eliminate the national organizations--to feature emerging nations willing to take on the big challenge. Rio, 2016 is a worthy follower on the examples of Tokyo, 1964; Seoul, 1988; Sydney, 2000; and Beijing, 2008. They will have to do a lot of work to clean the city and its slums up for international inspection, but it is a big, spread-out city which will provide plenty of opportunity for urban renewal in spectacular vistas.
2020 selection is coming up soon, and the finalists are Tokyo, Madrid, and Istanbul. The betting favorite is Tokyo, which needs something to gear up its economy, but the same argument is somehow used against Madrid, and I cannot agree with that. Now, Istanbul would be an exciting choice and continue the Brazil line of thinking, but Turkey has been granted the European soccer championship that year and there is a rule (which I consider a stupid one) against both of those occurring in the same year, so they'd have to give it up to get the Olympics. The Turks are big-time soccer enthusiasts, so they may be happier without the Olympics, for now. So, I'm thinking Spain may get the surprise nod: it probably depends on largesse (read: money) doled out for lavish functions and lavish IOC functionaries, and that might appear the best (read: cheapest) investment yet for German Eurodollars.
Continental medal standings
Rather than giving any ink at all to the unofficial--but much too real and important--national medal standings (in my opinion, the clear winner was The Former Soviet Union, though you won't hear that perspective from anyone else, ever!), I've been following the standings by continent and my hypothesis that Europe dominates it. Here is a compelling reason to make the European Union sovereign; it would take over the top of the Olympics standings!
Here are my extremely unofficial final tabulations:
Europe* 97 Gold 108 Silver 110 Bronze (315 Total)
Asia* 68 Gold 65 Silver 71 Bronze (204 total)
North America+ 61 Gold 47 Silver 58 Bronze (166 total)
Australia/Oceania 12 Gold 19 Silver 17 Bronze (48 total)
Africa 11 Gold 12 Silver 11 Bronze (34 total)
South America 6 Gold 9 Silver 15 Bronze (30 total)
My conclusion is that Brazil and the rest of South American should be expected to pick up the pace and aim at fourth place in continental performance in 2016.
*Does not count any former Soviet Union. The breakdown of the FSU (by the way, total 47 Gold 44 Silver 73 Bronze, or 164 medals, vs. the US 46-29-29=104) is as follows:
Russia 24 Gold 25 Silver 33 Bronze (82 total)
FSU in Europe 12 Gold 12 Silver 20 Bronze (44 total)
FSU in Asia (including Caucusus) 11 Gold 7 Silver 20 Bronze (38 total).
It would be a highly technical, and totally unnecessary, effort to allocate Russia's medals by continent based on their winners' homes or hometowns. Even if all of Russia is considered Asia, Europe wins, 359-324, or in gold medals 109-103.
+ Includes the Caribbean.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Paul Ryan's Express *
Mitt Romney finally made his choice for the VP slot on his ticket, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. I think it was one of the best choices he could make under the circumstances: Ryan is just a conservative white guy, but at least he's not one of the boring ones. Ryan is a rising star in the right-wing camp, a young thought leader who speaks clearly and has advocated principles which many in the country will applaud: restructuring entitlements now, reducing discretionary spending, cuts in the tax rates. Romney's credentials with the party's right wing members were suspect--this will enhance them and motivate them.
Ryan also seems like a decent person, sincere and respectful. There's no need to attack him personally; one good thing about the choice is that it will help focus the campaign on ideas and issues, instead of personal attacks. In that sense, it is a possible gamechanger. Romney needed to change the dynamic of the campaign, which had turned sharply against him in the last month or so. It was getting away from him fast, so I give him credit for being willing to take a chance to break out of the box--rich, out of touch, gaming the tax code for his own benefit--that he was rapidly being framed into.
