World Cup Knockout Rounds
48 of the 64 games have been played, and still we know very little about the ultimate outcome of the World Cup.
I posted my excuses for not seeing much of the first round in a comment recently; despite that, I am willing to stick my neck out a bit and look forward to the rest of the tournament. It is only after the first round that one can actually do this, because now we can see the matchups ahead. The big change in the outlook from what one would have foreseen going in was the unexpected elimination of Germany--kudos to Mexico and South Korea, who defeated them (and for that matter, Sweden, who were unlucky to lose to them).
The next two rounds can be thought of as little grouplets of four--teams need to get through two wins to make it to the semifinals, which is generally the mark of a successful World Cup campaign (unless you're for Brazil or Germany). The semifinal and the final are showtime; the drama is at the center. There is much less drama, or glory, in these next two rounds, but with no single team standing out, there will be the fog of battle, with four teams emerging.
Top Left grouplet (round of 16 games today) - What I would describe as an ugly group. France and Uruguay are two of the three teams who won all three games in the first round (Belgium is the other), but that means nothing now--it is more a reflection of the opponents they drew. Argentina barely survived, as they also barely made the field, but they are still there. And Portugal played the in the most exciting match of the first round (the 3-3 draw with Spain). This is a bloody mess; I would guess Uruguay gets through.
Top Right grouplet (Sunday) - Spain vs. Russia, in Moscow, is an interesting game; Spain should be a big favorite but Russia is playing well. The key game in the group should be the quarterfinal between Spain and Croatia, and I would lean toward picking the Croats, in an upset.
Bottom Left (Monday) - For me, the two teams that most look like world-dominating Cup winners are Belgium and Brazil, who should meet in the quarterfinal. If they get through their next games: I don't see Belgium having trouble with Japan, but the Brazil-Mexico game could be a highlight of the tournament. Let's go with Brazil from this group.
Bottom Right (Tuesday) - This is a fairly weak grouplet. England has looked good; they have a good test against Colombia, though Colombia may not have their star player, James Rodriguez. The winner of that match should be favored over the Sweden-Switzerland winner (two countries whose shorthand names always confuse). OK, England.
As for the look-ahead to the final, I would ask the reader: is Moscow part of Europe? If the answer is yes, then pick England, Croatia (or Spain/Belgium); if not, then the winner should be Brazil (or Uruguay or Colombia). This based on historical precedent of location of games/region of winner, which has been broken only once in recent history (2014, when Germany won in Brazil--that wasn't supposed to happen, ask any Brazilian).
The predominance of the European and Latin American teams in getting through the first round is obvious: no teams from Africa (Senegal deserved it but was edged out by Japan though a hinky tiebreaker), Japan the only one from Asia, and Mexico the single standout from the North America/Caribbean configuration. Old school.
MLB: The halfway point
The pennant races are a tale of two leagues with completely different stories: it is the best of times for the National League, with 9 or 10 teams battling for the five postseason spots. Nothing is assured, and there are some genuine surprises, like all three division leaders at this point (Atlanta instead of Washington, Milwaukee instead of Chicago, and Arizona instead of Los Angeles). Those three favored teams are also very much in the mix, though, and their proven talent may win out. There should be some exciting races which go down to the end.
It will be the worst of times for the American League, for which all five teams for the postseason are virtually assured, barring a collapse. There will be an attempt to hype the importance of the Yankees vs. Red Sox for first in the East, or for Houston vs. Seattle in the West, and currently there is a hype effort in favor of the Oakland A's chances, but the A's are seven games out from the second wild card spot. They are the only apparent challenger to the Assured Five (Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Astros, and Mariners).
The most interesting baseball story is the continuing emergence of exciting young players. This year the focus is on Ronald Acuna Jr. of the Braves and two-way start Shohei Ohtani of the Angels (I keep thinking Acuna-Ohtani, sounds like "Hakuna Matata"). Both are recovering from injuries right now but have shown huge potential. Rookie pitchers are taking longer to emerge (and Ohtani may have to give up on the pitching portion of his emerging stardom), but there are some strong second-year efforts from Blake Snell (Tampa Bay), Aaron Nola (Philadelphia), and reliever Josh Hader (Milwaukee).
