Update: World Cup et al.

I refrained from making predictions on the World Cup results in my last post on the subject.  That is because slight differences in the group standings, of a point or a single goal, could decide which side of the bracket a team goes, and thus affect the course of the rest of the tournament.  Now that the first round games are concluded, the brackets are set for the knockout rounds, which begin today. 

In general, the teams that were favored won their groups, so the brackets really are not so different from what could be anticipated prior to that round.  Several of them, including the US team, had their places locked up prior to the third and final group game, which allowed them to try out some other players.  There definitely was some drama in the final games, though, for other teams that were in a must-win situation--win or go home--including Ecuador, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Croatia. There were a couple of games in which a tie score would allow both teams to go through, and, unsurprisingly, they tied, though not necessarily without some tension involved.  

Of the 16 teams that didn't make it to the knockout rounds, the most notable were Uruguay (the only prior winner thus eliminated, though Italy didn't even make it to the tournament), Turkey (which defeated the USA in its final game, but was eliminated by head-to-head results with the other two teams with which it had a draw), and Iran, which was both unlucky and ill-treated in the run-up to the tournament, visa-wise. Iran recorded three draws in its three games, but its 0 net goal difference was edged out by the result of the final game played, a 3-3 tie between Austria and Algeria, which gave each of them one more standings point than Iran.  I'm just glad there was no real trouble involving the team with which the US is currently still warring, un-acknowledgedly (if that's a word). 

The most interesting result, for me, was that nine teams from Africa made it into the final 32,   Though none of them won their groups, several of them could be tough ones to eliminate, and some might even be favored in the first round.  I mention in that regard Morocco, which played Brazil to a draw, and Egypt, which had a strong first round performance. 

The standard for an excellent result, for most teams, is reaching the quarterfinals, the round of 8, which requires two wins going forward from this point.  No more draws--if the score is tied, the teams go to 30 minutes of extra time, and then the dreaded penalty kick shootout if still tied. I am hopeful that the USA team will make it that far:  they are heavily favored in their first game, against Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I will point out that this is the team that eliminated Italy in a penalty shootout after a drawn knockout qualifying match in March. One big difference is that match was in Zenica, Bosnia and this one will be in Inglewood, California.  If the USMNT wins that game, they will play either Belgium or Senegal, either of which is a tough opponent capable of knocking us out. 

In terms of first-round games, ones that stand out as promising match-ups are Netherlands-Morocco, Ivory Coast-Norway, and Portugal-Croatia, along with that Belgium-Senegal one, though any of the games could provide some drama, if one of the top teams finds itself in trouble late in the match.  A highlighted game one might expect in the second round is France-Germany. 

My picks for the final eight: France, Morocco, Croatia, Belgium (left bracket); and Brazil, England, Argentina, and Colombia on the right side.  I anticipate a finals repeat matchup from 2022, France and Argentina, which the latter won in a penalty shootout after a 3-3 draw in regular time, and Argentina to repeat as champions, which would be the first repeat champion since Brazil in 1962.  I will point out that France, Argentina, and Mexico were the only three teams to win all three of their group matches, so those first two are in top form, while Mexico had the incentive to win in its third game and thus stay in their home country for the next round. 

Baseball

We are exactly at the halfway point of the regular season--the All-Star game break, the traditional measure of the end of the first half, is a couple weeks away.  In terms of individual performances, the leaders for the MVP are:  in the National League, Shohei Ohtani, once again, and Kyle Schwarber, who is hitting homers at a torrid pace; in the American League, Yordan Alvarez now looks like the clear leader since the injury to Aaron Judge.  For the Cy Young, a couple of youngsters lead the pack:  Jacob Misiorowski ("Le Mis") of the Brewers and Cam Schittler of the Yankees.  

In terms of league standings, the only real change in the National League since my last post was the Padres falling back toward .500, so the top second-place team is now the Phillies.  In the American League, there's a good competition between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Yankees, with the rest of the teams mired in mediocrity, or worse. 

NBA

The big event was the draft, and a number of trades around that date (along with many players being re-signed, or not). This year's draft class is considered one of the best in decades because of its depth, so there was a lot of jockeying for draft positions.  I don't want to give away my favorites, in case one of my competitors in our Rotisserie league (the "Out of Bounds League") may be watching, but there are several of the one-and-done college players I have my eye upon, guys who may be able to contribute in their first year.  Typically the draft in recent years features some promising athletic types who will need a couple years to fully develop their skills, but that is changing.  