Unfortunately, I don't think Ryan will do that much good for Romney, and running for VP on a ticket that is probably going to lose is not going to do that much for Ryan's career. Instead of positioning Romney as a moderate in his party and thus making his appeal to the middle--the pivot to the center we have been expecting from the general election campaign--Ryan will plant Romney more firmly on the right. Ryan may help Romney win Wisconsin, a state that, after the Gov. Walker recall fracas, had a highly-motivated Republican base and looked competitive to me, but Romney can win Wisconsin and will still lose the election if he doesn't win two of the three critical swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
As for Ryan, while he's running to get a back office in the Executive suite, he better watch that he doesn't lose his House seat. I don't think VP/President was where he wanted to go next; Speaker of the House would have made more sense as a middle-term ambition. If/when Romney-Ryan loses, particularly if it's not close, Ryan may end up taking a lot of the blame for losing the swing voters. As for the Republican party, this year's primary campaign showed how weak their pool of top leaders is; Ryan vaults into the front and center of that picture, though it may be that the party has hitched its future to an unpopular set of principles that may be a political loser.
*Obscure reference to a WWII Allies "terrorism" film--hijacking a Nazi train--called "Von Ryan's Express" (1965) which starred Frank Sinatra, Trevor Howard, and Raffaele Carra. Like it or not, though the bus may be Romney's, he's now riding on Ryan's express, and Ryan's policy positions will be central to the debate and to the results of this year's election.
Ryan also seems like a decent person, sincere and respectful. There's no need to attack him personally; one good thing about the choice is that it will help focus the campaign on ideas and issues, instead of personal attacks. In that sense, it is a possible gamechanger. Romney needed to change the dynamic of the campaign, which had turned sharply against him in the last month or so. It was getting away from him fast, so I give him credit for being willing to take a chance to break out of the box--rich, out of touch, gaming the tax code for his own benefit--that he was rapidly being framed into.
Unfortunately, I don't think Ryan will do that much good for Romney, and running for VP on a ticket that is probably going to lose is not going to do that much for Ryan's career. Instead of positioning Romney as a moderate in his party and thus making his appeal to the middle--the pivot to the center we have been expecting from the general election campaign--Ryan will plant Romney more firmly on the right. Ryan may help Romney win Wisconsin, a state that, after the Gov. Walker recall fracas, had a highly-motivated Republican base and looked competitive to me, but Romney can win Wisconsin and will still lose the election if he doesn't win two of the three critical swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
As for Ryan, while he's running to get a back office in the Executive suite, he better watch that he doesn't lose his House seat. I don't think VP/President was where he wanted to go next; Speaker of the House would have made more sense as a middle-term ambition. If/when Romney-Ryan loses, particularly if it's not close, Ryan may end up taking a lot of the blame for losing the swing voters. As for the Republican party, this year's primary campaign showed how weak their pool of top leaders is; Ryan vaults into the front and center of that picture, though it may be that the party has hitched its future to an unpopular set of principles that may be a political loser.
*Obscure reference to a WWII Allies "terrorism" film--hijacking a Nazi train--called "Von Ryan's Express" (1965) which starred Frank Sinatra, Trevor Howard, and Raffaele Carra. Like it or not, though the bus may be Romney's, he's now riding on Ryan's express, and Ryan's policy positions will be central to the debate and to the results of this year's election.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Gore Vidal
The passing a couple days ago of one of the great battlers of 20th-century American literature, Gore Vidal, deserves comment from me, as I was a major fan of much of his writing.
I read several of his historical novels, always finding them entertaining and well-researched. Vidal was a permanent expatriate for the last couple decades of his life, but he was, in his way, a patriot of this country. He was a veteran of World War II, and a student of American history. He was not so fond of what America had become, but what it symbolized, the potential of what America brought to the global political table that was new and promising. These themes were evident in novels such as 1876, Lincoln, and Empire, in which he examined, from the point of view of (largely) unknown participants close to the action, the principles that made America great, on the one hand, and their violation in key historical events (Empire was about the Spanish-American war; 1876 the incredible election that year; the other, of course, the Presidency of Lincoln).