In terms of hitting stars, many familiar names among the leaders (Trout, Harper, Judge, Betts, Arenado), but also some surprising ones--J.D. Martinez, Jesus Aguilar, Nick Markakis, Scooter Gennett. Overall, though the AL race looks dreary for the second half, the game looks healthy to me.
NBA Offseason Shuffle
The stasis at the top--Golden State vs. Cleveland in the Finals for the fourth year in a row--had to give way --thankfully--and the Warriors aren't going anywhere. So the question for this offseason is whether any team can brew up a viable challenger to them. Last year's effort--the Houston Rockets with MVP James Harden and Chris Paul came ever so close (the other synthetic effort, with Russell Westbrook, Carmelo Anthony, and Paul George on Oklahoma City, fell way short). The buzz is that the Lakers are trying to put together a super-team; I like the Celtics if they get one more star. The main pieces are Lebron James, who has once again decided to take his talents away from Cleveland; Kawhi Leonard, who somehow became disenchanted with the best franchise in sports, the San Antonio Spurs, and George. All (for next season) will be revealed soon.
Finally, the college basketball outlook for next season is starting to clarify, now that the NBA draft is over (who's left?) and the commitments from incoming freshmen/transfers are nearing completion. Kentucky is standing tall as the favorite, with yet another top freshman recruiting season, a key transfer, and a couple of valuable holdovers (despite having six underclassmen players drafted by the pros). That's pretty exciting for me and the other Wildcat fans.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Anthony Kennedy
The swing vote on the Supreme Court submitted his resignation today, going out as he went in: a Republican regular. He held back on his plan, waiting to see how he could be most useful to the party (staying in longer or going), and when Trump's White House asked him if he would resign, he gave them what they wanted.
Unlike most things the Trumpsters do, this was a carefully prepared plan. Trump has gone out of his way to ingratiate himself with Kennedy, and the White House, after consulting with Majority Turtle McConnell, decided to push the button.
It is a sad fact that the timing is more about giving the Republican, party something new to make their campaign around, motivating their still pissed-off base to show up, than it is out of concern that they have to move before the elections' result is reflected in the new Senate.
I really don't think that fear of a Democratic takeover drove the calculations, they were just making sure. And there is surely nothing the Democrats can do to block this right-wing takeover ploy, if the Republicans stick together. For Trump, that means picking a nominee who is smart enough not to give away his positions on ending abortion, undoing gay marriage, reversing Obamacare's constitutionality, and other outrages. The Democrats can not successfully filibuster this past the end of this Congress, though they could make the electoral campaign season difficult. But that would only hurt the many Democrats who need to campaign to protect their seats. So, unless Susan Collins and some other Republican will stand up against this nominee--I see a 49-49 vote as a possibility, with Pence the tiebreaker--Trump could indeed pick someone who is a party hack, like Kennedy.
Many Tea Party types were furious at Kennedy, who did not always vote with the four extremists (at least three, with Chief Justice Roberts the fourth) and go along with the right wing view. Many thought he was too unpredictable, but I would characterize him as very much a moderate Republican with libertarian tendencies. Just the kind of Republican who it is hard to find today, and it seems Kennedy was really a little less independent, a little more willing to play ball with his hack movement than he may have seemed.
He may be remembered for some decisions that enabled progress, but he will also be remembered for this craven retirement and for Bush v. Gore. Now the new swing vote will be Roberts, unless Trump goes for someone ideologically to Roberts' left. That would not be a bad strategy if the goal were a quick approval, but I really think the point is to drag it out and point to the Democrats' united, but futile, negative stance during the campaign. The Democrats will respond "Merrick Garland" and the public will say "Who?"
The Democratic organizations will cite this struggle as a reason to give them money. This argument makes no sense to me. All promises that anything Democratic supporters can do will make a difference are illusionary (except maybe those who reside in Alaska, Arizona, or Maine). The real point is that this must be the LAST Republican Supreme Court Justice. Ever.
Unlike most things the Trumpsters do, this was a carefully prepared plan. Trump has gone out of his way to ingratiate himself with Kennedy, and the White House, after consulting with Majority Turtle McConnell, decided to push the button.