 The big trade was Giannis Antetokounmpo, who leaves the Milwaukee Bucks after 13 seasons (one NBA championship) for the Miami Heat; and the second was a strange trade in which the Charlotte Hornets, frequently bottom-dwellers who came on strongly at the end of the last season, traded off their best player in that season, Lamelo Ball, to the Minnesota Timber Wolves, in exchange for a valuable reserve player, Naz Reid, and some exchange of future picks. 

Wimbledon (Tennis)

The tournament starts this week; I am hoping the heat wave will break, but without too much rain disrupting things. 

In the men's tournament, the big question is whether Jannik Sinner will be able to return to the dominant level he showed prior to overheating in the second round of the French Open and bowing out. Carlos Alcaraz will not be playing, as he's still recovering from a wrist problem.  Alexander (Sasha) Zverev won the French, in the absence of Alcaraz and the heatstroke of Sinner, his first Grand Slam title after several close calls, and his chances here are real, as well.  Finally, we may see whether Novak Djokovic can challenge for that one more Grand Slam victory he's been chasing for a couple of years. 

On the women's side, Aryna Sabalenka seemed to be cruising, a la Sinner, before her near-collapse in the final, from which it appears she has not fully recovered mentally.  Maybe that's a false impression.  In her absence, I would look for Coco Gauff, or the rising star Mirra Andreeva, who won the French, to step into the opening.  Serena Williams returns to the tournament after several years being retired--we shall see.  Also, tennis immortal Roger Federer returns to the grass surface where he had his greatest success, playing in a doubles semi-exhibition with a couple other old chums. 

 

 

  

Goy Goes Off On Israel

The Hamsa Flag**

 

 

 

In a recent post here, I argued that the Senate election in Texas is the most significant one this year.  That is not just because it may be the decisive 51st seat for the Democrats to gain a majority, if James Talarico can defeat Ken Paxton+ , but because of the longer-term significance of a long-sought Democratic statewide win in that giant state. What  happens there could have effects that transform the global reality!

There is another election this fall that could have that kind of effect:  it is the Israeli parliamentary election (the Knesset), which is scheduled just a few days before the USA midterm election, on October 27 (though it may come sooner; it is unlikely to be later).  The question before the Israeli electorate is whether the war government of Benyamin Netanyahu will continue. 

There are many international electoral contests to which I pay some attention, to a varying degree.* It is in part because of ties I have in those countries, people I know,  and my recognition that those results may affect them, and partly because I am a citizen of this planet and we are all one race. There can be another reason, though, and that is the effect outside events can have on our own nation, and on our own electoral events. 

I see there to be such an effect between the coming Israeli election and its outcome, and one critical election, in particular.  That is the Senate election in Michigan, a seat currently held by a Democrat, Gary Peters, who is not running for re-election.  The Republican candidate, for once, is not a no-name Trumpist stooge, but a respected Congressman, Mike Rogers, who has served responsibly as head of the Armed Services committee in the House.  

Michigan is accurately considered a swing state that tends slightly toward the Democrats.  The population centers of Detroit and Ann Arbor (U. of Michigan) are strongly Democratic, with most of the rest of the state strongly Republican, and the suburbs around Detroit are usually decisive.  Both Senators are Democratic, as is the outgoing governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who has served two terms and cannot run again.  If the Democrats run a good campaign, they should hold the governor's job and win the Senate race. It is incontrovertible fact that the Michigan seat is not one the Democrats can afford to lose in the effort to gain a majority. 

The danger comes from the likely Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who has a primary coming up soon (Aug. 4).  His policies are clearly those of the progressive wing, as opposed somewhat to his two more moderate opponents, Rep. Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, who each have significant support but are seen to be splitting the vote from the party's center.  El-Sayed has run a strong campaign, is viewed as an excellent campaigner in the mold of New York's Zohran Mamdani, and has a similar stance opposing Israel's war policies in the Middle East, in Gaza and in the West Bank.  Polling of statewide Democrats shows El-Sayed with a  small lead over the other two candidates, but with a large undecided number.  I would say that he is likely to win the nomination unless one of the two more moderates pulls out and endorses the other, and maybe even if that happens. 

