Time Out

 It may seem that I am obsessed with US politics, given the preponderance of posts in this year about the ongoing fail of our form of government.  It is not the case--like most of us, I have plenty of other considerations in play in my life, all the time. 

In my case, travel--arranging it and doing it--is a principal activity.  We have acquired a new apartment, in the tiny town of Bagnone, province of Massa/Carrara, NW corner of Tuscany (Italy), and making it into a home (second? first? TBD) is what we are doing right now. Italy's politics remain interesting to me, as a bystander of long duration, and I will opine on that at the right time.  One has to keep a close eye on the economy, domestic and global:  I will have something to say about AI, but suffice for now to say that, contrary to what the public and the reigning Dickhead think, the state of the economy has a lot less to do with the political environment than the mindset and behavior of the massive US consumer markets.  I want to comment on the reviving, but fractured, music scene, and definitely on movies, which seem finally to be shaking off the limiting superhero genre as their only viable product, this fall's serious output being the current evidence. 

Now, though, it's a good time to address sports. This time of year is one of the most interesting, to me anyway, with the baseball playoffs heading toward their climax, the football season (both kinds) getting into gear, and the basketball season getting underway. Of course there are a lot of other sports active in this season. Here, we've been seeing incredibly good early fall weather here; we had a cycling rally and a running one last weekend here in the area which attracted hundreds of participants around these small towns. I hear the marathon run in Boston was a big hit, and the one in New York is coming up (right before the election there, another worthy diversion from the national mess). My wife asks me to remind everyone of the Winter Olympics coming up in February, in northern Italy.  But let's focus--here, on the big three (or four). 

Football, American Style

I've been watching the game as it has emerged as the dominant sport in the US over the decades, but it would not be accurate to say I'm a fan. There are many aspects of it I dislike, above all the continuing toll of crippling and mind-destroying injuries--the control by corporatist billionaires is a given.  I've watched enough to be knowledgeable about the game, but not the individual players so much; most of them come and go too quickly for me to notice, except for one position.  The quarterbacks, of course, are what the game revolves around today:  who's hot, who's injured, who's getting the protection they need to succeed or finding ways to escape the pass rush, and those who don't, lose. The game remains fun to watch, perhaps now more than ever, as scoring climbs with pass defenders hampered more than ever, and the spectacle of the long pass, and how it gets set up, is as entertaining as ever.  I have to praise the innovation of the skycam and the alternative TV channel which dispenses with the constant analytical babble--we've got all these channels, they might as well use them. 

As a rule, I pay little to no attention to the NFL standings or even the teams' performances until late November, and this year is no exception. I do notice that some of the teams we are used to seeing dominate are suffering more losses early:  I'm sure most of them will get it straightened out by the end, quarterback injury status permitting, but in the meantime it's good for the game that some other teams are getting some play, like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Steelers with Aaron Rodgers (!) 

The college game is perhaps more intriguing right now.  The postseason playoffs expanded to 12 teams last year, and the tourney produced somewhat predictable results.  This year it looks as though nothing can be predicted:  the top teams have been taking turns beating each other week after week, and some surprising new powers have emerged, both ones with rich history but difficulties in recent years (Ole Miss, Texas A&M) and the improbable rise of the Indiana Hoosiers, long a doormat of the Big Ten, and James Madison, a university that was primarily a women's teachers college within my memory. What made IU and JMU possible is the transfer window, providing mobility for players that no other major team sport features (OK, college basketball).  What made Mississippi and Texas A&M go is the attraction among players to come and perform in the SEC, the only conference that matters anymore. The only thing certain seems to be that Ohio State will dominate the 16-team Big Ten and be there in the end--prove me wrong, someone!

The outstanding "human interest" story of college football this year is the saga of Arch Manning, the third-generation quarterback of the Texas Longhorns.  It was expected that he would win the Heisman trophy as the top college player this year, but that expectation just made him a target for opposing defenses and for media criticism, as it hasn't gone so well for that campaign (and it is an electoral campaign).  Texas lost early, as did Alabama, and I mistakenly wrote them off.  I wish him well; he's probably been under the pressure of unreasonable expectations since he was a child. 

World Football 

The big news this time of year in global football  (or soccer, foosball, or calcio if you prefer) is the "transfer window" also, but it is different there:  this is about the purchase of rising players by the big-money teams from those needing to sell, the players being the draw for the critical sale of merchandise.  Yes, there are rules to prevent the game becoming a total monopoly, but it's a fact that the rules were made to be bent. Real Madrid, Paris Saint-Germain, Juventus, the English Premier League big 3 (Liverpool, Manchester City, and Manchester United--usually) and Barcelona hover over the landscape of the smaller clubs all over the world that develop most of the talent. 

My team in the English Premier League, Chelsea, is off to a muddling start after a surprising run to win the World Club Football championship this summer in the US, an off-season triumph which took advantage of its relatively light supplementary season in '24-25 to pull off another trophy (actually the trophy was pulled off by none other than The Dickhead himself, who showed up uninvited on the winners' championship stage and "borrowed" it for decorating his offices). Anyway, the squad has tons of young talent, with the result being surprising victories over better teams (like PSG then, and Liverpool a couple weeks ago) along with shocking losses to league teams with less talent. It looks like it will be a battle to the finish to stay in the Champions League, the all-important goal for financial purposes, though probably a fairly early departure from Champions League competition itself this year. 

The football world has one eye on the upcoming World Cup in 2026, which has expanded yet again, to 48  teams. Getting to it is still a big deal, though, either if you do or especially, with the top European nations, if you don't. The event will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico, so all three of those countries will get a free pass, which will open the door for some other countries in the North American/Caribbean region to qualify, more than usually. 

The specter of Donald Trump looms over the planning for the event somehow.  He has been making threats about taking planned matches away from Boston and Los Angeles if those cities don't do something or the other that he is requesting.  Mr. Trump is about to learn a lesson, though:  there is something bigger than him, or even than the US, and that is world football, governed by a corrupt but powerful body called FIFA, and they decide the venues and timing of the events.  The US is, at best, a peripheral power in that organization.  If he fucks around too much, they might just take the finals away from his country (right now, it's scheduled to be in the Meadowlands in NJ) and put it in a real soccer country, like Mexico.

Basketball

Being a native of Kentucky, hoops are deeply ingrained in my culture from the very beginning. Keeping up with high school games is too big and broad for me at this point, but I do care deeply about the college game.  It has also been somewhat transformed by the open transfer policy. Previously, a player had to sit out a year if he changed colleges; I have to praise this expansion of freedom.  It does mean that a program can be built almost from scratch in a year, but also, combined with the ability for top college players to turn pro after one year, that it can disappear just as quickly, say if a coach leaves for another job. 

 A negative is the disintegration of the traditional sports conferences, driven entirely by football and the desire for the aspiring programs in lesser conferences to get to the big time (the SEC and the Big Ten, mostly); one casualty was the Pacific Coast Conference (or whatever it was called at the end), which has as many national championships among its universities as any in the nation, but now the conference has completely disintegrated.  Another is the Big East, from which all the major universities departed, though it still remains in a truncated form. 

What remains, though, is March Madness, an indisputable and enduring success which has little to do with the power game of the big conferences--it does protect the little ones, who all get a berth in the tournament. I have no idea which college teams will emerge as the principal contenders for the national championship--there are a bunch of players who've moved around, or out, and the reality emerges gradually through the season which teams have the potential, which is largely around building a team game with effective defense.  College basketball is a coach's game. 

Effective defense was the key differentiator in last year's NBA playoffs, too, as the Indiana Pacers surprised everyone by making it to the Finals, only to be defeated by a team with both effective defense and a fully-emerged superstar in Shea Gilgeous-Alexander, MVP of the regular season and the playoffs as well. The Pacers suffered the loss of their star player, Tyrese Halliburton, to an Achilles tear in game 7 of  those Finals, which pretty much cooked their goose, despite the best efforts of the team's remaining players.