It is a sad fact that the timing is more about giving the Republican, party something new to make their campaign around, motivating their still pissed-off base to show up, than it is out of concern that they have to move before the elections' result is reflected in the new Senate.
I really don't think that fear of a Democratic takeover drove the calculations, they were just making sure. And there is surely nothing the Democrats can do to block this right-wing takeover ploy, if the Republicans stick together. For Trump, that means picking a nominee who is smart enough not to give away his positions on ending abortion, undoing gay marriage, reversing Obamacare's constitutionality, and other outrages. The Democrats can not successfully filibuster this past the end of this Congress, though they could make the electoral campaign season difficult. But that would only hurt the many Democrats who need to campaign to protect their seats. So, unless Susan Collins and some other Republican will stand up against this nominee--I see a 49-49 vote as a possibility, with Pence the tiebreaker--Trump could indeed pick someone who is a party hack, like Kennedy.
Many Tea Party types were furious at Kennedy, who did not always vote with the four extremists (at least three, with Chief Justice Roberts the fourth) and go along with the right wing view. Many thought he was too unpredictable, but I would characterize him as very much a moderate Republican with libertarian tendencies. Just the kind of Republican who it is hard to find today, and it seems Kennedy was really a little less independent, a little more willing to play ball with his hack movement than he may have seemed.
He may be remembered for some decisions that enabled progress, but he will also be remembered for this craven retirement and for Bush v. Gore. Now the new swing vote will be Roberts, unless Trump goes for someone ideologically to Roberts' left. That would not be a bad strategy if the goal were a quick approval, but I really think the point is to drag it out and point to the Democrats' united, but futile, negative stance during the campaign. The Democrats will respond "Merrick Garland" and the public will say "Who?"
The Democratic organizations will cite this struggle as a reason to give them money. This argument makes no sense to me. All promises that anything Democratic supporters can do will make a difference are illusionary (except maybe those who reside in Alaska, Arizona, or Maine). The real point is that this must be the LAST Republican Supreme Court Justice. Ever.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Cultural Observations
Civility Wars
Let's start with Robert DeNiro's "F--- Trump" expostulation at the Tony Awards. It was bleeped on live US TV by the six-second buffer manager, but it got out elsewhere and went viral on the Internet. So, mission accomplished? I would say not. He was heavily criticized, even by those who agreed with the sentiment, and it provided an excuse for Drumpfites to gleefully equate the bad behavior of their political opponents with their hero's misbehavior.
I don't care so much about that; we are not required to be respectful to the Orange Dingleberry Who Happens to be Head of State and Chief Executive, (may he eat something foul and sicken beyond recovery), but I do question the efficacy of the comment, which I would add was unscripted and completely out of context. The sentence is in the imperative form, telling us to do something which I have absolutely no desire to do. I don't really care about his love life, with Melania, Stormy, or whoever; in fact, it's pretty grotesque even to think of it.
Instead I would have preferred "Depose Trump!" meaning both to remove him from office and also suggestion to subject him to making a deposition, a formal testimony under oath, which would be a good means to putting him permanently on defensive, if not on the way out (see Clinton, Bill, and Lewinsky, Monica).
Next, the Incident at Red Hen, the restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, when the owner turned away "Trump's Mouthpiece" (as she was called, quite accurately) Sarah Huckabee Sanders, not allowing her party to dine there. Again, I have no quarrel with the underlying sentiment, and I would assert both that she has the right to deny service based on her political opinion and that Sanders, in a public venue, is fair game for members of the public to rebuke or otherwise take her to task. In Sanders' defense, I will say that her job is a thankless one and an easy target for attack: press secretaries for all Presidents have to prevaricate, obfuscate, and even lie on occasion at their boss' direction, though Sanders is worse than most in both frequency and manner of the false and fallacious.
I would say, though, that the owner's action is probably a net bad-for-business choice (maybe she accepts that gladly), and that there was a better way to handle it. It was discreetly handled by both parties, so the ruckus was all later. I say, do your job, allow her to be served, but then put her in the arena and let the public have at her. Something like what the cast members of "Hamilton" chose to do when they saw Mike Pence in the audience.