Michigan has a larger Muslim population than most US states, and that gave El-Sayed a significant base, from which he has successfully expanded, by showing a strong fighting resolve against the Trumpist administration.  All well and good, but there is another constituency that may be heard from, one that could affect the outcome decisively in either direction.  Michigan has a significant Jewish population, also centered around the populated areas, particularly those suburbs--it historically has voted strongly Democratic. 

Heavily involved in this primary is the Israel lobby group AIPAC, and its Political Action Committee (UDP)--they have spent a lot of money already supporting Rep. Stevens.  Although there are other Jewish lobby groups with different stances, AIPAC has the largest funding and is uncritical in its support of Israel, and it punishes heavily those who go against it, and recently, especially against Democrats who do that. Against that, there is broad desire to move away from US' uncritical support for Israel,  providing armaments to it in the wars against Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  In particular, the Netanyahu coalition government in place since 2022 has been ruthless in its desire to harm Gazans, to support Israeli settlers in the West Bank who try to displace Palestinians living there, and in advocating ever harsher pre-emptive attacks on Iran and the Hezbollah in Lebanon--going beyond the aims of defensive purposes.  

The cleavage emerging in the Democratic party over the US-Israel relationship endangers the party's coalition, not just in Michigan but nationally, as is shown for example by the problematic results in New York City's Democratic primaries this week, where an anti-Zionist agitator won nomination for a Congressional seat that is securely Democratic.   Support for Zionism is and has been national policy, but where are the boundaries of Zion?  Are they limited to the UN-approved boundaries of Israel; if so, what about the occupied territories, where Israel's current government shows lack of regard for the Palestinian inhabitants, and a tendency to colonize with Jewish settlers who claim it for a Greater Israel? 

As for the Israeli elections, I find it hard to believe that Israelis will vote to retain Netanyahu as Prime Minister:  it was his government's lax security at the Gaza border which allowed the calamity of October 7, 2022, when criminal elements of Hamas overran the defenses and wreaked murder, rape and abduction on innocent Israeli civilians.  His government has pursued war endlessly since then which, despite the remarkable capabilities of the Israeli Defense Force, has shown time and again that the way toward peace in the region is not to be accomplished solely through military means. In particular, Netanyahu's coalition includes overtly racist far-right elements and rejects negotiation with Palestinians and Iranians.  

Israeli parliamentary elections are free, but complicated:  they have proportional representation with a minimum level of 3.25% vote for representation of parties.  Typically of such systems, there are lots of parties, a dozen or more, that can reach that level, each headed typically by a single prominent figure.  Then, the parties group together to form a governing coalition, an opposition coalition, and, usually, a set of Arab Israeli parties which get some 15-20% of the votes and seats but are not included in either coalition. 

Current polling suggests that neither the current Netanyahu coalition nor the grouping  of opposition parties--who generally support the war effort while opposing Netanyahu's heavy-handed mode of doing it, along with some of its policies favoring the Orthodox and new settlement activity in the West Bank, and alleging corruption-- is likely to come out of the election with a majority.  This means either a stalemate, or a possible coalition with one or more of the fragmented Arab parties, a strategy that was put together by the anti-Netanyahu coalition, somewhat unsuccessfully, prior to the last elections in 2022, when the Netanyahu coalition took power back. 

I do not take sides in primaries outside my own state (of New Mexico), and much less do I try to interfere in the elections of other nations, but I think it is of great importance that Democrats take a view towards the Israeli election that reflects our values and helps to maintain unity.  I don't think it is that hard to enunciate, something like this:  

"We are longtime allies of the state of Israel and support its continued success, but we are not wholly uncritical of its war campaigns.  We advocate for a government there that is peaceful in its intent, while prepared fully to defend itself and its people, and that provides all the residents of the territories it controls with humane treatment and justice.  We do not see that in the current coalition regime."   

If the Israeli election goes badly, in the sense that it would seem Netanyahu will once again somehow fashion a majority to continue his policies of unending war and oppression of Palestinians, that could create a fissure for Democrats in the last stages of this year's critical campaign.  What would likely emerge from that disaster would be a policy to oppose continued arming of Israel, which could be counterproductive,  both to the bilateral relationship and to the party.  Frankly, it would not even change Israel's policy under the circumstances, but it would further isolate Israel and thus make the situation even worse.  Let us hope the opposition wins the election decisively, or finds the means to include some of the Arab parties before or after the election in a way that does not fracture the level of its support and makes it possible for it to govern instead.

