Mid-Monthly 1:6

"Do you prefer your GWOT Cold?" the Bushite hawked.

Out came the Cold Loogie of Lebanon. But we expectorated that.

The 3-way (so far) battles between Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas and Hezbollah, on the other, have revealed themselves to be a big set-up for US-Iran to play itself out by other means. Israel had been planning for the day they could take on Hezbollah anew for a long time, but they needed and got a good casus belli. Like Hezbollah, Hamas' military wing is committing self-immolation at Iran's bequest (via Syria).

All of it suggests that, in this post-Iraq debacle phase, both the US and its opponents have decided it better to go back to the old Cold War methods of getting fools to do their dirty work. This time, it's Israel's center-left government doing it: for US, and to prove that they are suitable followers for the Sharon "legacy". There have also been real hits on Israel since hostilities started; as a result Israel's population backs the "you started it, but we'll finish it" bully-boy line with unanimity. The Bushite "we'll stop it--after we've decided the bad guys have been smacked around enough" line is also just too easy.

It's truly pathetic.

Update--July 27, 2006: My longtime friend Norman Goldman, a frequent guest host on radio's Ed Schulz Show, and I had the following email dialogue after a stormy show in which he was pilloried for daring to defend Israel's right to self-defense (taken out of context; permission being sought to reprint):

--- norman goldman <normangoldman@redwire.net> wrote:
--------------------------------- i agree with what you say...so, given all that, where does that leaveus????


Me: Appalled by the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule (TBMR). As usual.

I think the Israelis have had their go, and to their dismay the Hezbollah are not the pushovers in Lebanon that the PLO army once was. It would be in their interest to make a deal, without waiting for it to be brokered by Bolton and Rice (the successors to that first-term comedy duo, Cheney and Powell). Heck, there's only 30 months. Our negotiators: The Flaming Looney and The Straightpersonofcolor.

A deal. That's all that Hezbollah/Hamas/Syria/Iran were looking for: an exchange of prisoners. That is classic Islamic tactics, but, you know, "they didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" (The Israelis, particularly the Sephardim, they know about that one.) They got scorched, too. They should all agree to come to the table and say, "F U" to the Bushite, and to Ahmadinejad, too. Germany and Japan will be glad to mediate. I have every confidence in Israel's ability to make a good deal, on their own, and particularly with their own intelligence.

Return of the Bolton Diversion

The Senate having wasted its time and the public money on debates about gay marriage, flag-burning (I wonder what the Supreme Court would do if a constitutional amendment were passed prohibiting stupid constitutional amendments), and pretending to take up immigration and stem-cell research (the debates on the Senate floor for these two were edifying but useless), it must have run out of things to do. So, it's time to bring back debate over John Bolton to be the U.N. Ambassador.

Bolton has had his dry run through a recess appointment and has thoroughly established himself as a boat-rocking Bushite, using unilateralist tactics to achieve very little, though his aims are themselves totally wrong-headed. So, sounds like a good idea to confirm him.

That was Sen. Voinovich's conclusion--probably Rove sent him a political memo showing that some U.N. bashing was just what this year's campaign strategy needed.

Italy's World Cup Win

I've got to say something about it. OK, Luca Toni wasn't the big hero, so my longshot call wasn't quite on the mark. Strange, though, how Zidane's head-butt turned out to be the big news--and we still don't know what Materazzi called his sister!

One could argue that there was some meat on that bone--that Zidane's absence from the shootout (which followed his blow-up by only about 10 minutes) was critical to the outcome. I would argue that the key to the outcome was Italy's aggressive and successful response to France's early penalty kick (by Zidane, on a dubious call, but the call against Italy had been earned by several clamorous fouls in the moments before). Unfortunately, they decided to shut things down afterwards, and the jogo was not so bonito.

Candidate Reviews: Bayh, Bayh-den--
Unfortunately, I missed the C-SPAN bits, and I doubt they would have had sufficient viewer interest to merit showing again. I will instead try to guess what I think, and then second-guess myself through comments later.

Evan Bayh: The people of Indiana knew what they were getting when they first elected him. He's not quite a carbon copy of his dad, Birch, who represented the state for a generation, but he's a reasonable facsimile, flavored a bit with old-time Reaganite law 'n order. Apparently they haven't been disappointed, and Evan has managed miraculously to stay around in what is without doubt the most conservative state of the North Central region. He stands for sensible positions; projects a tough image; certainly his centrist credentials are in order.

This is promising; certainly a promising area for Democrats to make up ground. I don't think just having him on the ticket as VP would be potent enough to win many Mideastern states, though, unless he made a really good fit with the nominee. (And, at that, his folksy image might balance out HRC's imperious aura and make the ticket more appealing to Joe Sixpack NASCAR's out there. Which they would definitely need if Her Royal Clinton gets it.) On the other hand, his making Indiana competitive again, and just picking up a few votes in neighboring states like Michigan and Ohio would definitely be a worthwhile contribution from a running mate.

However, I don't see him having nearly enough of a national persona, or experience with foreign policy/national security, to make the cut to the final 2-3 contenders for the nomination himself (assuming it won't be just one contender after New Hampshire, an assumption I'm not ready to make at this point). Not having seen his speech, I don't even know what his position on Iraq is at this point (I'm thinking it's close to my "consensus Democratic position"--see elsewhere on this blog).

So, I see him as serious VP timber; a Quayle with greater intellect. The question is whether he can raise his profile successfully without embarrassing himself with bad primary results, and I don't know any strategy in the early primaries which will do that for him (particularly if Tom Vilsack runs and gets into the middle of the Iowa caucuses, taking away his turf).

Joe Biden: Here we are dealing with a known quantity, particularly from a national party perspective. As Senior Minority Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is now de facto the leading spokesman for the party on foreign policy. His role is much like the one Jesse Helms used to have during the Clinton administration, but he's behaved much more responsibly in it than Helms. Unfortunately, accomplishing much less in terms of disruption.

The good news is that he has been around (an incredibly long time for his age), knows his stuff, and will not crib excessively from British Labour leaders' speeches this time around (granted, their oratory consistently blows ours away). He does have a tendency toward pomposity, so the danger will be if his ego is pricked at the wrong time, when he's tired after a trying day on the campaign trail or something. A "Wee-haw" Deaniac moment is hardly impossible. I do think he can handle the Tim Russerts of the world, though.

His domestic policies are pretty straightforward post-modern liberal Democrat, with all the ambiguity that implies. Like Bayh, he's supported capital punishment and strong law enforcement, but has a good record on race relations. While he has pursued the interests of the big banks pretty consistently, it's understandable in his case, as they are in a real sense his constituents (Bank holding company HQ's are pretty much all Wilmington, Delaware has going for it). He also supports things like raising the minimum wage and has a reasonable record on the environment.

The bad news is that he's from a small state, has a narrow slice of a national following, and is a Senator. On Iraq, he came to the anti-Bushite party too late for the crowd looking for a left-wing alternative to HRC. Russ Feingold would seem to have the edge for that segment--which I think is substantial and will end up with a candidate in any finalist group that has more than one participant. He could be a Dick Cheney-type VP with a heavy diplomatic portfolio, or Secretary of State, for a Democratic President of any flavor with relatively little international experience (like Mark Warner, or even Russ Feingold). Still seems pretty long of a shot. I think Biden is tremendously bored with being a big fish in the minority party in the Senate, though, so I think this is his last shot.

The good news for Evan Bayh is that he is not in that situation.

Housekeeping: Had a big birthday and a vacation. Just getting things back in order on the domestic front. So much for issues 1:4, 1:5.

Next issue:
Common Sense Consumerism: Shower vs. Bath
Excessively Specific 2006 Election Results Forecast

USA-Ghana = US a'goner

I was going to post this bit with the rationale last night, but Idecided it was too negativist and "anti-American". Now, that it'sover, I can be journalistic (though I prefer striving for prophetic).

The ESPN hype on this one was that this was to be "the biggest game in the history of American soccer" (sometimes they forgot to includethe modifier before soccer). This was bunk, as actually Ghana hadmore "to play for" than the USA in this one. For Ghana, indeed,this was the biggest day ever in the history of their participationin the sport.

For the USA, these five-and-a-half games in recent history all had a greater opportunity for glory:
1. USA vs. Germany, quarterfinals, 2002 (good effort but 0-1loss)
2. USA vs. Brazil, round of 16, 1994 (lost to a second halfgoal 0-1 while a man up)
3. USA vs. Mexico, round of 16, 2002 (a win!)
4. USA vs. Portugal, first round, 2002 (a win!)
5. (tie) USA vs. Czech, USA vs. Italy, first round, 2006 (onecrushing defeat, one moral victory/draw).

The USA was playing for, at best, a tainted prize: an almost-certainsecond round matchup against Brazil, if they won, if Italy won.Ghana was basically going through with a draw, and actually had achance to win the group. Instead, they will (let's go out on alimb) get Brazil, playing without their best player, Michael Essien,who will miss a game for two yellow cards. A dubious prize, but for fans of The Black Knights of Ghana, they will just be happy to beseeing them (one might notice many boners, or possibly rolls offifty-cent pieces (do such exist?) in Ghanaian pants that day); they will be the only African team going forward, too, unless something bizarre happens for Tunisia.
Bottom line: no surprise here. All along, it looked as though theUSA would need a win against Ghana to go through and the Ghanaianscould be expected to be tough. The USA has a terrible record in thethird game of the opening round, and in any game in the World Cupplayed in Europe (the draw with Italy being their best result ever).Ghana's total surprise win over Czech made sure they would havemotivation at least equal to the USA's.The game itself was pretty good, a doubtful Penalty Kick decidingit, but as indicated, the game didn't determine the USA's fate.That was pretty much decided when they drew the group positionsmonths ago.