An Achilles tear happens in basketball, too often I suppose, but perhaps not unexpectedly given the extraordinary demands on overstretched players (height-wise) running, cutting and jumping.  It typically takes a full year to recover, and full recovery is never certain. Halliburton's not the only big NBA star who will miss the entire season due to injury: I mention also Jayson Tatum, star of the previous season's champion, the Boston Celtics, Fred Van Vleet, a veteran guard who was emerging as a star on the Houston Rockets, and Damian Lillard, another aging veteran guard (returning to the Trail Blazers after a failed experiment in Milwaukee).  The absence of those four will have dramatic effects on the team chemistry of the teams that lost those players.  

Here's a classification of the NBA teams by tiers, as we go into the new season next week: 

1.  Proven quality, still at the top of the game (injuries permitting):  Oklahoma City Thunder, with Gilgeous-Alexander ("SGA"); Denver Nuggets, with Nikola Jokic (former champions, took OKC to 7 games in the playoffs); Boston Celtics (former champions, even without Tatum, still formidable and should be favorites in the Eastern Conference)
2.   Star-quality mashups--this is the most prevalent group for would-be contenders, as the style now is to try to put together three top players with suitable sidemen, roughly in order of probability of success (defined as reaching the Conference Finals, i.e. the league playoff semi-finals):   Dallas Mavericks with Anthony Davis, super rookie Cooper Flagg, and unpredictable talent Kyrie Irving (now injured, probably just for the first half); New York Knicks (Jalen Brunson, Karl-Anthony Towns, O.G. Anunoby); Houston Rockets (Kevin Durant, rising star Alperen Sengun, Amen Thompson); Los Angeles Clippers, with Kawhi Leonard, James Hardin, and Ivica Zubac (perennial disappointments, but one year...maybe); Los Angeles Lakers (Luka Doncic, Lebron James--now with an old-man's disease, sciatica--and Austin Reaves); Philadelphia 76ers (Joel Embiid, Tyrese Maxey, and Paul George, all likely to be injured at any one time);  San Antonio Spurs, now building rapidly to return toward the top (Victor Wembanyama, DeAaron Fox, and #2 draft pick Dylan Harper); Orlando Magic (Paolo Banchero, Franz Wagner, Desmond Bane, all top offensive threats); Sacramento Kings (Domantis Sabonis, Zach LeVine, Keegan Murray, with new addition of Hall of Famer Russell Westbrook); New Orleans Pelicans (Zion Williamson, Dejounte Murray, Trey Murphy); and, still hanging around, the Golden State Warriors (Stephen Curry, Draymond Green, and mid-season addition Jimmy Butler).  Any of these teams could jell and threaten a run at the title. 
3.   One big star, plus adjuncts:  Milwaukee Bucks (Giannis Antetokounmpo); Atlanta Hawks (Trae Young), Detroit Pistons (Cade Cunningham); Minnesota Timber Wolves (Anthony Edwards); Phoenix Suns (Devin Booker); Miami Heat (Bam Adebayo); Memphis Grizzlies (Ja Morant); Toronto Raptors (Scottie Barnes); Indiana Pacers (without Halliburton, Pascal Siakam); and Cleveland Cavaliers (Donovan Mitchell).  All of these teams have had significant success in recent years, some winning the title and others making runs as recently as last season, but typically teams like this can get hot and make the playoffs behind their star but don't get far. It's quite likely they will be rebuilding soon, possibly by trading their big stars, or going for it by trying to add more talent (Indiana will just lay low for one season). 
4.  Rebuilding, or Not:  Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, Utah Jazz, Portland Trail Blazers, Charlotte Hornets, Brooklyn Nets.  These teams don't look to be competitive.  Brooklyn has disbanded their previous mashup entirely and drafted five in the first round, who will all be playing.  The problem with building through the draft is that it typically takes 2-3 years before these teenage one-and-dones can reach their potential, if they ever do, and in the meantime soak up a whole lot of money. 

Baseball

This is the one US sport for which I exhibit true fan behavior, as in illogical emotional following of a team, in the context of general love for the sport and its history.* Here, I'm talking about the Cincinnati Reds+, the team for which I have been "tifo" (the Italian word for fan behavior, comes from the word for typhoid fever) since the early '60's.  Thus, I was totally there for their glorious run in the '70's, the legendary Big Red Machine (one of the top five starting lineups of all time), and their shocking World Series sweep of the proud Oakland A's in 1990 (thank you, Lou Piniella and the Nasty Boys reliever corps). 

The Reds made the playoffs, legitimately but just barely backing into them with a record just barely with more wins than losses, then lost in the preliminary "Wild Card" round to one of the best teams, the somewhat under-performing defending champion Los Angeles Dodgers. For that defeat, I will root fervently for the Dodgers to go out, until they do, just as I root against the Yankees every year since they beat the Reds in the World Series in 1961 (!) Somehow, the Baltimore Orioles, who beat the Reds in 1970's Series, don't draw the same opprobrium from me, as they are similarly a smaller-market, rarely dominant team (though the Yankees haven't really dominated in the last 20 years, either). 

As for the rest:  well, the playoffs are down to four teams, none of which were clear favorites at my last sports take, but ended up with the best regular-season records due to strong second-half performance (the Phillies were the other team with a top regular season, but they faded in the playoffs due to the injury to their best pitcher, Zach Wheeler): the Milwaukee Brewers and Dodgers in the National League, and the Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays in the American League. This over-representation of small-market teams is a nightmare for the World Series TV ratings, especially if the Dodgers and legendary superstar Shohei Ohtani go out. Several teams faded badly and left their fans sorely disappointed:  the Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, New York Mets, and Boston Red Sox come to mind.  At least the Reds did not disappoint, really, and they have the potential to improve and come closer to championship-level contention with just a good move or two. The Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians are two others that are comparably on the verge. 

I do have a bit of a beef with how baseball is going these days.  This discussion of the "Three True Outcomes":  strikeout, walk, and home run has the whole major-league game oversimplifying things tremendously.  The notion of "hit them where they ain't" (ancient wisdom for putting the ball in play, strategically if possible) has disappeared, despite the game's rulemakers seeking to blunt the trend toward player shifts to take away the prevalent field that batters would put their batted balls toward.  And bunting? Forgeddaboutit!  

One good trend, though, is the re-emergence of the stolen base, for those who can do it, because pitchers are so focused on getting that strikeout that they barely notice what the runners on base are doing.  So much so that their arms get weary after five-six innings, and straining of the pitching arm's ulnar collateral ligament has become an epidemic (leading to the so-called "Tommy John surgery" where they put a new one in, just below the elbow).  This bothers me much more than the innovations to juice up public interest, like the time clock for pitchers, limiting mound visits of catchers and coaches, and the "ghost runner" they put on second base in the extra innings, to make the games shorter (not used in the playoffs).  

As with the NBA, the major leagues show more and more players not born in the USA all the time.  I insist that this is a positive development for the sport, broadening its participation attractiveness beyond the US (the NFL shows no such inclination, despite the highly popular one-off games they set up abroad).  In the long run, though, we should be encouraging "norteamericanos" to take up the game when young, rather than the brutality and short careers of American football and the impossibly long odds of making it in the NBA (even for those blessed with height of two meters or more). 

*My previous true fan experiences were with University of Kentucky basketball--I wept at their loss in 1965 to Texas Western (now the University of Texas at El Paso) in the NCAA finals.  I later learned that I was totally politically incorrect in the history of the game, and should have eschewed the all-white Wildcats in favor the breakthrough all-black Texas Western team.  I'm still a UK backer, but I will also root for their in-state rival, University of Louisville:  both have provided major emotional lifts to me over the years, though I'm a bit perturbed U of L sold out and left the Big East for the second-tier Atlantic Coast Conference (the conference is really just second-tier in football, though one of the top ones in basketball).  

The other fan-like experience was when I was living in New York in the '80's and '90's, the era of Patrick Ewing, John Starks, etc. and I had part-share of season tickets.  They never quite won the championship then, and since have consistently for decades, though now they show some major signs of potential life.  Too late for me, though.  

+I was a youth in Louisville, Kentucky, just down the Ohio River from Cincinnati, named for the inspiring example of Cincinnatus, a Roman "dictator" (their word) from the fifth century B.C. who led a military victory then returned to private life, preserving for a while their republic.  We need some like him now!  In those days of the early Sixties, we just had the "Game of the Week" on TV (Dizzy Dean and PeeWee Reese, usually the Yankees, Dodgers, or Giants vs. somebody), so I was brought up listening to the Reds' games on the radio. 