+Based on emails I am receiving, there are lots of other candidates for that "honor", including Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and, of course, Maine. 

* I don't pay much attention to elections like the one upcoming in the Russian Federation, where the results will surely be rigged to show a level of support for the illegal war in Ukraine that is surely not real.  Surprise me, Russia!

**The proposed flag for the concept of one nation combining Israel and Palestine, a radical proposal to be sure, especially since even the chances for "two-state solution" seems now remote in the current political environment in the region.  However, it is one that demography and the arc of justice surely indicates to be some kind of ultimate solution . Let's hope it doesn't take a thousand years!

Sports: 4 X 3

 We'll try a disciplined posting approach and see if it goes quicker and more concisely:  four sports leagues, and for each, a beef, a freak, and my personal fave. 

National Basketball Association:  We'll start with the one currently in the highlights.  The San Antonio Spurs and New York Knicks are at this moment in a critical game 1--if the Knicks can pull off a win here, at San Antonio, it will give them an edge for the series.  I'm rooting for the New York team, though I basically gave up on them after their last Finals run, in 1999 (against the Spurs, also).  They haven't won the title since 1973, while the Spurs, rising again after a few brief years of a downturn, have had more than their share. 

Beef:  Tanking, of course.  An unacceptable phenomenon of recent years, where teams not in the running for the playoffs try to lose as many games as possible in order to gain better odds to pick up the best players turning pro.  I won't say the Spurs did it, when they got their Freak, a couple years ago, but it has become too obvious, and there are various disincentives being discussed.  

Freak:  Victor Wembanyama of the Spurs, of course.  He is not only ridiculously tall, but very skilled.  I wish him success, and above all, good health.  Players that tall often have fairly short careers because of recurring injuries to their legs.  I hope he can beat that rap. 

My guy:  Shea Gilgeous-Alexander of the Oklahoma City Thunder.  I feel like he does everything right, including all skills on the court (passing, defense, the lost art of the midrange shot, and threes when he wants to) and a wonderful demeanor off it.  He faced off with Wemby in Game 7 of the recently-concluded Western Conference Finals, the matchup of the two best teams in the regular season.  SGA had the better game, but the Spurs had the better team on the night.  This rivalry is just taking off this season and will be one to watch in the coming years. 

FIFA World Cup:  Soccer/football's biggest event is coming up in a week.  The USA is singularly unimpressed and unimpressive as a host nation, so it's good there's two others helping out (Mexico and Canada).  There are several teams that could legitimately be considered favorites.  France has too many superstars, Spain and England are hungry and full of proven talent, but I like the defending champs, Argentina, with their incomparable captain, Leonel Messi, for the win. 

Beef:  They expanded the field from 32 to 48 nations (we'll call England a nation for this purpose, another beef to be explored someday), which is OK, I guess, though it would seem it makes it too easy to qualify (Italy somehow didn't).  The real beef is that it is now too easy to get through the first round to the knockout stages, which are now up to five rounds.  So, for example, France is in the toughest group by far, with tough first-round opponents in Senegal and Norway (see below), but they will get through anyhow because three of the four teams are likely to make it (Iraq is the unfortunate fourth).  So the pressure is not really that high for that round, which has a majority of the actual games (96 vs. 31 for the rest of the tourney, by my count). ***

Freak:  Erling Haaland, the super-tall, albino-looking center forward for Manchester City and Norway.  His opponents basically have to keep him from ever getting on the ball near the goal, where he hangs out, avoiding the offside calls, because he's next to unstoppable and very accurate when he gets it there.  In that regard, he's different from the classic advanced midfielders like Messi or the ageless Luka Modric, or the withdrawn centers like Kylian Mbappe, Mohammed Salah and Harry Kane, who go back and get it and then do their magic.

My guy:  Christian Pulisic, "Captain America" for the USA team (not named the team's captain, though).  His career has been up and down, with flashes of brilliance, frequent injuries, and prolonged dry spells.  He's another who goes back and gets it and charges toward the goal with fervor (another is Kevin De Bruyne, on Belgium, who's finally slowing down).  After a successful run in the German league, Pulisic flamed out on my team, Chelsea, a couple years ago, then regained brilliance with A.C. Milan in Italy for awhile, but he lost the flame late this season and the team will probably rebuild without him next year. If he can make some major contributions toward victories in the World Cup it will do a lot for his career and for the prestige of USA soccer, which is lagging a bit.  