EBKPRB

Pete Rose was my favorite baseball player as a child. I loved the way he played; he made the most of his talent, and he had a great mind for the game.

It was not until I was at least an adolescent that I realized what a monster he was in a personal sense. My loyalty to his principal team, the Cincinnati Reds, remains unshakable, but I found myself in the uncomfortable position of forgiving his transgressions publicly and repeatedly before his detractors, who had such obvious basis for their opinions.

I caught the man tonight. He was at one point described as "the greatest hitter in the history of baseball" by his fawning TV interviewer, David Durgan (go back to radio! Yeah, I know he has more "career hits", but that does not make him the "greatest hitter"). So you see what kind of interview it was: the kind he likes. He does quite well in such a situation and loosens up, and the real Pete Rose, an idiot savant of the game, emerges.

Pete's employed by Vegas, now. He responded to the suggestion that he might take his publicity drive on the road, earning public forgiveness and possibly eventual Hall of Fame enshrinement if he were to speak against the dangers of compulsive gambling and its harm, by saying, "I'm a family man. I have to make money for the family."

The occasion of this family man's appearance actually was to allow him to protest his son's imprisonment for distributing (not selling) steroid-like artificial compounds to two minor-league teammates. The term of imprisonment is apparently 30 days, and Pete Sr. complains that his son is being discriminated against because of his famous father and the rap against him.

I will leave aside the possibility that some might feel the punishment for this federal crime (!) may be light and admit I'm neither a chemist nor a drug enforcement lawyer. I do have to call attention to the irony of his son's apparent will to succeed by any means taking the form of unsanctioned behavior. Just like his dad.

I believe that Pete has indeed made peace with the fact that he will always be an un-enshrined asterisk from a Hall of Fame perspective. It's too much work to repair his public image, and he's not ideally suited for it.

I wouldn't envy the Hall of Fame electorate of sportswriters the tough decision on Rose--if they had it. I would still urge that his name be out there, and that they have to make it. Continuously--not just a one-year boycott and dumping the name for failing to get the required 10% or whatever, as that's unworthy of the voters and Rose's baseball accomplishments.

Moral relativism being what it is (i.e., a fact), he could still get elected sometime this century (and that would be OK!) Moral standards can move both ways: I daresay the percentage of people has risen in recent times who can not forgive Thomas Jefferson for the sins of owning, and even selectively bedding, his slaves. More to the point, though, many things deemed improper, cheating, or just "not sporting" of the past are now more accepted (think of the recent change in the Olympics, from amateurism-->shamateurism and Commie-state sponsored athletes-->acceptance of professionalism) So, our already highly confessional society might move to pardon his fundamental sin of "betting on his own team", and worse, being known to do so (and presumably, known by at least some mobsters when he's not doing so).

My sense from the comments of those I read who do have that privilege of voting (which they endow with unreasonable importance) is that they will have enough to deal with in coming years, starting with McGwire, followed soon after by Sosa and then Bonds. They've moved on past Rose, too.

His baseball-related complaint about being banned from the game today focuses not on the Hall, but on being unable to practice his trade, particularly managing or coaching a team. I have a solution for that: why doesn't he see if he can manage in Japan or something (with an interpreter)? Better yet, I have the feeling that the up-and-coming baseball power Australia (why not? they're good at every other sport) could find a place for him. They might even enjoy him as a sort of comic character, a "Yank" Crocodile Dundee equivalent. OK, the 30 teams which control MLB, Inc. through their official puppet, the Commissioner of Baseball, have agreed, tacitly or implicitly, to allow him to be frozen out. I see no evidence that they have control over the game in other nations (besides complicit Toronto, Canada)--maybe he won't start at the top and will have to prove himself.

As for myself, if I had the vote, he's in. One has to separate the baseball accomplishments, which in his case are not unparalleled but are truly outstanding, from the off-field (or even in-dugout) disgraces. As the voters once did quite easily once upon a time with Cobb, Wagner, Sisler. Ah, but those were different times!

The Ace of Spades

So, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed Karl Rove and his lawyer that Fitzgerald no longer considers Rove a target for prosecution under his mandate and will seek no grand jury indictment against him. It seems, further, that he has no fish to fry beyond Lewis Libby.

Libby's been the designated fall guy for some time now, as the frame--if such were necessary--was set in place upon him well before the 2004 election, though it took much longer for the lies needed to back up the Iraqi invasion to unravel than the WHIG plotters feared at the time. Then again, maybe not long enough: the Iraq war was supposed to be over before any of this would come back to haunt the Bushites, and then it wouldn't have mattered.

Nevertheless, despite the limited results of this particular fishing expedition, I wouldn't throw Scooter back, because the trial will continue to shed a little light on "Cheney's office" (at least better than none at all). The trial may yet reveal a conspiracy worthy of prosecution, but this outcome is grim news indeed. It means that Rove may once again ply his sinister talent without being harassed by legally legitimized taunts of "Traitor".

My reading of the case is that Fitzgerald found less-than-credible Rove's assertions that he forgot the call he made with Time reporter Matthew Cooper on the subject of the Nigerian uranium hoax, Ambassador Wilson's perfidious truth-telling, and the hidden fact of his wife's status as a covert CIA operative; however, Fitzgerald lacks sufficient evidence to prove that Rove didn't forget, and Rove was able to stick to his story, such as it was. Repeatedly. Besides, I'm sure Rove made so many other calls, to so many other access-based journalists; maybe Cooper's wasn't top of mind.

Alas, Fitzgerald's perjury trap was less than perfect and this brilliant liar Rove, whose lie was less transparent here than many he has perpetrated, has won once again. Hence his card value in the Bushite deck; Rove's power trumps all others because politics is everything for the Bushites.

I have heard objections to comparing the lies generated by Rove and certain other prominent Bushites to the propaganda of Goebbels and the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. It seems one can never make a historical analogy which involves Nazi Germany. Well, Rove didn't kill anyone--directly--with his lies and neither did Goebbels. It took powerful and secretive initiatives of an all-powerful executive untrammeled by adequate oversight, under the lazy watch of a confused, distracted, and acquiescent nation, for the Holocaust to occur. We are not in a comparable situation in this society in terms of the immediate results, but the power of lies to deceive the public has not diminished. Therefore the analogy, and the outrage, is appropriate.

To call this man a pathological liar is to give disease a worse name than it deserves. His motives are not as innocent as a simple bacterium, virus, or chemical imbalance.

World Cup preview

I studied the draw for the C.d M. quite closely when it came out some months ago and have been tryingto forget it since. There are two groups of death--the USA's, withItaly, Czech, and Ghana; and the even tougherArgentina/Holland/Ivory Coast/Serbia. The USA got screwed, especially viz. its rival Mexico, while (it's 90% likely that) Brazil is waiting for USA group's second-place team (so you don'twant to be there). Italy has a history of coasting through the first round and barely squeezing through, but I expect this time to be different--they will make a special effort to finish first (which means playing to win all three games), and then they'll be able to coast later for a couple of rounds. The ability to coast a little is very important to a team with championship aspirations; this tournament is coming at the end of a very long season, and seven games in three weeks is quite a lot.

I'd say the USA's chances ofmaking it past the second round are about 10%, which is too bad: I like their team. It's sort of like how I feel about Russ Feingold.

Spain is the proverbial dark horse; the team that consistently proves the adage that "it doesn't matter how good your league is when you're in the World Cup". There's no doubt that Spain now has the best league in the world; we will see what that gets them (usually it's a bitter, early exit). In a similarly trite vein, for some reason, "nobody new rarely gets to the finals, and if they do, they don't win." (It's only hard to understand because, in a single four-year-period, teams have about 80% turnover, including coaches. Tradition alone doesn't explain it, or England would win.) That logic says that the final two will be Brazil and Somebody, Somebody probably being Italy, Germany, or Argentina. I think these outcomesare all bad bets, though.

It's not a betting interest, but I'm pulling for Gli Azzurri (italy)and their striker Luca Toni, who's basically come from nowhere thisyear on Fiorentina, a team that has almost literally come back from the dead--they were bankrupt and forced to drop into something likethe Fourth Division a few years ago due to mismanagement. Doesn't that name--Luca Toni--nothwithstanding its appearance of having two first names, sound like Destiny to you?

That is, I'll be rooting for them after the first round, of course: I'm a patriot. Nationalism is integral to this competition, which is OK for me because there is plenty of globalization in the day-to-day game, so it's actually a change of fare.

Perhaps those hoping for an underdog can hope that Ronaldinho will follow the past of his predecessor Ronaldo and turn up inexplicably lame in the final. Some skeptics have suggested that Ronaldo's Gimp(in Paris, 1998) was some kind of Corsican Mafia death threat thing,but he certainly had the leg problems later to back up his alibi.

For me, the key team in this tourney that I'm not rooting for (my loyalties are, in order, the USA, Italy, Holland, and Brazil) is the Czech Republic. The USA plays them first, and they need to get at least a draw to have a decent chance to advance. Then, assuming the Czechs will finish second in the group, they would face Brazil (assuming it wins its group). I think the Czechs can beat Brazil if they get lucky: they have the best goalie around (Chelsea's Petr Cech) and some other real talent.