 

The Shutup

I'm taking off the filters and calling the thieves and reactionaries for what they are in this post, so please excuse the blunt and uncouth language, if you can. 

This ending of approved Federal government funding is a "massive opportunity", as King Dickhead I himself said, but for different reasons than the ones he cited.  The Democrats are holding many government activities hostage, as a weaker force surrounded by hostile enemies is wont to do (see Hamas).  The hostages should not all be released, but only in exchange for real benefits to our people, and for real political damage to Trump 2.0 and its attempts to steal the 2026 elections, our last real hope to save our polity.  

The continuing resolution ploy proposed by the Republicans in Congress is a trap into which our Opposition must not fall, even though its allocation of spending is undoubtedly much better than the alternative, the painstaking working through budget negotiations which is going to produce only terrible outcomes, which the "CR" approach would allow to happen (though the time frame originally proposed for it will be over before you know it).  

Instead, some budgeting should be approved and others blocked. Military pay and air traffic controllers  should get paid.  The alternative to paying our soldiers is not only unjust, but also quite dangerous:  history tells us that soldiers who are not paid are likely to rebel.  In this case, Dickhead and Kegbreath having pissed off the top brass tremendously, the coup threat of that outcome is multiplied.  A regime headed by our military, though disastrous to our constitutional republic, would likely be less oppressive and dangerous than what is happening now, to our nation and to the military itself.  But that's short-term thinking:  pay our military, we will give you the votes.  

Same with the air traffic controllers:  we want them to show up for work.  The alternative there is bloody, for certain.  And while you're at it, add funding to get more of them. 

No money for ICE--forget about the Big Stupid Bill's provisions, entirely. No money for the State Department, which is doing us wrong in the world.  No money for EPA, FTC, CFPB, Energy, all of which have been captured by our opponents and are working diligently to eviscerate their stated missions.  The eventual funding for the DOJ and the FBI could be restored, after the full and mostly unredacted Epstein Files virus is spread upon the land.  Protect only the names of the victims.  I for one do want to see the video Jeffrey took of some young girly jacking off our future Dicktator with her face blurred beyond recognition. Other Homeland Security provisions could get approval, on the condition that ICE Barbie is replaced with someone who knows what is right and wrong, nothing more. 

Funding for the IRS should be approved--we don't want the rich grifters and conmen to get away unaudited--but the price for that is something that will benefit us all in the long run and hurt the Republicans in 2026:  an agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, a regressive tax that benefits only the high-income people and will eventually imperil the whole program. Suck it up, tax cheats! 

As for funding our judiciary, the price for that is some reasonable term limits on future appointments.  We can promise not to stack the Supreme Court when we get power back in 2029 in exchange for that.  Right.

Budget negotiations ultimately can begin--say, next year, when the pain becomes extreme, but on the conditions that Congress pass legislation removing Presidential immunity (in particular, we need personal accountability in the form of civil damages) for illegally impounding funds or spending unauthorized ones, and that electoral ratfucking of the 2026 elections will be criminally prosecuted. I'm sure those are both illegal areas of proposed Project 2025 evil, but it needs to be restated.  Make Trump veto them. 

The tough call is really the healthcare question, the hill Congressional Democrats have decided to defend at all costs.  We should all be fully aware that, if we get into negotiations with the Republicans on restoring the cuts, doing so in a way that can become law, they will put a variety of asterisks on the funding that will make it painless for theirs and painful for ours.  It's all or nothing--rescind the cuts in their entirety, or no deal.  

Yes, the Republicans may ultimately counter by removing the 60-vote requirement for ending Senate filibusters.  I'm OK with that, as it has been weakened tremendously already as a safeguard.  It will cause a lot of bad in the short run, but when we get the trifecta back in 2029, and that is already on the table, we will be able to reverse their illegality with the force of law.  For all its noise and fury, Dickhead 2.0 has operated almost entirely through Presidential orders, the majority of which violate the law, though the emergency lawsuits and restraining orders often can only close the barn door too late to prevent harm.   

While we're at it, give the judiciary some enforceable force. It won't cost very much, and it would make a big difference.  Basically, make US marshals answer also to Federal judges, with their jobs and more, and provide gun-toting protection for Congresspeople (when they ask for it) and courtrooms. 

More Domestic Disgrace

 

 I am annoyed that the latest news from the US' political quagmire must take precedence over subjects that are much more fun, like sports, music, film, the beauty of this season, or more consequential, like preserving that which remains of our planet's beauty and bounty. Some subjects in the US' current disaster and recent escalation of violence, physical and verbal,  need to be addressed, even if their importance is transitory. 

Unforgiven 

In the above film, without a doubt one of the greatest in the history of the genre called "Westerns" the Clint Eastwood character makes the following statement as he rides to an expected violent confrontation in a lawless town: 

It's a hell of a thing to kill a man.  You take away all that he's got, and all that he's ever gonna have.

That is my main reaction to the murder of the man, Charlie Kirk, shot down as he engaged in political debate at a Utah college. It is the same I would have for anyone unjustly killed, like the students in too many schools, or other victims of politically-motivated violence in the US.

 I mourn for his family, and that he will never have the opportunity to redeem himself from his hateful, bigoted rhetoric.  Because I do believe it could have been possible; he seemed sincere in his beliefs, but he needed that critical human encounter that might have changed his mind and his tone. Enough about him, though.  I reject the attempt to make him a martyr for his cause, because his cause is not just.   And I never followed him or read any of his words when alive, so his death is no personal loss for me. 

One thing more I want to say:  we should not assume anything about why the killer did it, not until we have more evidence or capture the perpetrator.  I would submit that the shooter was either extremely lucky, or more likely a highly skilled marksman, given the range and angle indicated for the single shot that pierced Kirk's neck.  

We Should Let it Shut Down for Awhile 

The product of this Trump final term is all bad--all of it.  This, once again, is no surprise, and this is all part of his evil plan.  We who oppose it have no reason to facilitate its continuation. 

The Republicans in the Senate need seven Democratic votes (at a minimum) to continue normal operations of the Federal government beyond the end of September.  My position is that we will not call them, they must call us, and what they have to offer to get any support is a major change in direction, one that will force Trump to sign, or veto, and thus accept that his power will be diluted, or that he will own the shutdown that results. 

My suggestion, once again, is that in order for Democrats to fall in line with a resumption of government function, there must be a reversal of tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for consumers.   The best way to do most of this is through a bipartisan agreement to remove the cap on Social Security contributions, which end annually at about $160k of income per year. The resulting revenue increase will fund the program indefinitely and scale down the budget deficit problem.  Direction on tariffs should follow; Congress could give Trump some authority to set them, subject to Congress' oversight.  Finally, the measure must include language which restates what the Constitution demands: that money cannot be spent without Congressional authorization, and that spending approved by Congress and signed into law must be spent (with strictly limited exceptions). 

Democratic Senators who do not show toughness in this moment must be voted out. By us. 

More About Migration 

In a very recent post, I went over some of the basic, global principles that govern the movement of people, those that should apply, and those that will remain regardless of the obstacles. The current immigration policy violates all of them, but it is really the enforcement policy, with its violence and unnecessary cruelty, that makes us cringe. 

 We need to rethink the whole attitude toward our treatment of undocumented immigrants and stop the outrageous violations of our own laws.  If we have fair policies on the treatment of those here without the rights of citizens or of residency or visitation, if they are understood, defended by our citizens and implemented with respect for individuals and consistency,  then, maybe, we could move toward an intelligent strategy, one which will then end excessive migration into the country and allow for a true reckoning of those who reside here.  

The main point is that the US should not be the nation where people can burrow into hiding indefinitely without the knowledge of the authorities, which is the root of the issue today.  

We must accept true refugees from the Americas, seeking political asylum or escaping cataclysmic economic or environmental failures, for as long as is necessary, and we should apply sound judgment to those whose move here would be voluntary, not forced by circumstance, in order to enhance our society.  