 Major League Baseball:  They are coming up on about 40% of the regular season now, and it's clear who are the likely contenders, especially in the National League, the one I follow more closely:  the Dodgers, Brewers, Braves, and Padres.  My Reds are among the many teams looking to grab one of the two playoff berths available after those four. 

Beef:  The lack of parity is driven by the astronomical salary load of the Dodgers, and of lesser, wealthy franchises trying to keep up with them.  The modernized game--you can like the changes, or loathe them, but they have helped broaden fan interest, and the game is more global in its reach than ever--is in peril, with the possibility of a devastating lockout and strike after this season, the dispute being over the owners' proposed salary cap.  I take the players' side always in these disputes, but the owners' willingness to restrain themselves in this way is the correct viewpoint. ,

Freak:  That's Shohei Ohtani.  His ability to dominate in both hitting and pitching (this year, so far, especially the latter) is without rival in the modern game and brings fair comparisons only to the immortal Babe Ruth--Shohei's surpassing him in some ways (the homers and speed combination, longer pitching career), but the clock is ticking, and worshippers of the game give too much emphasis on longevity, which he can't match, unless you include his stats in Japan. 

My guy:  Elly de la Cruz, of my team, the Cincinnati Reds.  My fandom of the Reds is a very long story, and I hope Elly is able to have a long, successful career with my team, though as things stand now, he will likely go to a higher bidder in a couple years.  Elly can do it all--speed, fielding, power--though he hasn't tried pitching, as far as I know.  

Women's Tennis Association:  For this post, I will focus on the women's game** Tennis is the major sport in which women's participation is most fully comparable to the men's, in terms of money and talent.*  Yes, the men generally hit the ball harder, and they play best-of-five sets to the women's best-of-three, but there is the same high-profile, personality-driven excitement in this sport, which tests the individual like no other. 

Beef:  This year's French Open, the only one of the four Grand Slams played on clay, the more demanding in terms of stamina (not so easy to serve your way through matches), is close to killing players, due to the heat wave and the five-setters on the men's side.  They need to bring in one of the initiatives of the other Slams and give the players a fucking break once in a while.  They should also make the fifth set a brief one, like the super tiebreaker they have in doubles (for which longer matches would make much more sense). 

Freak:  Aryna Sabalenka is a big woman, tall and muscular.  Handsome, I'll say, and with an underrated sweet personality.  She has a big serve and a ferocious competitive temperament.  Though she ran out of gas the other day in her quarterfinal match (see above), she is hard to handle for everyone except the similarly tall, similarly powerful-serving Elena Rybakina.  Serena Williams is coming out of retirement at age 44, to take her shot at Sabalenka, I presume:  they have quite a bit in common, except the personality. 

My guy+:  Iga Swiatek was the top player for a couple of years, nearly unbeatable until the rise of the two giants I mention above.  Swiatek is a normal-sized woman player who does most everything right, except she strives so much it's scary. I hope her form can rise up again to her previous level, but I doubt it--the competition has gotten tougher.  

There are others in today's WTA for whom I have similar soft spots:  Coco Gauff, Naomi Osaka, and Elena Svitolina, to name three; they all have their challenges.  Coco's is her serve, which comes and goes, Osaka's is her mercurial mental state, and Svitolina's is her personal challenges as a mother, wife to a men's pro, and the stress of being Ukrainian. It's hard for me to choose when they face each other, but I quietly lean toward Iga most often. 

 

P.S.  The Knicks win Game 1.  Finished this one in less than hour--that's progress.  

**I've addressed the men's game often enough in other posts--at this moment, Sinner stands alone (though he also pooped out in the heat), until Alcaraz is back on the court.  For this tourney, I'm rooting for Zverev to win; he's worked long and hard and this is his best shot ever at a slam. 

*The other might be track and field, and the Olympics generally, which have given women a lot more competitive equality in recent decades, and have dealt pretty successfully with gender ambiguity issues. 

+"Guy" in the modern language meaning of person, without gender specified, to keep parallel in form with the other three sports' comments. 