The Iran Gambit

Condoleeza came up with a good one the other day: she offered to join the multilateral talks Europe and Russia have been having with Iran on the nuclear issue, if and only if Iran ceases the centrifuging and other activities which have been deemed steps toward Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.

As a talking point, or a tactical gambit, it's a good one. It addresses the complaint Europe and Russia have made that their negotiations with Iran have been difficult, unproductive, and that the US has not helped. It may tend to get them (the Europeans and Russia) a little more behind taking punitive action against Iran once the Iranians decline to negotiate on the Americans' terms (in fact, they did so immediately, and will no doubt continue to do so). It will not halt the Iranians' march (which actually appears to be a Very Long, Slow March) toward nukes. It's also an attempt to gloss over the fact that the Iranians technically are doing what is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

About the same time that Condi announced her Gambit, the New York Times had an incredible article which stated that President Ahmedejadine of Iran has grown in power in Iran. It, like Rice's move, shows that ignorance of Iran is manifest in all the highest levels of America. Could they not see that the mullahs have chosen to raise up this clown because he does exactly what they want? If you want to call this "power", OK; it's the power to do what your employer tells you to do. You're empowered.

I recommend the Americans consider the Iranians' counter-offer, which was for either direct or joint talks without preconditions. I further recommend that we establish channels through our partner in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani. We need to learn more about what makes Iran tick. Why, for example, do they think they need nuclear weapons? (I would argue that their behavior makes it evident that they do think so.) And, how could we influence the changing of that perception?

I'm sure it will not be accomplished by threatening punitive action, nor do I think that it will be accomplished by bribing them with trinkets and nuclear-generated electric power. The first step is for us to make it clear--by our actions--that joining the nuclear weapons club does not make a nation suddenly more important or deserving of our assistance and comity. If we persist in that sort of behavior (and, yes, offering to break our 25+ year isolation of Iran to reward them for their nuclear program is an example of it, but I would advocate it in this special case, in the interests of generally improving our intelligence), we're going to have every two-bit country going nuclear soon.

Consensus Democratic Policy on Iraq (Revised)

Here's the proposal I sent to Wes Clark's website and posted here August 29, 2005.

1) We would not have invaded Iraq in the way they have done.
2) We would not have occupied Iraq in the way they have done.
3) When we take back the reins of power in 2009, we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and
4) In the meantime, we support the efforts of our troops.

We could perhaps add a clause 3a) When we take back the reins of power in 2009 or 18 months and one day after the Iraqis name a Minister of Defense and Interior, whichever comes first, then we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and...

(new language italicized)

I know it's a bit sarcastic, but that seems to be the only appropriate response to the announcement of the government without these positions filled. What, are they waiting for Rumsfeld to be canned and the new Secretary of the GWOT to select the ministers? Don't.

Seen on TV Tonight: Gore images, McCain Live

1. McCain: Just Waiting for 2007 to Come

Larry King interviewing John McCain. The Senator came clean with Larry and spoke, softly, his confident that credit for his geopolitical authority and sincere bipartisan effort are granted. At least that was the intended tactical program. I think it “came across”, except for the fact he’s looking old. 4 years tops, we’re to think. Careful, now; I see no commitment that he'd be one term and done. So, we'd have a ridiculous re-election campaign, as in 2004. 1968, yet once more into the breach--in 2012. That's the Crimean danger his candidacy presents, and it's a major one.

McCain’s big 3: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. We’ll come back to this.

added 7/31/06:

McCain, the ABB.

this shorthand reference may initially be seen as referring to The Anti-Bushite Bushite, which in some important policy areas he would be. No, instead it is The All But Bushite.

2006 will be the proof of the McCain thesis, and will pose the simple challenge: McCain. Who can beat him? Who will take the crown from the unelected Presidential favorite?

(This is where the Democratic challenger comes in.)

Before we get ahead of ourselves, though, our pre-race designation of Sen. McCain as the party's pre-emptive champion presumes something very important, and not to be taken for granted, Romney-style (not Mitt, the late George Romney. You remember him, don't you? The presumptive leader in 1968 from the conventional wisdom when the primaries began, Gov. George Romney of Michigan blew it when he admitted he had been "brainwashed". )

John McCain doesn't have to worry about that charge--it's well-documented-- but he does have a host of potential challengers. Many have lined up for a shot at the action, and with no electoral reform in sight, the field will divide rapidly into those who can churn in the money and those who cannot. There's contribution space for quite a few early, but the second-round money goes to three guys/gals tops. There are interesting primary results sometimes for other candidates, but the weight of delegates will end up going to those who continue to draw contributions.

So, besides McCain, we see a couple of slots that will remain open through the primaries, as long as a contender's bank balance can sustain the challenge:

Giuliani/Pataki. Another spatially-driven encounter: Only one of them can occupy the candidate space of offbeat choice from New York of moderate Republicans. Giuliani can do that and make the anti-terrorism cop role stick. That makes him favored to take that role into the final series of primary challenges.

A Bushite. The one I'm looking to see make a run is Frist. He auditioned for the ABB role but was not called back.

(This is where the previously-mention challengers are mentioned. Gingrich. Hagel. )

And then, there are others still:

Romney. I think tarbaby killed his momentum. Doesn't he have to get re-elected or something? He will not make it to the starting gate.

Brownback. Could pull a solid 3-15% kind of number. Will deliver the evangelical vote. Has a shot at making the finals. A potential kingmaker, unless McCain can bag him early.

George Allen. All right, he's a Bushite. Write him in there instead of Frist, I don't care. Only one of them gets to be the alpha dog, though. He has the advantage of being on the right side of the stem cell issue (unlike Frist), for the purposes of keeping Brownback out of it. He's got to win one early; maybe they can get a caucus in Nevada going for him, too, get some of Daddy's old gambling friends?

Friends, we need the Bushite in there; otherwise, it gets too complicated. Once the candidate gets nominated he can run as the Anti-Bushite Bushite, he won't get to that spot without being able to do that.

Huckaby. A-yuk, a-yuk. Will get much of the Lamar Alexander vote.

OK, we got through that. Any more names?

I think McCain will hit 40% or more in every primary and have established himself as the clear leader by April. After that, it's a question of how much further the Bushite and Giuliani/Pataki carry it forward, and when Brownback will acknowledge the obvious and take the VP slot. (In the form of a question.)

ABB is Reagan Revisited.

As mentioned before, McCain sees himself as the logical continuation of Ronald Reagan. It is not too early to consider what this means, not in the terms of electoral positioning on some imaginary one-dimensional axis of "left" and "right", but in terms of governing strategy when dealing with some of the most challenging problems in the history of mankind.

2. Anderson Cooper.
a) Pictures of Al Gore, promoting An Inconvenient Truth.
Picture of the icecaps melting. Unfortunately, this all reminds me more of The Truth
Hydrologists Don’t Want You to Know. We’ll talk later.

Anyway, Gergen and John Roberts were brought on to answer that burning question, “Is Al Gore the Man of the Moment?” They gave quite reasonable assurances that, yes, depending on how the movie release goes, he could be very well
“The Most Hype-othetical Candidacy in America. And I do mean “hype”.
But seriously, though, Donna Brazile managed to point out before the segment ended (during which, I believe, they did not fail to mention twice the parallels with Nixon, the former defeated VP, coming back to win eight years later), saying, seriously, Gore will only be taken seriously as long as he’s not serious about running.

b) Some post-Katrina Gulf Coast reconstruction news bit. Don't recall what it was, but I do Love the way Anderson says, “N’Awrlians”.

Read the excerpt in Vanity Fair from his new book, Despatches from the Edge. First, I have to give kudos to the editing by Graydon Carter. I jumped from the end of Douglas Brinkley’s piece to Cooper’s opening—pausing only to look briefly at the picture pages in between--and it's nearly seamless in time, just skipping the actual hell of the hurricane*. I was amazed at the improvement in immediacy, the humor, the compelling quality of the writing, doing this segway from the academic to this guy, who I considered just a competent TV anchor. Well, we have revised our opinion of the man, we're impressed with the second dimension of his infotainment performance capability, and Despatches from the Edge is going on my summer reading list.

The Vanity Fair excerpt has some amazing stuff. This guy has the dream bio for a reporter to cover, including the tragedy of his brother’s suicide, so movingly told in the excerpt; including growing up a Vanderbilt, specifically a Gloria Vanderbilt. So he told it. Back to the Cooper 360 show (what about the other 5 1/4 days?), though:


c) Rahm Emanuel: The Man Running the Democratic Party—I’d have to say that, though thorough in talking to many Dems and getting the correct answer, this segment was presented to Me The Viewer rather badly. First, I predicted it from the teaser before the segment was shown. “Who’s Controlling the Direction of the Democratic Party? The Answer May Surprise You,” they teased. It was obvious the segement would start with the default position, i.e., nobody. As usual.

The profile bounced around and ended up giving The Name Unfamiliar. I think it was a pretty cheap shot (with anti-Semitic undertones?), mainly because they never properly explained the logic why all would name him as the critical man in the party’s affairs this year: he is running the strategy for the House elections this year, the one branch of the one branch the Democrats have a chance of winning. Or so Emanuel at least would allege in his off-the-record briefing to NY Times stenographers.

So, instead of Harry Reid, as it appeared at one point when the issue of judicial nominations before the Senate looked as though it could be the flash point of battle, it is the House campaign which is make or break, as far as any progress whatsoever in progressing towards the future anytime before January, 2009. I tend to think we're looking at a tactical result in a multi-frontal battle which is going to have another heartbreaking “no change” outcome.