 

Diplomacy in the Age of Indiscretion

 When Trump meets Putin in their summit in Alaska, he should start out in the way he does with all the other heads of state--demand the outrageous, as a gift.  In this case, Kamchatka:  I'm sure he has learned its strategic importance, like Greenland's, from playing Risk.  He can claim the Russians have not properly developed its colonization there, no doubt citing some disaffected indigenous complaints, or manufacturing them. Truth is, the population of that wintry and volcanic wilderness has dropped 40% in the last 3 decades.  He's been saying publicly that there would be a "swap", with territories going both ways.  I'm pretty sure he knows the Russians will not give back their conquered lands in the Ukraine, so maybe this?  Doing this would let Putin know that his is no longer automatically a "most favored nation" in Trump's eyes, unless the Russians kowtow.  

Why would he think he could be the arrogant strongman with Putin, when he has been so pusillanimous toward him in the past?  The key could be the Epstein Files virus; since it is out, and he is (partially) outed, perhaps the compromat that Putin had on him all along is no longer so salient.  Just a theory; I'm sure Vladimir has a few details he could remind Donald of, if they get a moment to speak privately.  The tipoff will be if Trump is his usual overconfident, aggressive self, or if he is deferential to the little thug. In this particular case, I'm looking for the bully side to come out, here on our own turf. 

There are enough other topics that Russia and the US could have a productive summit without spoiling it with unproductive yelling sessions about Ukraine.  You know, nuclear weapons, the fate of mankind, that kind of thing. At least the Ukraine war kiss-off could be scheduled toward the end of the meeting, with everyone going back to their corners afterwards.  If, at the end of that session, Trump is in the corner with Russia, he will have failed country and mankind once again.  

Since we expect nothing, our President must be instructed to tell Putin he will not win his war, that this is his chance to avoid failure.  To drive the point home, if the meeting fails utterly, sanctions should be expected.  But more:  Trump should subtly get Putin to understand there would be an increase in Ukraine's armaments, should there not be, at a minimum, a ceasefire.  Call it an armistice, it sounds more official. 

I do hope I'm not too late with this advice.  

The International Court of Justice Would Say It's Against the Law

 Its recent ruling was clear and directive:  climate change causes harm to people, therefore it is expected that states will do what they can to mitigate the damage.  If they do not, they are liable.  That responsibility is not only for those countries which have entered into international accords, or in our case that have exited them abruptly, or that have committed themselves (or have not done so) to measures to reduce fossil fuel emissions.  Here's a legacy of Drumpfenreich 2.0 and its abhorrence of our natural environment--we will be paying for it for decades down the road. 

The ICJ is easily confused with the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, Netherlands, an institution to which the USA does not belong.  The ICJ, on the other hand, is a central part of the UN's function, helping to define international law and adjudicate disputes, and the USA actually has a judge on the court's panel.  This "member" is Sarah Cleveland, appointed to the Court in 2024. So, we must obey? Tell it to the Republicans in Congress which just made policy going high-speed in reverse. 

Migration 

We in the US tend to think of this as our unique domestic issue, but it is not only a global one, it is intrinsic to human nature.  When it's not working out where they live, people will look to go somewhere they think gives them a better chance. This has been true since the earliest days of our species, and it's an important reason why we're still around.  

Is there not a basic human right to live where one wants to be?  Anyone might agree, in the abstract, that one should not be forced to stay, any more than that they be forced to leave. 

 Having said that, then all of the qualifications on that statement line up to oppose it.   There are, or should always be, many reasons to stay.  The impulse to go must be stronger than all one's many ties holding them back. In that sense, they are forced to leave--an important consideration in today's view of migrants.  In the more common case, there are ties to those who have gone before, and thus the scale is tipped more toward it being voluntary. In either case, though, there is the question of whether they could lose their right ever to return, which affects their choices and their status in society. .

Even more immediate for those departing, though, is the question of whether they can stay at their destination, if indeed they have had the luxury of choosing it.   The reaction of those already residing at the destination cover the entire range of responses, from effusive welcome to hostile gunfire.  Thus it has always been. 

In modern times, though, it has become a matter of the policy of nations with regard to the borders with their neighbors. For a century the US has been a leader in the strategy of defining limits on the numbers of immigrants permitted, factored by nation of origin of the immigrant.  It is the reduction in the effectiveness of those controls, which favor certain countries of origin, to which Trump rebels in the pattern of recent migration originating from the southern border.  To be clear, that means not enough racism of the right kind. 

Regardless of the regrettable Trump policies, which are extreme in the sense that they violate that basic right to remain where one lives, compounding it with brutality and the most destructive of motives, the Democrats have lacked a counter-strategy that has any electoral effectiveness.  In retrospect, I would say it was not their adherence to principle that was the problem but a lack of flexibility to the dynamics of intra-continental migration.  Going forward, they should advocate for adhering to those natural, age-old principles, like neighboring countries being the first refuge for forced refugees, national discretion over  the volumes of voluntary migrants based on economic and social considerations, global responsibility for reconstruction, preventive action to avoid environmental disasters.  

 

Debacles #2

Everyone has their favorite complaints about the Administration now, even if you are still supporting it in some way, which is to say doing its bidding. 

Whether it's recurring inflation, the stagnant job and home markets, the spread of the Epstein Files virus and flailing efforts to contain it, that stupid bill that was last month's story, the destructive effects upon almost every Federal agency not committed to a mission statement imposing nationalism by force, failure to properly observe legitimate court orders,  the debt limit increase and the upcoming budget-driven shutdown threat...and did I mention the lack of "release of the Epstein Files"?   We all have several. 

Number One for me, the domestic issue most dangerous for the future of our nation, is the fate of the aggressively provocative redistricting effort going on in Texas, prompted by Trump and endorsed by despicable Governor Greg Abbott.  This one has the potential to lead to major conflagration, particularly if the mentality of "avoid being the loser" continues to cause escalation.  

Essentially, the rethink on the Republican side is that they didn't gerrymander aggressively enough when they had the chance.  They went for safe districts, instead of maximizing potential wins. That response was after completion of the 2020 Census, during the Biden Administration, when even red states believed they had to pay attention to propriety and national public opinion.  

Factually, new districting boundary lines only had to be approved by state legislatures and governors, unless there was some other review required by law (one downside of the Democrats' retaliation strategy).  The Supreme Court had already shown a lot of tolerance for redistricting done with an objective of partisan gain. That was a very big first mistake; the second was eliminating the requirement that redistricting in certain Southern states subject to the Voting Rights Act of the sixties be consistent with that law, one of its main provisions. 

The way it works out, Republicans still want to create districts with majorities of minorities within large cities, because they can surround them with competitive or safe red districts; in medium-sized cities they want to break those center-city districts into pieces outnumbered by adjacent suburban areas, or even better, rural ones.  Texas Republicans are using those strategies, along with one to break up some Hispanic seats near the Mexican border by mixing them with more Republican areas inland.  It could gain the Republicans 3-5 seats just from Texas in 2026, which could make the difference if the count on House seats is very close.  (And in the House, majority control, with even a very small margin, is everything, as shown by this Mike Johnson House.)

The response from the Democratic side is led by Gavin Newsom, who as Governor of California is in a position to say that there are a number of seats in his state that he could gain for the party through a counteracting move. It would be very controversial, and would take a while with an uncertain outcome, but it could be done.  There is a similar possibility in New York, and there are additional Republican ones in some of their states with large partisan majorities. 

It's quite easy to see where this form of nuclear war would go in the end if this continues.  Those with large statewide partisan margins would end up with state contingents entirely of one party or the other, and generally less contested seats.  Ironically, though, the Texas maneuver, if successful would do the opposite: safe Texas Republican seats would become more competitive, and this could backfire if Democratic turnout is strong in 2026 and Republican faithful and their leaners do not turn out as well. 

These short-term opportunities are huge:  Texas Democrats should use all means, as they are doing now, to resist this anti-democratic measure, even to force the Republicans to make shameful authoritarian moves to get them to come back and vote.  I think Democrats can delay this measure for months, months in which the Democrats in a couple large states can prepare their counter-measures. 

I see the following possible outcomes, perhaps in order of likelihood:

1) Republicans get away with their maneuver, significantly more than Democrats.  That does not mean the Democrats will come up short in their strong case to take back control of the House. 

2) Every Republican maneuver will be countered by equivalent Democratic ones. The PR battle would be fierce. This one should be a net positive for Democrats, despite going against their own principles.  