Burr was a more ambitious effort, told from the point of view of Aaron Burr; for Vidal, Burr was the Founding Father whose role history had neglected, and his novel corrects it somewhat, focusing in particular on Burr's prominent role in the Revolutionary War, his leadership (along with Thomas Jefferson) of the anti-Federalists, and his central role in the disastrous Electoral College constitutional crisis in the Presidential election of 1800. If Vidal wanted to make Burr loved, though, it was not an effort that could succeed. Burr was a soldier of fortune, a schemer, like Benedict Arnold; in fact, in his later days, Burr was lucky not to have been executed for treason. Finally, of course, Burr was the rival and sworn enemy of Alexander Hamilton, and the one who ultimately killed Hamilton in a duel--the reasons for which were only suggested (Hamilton spreading rumors of Burr's having an incestuous relationship with his daughter). For me, Vidal identified with Burr as an insider/outsider who was rejected by the elements of "proper society" where he (Vidal/Burr) believed that he belonged.
My favorite of his historical novels, though, was Creation, something quite different. What Vidal was trying to get at was explaining the movement creating new religions, which occurred independently in several different parts of Europe and Asia in roughly the sixth century B.C. It was told from the point of view of a Zoroastrian, the first monotheistic religion, which developed in Persia, who visited both to the West and the East and found a ferment about the basic questions which religions sought to answer. A very important philosophical inquiry, in the form of an engaging adventure story.
I loved reading his essays. His themes were consistent, almost repetitive: anti-war, anti-imperialist, seeking and finding conspiracies of evil intent, politicians (of both parties) taking advantage of the naive and poorly informed. It was his style which made them worthwhile: he was a polemicist who would never give ground, who utilized all the rhetorical tools, including satire, ad hominem attacks, logic, and ridicule, to great effect.
I was a little less interested in his social commentary; for one thing, he wasn't too close to American society, being a patrician by birth and an expatriate by choice. He was bisexual, tending toward same-sex; he was discriminated against, people tried to humiliate him for it, but he was not a spokesman for sexual freedom--at least not directly. Of course, he did write Myra Breckinridge, a farce about sex change, which was pretty far outside the lines of "normality" at its time, but it wasn't all that entertaining: its main appeal is the unique pairing of two sexpots from different generations--Raquel Welch and Mae West--in the same movie.
One thing I do in my obituaries of celebrities is to discuss the role of their fame in their life. Vidal's peak of fame came in the late '60's, after his vitriolic encounters with William F. Buckley, Jr, when both were brought on as TV commentators for the 1968 Democratic convention. Buckley called him a "queer" and threatened him with violence, Vidal called Buckley a Nazi. Vidal got a (deserved) reputation from that in the American public as cranky, prickly; this was called out in the famous Lily Tomlin sketches on "Laugh-In" in which she played an unctuous, but ignorant, phone company representative ("Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" she would ask) calling "Mr. Veedle" about his problems with his phone service. Vidal was already someone who lived more in Italy than the USA, but this was not the kind of notoriety he wanted (though I believe he was a good sport, and did some cameo appearances on the show). His search for privacy, I believe, led him permanently abroad, and he gradually faded from public view--except in certain circles. He maintained a good literary reputation, though, politically, he was far from acceptable.
I will give him personal credit--although I had already formulated the term "Bushite", I first saw it in print (outside my blog) when reading an essay of his in The Last Empire--written in 2000! He was referring to the insubstantial political philosophy of "Bushism", and did not draw out the colloquial, defecatory allusion which I also favor.