Then we come to TV comic/political commentator Samantha Bee, who called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t". Everyone focused on the pejorative reference to the female sexual member of the "female member of the Administration", as Sanders later described her. Very little attention was paid to the real point, the "feckless" aspect--and again, I do not want to go there literally, to imagine what is involved with that organ's being truly feckless, but I suspect the word choice had something to do with a similar-sounding adjective suggesting a lack of sexual activity. Anyway, the point was supposed to be that Ivanka should be using her presumed influence with her classic clueless old fart father, to get him to stop being such a (euphemism alert!) deadhead about the DACA Dreamers, for whom she is believed to be sympathetic.
Bee's comment was wrong on several levels: 1) the presumed influence part--Donald is notoriously hard to persuade about anything, and his view of his daughter is that she is a shiny object which reflects well upon him, nothing more; 2) Ivanka's sympathies clearly take second place to her main objective, which is to exploit her privileged position to make lots of money for the family; and 3) the word choice, as I suggested above, was totally a distraction. For which Bee apologized.
Should Bee have been fired? That's an economic decision made by the TV network, for their good or ill. I know that the career of Kathy Griffin was totally disrupted when she made a joke in bad taste about Drumpf being beheaded (though she is on the rebound). I will say that George Carlin's "seven words you cannot say on television" are being violated, as Bee did, with great frequency these days;.
I will not judge the balance of increased freedom vs. decreased civility tested in these cases. I will say that things are heating up and emotions are high, what with an impending Congressional midterm election that is looking very close (both House and Senate), with the proposals to remove the protection for pre-existing conditions from the ACA healthcare plans, and with the frenzy about the separation of children from their undocumented parents. This latter is just another example of the intentional cruelty with which this administration governs, only this time it was exceptionally badly calculated in a political sense.
Real Quick Reviews
The Death of Stalin - some will like it, some won't. I thought it was great political satire, with good casting, and close enough to the truth.
Black Panther - Like last year's "Wonder Woman", a successful move to establish that everyone deserves an escapist superhero that resembles and represents. The cultural complexity of Wauconda (I prefer the Illinois town spelling) was the product of a lot of careful thought.
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury has died, so there is no longer any effective control over the content (which seemed to be distorted, focusing on the Orwellian, instead of the anti-intellectualism at the story's center). Latest generation's likely response: Yawn--what are books, anyway?
Ocean's 8 - I give the writers some credit for the effort to revive the tired scenario (complex revenge heist), which is at least an entertaining one. It looks to have been a lot of fun for all the various famed damsels, which was probably the main point. I would also credit casting for the discovery of "Awkwafina", who I think could be a rising star for Generation Z.
Trailer for "A Star Is Born" - we're talking about Lady Gaga as a movie star. I'm buying it; hopefully the movie itself will be more than a third round of retread.
Music: Is the Resistance translating into our culture yet? I have no doubt about where most of the musicians' heads are at, but will they dare to come out and say it? I'm looking to the Boss (Springsteen) to be the ringleader (springboard?) of a resistance movement in music, but not this year.
March for our Lives: Remember this? It was about children pleading for a change in the system which has incubated and facilitated school shootings. I say nobody gets to bleat about the separation of the children from their parents unless they are also on board with some "common-sense gun reforms".
Obit Dept (way overdue)
Rusty Staub Mar. 29 -- a fine American (he was American, not Canadian, right? sometimes the borders get obscured--see Joni Mitchell, Samantha Bee....) and a fine baseball person. An especially good pinch-hitter (look it up if you need to know). I hear the restaurant was good, too
Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemalan strongman Apr. 1. RIP--as in, rip his corpse out of the grave and leave him for the vultures to eat. He ordered the annihilation of thousands of his countrymen, focusing on Native American peasants. Evil that should be remembered.
Roger Bannister Mar. 3 - remember the concept of the amateur athlete? Bannister, the first to break the four-minute barrier for a mile run (unaided), was a medical student. There's been about a 7% improvement in the time for the distance since 1954, though the race isn't run much these days (the Olympic distance of 1500 meters predominates, but the IAAF still keeps track of the record for this one non-metric distance--the 100-yard dash, not so much).
Stephen Hawking, Mar. 14 (age 76)--How did he live so long with ALS? He must have been a genius. Thank you for your insights, sir, and may we be worthy of them someday.