3) Both sides see the possibility to coexist, with these big-state powers being a mutual deterrent, and Texas doesn't do what Trump wants.  Everyone chickens out, and our President reluctantly TACO's, as well.  This is the best possible outcome for all, even Trump, because one way or another he would have to live with the Democrats after 2026, quite possibly with their having a majority.  You see how low I think the odds are for this. 

4) A California Republican Representative has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for states to redistrict for partisan purposes during the period between census updates, after each state gets its shot at the beginning of the decade.  If that passes, Texas would be blocked from the change, and so would the other states.  I see this as having little chance, as Republicans will not go against Trump's wish.  

5) Something goes wrong.  Let me give an example:  one of the Texas Democrats is roughly handled and injured by Federal marshals coming to capture them, against the local authorities' own orders.  There is now a martyr; Texas Republicans respond by imposing the new map without a quorum after they change the rules. It would be something comparable in its arrogance to South Carolina passing secession in 1861, except the secessionists would have the White House.  I can only hope this is not what will happen. 

There is one clear winner in this escapade (a lot of potential losers)--his name is James Talarico.  He is a Democratic State Senator from Texas, and his potential as a political leader has now been discovered by several journalists with national credentials.  He speaks well, understands the complexity of the situation, and he is walking the walk by challenging the Republicans and leaving the state.  His is a name to watch, and he may end up leading the statewide charge in the Democrats' desperate 2026 Senate race there*, against either incumbent John Cornyn, but more likely against the (even more despicable than Abbott) Attorney General there, the corrupt and evil Ken Paxton, who is running against Cornyn from the Trump-side in the primary.   

A good outcome is possible, both in public sentiment and practical results. The most important thing is to establish that gerrymandering--like this exceptional case, but even in the normal course of affairs--is contrary to real democracy.  It's a tricky objective for the Democratic party to pursue, to avoid seeming hypocritical, especially if some states will tit for Texas' tat. 

Transitional:  Tariffs 

 I pose this as a transition from navel-gazing at domestic issues to what is even more important to me, the importance of what the USA does in these years in the world, for both the short-term security of us all as well as the long-term course of history. 

Tariffs may seem a foreign policy issue, and thus under the direct control of the Executive, as foreign policy really is, but it is really a domestic one, and that is reflected in the Constitution--the legal power of raising revenue is with Congress.+ The taxes will end up being absorbed domestically, either by businesses afraid to raise prices in response--perhaps viable in the short term--or by consumers.  What I think more likely is that the larger businesses will raise prices, now, before they absolutely have to do so.  In this case, the spoils are there for the quickest and most greedy.  This will be noticed, though!

From the international side, though, if we just look at it for a moment, it's quite different--if and when the USA ever stops changing the tariff rates and compensatory investments Trump will require.  Or if the courts realize that his whole scheme is unconstitutional and illegal, until such time as Congress goes along.  Which they would, maybe even relatively quickly, but there would be some comical unwinding and rewinding involved.  This is just one example to say that the chaos is not yet over. 

I saw an email the other day, on the occasion of the agreement with the European Union, one which has been roundly criticized as too favorable to Trump and too unfavorable to the EU.  I was sent an email in response to that with the subject line "Bye Europe: Buy America".  Let's think about the reverse:  "Bye America: Buy Europe".  If we just split for Europe, we don't pay the US tariffs there, and we have access to American goods without tariffs. ** Just sayin'. 

Anyway, from what early evidence is being produced now, and still before TrumpThink takes over all our Federal economic reporting, the effect of tariffs domestically will be a few hundred billion dollars of windfall revenue, as long as it lasts.   Which would not seem to be very long, unless Trump gets tired of winning his tariff extortion game. Inconsistency is the hallmark of Trump 2.0, along with incompetent execution. A tax on all citizens, one Congress has not blessed.

The problem for the rest of the world with Trump's regime is not necessarily that there are tariffs on goods sent to the US.  Except in the case of Brazil and a couple others with the punitive rates, the US' market will remain a premier destination among many for exporters.  It's knowing that he can turn around and cripple your business for any reason. It produces overpricing and other harmful short-term strategies.  

*The principal names I have heard named to run as a Democrat against the Republican Texan nominee are not confidence-inspiring, in that they have tried and fallen short before.  Paxton winning the nomination against Cornyn, though, would give the Democrats a chance for an upset if they can push the Republicans to extremity and campaign like crazy.  It's the kind of upset Democrats will need to have any chance of getting control of the Senate in 2026.  

 + Let's not talk about Congress' abdication of foreign policy influence, probably as well-deserved as states' abdication of the death penalty would be. If you can't possibly do it right, just kick it upstairs.

 ** There may also be attractive base pricing of US products over there in some cases due to the drop in the value of the dollar since the beginning of the year, something like 15%.  

Domestic Debacles

 Nevermind

 In over their heads, they flounder.  Apologies to bottom fish for the verb; I mean them no disrespect.  After destructive acts toward agency after agency providing services to the public, incompetent reforms, and flat-out hand-outs, they are doing it to themselves, and that's what will really hurt (them). 

Though the content of the scandal is merely sordid and hardly mysterious, the rise of the Epstein Files conspiracy at this moment is one of those flukes of history. It has already broken the unity of the MAGA movement, and the power of the raging controversy, due to the ongoing cover-up, may end up rivaling Watergate as revealing a flaw in the Republicans' defenses leading to a catastrophic result. 

The current story cycle arose suddenly when a routine probing question from a White House presser hit a nerve that went straight to our President's lizard brain. His response revealed, in a moment, all that we will learn as facts over time. There's a deeply hidden scar on his record from his playboy days, his political tertiary syphilis.  

   Two phrases central to understanding the Epstein Files Scandal

Pedo-Adjacent -   This label is the minimum we can confidently hang on Trump in relation to this scandal.  It is fact that he hung out with him, not once but over a long period of time, which means that he was fully aware--at a minimum--of Epstein's decadent form of entertainment, and he did nothing about it. The files, whatever they are and what they contain, will confirm all that. Trump was in with a real bad group, whether he was all-in will be determined over time, primarily in the public mind. 

Reputation risk - This is the term for what is at stake for those who will end up implicated in the documents which will come out one way or another.  Saying that, I am assuming and hoping desperately that the privacy of the victims will be protected throughout.  Trump has a lot of public reputation to risk (somehow, after all this), he knows it, and the efforts to prevent the names, dates, and degree of offense coming out are only going to make it worse.  That risk is really the only one that I think is critical here; though there is no statute of limitations necessarily for the kind of criminal allegations potentially arising, there's no evidence Trump's DOJ will cause any charges to be brought.  On the other hand, the possibility of pardon if Ghislaine Maxwell will go the full line-toeing route would bring even more disrespect for the practice of justice in this case.* As for civil suits, maybe additional ones will result, but I think there are quite a few already.

Reputation, though, is what electoral contests are all about.  So, this is something to make political benefit from, with again the caveat that we put the interests of the many victims before all else.  So far, what I've heard, mostly through their legal representatives, is that they want the facts to come out (without their own names, of course).  As for Trump, Bondi, Patel and the loyalists, they are not so avid about disclosing facts, though Trump keeps talking about it, while the other two are trying to stay mum. 

Distraction that Matters 

Epsteiniana is one of those side stories that come to rule the airwaves, but is it just a distraction?  Not if it causes the Drumpfenreich electoral pain in 2026, which I think it will, in the form of reduced turnout for their side in swing districts and among Trump-leaning independents.  So, let it take its full course, and the inevitable secondary industry products as well, like books and movies.  Democrats have little to do besides demand to see more, at every opportunity. 

The Big Bogus Bill, on the other hand, was a colossal waste of energy.  Instead of a simple bill to fund a ramping up of immigration enforcement and military expansion, while leaving the 2017 tax cut and subsequent debt increase, for the same kind of $3.8 trillion hit, they had to mess with everything.  As should be expected, all bad.+  Typical Trump 2.0, furious expenditure of political capital for no good purpose except favoring Trump's allies and hurting those he disfavors. 

Yes, the first is our rich and the second is our poor, but the target that will feel the pain above or below all others is, to use the name given by Peter Gabriel some time ago, our Big Blue Ball.  What is this thing Trump has that makes him so crazy-bad about the environment, or anything that might preserve it?  The damage he is doing will be hard or impossible to undo, and it will take too much time, once it becomes feasible again (that looks like 2029, and that's maybe).   So that is one for which we will all feel the result. 