Let’s just say I’m wrong and the Democrats win in the House. If there is any progress, it’s going to have to be Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight as Speaker, one would presume. The question the media will be groping for will be, “Who’s The Power behind the Throne, then? “ They won’t take her seriously, and it would have consequences.

If the Democrats should win, Pelosi’s performance would set the backdrop for Hillary’s Run for the Record**, which I think can only be to Her (uncrowned) Royal Clinton’s detriment. Choose your nightmare scenario conclusion—Barbaro (catastrophic) or Barry Bonds (caterwauling and cantankerousness). This is the core of the “Electability” rumor being spread about Hillary—that the anti-feminism her candidacy would provoke (in code-word camouflage, of course) would once again successfully distract sufficiently the electorate to allow another sham “no change” result in 2008.

This time I simply won’t buy it. I think that the gap will be closed in both the House and Senate, but not enough to switch. So, the history of never having a woman in a key constitutional leadership/decision-making position (as opposed to the collegial Supreme Court seat) will still be wide-open for Hillary to try to bust in 2008. If she wants.


3. Back to Larry King interviewing McCain


This is as close to a stump speech as I care to see, and it tells me what I need to know.

The news item here is that McCain has done his preparation and is ready to take on a variety of general candidate-type questions and has figured out where he stands on them. His stands already mark him as the potential Republican nominee with the greatest appeal to Independents and Democrats. I think he's in a position to make an appeal to the effect that, "Before we abandon Republican national leadership forever out of anti-Bushite fervor, give me a chance to show that we can lead you in a different way." Could work, once. But it would be four more years wasted in terms of orienting ourselves politically to face the unforeseen challenges of the future, and I'm not sure he'd be able to put that many of the unresolved challenges of the past behind us, either.

Most critically, from a political strategy point of view he's successfully putting himself in the Loyal Anti-Bushite Republican bloc, clearly a growing segment of the population. McCain seeks to have positioned himself for anything from a Republican disaster to a decresase in majority. His wide-ranging criticisms of Bushite administration will then appeal to a party elite which will be chastened but still in place.

If, somehow, the Republicans defeat expectations and hold their majorities largely at their current levels, it will be hard to deny a Bushite like Frist, or horrors! Jeb the first (best, and only) shot at top spot on their ticket. Jeb would be especially likely if HRC goes for the brass ring and remains viewed as likely to get the DemNom. McCain would be logically advised to stay out of it then, and this whole argument actually lends credibility to the standard delaying words he uses in postponing any decision until after the 2006 elections.

2006’s task for McCain is trying to score loyalty points for Republican candidates this year, an effort to make his nomination as close to inevitable as possible in the eyes of party loyalists. He was at great pains to put on display his willingness to compromise to get things done (unlike the Bushites), but also to point out that his philosophy is a “conservative” one. Here he's taking the safe ground and giving fair warning to those liberals who might be tempted: if elected, he will work with you to solve certain issues in a bipartisan way, but don’t be fooled. He’s not with you on your agenda.

Strategically, the Democrats would need to confront McCain with a candidate willing to represent the interests of the young, our future. More on this soon.

As I have said before about McCain, I respect him as an authentic American war hero (more authentic than Kerry; in the league with McGovern, the elder George Bush, Bob Murtha, and the ex-Georgia Senator and Vets' Admin head Clefeld) and a man of integrity. As a candidate, yes, I fear him.

I recall 2000, of course; I felt the same way about him then, basically. He was a much more potent general election candidate than Dubya in every way. The fact that Dubya managed to eke out victory does not change that, though I admit I felt foolish later to think that I felt relieved at the South Carolina Republican primary outrages of 2000 which pushed Dubya to the fore.

4. And Back, Once Again, to Gore
So, no, they're not really serious about him. Although this could change. CNN's John Roberts in the (taped) dialogue with Cooper identified a key concern about any notion of Gore-mania. Democratic leaders, deep down, are afraid that a Gore nomination (much like a Kerry nomination) would bring up the past, when they want to put Democrats on the right side of the Future issue (at least in this regard I feel they are coming around to the topic, even if they don't know how to address it yet).

Paradoxically, though, I think Gore would put the Future on the agenda, and he'd have the angels on his side on this one. So, maybe they will come around to him again. If the movie thing pans out.

Gore 2008: Political Stump Speech Embodied in Film
Gore 2008--the Sequel: The Candidate as Film Director



*The ideal segway would have been shots from CNN's coverage of Anderson Saying 'Dat 'Dere, while getting smacked about by the storm. I would guess that CNN wanted too much for what they wanted.

**In The Record Book, it would read: Most times elected President of the U.S., Women's Division---(1)--H. Rodham Clinton, 2008.

Appendix to "Existential Lottery Winners"

Summary of 20th Century American Political Eras
2001-18 Progressive Era, climaxing with WWI (dates from McKinley assassination/TR inauguration)
19-32 Inter-War Era, climaxing with Great Depression (from treaty of Versailles?)
33-52 New Deal Era, climaxing the Century with WWII, and its climax year, 1944
53-63 Golden Age I , ending abruptly with JFK assassination
64-80 “Years of Turmoil” Attempted generational coup by baby Boomers (b. 47-67). Its failure with 1980 Iran Hostage Incident? Its productivity. Carter presidency anachronistic.
1981 through 2008 is Golden Age II. Though its energy is spent, the period will continue on, in denial of the changes occurring, until the 3-D Administration (Dumb Duck Dubya) completes its futile, Buchanan-like term of office. One can only hope that we, too, will be so lucky as to find a Lincoln who will point us to the future (no doubt, at the cost of his/her life, as was true with Lincoln, and then so many others during the Years of Turmoil).

Three Phases of Golden Age II
81-92 Reagan Era, its climax with Gulf War I
93-2005 Post Cold War. Ending with Katrina, first days of September, 2005. Not the natural disaster itself, but the implications of the governmental response or lack thereof.

2006-2008 Drift until the era ends—it could be seen to end if the Democrats were to overturn control of the House in 2006. Then, the 2007-08 Congress will undoubtedly be a hot spot, with now Nancy Pelosi in the spotlight for the party, until the Presidential election takes over. In the meantime, things could get very sticky for many Republicans. This side show—even a side show deserves a spotlight—if it occurs, it will make things even more complicated for the apocalypse we now call the 2008 Elections. This election will be run as a repudiation of the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by all but one party in this election. The Republicans just have to decide whether they will be that party. This once again returns the discussion to the question of John McCain, to be taken up subsequently.

2009-?? The Long Thing.

The Bushites would have you believe that Golden Age II ended with September 11, starting a generation(s)-long GWOT, also known as “the Long War”. Of course, we here still living innit know that isn’t true: we’ve been told we must undergo “treatment” for our “addiction to oil”, but we haven’t got a space open yet for our chosen rehab unit. We may or may not emerge from our coma this year (hint: it only partly depends on the voters; the rest is just the vicissitudes of the House’s electoral roulette wheel, tricked up as it has been by both parties), or we may stagger on through the apocalypse we now call the 2008 elections to the inauguration of our chosen anti-Bushite.

James Howard Kunstler would have you date the next age, which he also believes will be extended for decades, from publication of his The Long Emergency. Alternatively, from the date when oil production reached its peak. In the case of the paperback version, with its Epilogue sent to the printer just after Katrina, that would appear to be August 30, 2005.

stoner: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG

stoner: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG

send to The Huffington Post

The Global Dimming Hypothesis

I saw a PBS Frontline program on this topic awhile ago, and it got my febrile little brain going.

For those who didn't see the program or are unfamiliar with the hypothesis, a brief summary: global dimming is their name for the reduction in global solar heating caused by haze and increased clouding, which in term were driven by human effects--pollutants. This effect has been reduced--at least in many areas of the world--by reforms reducing pollutants by introducing technologies that scrub exhausts from industrial plants and vehicles. The resulting clearing of the air has allowed the full weight of the distinct process of global warming--the heat-trapping effect of invisible "greenhouse" gases--to be felt only recently. The global dimming hypothesis suggests that the full potential effect of global warming in the next century may need to be bumped way upward.

A very depressing prospect, if true, since no doubt much damage has already been done and much more will occur before we can change significantly the pattern of release of these organic gases from burning fossil fuels. I'm not sure that "going agro" with bio-fuels would even change that pattern all that much (subject for research).

But that's not my point of this post. My first thought was, well, China isn't going to have that temperature problem (though they would experience the devastation of rising sea levels), because their pollution is bad and getting worse. Global dimming isn't over, over there.

This led to a more general thought: We don't want to go back to the bad days of smog and pollution, but the amount of heat directly absorbed on earth, no doubt a massive quantity, may be something which we could influence in a favorable way. We could choose to block sunlight, through judicious geographic selection (over deserts? or icecaps?) or partially, through filters suspended in the sky (pie-shaped?). We could put massive banks of solar collectors just above ground, and collect the energy (let's just make the panels easily replaceable as the science of photovoltaic materials progresses).

I'm really encouraged by these thoughts, contrary to the original thrust of the documentary report. For one thing, this report is coming from a post-G.W. point of view (global warming, not the Bushite): it does take the time to go over that science, but the focus is on the new science indicating that the recent dynamics in the geophysical realm are the result of changes, each following different paths over time, of two opposing results of human-generated mess--global warming, and its dampener, global dimming.

We've got a name for it....