*** I am not counting the abysmal 3rd-place game, which everyone knows should have been removed decades ago.  

 

. 

 

Mark Kelly for President

I'm not joking at all.  

I realize it's way too early, and there is no need to distract from the current imperative, which is a big victory in the midterm elections in '26, but the moment demands that we consider this man and the possibility. 

For those who consider that the Democratic candidate at the head of the ticket in '28 should be a straight white male, Senator Kelly is your man.  He is a proven national hero, driven by duty and honor, who has braved the worst physical and mental challenges this era produces and kept his sanity and his nose clean.  Shot into space, shot at over Iraq, counseling the recovery of his wife after she was shot in the brain--these are a few of them. 

Most recently, he took on the terror that is Trump 2.1.  He was the front man for a group of military veterans in Congress who took out a public ad to warn our military not to obey illegal orders.  Trump called the action sedition and requested the hanging of all nine of them. Wrong, and not happening, and Kelly has been out front and open, saying both that his group's actions were legal and that he's not afraid of the Wherever Man.  

The veterans who made the ad--one can not call it a protest, nor was it anything more than a repetition of a portion of the training given to all military recruits, let's call it a Shout-Out--have been dodgy about whether they were thinking specifically when they made it about the criminal order to kill the survivors of one of the first bombings of Venezuelan boats on the high seas. They have not called the intrusion of the military into US cities an example of orders that were illegal, either, but they have stated simply that there is reason to think this administration may seek to misuse the military in the future.  No doubt of that, and one can easily think of worse abuses that the White House might order.   Trump may have criminal immunity for such orders, but those who carry them out do not.   We will come back to the "Venezuelan initiative" in a moment. 

Back to the point, though:  Based on his record, Senator Kelly seems to be a centrist Democrat, loyal, but not particularly partisan, and uniquely able to communicate on the need for responsible gun regulation. He is not a career politician, but after some years--he was first elected in 2020, in a special election--he seems to be finding his voice, which is an authentic one.  Not an intellectual-sounding one.  The only issue on which I recall his being critical of Biden's administration was on the lack of action on the border--his border.  Stop me if any of this is a negative.  

 I see only two drawbacks to his chances--apart from name recognition, which is suddenly flooding his way, right in his wheelhouse.  One is that he is not one for self-promotion, and he doesn't show that burning desire for Presidential power.  That, in reality, only makes him more attractive as someone truly fit for the job, but it could keep him completely out of the conversation (present company excepted).   The other is that, prematurely bald, he might seem older than his 61 years. It might not seem young enough for some, but it's hardly "too old". 

 As for being a sitting Senator and thus disqualified based on the recent experience of failed Democratic Senators as Presidential candidates, I think that's pretty bogus:  he's got more than his share of real-world experience, yet enough Washington time to know what is needed.. As far as I know, he is not owned by the corporations, and he has an amazing wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and it won't take a Washingtonian draft movement (as in, George W.) to get him to run.  If he runs, the starting blocks for his run will be a sweeping Senate re-election win in the critical swing state of Arizona in 2026.  I see the argument for his candidacy along the same line as that for Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, but Kelly is a superior prospect.  

The Venezuela Gambit

What explains the recent rash of murderous attacks on boats coming off from the coast of Venezuela, heading north?  

The opportunity to drive toward regime change, removing a military dictator and usurper with blood on his hands who's caused millions to flee and impoverished his country?  No, that's more typical of Trump's foreign friends. He would emphatically be against that (then would go to sleep). 

Looking to grab the enormous Venezuelan oil production and/or reserves (nationalized) for himself/the USA?  No, not really any of those variations--we have plenty of reserves, and more being drilled domestically than needed.  The Venezuelans would hardly look to give away their ownership, but instead would look toward better domestic distribution of the proceeds.  Not interested. 

Searching for active kinetic action for  Pete Hegseth to use for military practice (after the domestic use failed to provoke sufficient resistance)?  Without war?   I suppose that is part of it, though why Venezuela? There are plenty of other alternatives still on the table, aren't they? (Greenland, Panama, Canada....) Certainly the continuing search for distractions contributes, and Trump is always ready to take credit for cruelty and brutality. He is also using this series of actions to probe a further extension of his powers to take actions beyond the rule of law and without any authorization beyond his own whim. 