Like most of his "successful" outcomes, it will be "OK, that's what I wanted and expected" for a few who benefit, but disastrously bad for some. Most, though,  won't feel all the pain right away because many of the effects on the public are delayed or indirect. As for the tax cut, most will not feel anything different, because it won't be different.  Medicaid? SNAP?  Those cuts are for the losers, they deserve it, right? Medicare?  That's a little more tricky, as is Social Security, neither of which is addressed in any of the legislation, though there are apparently cuts in Medicare spending implicit in the projected numbers. On the whole, it's more money doing less for the public, with pork for the human hogs the main product. 

Running against this legislation should yield some results with the working-class voters the Democrats claim to be building their message towards, but because of its subdued short-term effects I don't think BBB will have the visceral impact in 2026 that  Dobbs had in 2022 to charge up their Democrats' own turnout, something which will be absolutely necessary to win back Congress.  There's still time for that killer issue to emerge clearly, but I'm thinking now it will be fear of Big Brother. 

As for the two real winners in the bill--the profiteers of the military and deportation/prison industries--I will take that up soon, in a rant about our foreign affairs.  Both of those are not domestic problems at their root, though we fool ourselves into thinking that they are.  (the environment, too)  

 

 * My prediction would be a partial commutation of her sentence, say from 20 years to 10, after a rather anticlimactic testimony.  It won't please anyone, but any other outcome would not work in this delicate situation. 

+There was one worthwhile thing in the final bill, from my study of what's been reported to be in it.  A deduction of $1000/$2000 (single/joint) is possible for those who do not itemize (now, most of us, except the wealthy and business owners) for charitable contributions.  This will help these charities fill the gap caused by the lack of government support for worthy causes; more people will give.  A good policy for a time marked by stinginess and greed.  

Lisa, Lisa...

 

Senator Murkowski's agreement to vote in favor of a bill she largely opposed, in exchange for some "carve-out" benefits for her Alaskan constituents could easily be excused as the classic small-state bargaining.  It happens routinely that a vote is locked up in exchange for some concessions.  The problem was the timing of her sellout, when it was clear that her vote could be decisive.  If she and her conference leadership had arranged her betrayal sooner, it would not have stood out so much, though she is always one of the key votes.  She is this term's Manchin/Sinema, along with the only other one of her endangered GOP faction, Susan Collins. 

 

Murkowski has resisted such temptations before, as with the vote in Drumpfenreich 1.0 to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but not this time.  Surely, Lisa, you can see that the harm to your fellow countrymen should outweigh the compensatory gains a few Alaskans will get. 

 

For that reason, because it is so obvious, I would assert that her political career is essentially finished.  She does not have to run again until 2028, but she would have little chance then:  none except for the unpredictability of a three-way race.  She may have gotten back the party base, though I doubt it, as they will remember many demerits, MAGA-wise.  On the other hand, she will no longer have the luster which attracted many moderate Democrats and Independents in the past, which got her through the tough times with the state's party.  Since she should see this to be true, and her legacy is the only question anyway (since she would lose if she voted against, also), why would she choose the path of future shame?  Is something covering your eye? 

 

Her comment afterwards was either disingenuous or foolish in the extreme.  She hoped the House would remediate some of the additional poison the Senate added in its version of the bill.* It is precisely because of her and the concessions to her that House Republicans cannot afford to touch the bill in any way.   I feel that most of what the House would add would then be rejected by the Senate, so that is earnestly to be wished, but I am afraid that won't be allowed.  So, that is why the House Republicans will vote on it just as it is when coming over, swallowing their objections.   

 

On the other hand, if that limitation means the bill will fail in this added-malignancy version, then I will credit her with Machiavellian tactics and insight. 

Which Is the Worst Part? 

I am willing to debate the question, but I would say that it is the set of measures to repeal our efforts to slow climate change.  That is true, self-mortifying reaction. 

Second would be the increased funding for ICE and for the border wall, though that is only what we should expect of this administration. 

The principle of encouraging continuing chaos (such as Trump-Musk) remains valid.  Since every product of Drumpfenreich 2.0 will be of negative value, it follows logically that anything that reduces that product is at least possibly relatively beneficial.  By this, I don't mean to obstruct Federal proceedings (as Trump did), but stalemate is our friend.  

 

*I've heard that Chuck Schumer proclaimed he had successfully renamed the bill.  I would suggest that it will be/should be known as the "Lisa Murkowski" bill.  

They Went and Did It. Finally.

 After "Barbara Ann"

R.I.P., Brian Wilson 

Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb bomb Iran

 We bombed Iran!

Just 'cause we can

We bombed Iran

We got Iraqi roles in harm's way

And World War feeling to-day, Bomb Iran

Bomb, bomb, We bombed Iran.

Too bad we couldn't wait Trump's classic "two weeks", as the deal was there to be had.  Now, he wants to find "peace"--fat chance.  Why would Iran want to negotiate now, if the nuclear program has been "completely obliterated", or even if it hasn't?  

"Thank You Falettin' Me Be Mice Elf Again" 

--the late Sly Stone, also recently departed 

That's what our leading "warfighters" and other neo-cons should be singing today, if only they had a bit of soul and musical memory.  Because, what good is having the best military in the world if you can't use it against lesser foes once in a while?  

People of good will are saying that it is for the best, despite it being the product of the warped minds of Trump and Netanyahu.  I will never be convinced that it was necessary, and I am far from convinced that it helped anything.  Maybe those centrifuges are destroyed (though they can be replaced), but where did those six bombs' worth of enriched uranium go?  I don't have a good feeling about that. 

People asked why Bibi chose this time to go after Iran; it is easy for me to answer.  He just had a narrow escape in preserving his coalition's majority in the Knesset, as the campaign in Gaza wears on, producing no results and much bad will.  Trump and Iran were possibly going to make the deal that would, by all rights, prevent him from completing his dream of ending Iran's nuclear weapons threat.  The amazing thing is that he got Trump and the US warhawks to buy in to their attack, that they believed they could waltz right over the undefended airspace, drop their 5B (big beautiful bunker-busting bomb) and then come safely home, and that would be the end of it.  

Ha! Nothing's that simple. 

I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good

Death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood

And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way

And there was nothing anyone could do or say ...

But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb 

Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem 

--"Jerusalem", Steve Earle (2002) 

 

Sports Take

 Watching the sixth game of the NBA Finals now.  Indiana hosting Oklahoma City, down 3-2.  A very good series, regardless of what the TV audience numbers may suggest.  Two small-market teams,  you know.  Indiana claims to be the Basketball State, and it has a considerable claim on it, but these Pacers have never won the NBA title.  Neither has the OKC franchise as the Thunder; there was a title for the old Seattle Supersonics (in the 70's) before they split for a warmer city. 

The teams that survived the star-filled opening rounds to reach the championships do not have the big-deal superstars. What they have in common is ferocious defense,,and coming into the playoffs healthy and playing their best.  The teams with the stars but lesser records that tried to turn it on for the playoffs came up short, the exception being the Denver Nuggets, led by MVP runner-up Nikola Jokic, that pushed the Oklahoma City Thunder to the edge before succumbing in seven. 

The MVP winner, Shea Gilgeous-Alexander (SGA, for short), has led OKC to the best regular-season record for the second year in a row.  SGA is a marvelous player and deserves all the praise that is now coming to him. This time, nothing less than the title will suffice, for him and his fiercely loyal teammates, and they have two chances to win it. 

The Thunder were a 6.5 point favorite, which I think is way too much of a point spread. Both teams have all the motivation for an exceptional effort, but the Pacers will have a frenzied crowd behind them, and their key player, Tyrese Haliburton, will play despite being injured--there was much speculation about that which could have influenced that spread. 

Note:  Went away for dinner, when I came back it was halftime and Pacers had opened up a 20-point lead.   Should be a great Game 7 now; Thunder favored despite this blowout loss. 

MLB 2025

 This is the time when teams make their strategic mid-season decisions, whether to make trades to strengthen for a stretch run, hoping also for the playoffs, or to sell off expiring contracts for more depth, or to adopt the infamous stand pat strategy. 