Tom Tomorrow's got a great cartoon out this time, for his strip "This Modern World". This edition is called "The President's Favorite Sandwich".


You can find it at:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20771

In it, Dubya refers to something called a "shit sandwich", and says it's just great. And, like the other pundits and political figures Tomorrow skewers, I'd go along and say that he deserves to have it named after him: The Bushite Sandwich.

Existential Lottery Winners

We are extremely lucky to be where we are, when we are. But as you will know if you've watched the career of big lottery winners, scoring big-time and being made aware of it don't always lend themselves to living happily ever after.

The Bushites would have you believe that Golden Age II ended with September 11, starting a generation(s)-long GWOT, also known as “the Long War” (see the "Appendix" for recent chronology from the "stoner" perspective). Of course, we here still living innit know that isn’t true: we’ve been told we must undergo “treatment” for our “addiction to oil”, but we haven’t got a space open yet for our chosen rehab unit. We may or may not emerge from our Golden Coma this year (hint: it only partly depends on the voters; the rest is just the vicissitudes of the House’s electoral roulette wheel, tricked up as it has been by both parties), or we may stagger on through the apocalypse we now call the 2008 elections to the inauguration of our chosen anti-Bushite.

James Howard Kunstler would call the current age, which he also believes will be extended for decades, The Long Emergency. That's the title of the book, and the current age starts from the peak of world oil production, which may have already occurred in 2005, but if not, it will certainly occur soon.

Kunstler starts with some premises that are incontrovertible, such as the fact that there must be a peak, then a decline, in world oil production, starting pretty darn quick. Another is that the era of cheap fossil fuel energy is ending, and that many of the technological and engineering miracles of the recent era were in large part due to those cheap fossil fuels. He ties in global warming quite well to the developing emergency due to decline in oil availability, pointing out accurately that many of the touted solutions to perpetuate the fossil fuel era would compound the impending global climate change disaster. Logically, he remains on solid ground by debunking the market argument; all the market forces in the world cannot change the laws of physics.

He reaches, though, to prove that none of the alternatives are feasible. It is a difficult argument that no alternative can work: he has to prove that each and every possible new source is either limited in supply, unworkable, or too far away in time to relieve the gathering storm. Further, that a combination of these alternatives can't sustain our lifestyle.

He goes on to predict that globalization will end, that suburbia in all its manifestations will collapse, and that a global famine will result, with viable society reduced to small towns and small farms, isolated.

I think that in his zeal to give his jeremiad maximum urgency, he has undermined his strong initial arguments. He makes us want to "gargle with razor blades" in despair (his phrase), instead of mobilizing people to do something smart to avoid the decline into barbarism.

First, if we are just now reaching our peak of oil production, then there are still a trillion or so barrels of oil products yet to be consumed. There's plenty left, if we can be intelligent about using them according to a plan. Some uses are indefensible and must be abandoned, others (plastics and other chemicals, production of electricity) need to be preserved. He makes a very telling point that America needs to invest now in electrified railways, but doesn't seem to believe that it will happen (as it did in most of the rest of the developed world).

When it comes to personal road transportation, a very plausible alternative is emerging in terms of plug-in hybrid technology, and it seems likely that future energy transmission will be through the electrical grid. This, like the hybrids themselves, is an energy-consuming system that is characterized by flexibility (in the means of generating power) and efficiency.

I think Kunstler is motivated in part by geographical ignorance and bias. One clear takeaway is that he despises suburban sprawl and has a desire to see it end. OK, but do the dying industrial towns of the Northeast really have an advantage in the hypothetical localized economy of the future over the green exurbs? We already see that the jobs are moving to the suburbs, and not just the service McJobs of fast foods, gas stations, highway and single-family home construction.
I'll buy that some of the big cities based on sprawl and massive car commuting are in danger from the end of cheap gasoline. This will be exacerbated in this part of the country when water supplies dry up as a byproduct of global climate change and the exhaustion of aquifers. However, there are efforts to make sustainability part of the culture of the Southwest, too. There is also a source of energy which is practically limitless, totally renewable, and the potential of which has not been even slightly exploited to its full extent: solar energy. Apart from the expanded use of passive solar energy to heat homes, buildings, and water use, I actually think there is a technological fix, which will come from improved photoelectric energy capabilities; it's probably about a generation away.

In thinking about the book and the world he envisions, I thought of a late Talking Heads song off "Naked"--a fantastic album. "Nothing but Flowers" envisions a world where all the shopping malls and fast food restaurants have been replaced by daisies and farms. The perspective of the lyrics is nostalgia for the lost parking lots, etc. It seemed pretty outlandish, and I was never sure whether it was sarcastic. Surely, there will be some parts of our automobile-driven culture that we may miss (if Kunstler is right), but like him, I think history will look back on this period as a strange, perhaps necessary, phase of society's development, characterized by bizarre behavior on a massive scale and leading, unfortunately, only to its own exhaustion. Which is not to say that we will lose our technology, that the arts of this period will be totally denigrated, or that we will revert to near barbarism, either. I'm thinking more "Childhood's End".

Notes from NOLA

The City Beneath the Sea

The phrase in the subhead is taken from a song byHarry Connick, Jr. (recorded on a recent New Orleans benefit album, but written in 1995), and I like it: it's got a romantic, Atlantis-style allusion; it's ironic, and it's factual.

We have been to Jazzfest, and I can report: it lives. New Orleans, too, though there was considerable anxiety about what comes afterwards (a slow season for tourism, with the threat of hurricanes and knowledge the city is not yet protected from them).

I would say there was unanimity on one thing--to welcome people back to the city, whether they are evacuees returning or visitors. There was much less unanimity on what was to be done--appropriately, with the city in the middle of a closely-contested election--but the main themes were the following:
1) lack of affordable housing--the logjam is taking many forms, from lack of construction supplies, to the bureaucratic obstacles to rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward, to exorbitant rents for substandard conditions, to the empty mansions of absentee landlords. One of the more interesting ideas was utilizing ship containers as temporary housing in rebuilding areas. The rebuilding process is going to be very slow; whoever wins as mayor will likely move to implement an organic process to determine whether to renew neighborhoods on a block-by-block basis as they gain critical mass of returning residents (or don't).
2) lack of service workers--just another effect of the housing shortage, probably. They can't staff restaurants, stores, and can't keep up with the garbage collection. There is much to be done.

The deepest concern at this point is that a recurrence of bowl-filling in the near future could kill the existing momentum and the potential for greater progress.

This threat, recognized by all, resonates with my own childhood experience. Our home was badly flooded in 1969--the remnants of Hurricane Camille dumped on the Blue Ridge. We were evacuated out the front door of our split-level house with eight feet of water already in the downstairs section. The peril for our lives was not great with a bit of caution and luck, though over the mountain mudslides buried or swept away dozens. The most enduring memory, though, was the mud left behind afterwards (New Orleans may have been less unfortunate in this regard: color photos from Katrina show the floodwater, most coming from the lake not the river, was somewhat clear--though, invisibly, often toxic.) The real problem we had was that, after that first one, the river's tendency to flood was much greater.

One can only hope that the goddess of hurricanes doesn't take a shine to the path that leads to that part of the Gulf Coast anytime soon.

Now, for review notes from the food and drink of the weekend:

Thursday 4/27--OK, we were to meet some friends at "Felix's, on Prytania"--vaguely uptown. I didn't check, but just passed it on to the taxi driver (Asian subcontinent, recent). We ended up at "Feelings" Cafe (downtown). Patched it up with our friends later. Not bad; it's still hard to find a bad meal without making a special effort. Gumbo--B+; Crawfish Etouffe--B.

Friday, 4/28
(Ratings are an attempt to judge how successful the performer was at whatever it was trying to do, not how much I like their style selection).

Loyola University Jazz Ensemble: basically all white, heavily-scored classics. I have to admit I was a bit worried if this was going to be indicative of the New New Orleans. It wasn't. Grade: C
Coolbone Brass Band--the new variety, brass band with rap. Grade: B-
Anders Osborne--I'm not familiar with his story, but he had the appearance of a session man coming out into the spotlight. I have to agree with JDK who noted the resemblance in appearance and musical style to '80's-vintage E.C. (Clapton, that is, see Costello below). B
Keb' Mo'--an acoustic set with one accompanist, on the big stage. Excellent. A
Bob Dylan--One thing I figured out during his performance, the first I'd seen him live since Rolling Thunder in '76: the twisted arrangements and vocal deliveries would seem to be designed expressly to prevent the audience's singing along and getting involved. My guess, Dylan is willing to entertain us with one pre-eminent condition: the entertainers are on this side, the audience on that side. Wise, given the Hinckleys and Mark David Chapmans out there (I should say out here).

This tour, the gimmick seems to be Dylan as The Gaunt Cowboy. White hat, white pants and top poorly filled, big head, teeth, pencil mustache. The main musician he was communing with was well-framed in the camera shot; this young fellow played mostly pedal steel, but also banjo, guitar, violin. (Have to get the name, and confirm the playlist from bobdylan.com)

The mix of old and new songs was pretty impeccable. As far as the new stuff, the emphasis on Love and Theft (the last--2001-- and most highly-rated of his recent cycle of three albums, represented with Summer Days, Lonesome Day Blues, and--I'm not kidding--High Water) is understandable, though I wish he'd played Cold Irons Bound, from the penult, Time Out of Mind. I'd rate that as his best song of the last 25 years or so. B+

Lunch: Crawfish Monica--One size only, now (the small), price up to $5. Jama Jama--spicy, sauteed spinach. Monica--C+; Jama--A-. The vendor turnout was very good--about 90% of what you'd remember and love from recent past years was represented.