Cynthia Heimel - Feb. 25 -- She was one of my heroes, back when she was teaching me more about how women view sex than I was getting elsewhere (late '70's?) I read her columns in the Village Voice, and I hungrily digested her humorous "Sex Tips for Girls". My one gripe was that I didn't care for her taste in men (sensitive cowboy types, as opposed to smartass overeducated ones), but that was clearly none of my business.
Tom Wolfe, Philip Roth (May 14 and 22) - These two leading American writers will now be linked through the proximity of their deaths. They were similar in one sense, being prolific, highly-observant writers who peaked during a very interesting period in this country, the late 20th century. Wolfe was quite a sight to see around town in NYC, unmistakable for his Richie Rich clothing. His writing was highly colorful, both nonfiction (one of the "New Journalists") and fiction. I was partial to "The Right Stuff" (about the early US astronauts) and "Bonfire of the Vanities" (social commentary in novel form about white privilege--must've been somewhat autobiographical, no?) As for Roth, he was perhaps too prolific--I got tired of multiple novels on the same subjects. My favorite Roth piece was a withering satire play about Nixon and his cronies, "Our Gang"--generally forgotten today, though it might be instructive for understanding the Drumpfenreich White House.
Charles Krauthammer June 21 - His ugly puss haunts me; I saw more of it than I would have liked to have done. I would describe him as a latter-day William Buckley, someone who insisted on his view of conservative purity, but did so with dignity. For that, and for some late evidence that he repudiated Drumpfism as not consistent with his brand of conservatism, I will (mostly) respect his passing.
Walter A. Bahr June 18 - star, and last survinving member, of US soccer team that achieved a huge upset, of England in the 1950 World Cup, 1-0. Aged 91. Again, amateur athletes achieving greatness.
Wayne Huizenga Mar. 22 - (Modern capitalist - owner of Waste Management, Blockbuster Video, Florida sports teams) I will say that WM still leads its field, unrivaled. The other enterprises haven't held up so well.
World Cup and Politics
I close with some comment about a news story you may have missed. The World Cup of soccer is truly culture, global culture, but, like the Olympics, has more than a little nationalism involved. In one of the first round matches, Switzerland defeated Serbia, 2-1. The two goal scorers for Switzerland's team, which is amazingly diverse in its team members' origins (somehow all Swiss--reminds me of when that landlocked country won the top prize in sailing, the America's Cup), were both Albanians by birth, of Kosovar ethnic origin. You will recall that much of the latter portion of the Yugoslavian wars of the 1990's (after the Bosnia war got settled) had to do with the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.
Anyway, these two Kosovar/Albanian/Swiss players made a signal with their hands after scoring their goals which was seen as being a reference to the double-eagle on the Kosovo flag. The Serbians in attendance took exception to this form of celebration--I don't know about the Serbian players. There is a specific rule in the FIFA handbook stating that the penalty for provocative behavior is a two-game suspension. If that is applied to these two, it will be a likely deathblow to Switzerland's team, who have some legitimate hopes after a surprise draw against Brazil in their first game (along with defeating Serbia). The pivotal aspect of interest was that the players' symbolism didn't relate to something Swiss, like what--chocolate? but to their own transnational background; it was indeed a form of taunting the Serbs, but does it deserve the Swiss getting a TKO (boxing term: technical knockout)?
Stay tuned to see how this delicate soccer diplomatic rhubarb gets settled. I will include an update for my preview of the knockout rounds of the Cup, later this week.
Let's start with Robert DeNiro's "F--- Trump" expostulation at the Tony Awards. It was bleeped on live US TV by the six-second buffer manager, but it got out elsewhere and went viral on the Internet. So, mission accomplished? I would say not. He was heavily criticized, even by those who agreed with the sentiment, and it provided an excuse for Drumpfites to gleefully equate the bad behavior of their political opponents with their hero's misbehavior.
I don't care so much about that; we are not required to be respectful to the Orange Dingleberry Who Happens to be Head of State and Chief Executive, (may he eat something foul and sicken beyond recovery), but I do question the efficacy of the comment, which I would add was unscripted and completely out of context. The sentence is in the imperative form, telling us to do something which I have absolutely no desire to do. I don't really care about his love life, with Melania, Stormy, or whoever; in fact, it's pretty grotesque even to think of it.