It's a week or so before the midpoint of the season, enough time that the teams very likely to make the playoffs have self-identified. They don't have that small-market problem: two from NYC, LA, SF, Philadelphia, Houston.  In terms of players, two sluggers from the largest TV markets have once again stood out with incredible half-seasons:  Shohei Ohtani for LA and Aaron Judge for the NY Yankees.  

There will be a team from the Central divisions from each league:  Detroit has established itself now in the AL as a legitimate playoff team, and the Chicago Cubs have invested profitably and sit well ahead of a host of contenders.  That leaves one Wild Card spot up for grabs in a broad scramble in each league, with the San Diego Padres the current leader in the NL and the Tampa Bay Rays in the AL, Those teams may be good enough to build a substantial lead down the stretch, but otherwise there could be five or more teams going for that last spot (assuming none of the leaders falter enormously). 

Those also-ran contenders are the ones with the tough decisions. Most of those scrambling teams are not going to make it to the playoffs, which is the minimum standard, the entry ticket for success. So, will they trade off veterans and just play for next year?  Very few of them, for their own reasons, but mostly to keep fan interest alive.  

My Cincinnati Reds are a good example. They are just barely a contender, with three teams ahead of them for the last NL Wild Card spot, but SD is only one game ahead of them. If they got hot, they could take it, going away.   More likely, though, their youthful inexperience and sore-armed pitchers will end up being a little short of the playoffs (again, assuming the Cubs don't fold).  The Reds have one of the most exciting young players in the majors, in Elly de la Cruz, and the question hanging over the team is whether they will do enough in the next couple years to keep him around. So, they won't do much to weaken or strengthn, they will add another pitcher or two, grab a couple guys off waivers.   They should be in contention, though, until mid-September or so.  And there's always next year!

FIFA Club World Cup 

 A great event is going on in the US that hardly anyone is noticing.  There is a 32-team soccer tournament with top pro teams from all regions, played at various US venues.  It's a sort-of warmup for the World Cup, which will be held in the US, Canada, and Mexico next year. It is almost criminal how little attention this quality competition is drawing.  From what I've seen, it's the backers of the foreign teams who are showing up for the games, while the North American teams of MLS draw little. 

I have seen a couple of games--one excellent one in which Al-Hilal, a Saudi team of high-end recruits, tied the famous Real Madrid, so many times European champion. Most of the games, though, are being televised on something called DAZN.  Right. 

Real is also the team with the most wins in the Club World Cup, five.  It has always been contested in a much different mode.  In the past few years, only a few teams--one per region--went to the finals in a big-money locale (Japan, Dubai). The series was held during the European season and was a bit of a distraction for the team sent from there; now it's during this fallow period between seasons, and I believe it will be held less often.  Sounds good!

Inter Ruptus  

When I arrived in Italy on my recent trip, the talk was of a possble "treble" (Britishism) for Inter Milan--winning the Coppa d'Italia, the "scudetto" of its top full-season competition, Serie A, and even the Champions Cup, the finale of the European Champions League of top-performing teams. Over the course of my trip, I saw them eliminated in the semifinals of the Coppa, then to lose the lead and end up one point behind Napoli in the Serie A standings.  Still, despite the evidence to the contrary, they came up with big wins in the Champions Cup knockout rounds (including Real Madrid, I believe).  They had the chance to more than make up for the recent shortcomings by winning the biggest club cup of all*.   Instead, they were comprehensively drubbed, 5-0, by PSG. 

Both these teams have rich and long pedigrees, but Paris Saint-Germain could still be considered an upstart, as they won without the trio of superstars (Messi, Neymar, and Mbappe) they had in recent years. Look out for France!  As for Inter (formally Internazionale), they don't generate the same kind of fanaticism as the teams in Naples, Rome, or even their crosstown rival, A.C. Milan.  Professional, disciplined, and this year anyway, disappointing.  (Note:  My Italian team is Fiorentina, classy mid-table losers who keep a close eye on rising Slavic players for their bread and butter, so I don't judge from a position of superiority.)

 

* Definitely more significant to fans, and thus to teams and players, than the FIFA Club World Cup that I discussed above, even though that could be considered a higher-level tournament.      

Five Takes on TDS

 

 

 

 I have often seen the acronym misused with regard to those who sense reality, applied incorrectly by those whose motivation is only to "own the libs". I propose several alternative views of it. 

1)  Trump Derangement Syndrome:  According to the Cambridge Dictionary, derangement is defined as the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness. This applies, not to those who react with anger or sadness to Trump's maladministration, but it is better applied to those who are still under his spell after all these years--the MAGA believers.  These folks are generally still out of their minds and beyond reach. 

2)  Trump Delusion Sufferers:  These are the people who had some rational thought that a change of administration might benefit them, in terms of their chief concerns--say, the economy.  They now realize that the expectation they drew from what was promised was merely a scam.

The way to interact with them is as you would with someone who is a victim of fraud, whether their own credulity caused them to become victims, or just were outwitted.  Sympathize with them for their loss; then you can safely share with them how you, too, suffer from the damage.

3) Trump Depression Sufferers:  These are the many people who have observed what is happening and cannot get over the sadness it brings them.  Depression is very hard to treat; the recourse to alcohol and/or drugs is the wrong medicine.  In this case, it would seem best to try to interest them in something else besides politics, such as horseback riding, a fitness and dieting regime, comedy, or Tai Chi. 

4) Trump Dethronement Schemers:  Some of them are motivated by a spirit of revenge, others from a righteous desire to defend our Constitution, but the common thread is what King Crimson called "Radical Action to Unseat the Hold of Monkey Mind" (album cover illustration above).*  This is all well and good but needs to be put on hold, lest the 8647 Police come to take you away. I will admit that this is the version to which I am most susceptible. 

5) Trumpism Defeat Scenarists:  At last we come to a worthwhile version.  People are coming at this from all sorts of angles. There are various ways to skin this cat, and the only question is to unite around the one script that is most feasible. It must start with taking control of the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections, then using the control of the House committees to expose the full range of corruption in this administration and the damage its economic and foreign policies are causing.  The goal is a complete wipeout of the Trumpist program in 2028, and then to move forward with policies that will prevent any recurrence of unconstitutional and anti-democratic governance.  The progress will then follow.

 

*Photo from the Wikipedia article about that musical release, by the sterling formation of the 2010's which performed the last live tour of the band.  Highly recommended, as is the more reduced "Live in Toronto" release.  I hope this plug makes up for the appropriation of the intellectual property.

Future Project 2025, Part I

So, "Where Do We Go Now?" 

(I hate Axl Rose and not fond of Guns 'n Roses, but the guitar solo is irresistible.)

 

An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (Robert L. Heilbroner)

This begins a series of posts to develop some ideas about our future, utilizing past studies of the question of our collective future, what they knew and didn’t know, and what we can learn from their analyses,  This first one was written some 50 years ago; most of the others will be from the time around 2000, when the question of the future figured prominently in popular culture.

Heilbroner was a prominent professor of economics at the New School in New York.  He branched out into areas of the history of economics, philosophy, and political economy.  He wrote at a time like ours in many ways, when various national proxy-type wars were being experienced, internal strife in the US was strong, and anxiety was high.  I note also the similarity between the so-called Generation Gap of the time, between the young Baby Boomers and their parents, and the modern gap between those same Boomers, now aging, and the younger Gen Z and Millennials. 

Heilbroner's Theses

In terms of  threats to humanity, he named 1) population growth; 2) the potential destruction caused by wars; and 3) environmental limits to growth and its effect on quality of life.  The fourth development, the rapid progress in scientific and technological prowess, he identified as both an enabler to solve problems and a catalyst for accelerating them.  

In particular, he saw as probable that the relatively easy path to nuclear proliferation raised a likelihood that underdeveloped countries would use their ability to produce them in order to blackmail the developed ones with the threat of nuclear terrorism, in order to demand major economic concessions.

In terms of our internal capability to address these threats, he was quite pessimistic, seeing human nature as basically unchangeable and the framework of nation-states as also next to permanent. In full recognition of the seemingly unstoppable momentum of industrial growth and of the accelerating pace of scientific and technological achievements of  recent decades, he nevertheless asserted that these could not continue, due primarily to approaching environmental disaster and exhaustion of primary resources needed for industry.  In particular, he named climate change as something that would arise and threaten the continuation of humanity, along with exponential population growth. 