Irvin Mayfield and the New Orleans Jazz Orchestra--an emotional performance, with some original compositions by the conductor (I believe), who keeps time for his charges by bobbing his head in time with the main beat. The musicians are spread all over for now; many were flown in for the weekend. Lots of guest stars, including Donald Harrison, Kermit Ruffins, Trombone Shorty. A

Friday Night

Dinner: Marigny Brasserie--Faubourg Marigny was getting so hot before Katrina. It's cooled off just a bit. This restaurant is a bit too classy for the nabe, but continues to measure up from quality and value standpoints. Gumbo (always gotta try it)--B; Soft Shell crabs (with pecan, blue cheese, green beans)--A.

Snug Harbor All-Stars: All of them were referred to by the club's owner in his introduction as band leaders whose bands were not in the lineup for Jazz Fest. Our companion that evening, Evan Mendelson, listed them for me in her epic email, "Bear Witness to the Healing Power of Music!", as follows: "Henry Butler and David Torkanowsky (piano/organ), Wes Anderson and Ed Peterson (sax), Shannon Powell (drums), Jason Stewart (bass), and a young guy who came in to play organ for a song or two --Devon Crawford, who had me in tears."

Tork used to be everywhere in town for the two weeks of Jazzfest; he seems to be slowing down and much more laid back (he plays everything, improvises with grace). Henry Butler had another gig, crosstown, scheduled at the same time! He played like he was in a hurry (metronome at 160, lots of chord runs and flourishes, a la McCoy Tyner), then left after 45 minutes to give way to the young Crawford, who killed with his version of the old Leon Russell song (...and when my life is over... look it up!)
The talents of Petersen (a featured soloist in Irvin Mayfield's show earlier that day) match up well with Torkanowsky's, but both are letting go a bit and it's showing up in their waistlines, if you know what I mean? Alto sax Anderson and drummer Powell paid tribute to both tradition and whimsy: how many times do you see a drummer come out in a suit? Young Jason Stewart on the upright bass handled all the changes in personnel, tempo, style without a hint of trouble. He looks to be a formidable fixture for future 'fests. All-Stars-- A+.

Saturday, 4/29

That Friday was a real workout. We didn't make it to Jazzfest Saturday until about 1:30. We found that the greater-than-usual disorganization getting in the gate Friday--unexpectedly large crowds!--had been remedied. We fought the winds and dust and roamed, most of the day. Some quick hits on acts we dropped by on:

World Leader Pretend--emo, young. JDK: like Coldplay. B

Clarence "Frogman" Henry--blues with pop styling. Crowd-friendly. B

Galactic--Deep grooves. B-

Tony Green--Gypsy guitar jazz (after Django Reinhart). B

Iguanas--Very danceable, with Latin influence and good use of horns. B+

Herbie Hancock Quartet--As the Times-Picayune music reviewer pointed out, too popular to be in the Jazz Tent. Not to denigrate, just a question of space and crowd. If he played it, I missed Rock It, which is an all-time favorite and would've suited his band's style perfectly. A-

Hugh Masakela--in Louisiana Rebirth Congo Square (as it's been re-christened, so to speak. Wynton Marsalis gave an endorsement to the stage; well , at least that's something. ) In the African big-band style, layered and rich. B+

Eddie Bo--at Fais Do-do. Funky piano in the down-home Louisiana style. Very popular. B+

Dinner--Felix's, on Prytania. We made it, this time. They ran out of fresh oysters, their principal specialty (serious shortage of shuckers). The cooked ones were good. B-

Rain and gale-force winds as we waited for our taxi. This is the way it should be, we thought: gluing the loose, sandy soil down. Wading through puddles and mud on Sunday. But no rain during the shows themselves.

Sunday, 4/30

Rambling early day, then some serious burrowing into the Acura Stage crowd. We followed the muddy ditch from the "road" at the back, into the heart of the crowd. Then, we found the quick way in and out: it's straight out to the track, over near the stage entrance.

Little Queenie--Classic rouser. Stayed around after her show to meet individually with her devoted followers. B+

DL Menard--About as red as they come; also as authentic. Sings in Cajun. B-

Christian Scott--Next-generation jazzman with college buddies. Style is late-Miles electric. C+

Soul Rebels Brass Band--Representative of the new style in brass bands, with heavy hip-hop augmentation. This band's from Houston. B

Walter "Wolfman" Washington and the Roadmasters--Congo Square, the distant lawn (a relative high point, away from the swamp by the stage, and we managed to score a direct view through the scaffolding). P-funkadelic R&B with suave vocals. Wolfman lives about two blocks from the Fairgrounds, alongside one of the main pedestrian entry roads. He had a little sign up outside his home, happened to come out for an errand as we walked by that evening. We gave him a quick rave--he gave us a big smile. Got to check and see if he's on Amazon. A

Allen Toussaint with Elvis Costello--"Mr. Music" was being the elegant host; Elvis looked psyched and happy to be a rebel; his new music--River in Reverse-- sounds promising. The lyrics seem a bit more politically pointed than usual, rather than just a vague disaffectation (key tag line from the title track: "Wake me up"), but we'll have to await the close examination to be sure it's not just another costume. Allen and a guest performer did "Land of 1000 Dances" in honor of Wilson Pickett? A

Mighty Chariots of Fire--Hot gospel. Roaming around the track a bit between shows. A

Bruce Springsteen and the Seeger Sessions Band--I bought into the presentation, especially at first. Workingman's folk songs, delivered with conviction. An outstanding band, laying down a nice thick line. Good fiddle action; wife Patty providing some continuity and conviction. I didn't even object to the introduction of the banjo as the lead solo instrument. After awhile, though (I'd mark it from Jesse James, about the fifth song, through the "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" tune with some different lyrics), it got to be a bit too shit-kicker for me. B

Dinner

Mona's Cafe--back in the Marigny (Frenchman, near Chartres). Eastern Mediterranean food; delicious and cheap, service and ambience casual in the extreme. Meat Grape Leaves Plate--B; Gyro Plate--A+; Lebanese Iced Tea (w/rosewater and pignoli)--B.

B&B: The House on Bayou Road. The grounds are in beautiful shape; I've been told much of the work was done by people staying there, in lieu of rent. Anyway, the special Jazzfest rates have been restored just in time for the event. The cooking school there has re-opened, but the restaurant, Indigo, has not yet done so. Breakfast outside the pool was heavily attended by flies. The location could not be beat for Jazzfest attendance purposes. Overall rating--B.

Mid-Monthly Review 1:3.5

Taos to Rummy: Don't hurry home!
Though there is undoubted novelty in the current wave of retired generals--now topped by the intervention of Colin Powell--denouncing the Iraq war's conduct from the planning side and pointing the finger at Rumsfeld, we here at Rumsfeld's base camp have a different perspective. As Powell said in his televised bit, we should judge Rumsfeld to be only a facet--a Suit, if you will (I'd say clubs)-- of the disastrous Iraq policy, with full weight also falling upon Dumb Dubya, Dick, and 'leeza.

Still, this is an Ace, no mere Bram or Tool of Bushite Misrule. Thus, the dilemma: do we invite Rumsfeld to cut and run back home, in other words to do the right thing (by our country), run with his tail not visible (whether chopped or between his legs would seem hardly important, given the magnitude of the victory) or challenge him to stand and fight and be crushed ever more thoroughly?

I follow the historic example of the Spartan mother who sent her son off to war, telling him to be brave: Come back with your shield, or on it. In this case, forget the shield. Rumsfeld must see the job through until he leaves in utter defeat, Bush's firing of him being the final refuge of the desperately lame leader of the administration. The reason for the hubbub now is that Bush is close to that extreme, and Rumsfeld that close to utter defeat. But not just yet, I think--that looks like the early-2007 ploy to try to pull things together enough at least to turn the page in Iraq. Just as I opposed making firing Rumsfeld a focus of the 2004 opposition--it would have made it seem (falsely) as if Bushism were turning a new leaf--I oppose doing it this year.

Hey, as long as Dubya says that Cheney's his VP, and Rummy's Defense, and 'leeza's State Security, that's his choice. He should have to live with them politically, whether in or out of office. Like Brownie's the man for Katrina.


Whosaiditism-- its current usage

There is a phenomenon of society that I am still, at my advanced age, having a great deal of trouble accepting. That is the notion that Who said something is more worthy of notice than What was said.

There are times when that aspect of reporting is appropriate: take the generals' statements about Rumsfeld and the critical Iraq decision process. The news is, in fact, not what the generals say but who is saying it. Such an event should be the exception, though the fact is that it is not rare at all.

What I will call whosaiditism and define as excessive attention to the authorship of a statement or idea and the thought process behind its timing, rather than its content, has two very pernicious notions behind it. One is that, rather than the content, the story is in the dramatic quality of the fact that So-and-so- is saying it. The corollary is that there is nothing new to be said; we just get the enjoyment of the permutations of seeing varying talking heads in the absurd postures of saying these things. This is exactly how much of political discourse is viewed these days (by me and by many others), and it's exactly what they used to say about modern Italy before the fascists.

But we are wrong to think that. It is simply a function of the quality of the political discourse, not that there is nothing new to be said. We are in times without precedent, trying to solve problems by traditional methods.