Instead I would have preferred "Depose Trump!" meaning both to remove him from office and also suggestion to subject him to making a deposition, a formal testimony under oath, which would be a good means to putting him permanently on defensive, if not on the way out (see Clinton, Bill, and Lewinsky, Monica).
Next, the Incident at Red Hen, the restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, when the owner turned away "Trump's Mouthpiece" (as she was called, quite accurately) Sarah Huckabee Sanders, not allowing her party to dine there. Again, I have no quarrel with the underlying sentiment, and I would assert both that she has the right to deny service based on her political opinion and that Sanders, in a public venue, is fair game for members of the public to rebuke or otherwise take her to task. In Sanders' defense, I will say that her job is a thankless one and an easy target for attack: press secretaries for all Presidents have to prevaricate, obfuscate, and even lie on occasion at their boss' direction, though Sanders is worse than most in both frequency and manner of the false and fallacious.
I would say, though, that the owner's action is probably a net bad-for-business choice (maybe she accepts that gladly), and that there was a better way to handle it. It was discreetly handled by both parties, so the ruckus was all later. I say, do your job, allow her to be served, but then put her in the arena and let the public have at her. Something like what the cast members of "Hamilton" chose to do when they saw Mike Pence in the audience.
Then we come to TV comic/political commentator Samantha Bee, who called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t". Everyone focused on the pejorative reference to the female sexual member of the "female member of the Administration", as Sanders later described her. Very little attention was paid to the real point, the "feckless" aspect--and again, I do not want to go there literally, to imagine what is involved with that organ's being truly feckless, but I suspect the word choice had something to do with a similar-sounding adjective suggesting a lack of sexual activity. Anyway, the point was supposed to be that Ivanka should be using her presumed influence with her classic clueless old fart father, to get him to stop being such a (euphemism alert!) deadhead about the DACA Dreamers, for whom she is believed to be sympathetic.
Bee's comment was wrong on several levels: 1) the presumed influence part--Donald is notoriously hard to persuade about anything, and his view of his daughter is that she is a shiny object which reflects well upon him, nothing more; 2) Ivanka's sympathies clearly take second place to her main objective, which is to exploit her privileged position to make lots of money for the family; and 3) the word choice, as I suggested above, was totally a distraction. For which Bee apologized.
Should Bee have been fired? That's an economic decision made by the TV network, for their good or ill. I know that the career of Kathy Griffin was totally disrupted when she made a joke in bad taste about Drumpf being beheaded (though she is on the rebound). I will say that George Carlin's "seven words you cannot say on television" are being violated, as Bee did, with great frequency these days;.
I will not judge the balance of increased freedom vs. decreased civility tested in these cases. I will say that things are heating up and emotions are high, what with an impending Congressional midterm election that is looking very close (both House and Senate), with the proposals to remove the protection for pre-existing conditions from the ACA healthcare plans, and with the frenzy about the separation of children from their undocumented parents. This latter is just another example of the intentional cruelty with which this administration governs, only this time it was exceptionally badly calculated in a political sense.
Real Quick Reviews
The Death of Stalin - some will like it, some won't. I thought it was great political satire, with good casting, and close enough to the truth.
Black Panther - Like last year's "Wonder Woman", a successful move to establish that everyone deserves an escapist superhero that resembles and represents. The cultural complexity of Wauconda (I prefer the Illinois town spelling) was the product of a lot of careful thought.
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury has died, so there is no longer any effective control over the content (which seemed to be distorted, focusing on the Orwellian, instead of the anti-intellectualism at the story's center). Latest generation's likely response: Yawn--what are books, anyway?
Ocean's 8 - I give the writers some credit for the effort to revive the tired scenario (complex revenge heist), which is at least an entertaining one. It looks to have been a lot of fun for all the various famed damsels, which was probably the main point. I would also credit casting for the discovery of "Awkwafina", who I think could be a rising star for Generation Z.
Trailer for "A Star Is Born" - we're talking about Lady Gaga as a movie star. I'm buying it; hopefully the movie itself will be more than a third round of retread.