The volume I re-read for this post was copyrighted 1975 (W.W. Norton), which reprised his original 1972-73 work but included his own postscripts written shortly afterward.  In these, he noted how events immediately after the initial publication-- the Arab-Israeli War and the oil embargo imposed by OPEC, and the expansion of the nuclear weapons club with India's first successful test-- gave his warnings additional public impetus, but his perspective was much more long-term.  While admitting that he fully partook of the benefits of advanced industrial civilization, his point of view was that, while events in the short-term or even medium-term might vary trends, the long-term reality remained that industrial growth, augmented by the inevitable development in the Third World, could not continue apace.  He mentioned the possibility that conversion toward service industry and that improvements like solar energy could ameliorate the crisis and lengthen the term of our progress, yet he remained pessimistic for the long run. 

His conclusions included the thought that strong authoritarian governments--such as the Maoist China of his time--might be able to both stem population growth and control popular demand for economic growth. He admitted that he loved being in a democratic society with free speech, etc., but didn't find it conducive to the changes that must come.  He acknowledged that people do not think about the long-term result of their daily lives and even might question the need to do so, but he urged us to bear the burden of keeping on with doing the right things for posterity. In the aftermath of the convulsive end to our headlong race to self-destruction, he saw the possibility for something like nationalistic, religious societies to emerge in a "monastic" future civilization.

The View from 50 Years Beyond

It seems now that his pessimistic views of human nature and societal flexibility are more in tune with today's reality than the hugely optimistic view prevalent at the millennium. Three or four big changes came that he did not fully anticipate: 

1)  The collapse of the Soviet Union, with its follow-on developments for Eastern Europe and the evolution of the European Union have been game-changers over the past few decades.  One hugely positive result has been a period with less wars between the powers, conducted through proxy contests. Of course, few if any saw the fall of the Iron Curtain coming until the years just before those events at the end of the Eighties.  This changed the status of socialism; I would point out that the movement toward Euro-Communism, or "socialism with a human face", that was rising in the Seventies, had also faded by then, with capitalism emerging dominant in most of the world.  

Even China found its way toward economic development more like that of capitalism though the Communist Party retained its exclusive hold on power there.   In that sense, modern China has become even more like the kind of political force that can successfully influence the course of society and domestic economy, through coercion combined with massive investment. On the other hand, the supreme power position of the US, leading the so-called Western nations, has endured longer, though its unchallenged reign seems almost over, MAGA notwithstanding, and even assisting in its eclipse.

2) Resource limitations do exist and are apparent in some areas, but the continuing identification of extractable fossil fuels has been a surprise which has allowed ongoing growth of things like heavy industry  (in many parts of the world), the transportation vehicles using them, and the industries that make and distribute those vehicles of individual transport. This result thus continues environmental degradation.

3) Population growth has slowed in most parts of the world, so that we can now foresee a leveling off of population--it is still on the order of 10 billion, as compared to the 3 billion of Heilbroner's time. The ability to provide food for all the world's people is real--which would surprise some of his time-though economic inequality makes its distribution to all a real challenge.  Heilbroner asserted that exponential population growth must end, and that appears to be the case; it may have happened faster than expected.  Some of that was through coercive policies in China and India, but just as much through a natural reduction in the birth rate as more societies achieved full modernization and greater economic security.

In terms of the environmental threat, there is some of the progress that he foresaw as possible, but also setbacks, due to the reason of continued industrial development facilitated by the availability of resources.  An unanticipated effect in a negative sense resulted paradoxically from the reduction of air pollution due to cleaner fuels, as greater absorption of solar energy on land and sea due to clearer skies has actually accelerated global temperature increase. One challenge that he mentioned doubtfully was successfully addressed internationally:  the elimination of the production of the most damaging chlorofluorocarbons.

4) In terms of technology and how it affects the human prospect, the greatest change has been the development of immense digital capability, as computing power has increased exponentially, along with data storage capacity and the density of electronic microsystems.  The effects on consumers of electronic devices have been a combination of greater capabilities, especially in communication, but also societal changes which we do not fully understand yet. The advent of artificial intelligence, which was merely theoretical fifty years ago, has resulted from greater computing power and enormously greater data to train AI programs upon; it presents a frontier in which we are only taking the first steps forward.

And What This Means for Our Own Future...and Beyond

 Heilbroner specifically mentioned the 1.5 degree Celsius increase--even then!--as a known threat to our quality of life and the planet's biology.  That threshold now seems to have been reached or surpassed, with little doubt that the mean global temperature is still on the rise; we do not have a firm idea how much more will be coming, or even that clear of an idea of all the consequences.  There is some reason to believe we can slow that growth, through voluntary means or possibly with the assistance of some technological fixes, despite the current trends in some nations (speaking to you, USA under Trump 2.0) to ignore or go against the needed changes. 

The USA is just one part of the problem, though; some parts of the world are still industrializing and using dirtier means than necessary to do so.  China is both rapidly advancing in solar energy and building more polluting coal plants. There is a real possibility of sea level rise producing dramatic, if gradual, threat to the huge portion of our planet's human population living near coasts. Ecologies are being disrupted, and climate change is also taking the form of more severe storm systems. Our progress in feeding the world could be at risk, too, if our agricultural capability deteriorates. One can envision a future where many or most societies have to "hunker down"into safer areas and reduce activity, along the lines that Heilbroner suggested, but also a different, worse one where relatively few, well-off societies or subgroups within societies can hide from the devastation experienced elsewhere.      

The threat of nuclear annihilation remains, through wars between nations--now re-emerging in comparison to recent decades--or terrorism.  The club of nations with nuclear weapons has expanded some, with North Korea being an especially threatening new member, and that expansion could easily accelerate if, for example, Iran tests a nuclear device.  The limited progress of the past in preventing unlimited expansion of strategic weapons development seems to be receding rapidly, and warfare is becoming ever more mechanized and less restricted. 

Heilbroner was surely correct in his assessment that social, economic, and political structures of the time would be unable to adapt successfully to the threats posed by war, exponential growth, and climate change. So, where do we go from here?  My inspiration is the relative success the world has had in slowing population growth; it has not happened everywhere, but it has happened enough that we can see the light.  I disagree strongly with those who feel there is some crisis because the wealthier countries' birthrates have dropped below replacement level--there are plenty more people to fill the gaps, and the pig in the python will pass through eventually. 

There is a way forward without coercive or oligarchic survival mechanisms. We must first reverse the negative trends in our confidence and find our voice to make smart choices, democratically.  We must figure out how people--all people--can earn a decent living in a capitalist, or mixed, economy in which so many jobs will be eaten up by artificial intelligence programs and robots. Some nations will make more progress toward a successful path to the future, some less, and we must tolerate both.  

The greatest disappointment of the past decades to me is the absence of transnational cooperation.  The United Nations has failed under its current charter in its primary role of ending warfare, though it accomplishes much in humanitarian areas and does provide some means of participation for smaller countries. The climate change conferences produce agreements, agonizingly constructed, that are not respected. Crimes against humanity continue, and the US "exceptionalism" has been exceptionally uncooperative when it comes to international treaties designed to have accountability for them.  I have not lost hope for progress, but it will likely come far into the future.  Until then, our dreams of interplanetary exploration are a sad joke. 

Heilbroner thought religion could help make the necessary transitions.  My response was initially skeptical, when I read his book decades ago:  I am a confirmed agnostic, in that I know that I don't know.  I have seen enough of all the religions to know that they converge on certain ethical and moral principles, ones that, from a game theory or business model point of view, are necessary to share:  how could a belief system that encourages harm to one's neighbor, theft, and deception survive for long? 

I am encouraged by some progressive trends in the Catholic church, and I believe the new pope Leo XIV may make his mark toward reducing warlike behavior, and follow his predecessor's steps in recognizing the validity of other religious beliefs and their followers.  The fact that he is a US citizen (also one of Peru) is significant and may make a real difference in a movement among us toward tolerance, respect for the natural beauty of our planet, and reduced militarism (and, I might add, excessive nationalism).  The church's stance on "allowing" women to have multiple children has been harmful in some regions--it is not alone in that antisocial stance--but has also been overcome, broadly, and as I say, population growth is not the huge problem it appeared to be in the past.