No, I think there is something more involved, something even more sinister.  I look at the relatively minor Venezuelan component of the international drug trade, and its alleged association with current national government officials, and I draw a different conclusion.  These guys are horning in on the existing cartel operations, and Trump/Hegshit are assets working for their benefit against the Venezuelan outlaws.  See also the recent pardon of the Honduran government drug king.  

The Most Critical '26 Electoral Contest

 In the desperately important election this year, every closely contested race is a battle worth fighting.  There are a few state governor contests of that ilk, something like 10 different Senate races this year that could be considered competitive*, but not too many more House races than that, post-gerrymandering war, and probably a few hundred seats in state legislatures across the country.  There is the overall contest for control of the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and those two outcomes are massively important , but each is the result of a number of different elections, so one can hardly focus on those, in themselves--it is necessary to go into the next level down and look at what will drive those victories, or defeats. 

The race that I think is most critical, though, is the Senate contest in Texas, between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.  The latter candidate was just nominated by his party's voters in a run-off election that ran off 24-year incumbent John Cornyn (who will remain as a dangerous zombie Senator whose emotional status is uncertain, like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana, similarly jettisoned from the Titanic Trumpist Tragedy. (ETTTTTS)).  Paxton is the most Trumpist viable candidate ever, rating super highly on both the loyalty and corruption scales. Texas is only rated as something like a 35-40% chance for Democrats to win in the prediction markets. 

It's only one Senate seat, and so the chances that it will be decisive are maybe one in 10 (but a little higher since the Platner controversy has made gaining the Maine seat more uncertain), but the implications are much greater.  Talarico is not just an unusual talent, squeaky-clean, and uniquely suited to be the Democratic candidate in Texas, due to his convincing Christian-but-not-Christian-nationalist vibe, but a potential national leader--in a Democratic administration, like Buttigieg is, even if he isn't able to get elected this year. 

Beyond that, though, the Texas race has possibly decisive and enduring effect on the big picture:  control of the Federal government at the top. The thing is, we are used to looking at a certain set of midsize "swing states" as a fixed, or slowly changing, decisive group for purposes of Presidential elections.  States like New Hampshire, say, or Iowa, may be somewhat susceptible to flipping from one election to another, but they are too small in Electoral College votes to be at all likely to changing the outcome.+   We know the suspects; it starts with Pennsylvania, then it goes to Michigan, Wisconsin, and more recently Georgia and Arizona (the last two replacing Ohio, which went red, and Minnesota, now seemingly safely blue). 

There has not been a really big state that has looked even possibly marginal in its outcome since California and New York fell off the cliff for Republicans in statewide elections.  The only other states in that category are Florida, which seemingly remains inexplicably beyond redemption, and Texas.  If Texas were to become a "purple" state where the outcome of a Presidential election there is not certain, it would have a huge effect on the numbers--of Electoral College votes, and of spending on the contest, too. 

I'm way ahead of myself, but a Mark Kelly-James Talarico ticket, Kelly promising to serve one term, could carry the swing states and Texas and lead to the kind of 350+ EV rout that is needed (in 2028, or 2032 if we must defer our dreams) in order to put the GOP in its place, which is as a regional party no longer a threat to destroy our Federal government and our Constitution.  That would make reforms of the kind needed possible. 

* In order of likelihood of Democrats winning the contested seats (+4 net result needed):  New Hampshire (to retain vacating Democratic seat),  North Carolina (flip, Republican vacating), Michigan (again, to retain vacating Democratic seat), Alaska (flip, strong Democratic candidate), Iowa (Republican vacating), Ohio (flip of appointed Republican Senator), Maine (flip, with Platner being only moderately damaged in Maine voters' eyes), Texas (flip, vacating Republican due to the primary result), then ones like Florida (weak appointed Senator), South Carolina (good candidate flipping on flippant Lindsay Graham), and finally longshots in South Dakota and Louisiana.  Ranking above Florida are Nebraska and Montana, where the strong candidate who might flip the seat is running as an Independent..   I'm assuming Georgia is safe for Jon Ossoff against a disorganized Republican opposition.  He's also a Talarico-type rising star. 

 From this list, you could see that I rate Texas as the sixth-most-likely to flip, and thus not absolutely necessary, if Democrats hold their seats and come through in Maine, Iowa, and Ohio.  I'm counting on North Carolina and Alaska to get things started.  