Reviews of '08 Proto-Candidates

Herewith, the first installments of a serial analyzing the political content of contenders for 2008 from both parties. These are all inspired by stump speeches I’ve seen them do on C-SPAN in recent months. (Posted 5/15)

Chuck Hagel

Hagel’s approach is neo-Bulworthian: Tell the truth, no varnish, take it or leave it. He defies the conventional wisdom that Americans are looking for an optimistic vision.

He also seems to want to defy the notion that one needs a base constituency of popular support to make a credible run at the Presidency. Where, exactly is his support going to come from? Moderate on social issues, frankly anti-Bushite in foreign policy, contrary to political-based expenditure allocation…there may be a hardcore residuum of “good-government liberal Republicans”, representing something like 1-10% of the primary vote (depending on the state), but where does that get him?

I think his approach would definitely appeal to a significant percentage of independents, and for that matter Democrats, but these are not the people Hagel will need to make a run at a Bushite/Republican establishment candidate (to be named later), nor even at a conservative with anti-Bushite credentials (McCain, Newt). Nor do I see much of an opportunity to parlay his run into a VP or major Cabinet role.

So, I just can’t see it happening for Chuck, whose positions are thoughtful, filled with integrity, and show a lot of common sense. Unless there is, in fact, some sort of neo-Bulworthian groundswell in the Republican party for someone who will level with us. So far, I don’t see any sign of that.

Bill Richardson

The speech I saw was in New Hampshire, on St. Patrick’s Day. He was out of his element on both levels—not much feel for the New Englanders, awkward jokes and story lines on the concept of a Hispanic at an Irish party pot-boiler. He was sweating. Later, he marched with the parade and took opportunities to reach out to the crowd, his response being general lack of recognition or interest. Based on what I saw, he shouldn't even make a run in New Hampshire, but I can't think of the last time that was a successful campaign strategy.

Since then, he’s gone more to ground: he’s does have a re-election campaign to run, though it’s heading for Hillary-like landslide percentages. Although, in theory, the current immigration debate should put him in the spotlight favorably—as an Hispanic governor of a state bordering Mexico, he has the most relevant knowledge and experience of anyone--I don’t think it’s done him any good at all, particularly given the populist thrust toward Nativism the debate is taking.

And that, I’m afraid, may be that for his Presidential hopes. He’s not going to have a crowd that feels like home, or that will have a significant Hispanic voting bloc, until his favorite-son race in New Mexico; OK, possibly some Southern states. Probably not Florida, though; we should not overlook the polylithic (like that? I just made it up—it means “not monolithic”) nature of Hispanic voters and the fact that most Hispanics in Florida are not of Mexican origin. I think he can win a few Hispanic delegates here and there, which will position him well in case the convention is deadlocked.

Don’t hold your breath. Apart from the fact that there is a heavy favorite who could have it wrapped up by April, there’s also the fact that the primary process, combined with laser-like media focus on the horse race (burning out all also-rans), seems effective in making an early decision. There’s enough of a track record to say that the probability that a convention will open without a presumptive nominee, in any presidential year, has become vanishingly small (5%?).

So, Richardson’s prospects would seem limited to either a Vice-Presidential nomination or a major Cabinet post for a centrist Democrat. Neither of these prospects seem improbable in the slightest: Richardson was definitely up for consideration on the Gore ticket, while his range of experience could project him comfortably to Homeland Security, EPA, a return trip to Energy, or even State. He has shown better diplomatic skills than any other politician I can think of. He doesn't need to play politics with delegates at the national convention to earn one of these jobs. No doubt, they would be more appealing than dealing with the rabble out here.

Newt Gingrich
I saw Newt last night on a speech before a group of Iowa Republicans given in late April. It was a basic party fundraiser and feel-good session; Iowa seems to have some interest for the national party in certain Congressional districts, and Newt was basically just scoring some endorsement chips.

Except that it was Iowa, the caucus state. That makes it a Presidential campaign speech.

I could definitely see some elements of amphibian strategizing going on in his fertile mind as he proposed bipartisan Open Forums (instead of mediatized “debates”) for Iowa pre-caucus candidate events. '...and let the best ideas win,' his proposal concludes. This is Newt’s strong point, his ideas, which he backs up well, like the academic that he is. This should have little appeal, really: Dubya is nothing if not a man of big ideas (in his case, fixed ones), and has proven to be surprisingly inept at administration. We don’t need that again. Gingrich's ideas sound fresh, but amount to the same old story.

Ideologically, though, I think Gingrich has found some politically promising turf (better than Hagel’s, anyway). He has no stake in this monstrous Administration I call the "Tyranny of Bushite Misrule" and freely criticizes its policies, its execution; and its exposed, flimsy philosophical undergarments, though none of it by name. He does it from a 21st-century conservative viewpoint which is more coherent and articulate than most conservatives’: open to New Age thinking, pro-business, pro-GWOT, pro-enforcement, Constitutional federalist.

Rather than anti-Bushite, Gingrich is thinking “post-Bushite, secular conservative”. Sounds good. Only problem is, John McCain is seeking the same high ground, and he’s both more well-known and more trusted than Newt. Still, if McCain slips, or can’t convince the Republican Right of his bona fides, there could be a major opening.


Common-sense Consumerism: Shampoos, Dandruff

I'm moved to rise in public denunciation of the fact that Head & Shoulders is now trying to market various colors and scents in its dandruff shampoos. There's a whole line of choices now, and a Head & Shoulders conditioner. Now, we all know this is standard Procter & Gamble technique: crank out product, then test it, see if it can be marketed, etc. But haven't we sort of lost the "purpose" of the whole Head & Shoulders exercise, namely, to get rid of the dandruff?

Longtime H&S customers know that question was purely rhetorical. The purpose is not to excise the dandruff vector; we know that isn't really feasible. The purpose is to ease the discomfort (not to mention "flaking, itching") we feel when our little dandruff boogers are unhappy. Because they let us know about it.

I admit that I have never looked at the stuff under a microscope (anybody want to post a comment who's had that experience?), but I'm going to hazard a few guesses about how this whole condition works.

(To be continued)

Immigration Bill: Round 2 coming up

Today brought some promising news for those who would like to have an immigration bill and not just a campaign issue this year. House Speaker Hastert (Bushite seven of hearts?) and Senate Majority Leader Frist (the 10 of Diamonds, no matter how many symbolic stands contrary to the President's announced positions he may pretend) have jointly announced that they will look to take out the clause from the House bill that makes illegal immigration a felony. Furthermore, House bill author Sensenbrenner (9-Clubs) has indicated he would go along.

Give them credit for working through their spring recess, and for a quality jiu-jitsu move. If there's one thing that all spokesmen from both parties were consistently saying, it was that there was a need for some tough sanctions to back up the new laws. Why, then, the uncharacteristic leniency?

Downgrading the charges makes good sense, both politically and legislatively. The hardhearted approach was not working on this issue. "Immigration reform" threatened to become an issue that could nationalize the midterm elections in a way that the Iraq snafu couldn't. Even better, and more relevant, than running against Bushite foreign policy (which Congress can't even oversee properly, let alone have any control over) would be making the House Republican leadership itself the issue. Somehow they have established their "tough guy" credentials enough to be able to soften their stand.

Legislatively, it makes total sense, as well. Sequentially, the initial emphasis needs to be on getting the immigrants already in the country to register and enter the process. Later, when there is some control over the processes of naturalization and over the borders, then is the time to increase the severity of penalties for employers, workers, aid organizations, etc. who act against the new regime. Getting the sequence wrong will allow non-compliance, non-enforcement, and various forms of cheating to continue to rule in the fields, the border zones, and in the casual day labor recruitment lots in so many towns and cities. One has to make the crime a little less prevalent before it can be both so weighty and fully enforced.

I applaud the agreement, the apparent influence of the White House, and the progress suggested by this announcement.

Flapping About Immigration

"Congress Nears Deal on Illegal Immigrants"--so reads the headline on the AP story today which I viewed on Yahoo! a short while ago.

Sounds good, but unfortunately the headline is inaccurate. The deal was reached in the Senate, with the White House's blessing, but that does not equal "Congress". Apparently, this bill would need to be squared with the House's repressive and wrong-headed version, any association with which is liable to leave an unpalatable aroma.

In its rumored current form, the Senate compromise seems worthy of support, even if it also draws the support of President Bush, as McCain alleges. At least it recognizes that the essential first step is to identify a path which provides for some legal recognition of immigrants with well-established ties in the country. Along with major increases in border patrol, electronic surveillance capabilities, etc.--things that have justification and bipartisan support. Of course, the Devil's in the details.

By contrast, the House version features only punitive zeal and a Big Fence. If somehow it were to have been enacted, it would promise a variety of evil results: massive forced deportations, the (further) ghettoization of migrant housing neighborhoods, widespread evasion and further denigration of the rule of law, yet also a legal snare with long tentacles and heavy sanctions which can be wielded selectively and unfairly throughout everyday American society and commerce. A triumph for the political principle of "the criminalization of everyday life"*. Maybe even riots, on one side or the other.

The question is whether the House Republicans are prepared to accept the Senate version virtually in toto, or whether they are going to insist on something more resembling theirs in its basic approach. No doubt they will want to continue playing the Stern Father in the American Gothic set where they've been posturing on this one so far.