Music: Is the Resistance translating into our culture yet? I have no doubt about where most of the musicians' heads are at, but will they dare to come out and say it? I'm looking to the Boss (Springsteen) to be the ringleader (springboard?) of a resistance movement in music, but not this year.
March for our Lives: Remember this? It was about children pleading for a change in the system which has incubated and facilitated school shootings. I say nobody gets to bleat about the separation of the children from their parents unless they are also on board with some "common-sense gun reforms".
Obit Dept (way overdue)
Rusty Staub Mar. 29 -- a fine American (he was American, not Canadian, right? sometimes the borders get obscured--see Joni Mitchell, Samantha Bee....) and a fine baseball person. An especially good pinch-hitter (look it up if you need to know). I hear the restaurant was good, too
Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemalan strongman Apr. 1. RIP--as in, rip his corpse out of the grave and leave him for the vultures to eat. He ordered the annihilation of thousands of his countrymen, focusing on Native American peasants. Evil that should be remembered.
Roger Bannister Mar. 3 - remember the concept of the amateur athlete? Bannister, the first to break the four-minute barrier for a mile run (unaided), was a medical student. There's been about a 7% improvement in the time for the distance since 1954, though the race isn't run much these days (the Olympic distance of 1500 meters predominates, but the IAAF still keeps track of the record for this one non-metric distance--the 100-yard dash, not so much).
Stephen Hawking, Mar. 14 (age 76)--How did he live so long with ALS? He must have been a genius. Thank you for your insights, sir, and may we be worthy of them someday.
Cynthia Heimel - Feb. 25 -- She was one of my heroes, back when she was teaching me more about how women view sex than I was getting elsewhere (late '70's?) I read her columns in the Village Voice, and I hungrily digested her humorous "Sex Tips for Girls". My one gripe was that I didn't care for her taste in men (sensitive cowboy types, as opposed to smartass overeducated ones), but that was clearly none of my business.
Tom Wolfe, Philip Roth (May 14 and 22) - These two leading American writers will now be linked through the proximity of their deaths. They were similar in one sense, being prolific, highly-observant writers who peaked during a very interesting period in this country, the late 20th century. Wolfe was quite a sight to see around town in NYC, unmistakable for his Richie Rich clothing. His writing was highly colorful, both nonfiction (one of the "New Journalists") and fiction. I was partial to "The Right Stuff" (about the early US astronauts) and "Bonfire of the Vanities" (social commentary in novel form about white privilege--must've been somewhat autobiographical, no?) As for Roth, he was perhaps too prolific--I got tired of multiple novels on the same subjects. My favorite Roth piece was a withering satire play about Nixon and his cronies, "Our Gang"--generally forgotten today, though it might be instructive for understanding the Drumpfenreich White House.
Charles Krauthammer June 21 - His ugly puss haunts me; I saw more of it than I would have liked to have done. I would describe him as a latter-day William Buckley, someone who insisted on his view of conservative purity, but did so with dignity. For that, and for some late evidence that he repudiated Drumpfism as not consistent with his brand of conservatism, I will (mostly) respect his passing.
Walter A. Bahr June 18 - star, and last survinving member, of US soccer team that achieved a huge upset, of England in the 1950 World Cup, 1-0. Aged 91. Again, amateur athletes achieving greatness.
Wayne Huizenga Mar. 22 - (Modern capitalist - owner of Waste Management, Blockbuster Video, Florida sports teams) I will say that WM still leads its field, unrivaled. The other enterprises haven't held up so well.
World Cup and Politics
I close with some comment about a news story you may have missed. The World Cup of soccer is truly culture, global culture, but, like the Olympics, has more than a little nationalism involved. In one of the first round matches, Switzerland defeated Serbia, 2-1. The two goal scorers for Switzerland's team, which is amazingly diverse in its team members' origins (somehow all Swiss--reminds me of when that landlocked country won the top prize in sailing, the America's Cup), were both Albanians by birth, of Kosovar ethnic origin. You will recall that much of the latter portion of the Yugoslavian wars of the 1990's (after the Bosnia war got settled) had to do with the independence of Kosovo from Serbia.