I read several of his historical novels, always finding them entertaining and well-researched. Vidal was a permanent expatriate for the last couple decades of his life, but he was, in his way, a patriot of this country. He was a veteran of World War II, and a student of American history. He was not so fond of what America had become, but what it symbolized, the potential of what America brought to the global political table that was new and promising. These themes were evident in novels such as 1876, Lincoln, and Empire, in which he examined, from the point of view of (largely) unknown participants close to the action, the principles that made America great, on the one hand, and their violation in key historical events (Empire was about the Spanish-American war; 1876 the incredible election that year; the other, of course, the Presidency of Lincoln).
Burr was a more ambitious effort, told from the point of view of Aaron Burr; for Vidal, Burr was the Founding Father whose role history had neglected, and his novel corrects it somewhat, focusing in particular on Burr's prominent role in the Revolutionary War, his leadership (along with Thomas Jefferson) of the anti-Federalists, and his central role in the disastrous Electoral College constitutional crisis in the Presidential election of 1800. If Vidal wanted to make Burr loved, though, it was not an effort that could succeed. Burr was a soldier of fortune, a schemer, like Benedict Arnold; in fact, in his later days, Burr was lucky not to have been executed for treason. Finally, of course, Burr was the rival and sworn enemy of Alexander Hamilton, and the one who ultimately killed Hamilton in a duel--the reasons for which were only suggested (Hamilton spreading rumors of Burr's having an incestuous relationship with his daughter). For me, Vidal identified with Burr as an insider/outsider who was rejected by the elements of "proper society" where he (Vidal/Burr) believed that he belonged.
My favorite of his historical novels, though, was Creation, something quite different. What Vidal was trying to get at was explaining the movement creating new religions, which occurred independently in several different parts of Europe and Asia in roughly the sixth century B.C. It was told from the point of view of a Zoroastrian, the first monotheistic religion, which developed in Persia, who visited both to the West and the East and found a ferment about the basic questions which religions sought to answer. A very important philosophical inquiry, in the form of an engaging adventure story.
I loved reading his essays. His themes were consistent, almost repetitive: anti-war, anti-imperialist, seeking and finding conspiracies of evil intent, politicians (of both parties) taking advantage of the naive and poorly informed. It was his style which made them worthwhile: he was a polemicist who would never give ground, who utilized all the rhetorical tools, including satire, ad hominem attacks, logic, and ridicule, to great effect.
I was a little less interested in his social commentary; for one thing, he wasn't too close to American society, being a patrician by birth and an expatriate by choice. He was bisexual, tending toward same-sex; he was discriminated against, people tried to humiliate him for it, but he was not a spokesman for sexual freedom--at least not directly. Of course, he did write Myra Breckinridge, a farce about sex change, which was pretty far outside the lines of "normality" at its time, but it wasn't all that entertaining: its main appeal is the unique pairing of two sexpots from different generations--Raquel Welch and Mae West--in the same movie.
One thing I do in my obituaries of celebrities is to discuss the role of their fame in their life. Vidal's peak of fame came in the late '60's, after his vitriolic encounters with William F. Buckley, Jr, when both were brought on as TV commentators for the 1968 Democratic convention. Buckley called him a "queer" and threatened him with violence, Vidal called Buckley a Nazi. Vidal got a (deserved) reputation from that in the American public as cranky, prickly; this was called out in the famous Lily Tomlin sketches on "Laugh-In" in which she played an unctuous, but ignorant, phone company representative ("Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" she would ask) calling "Mr. Veedle" about his problems with his phone service. Vidal was already someone who lived more in Italy than the USA, but this was not the kind of notoriety he wanted (though I believe he was a good sport, and did some cameo appearances on the show). His search for privacy, I believe, led him permanently abroad, and he gradually faded from public view--except in certain circles. He maintained a good literary reputation, though, politically, he was far from acceptable.
I will give him personal credit--although I had already formulated the term "Bushite", I first saw it in print (outside my blog) when reading an essay of his in The Last Empire--written in 2000! He was referring to the insubstantial political philosophy of "Bushism", and did not draw out the colloquial, defecatory allusion which I also favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