+ Unless there is no majority in the Electoral College and it goes to the House, where the Constitution gives each state's delegation one vote.  That remains very improbable as long as there are only two major party candidates winning all the states (last time that didn't happen was 1968).  

1000 Songs

I finally broke down and signed up for the "Premium" (paid) version of Spotify.  I'd been freeloading (literally) for a few years, but it was getting unwieldy playing and managing my "Liked Songs" list, and in particular the lack of control over the sequencing of them.  I didn't really mind the ads; if they got too obnoxious one could always mute the volume for their duration.  Truth be told, Spotify was starting to make it very difficult to utilize in the free mode:  AI no doubt the culprit. 

 I took advantage of my new-found range of freedom to expand the list from some 500 songs to 1000, adding dozens of additional artists not previously put there in the haphazard way free Spotify permitted.  I think this is the max:  my poor cellphone was slowing down tremendously toward the end.  My plan is to keep it at this level, going forward.  As I tire with some of them, I will add some others, looking toward more recent releases, more jazz (I had binged about 50 jazz pieces before but didn't add any this time around), and the Psychedelic Furs (I forgot to put some add before I hit my limit).  I could probably cut some of the Beatles ones, which are mostly drawn from that great "Love" compilation done for Cirque du Soleil. 

Here are some stats for the 1000 songs: 66 rock artists are represented with a single song--this doesn't necessarily mean they are one-hit wonders, just that selectivity drove that. There are some 32 jazz artists with 49 cuts, headed by Miles with six and Coltrane with five.  There are 73 more rock/pop ones with between 2-4 on there, total of 220 songs, and 36 with 5-10, inclusive with 270 (average 7.5). In the top group are 24 with 395 selections (about 16.5 per).  Here I should say that I am going by the first name in the artist description, but combining some of the obvious ones together (for example, Jack White and the White Stripes, or Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits, though those are not among the top group). I also made some executive decisions that might be somewhat controversial:  I didn't combine the ones from The Band and Bob Dylan, though I did combine The Band with Robbie Robertson's selections. 

For those who know me and my music tastes, there aren't too may surprises in my top 10 (there was some clustering below Bowie in the 11-15 range): 

1.  Beatles/John Lennon 34 (no McCartney, Harrison, Starkey thus far)
2.  U2 32 (including two Passengers, one The Edge solo cut)
3. Blind Faith/Eric Clapton/Traffic/Steve Winwood/Derek and the Dominoes 32 (tie) - I would argue there is a continuum in the membership
4. Steely Dan 28 (maybe too many, but I didn't limit myself to the 1970-1980 period)
5. Talking Heads/David Byrne 24
6. King Crimson 20 (including one solo from Tony Levin--I know, not necessarily Crim)
7. Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst 19 (I feel this is totally defensible)
8. David Bowie 17 
9. (tie) Jimi Hendrix 15; Police 15; Joy Division/New Order 15 --(again, uniting that pairing could be disputed--a lot, but not total continuity in the personnel, though some difference in the sound)*

Yes, I know:  "OK, Boomer Dad"!  I swear there's a good number of women in the lists, and of soul performers, but none with 10 or more songs chosen.  I don't have much country, except some outlaw versioning, and only some of the very oldest hip-hop. 

I will have to do a "Songs of Resistance" piece shortly from the list-- things that might inspire us in the days to come, though they may have been written long ago.  (by that I mean 50-60 years ago, even) 

Ed.  This post was written late last year, but I held off posting to do some analysis on my "Top Shelf" of CD's, which I didn't get around to doing.  The stats here have changed marginally as I have added some artists and cut down a few that were overly represented (meaning additional songs that didn't make my cut).   

My understanding is that one can share a playlist with the broader Spotify community, which I will attempt to do, with the list as it stands now.   

 * Here are the Honorable Mention artists with 10 or more songs chosen (alphabetically): The Band (without Dylan), Beck, Broken Bells/The Shins, Bruce Springsteen, CSN&Y (various), The Doors, Gomez, Jefferson Airplane/Hot Tuna, The Kinks/Ray Davies, Paul Simon/Simon &Garfunkel, Yes/Wakeman, Santana, The Who/Pete Townshend. 

https://open.spotify.com/user/chinshihtang?si=e3grDzxWTqy8iKTVAHk5CA