Anyway, these two Kosovar/Albanian/Swiss players made a signal with their hands after scoring their goals which was seen as being a reference to the double-eagle on the Kosovo flag. The Serbians in attendance took exception to this form of celebration--I don't know about the Serbian players. There is a specific rule in the FIFA handbook stating that the penalty for provocative behavior is a two-game suspension. If that is applied to these two, it will be a likely deathblow to Switzerland's team, who have some legitimate hopes after a surprise draw against Brazil in their first game (along with defeating Serbia). The pivotal aspect of interest was that the players' symbolism didn't relate to something Swiss, like what--chocolate? but to their own transnational background; it was indeed a form of taunting the Serbs, but does it deserve the Swiss getting a TKO (boxing term: technical knockout)?
Stay tuned to see how this delicate soccer diplomatic rhubarb gets settled. I will include an update for my preview of the knockout rounds of the Cup, later this week.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Turkey's Presidential Election
Today is the day that Turkey has the first round of its Presidential election. This is under a new constitution, approved by a narrow (and disputed) margin in a referendum, one that gives expanded powers to the head of state. The vote today is a critical step in President Erdogan's bid to achieve Putinist rule in his country for himself and his party.
The usually-fractured opposition has allied itself, sort of. Some of the parties came together around agreed candidates, but the real news is an agreement among all of the opposition parties to rally around the non-Erdogan candidate in the second round, if there is no majority. The fractional approach in this round is a tactic to maximize non-Erdogan vote in the first round and try to deny him a majority. It may be very close, once again, and once again, Erdogan may win with the help of some friends' ballot-box stuffing.
Still, I agree with the opposition's tactic of participating in the election--not boycotting it--even though there is hardly a level playing field (the media is overwhelmingly under Erdogan's thumb, and the integrity of voting certification is questionable). The boycott approach--tried recently in Venezuela--makes it certain that nothing positive can be accomplished, whereas a forcefully-contested political battle, carried all the way to its end, could have a massive effect, even if Erdogan gets what he wants from the election itself.
As I've expressed before, what happens in Turkey is pivotal for many different geopolitical frames--the European Union (defeat of Erdogan could re-open the possibility of Turkey's entering it), the Middle East (Turkey's a player in the Syria civil war, and is a leading participant in all the other regional negotiations/disputes), and international relations with Russia. The re-emergence of strong civil democratic values in the country--something Erdogan has been repressing particularly heavily in recent years--could be a turning point in the politics of Islamic countries, as well, if he were eventually defeated--in this election, or in the runoff, or by mobilization of opposition forces afterward.
I do not have positive expectations on the actual count, as the stakes may be too high for Erdogan not to interfere, but the fact that the opposition has jelled is very meaningful, at least at this moment.
Here and here is additional information which I found interesting on this event.
The usually-fractured opposition has allied itself, sort of. Some of the parties came together around agreed candidates, but the real news is an agreement among all of the opposition parties to rally around the non-Erdogan candidate in the second round, if there is no majority. The fractional approach in this round is a tactic to maximize non-Erdogan vote in the first round and try to deny him a majority. It may be very close, once again, and once again, Erdogan may win with the help of some friends' ballot-box stuffing.
Still, I agree with the opposition's tactic of participating in the election--not boycotting it--even though there is hardly a level playing field (the media is overwhelmingly under Erdogan's thumb, and the integrity of voting certification is questionable). The boycott approach--tried recently in Venezuela--makes it certain that nothing positive can be accomplished, whereas a forcefully-contested political battle, carried all the way to its end, could have a massive effect, even if Erdogan gets what he wants from the election itself.
As I've expressed before, what happens in Turkey is pivotal for many different geopolitical frames--the European Union (defeat of Erdogan could re-open the possibility of Turkey's entering it), the Middle East (Turkey's a player in the Syria civil war, and is a leading participant in all the other regional negotiations/disputes), and international relations with Russia. The re-emergence of strong civil democratic values in the country--something Erdogan has been repressing particularly heavily in recent years--could be a turning point in the politics of Islamic countries, as well, if he were eventually defeated--in this election, or in the runoff, or by mobilization of opposition forces afterward.
I do not have positive expectations on the actual count, as the stakes may be too high for Erdogan not to interfere, but the fact that the opposition has jelled is very meaningful, at least at this moment.
Here and here is additional information which I found interesting on this event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