These are serious tactics, worthy of the dearly-departed King-Delay-of-Diamonds himself (and, for that matter, speaking of his predecessor, his whole Dick Armey!) Immigration policy is one issue that could have national resonance this year, and in ways that can bring sharp, uncomfortable contrasts between the national party positions and local dynamics. In the case of Democrats, some will be swayed by the perennial populist appeal of nativism (36 of them voted in favor of the House bill), but more will be hurt by a principled stand. The Republicans also are vulnerable to this tension on the issue, with a national leadership that seems of two minds. What I believe happened here is the deliberate creation of a wedge to allow some of the more Red-Meat Staters to run for re-election on the platform of having "done something"--or at least would've except for their lily-livered, soft-on-national-security opponents--to squash Mexican immigrants (as Bush's Iraq invasion was ultimately about having "done something" about terrorism).

But to "return to the previous question", no. I think there will be a nasty conference-committee game and the political wedge will be pushed back to the Senate, in the form of the challenge whether to go along with the nasty conferees. And they may end up back in the trap they were near before the current compromise, with 50+ votes for something but 60+ for nothing. It all depends on the strength of the leadership of the Ace of Hearts. Along with the concurrence of the Ace of Spades on the political soundness of the final bill, which will be marked with the flourishes of the Nine of Clubs (Sensenbrenner) and the Eight of Diamonds (Boehnert)**. This is where what remains of Bush's capital may be expended. If 'twere to be so, 'twould be done best.


*as opposed to "the criminalization of politics", as had been alleged by some opponents of Fitzgerald's investigation of Flamegate(I'm suggesting herewith we change the name to something a bit catchier). Which phrase, if you add "of war", would represent something I'd support. It should be criminal to play politics with war, as the Bushites have done.

**The Bushite deck of cards gives you a "frame" to present those who are criminally Bushist (as opposed to the Saddamite deck, which gives a framework to view those criminally Baathist). Naturally, the higher the power, the higher the level of card. To provide some framework through the suits, clubs are for the military-industrialists and ideological neocons, diamonds for the corrupt bastards, hearts are reserved for Bush-family members, hangers-on, and others who've achieved power through sucking up, and spades are for Republican political henchmen-hacks (sort of like "philosopher-kings" of their type). The guys who wield the sharp blades. It's necessary, but usually fairly easy, to distinguish the suit in order to assign a Bushite a card value.

There's a lot of flexibility in applying lower ranks, but once a guy gets taken out it freezes forever into place. The higher ranks are generally fixed. For example, Barbara Bush is the Queen of Hearts (whether Laura is a Bushite, and at what level, is not generally agreed upon), Jeb Bush is the King of Hearts, Alberto Gonzales is the Jack of hearts, etc.

The order of power of suits is not generally agreed: so, while it's understood that Rumsfeld's the Ace of Clubs, Cheney the Diamond, Dubya's the Ace of Hearts, and Rove's the Spade, that does not imply that one always has precedence in a Texas Showdown. Which never occurs, because like good Bushites they never disagree except when that's part of the strategy (see above with immigration).

Mid-Monthly Review 1:2

We’re late, and most of the content is from March (the short month was also a weak month from a news standpoint: we’ve already dealt with Quailgate and Dubaigate). We’re introducing a new recurring feature on Common-Sense Consumerism, which I hope will please all and instruct the young.

NCAA’s: More than a Bracket to Me

The first weekend of the tourney was a joy, with an overload of close games apparent to the most casual observer. It made it a bit more tolerable being laid up with a cold relapse through the best skiing weekend of the winter.

Well, I did get out to the slopes on Sunday—and that’s when the really crazy stuff broke loose. I lost two of my final four in my most visible bracket entry—Pitt and UNC—and am holding on to respectability by my thumbs.

From the bracket handicapping point of view, this was a very interesting year, with no clear favourite, eight to ten top teams, and everyone else very capable of beating each other.

I tried various strategies, just to get a feel for the variety of scenarios that could emerge. The five free entries ESPN gives in its contest, supported with friendly software, give one an easy way to experiment.

The strategy which has worked best this year is the one I’d call “Chalk Plus”—picking the favorites in most, ignoring long shots. The key to success in the first two rounds was identifying the soft spots in the chalk, those cases where there was a solid challenger to take spots seeded to vulnerable teams. West Virginia over Iowa, Washington over Illinois, Wichita over Tennessee, Georgetown over Ohio State. I did identify these opportunities in some of my entries, but didn’t choose them consistently or in the right combination for a winning entry: the best of my five on ESPN is 95th percentile, which is OK but not outstanding: (straight chalk would get you around 66th).

As for the longshots, Bradley and George Mason, forget it. Basically nobody had either team (I saw one case, where a 3-year-old had them both: we can only hope that those were random picks!), and their bracket impact will therefore be null as long as they’re in.

Results of the first two rounds show once again that the biggest problem with the tournament is the conference tournament mess the weekend before. Get rid of them all!
I like the suggestion to go to a single-elimination tournament with all the Division I teams. This is done very well in a few state championships.

My thumbs, by which I’m hanging: my main picks—the ones others will see—have Villanova beating Duke in the final; I still like those picks (I have to promise not to edit this out Friday night!) One of my upset specials had Texas over BC—a spectacular recoup of a lousy set of picks, if it happens. I found it amusing to read a friend’s post where he claims a probable victory. At this point, it’s pretty much impossible to claim victory, particularly in such a wide-open field.

Feingold’s Censure Motion

As far as its content, I’m 100% in favour of it. Bush’s use of unwarranted eavesdropping is something the Republican-controlled Senate sought to keep under wraps and work out behind closed doors, and it is totally in the interest of the American people to examine it and legislate on this in the light of day. Barring that, and barring its consideration is exactly the objective of Pat Roberts and the other Bushites (Roberts gets named nine of spades in the deck for his role), then pointing out that the spying violated our law is the next best thing.

I think we can all get past the bogus constitutional and statutory smokescreens the Bushtits have come up with, when they have bothered to attempt to justify their ignoring the FISA provisions. There also seems a consensus that the eavesdropping itself could have been justified, and would have been approved retroactively where warrants were needed if the administration had merely attempted to follow the law. Something I’d call “criminal intent” is missing here from what you’d want if impeachment were seriously under consideration (as it could still be, for example, with regard to the Iraq invasion, where the professed motives have been thoroughly debunked and the hidden ones, so far, remain hidden). The censure motion in this case is more like a finding that the President’s actions were in contempt of the law.

Feingold seems to have considered carefully the terms and the nature of his challenge and acted only after it became clear the Republicans in the Senate would block any open consideration of the eavesdropping program. His record for being right on these tough issues—like the USA Patriot Act, campaign reform, the Iraq authorization, etc.—is unmatched. Given all this, it’s clear to me that censure is the right action, and the motion’s passage might be possible if it were viewed through other than a partisan screen.

The politics of it, though, seem all too apparent. Feingold’s apparent political motives would be to put himself in the spotlight (and this move’s certainly got the blogs’ electronic wind behind the motion, and behind him) and put senators like Hillary on the spot. Unfortunately, there seems little reason to think any Republican would view the motion other than a partisan attack—I haven’t really heard the motion’s proponents reach out to moderate Republicans to give it consideration—so it has no chance of passage. Under those circumstances, Democrats will find it easy to fudge a reason to vote against, or just vote for it without the public examination of the issue which was the motion’s purpose.

So, the bottom line is, I won't be very happy when this comes to a vote and, in a more-or-less straight party line vote, the Senate votes not to censure Bush for breaking the law.

Common Sense about Everyday American Objects: Disposable Razors

I have tried various measures of dealing with my daily beard, including letting it grow, and find the least objectionable method to be using the disposables. This column is addressed to those who, like me, accept the throwaway as a better solution than, for example, leaving unusable bits of expensive electric razors all over the countryside.
If you’re on disposables (i.e., an adult man, using them daily to shave) I must beg you please to avoid the seductively advertised products—“the Power of Four”, the “Mach” blade, etc. I have studied this subject very closely and performed many experiments. The best measure of utility of these products—and I’ll defend it to the death—is the number of clean, satisfactory shaves per unit of cost.

Multi-bladed disposables were indeed an improvement in shaving satisfaction—when they went from one blade to two. The difference from two to three to four to infinity, though, is negligible, and I see no value whatsoever for the vibrating whatever. These “innovations” are all about getting more revenue per product sold. Important to the manufacturer, only a negative to you.

In terms of getting performance, there is one critical component. It’s called “One-Touch Cleaning” by Schick, the only manufacturer still producing blades with the feature. It’s a little button on the outside of the razor that pushes a little plastic ridge between the two blades (I’ve never seen it on a three or more). It takes the clog—which is further increased when you use their gooey shaving creams, but that’s another discussion—out from between the two blades so that they can both remain effective. That simple feature—if you get it, see it, and use it--prolongs the utility of the disposables by a factor of two to four (depending on the beard). For only with this feature does the durability of the blade come into play.

The market leader, Gillette, gets a double benefit from not including One-Touch Cleaning: you throw away blades sooner, because of the clog, and therefore you don’t even notice that their blades don’t last as many shaves. Their marketing, though, is truly exquisite, and their profits, robust. Schick, recently purchased by the manufacturers of Duracell, if I’m not mistaken, is in a much trickier position: they keep alive their two-bladed challenger product with One-Touch Cleaning, but they like much more the ride to Consumer Wasteland: more blades, more dollars per, and that’s where they put their advertising. It’s up to you, the consumer, to insist upon the superior product. Otherwise, civilization takes a hit (of unfiltered dirtweed, as ‘twere).

Since we’re on the subject, though, I have to say that my commitment to the two-bladed disposable with One-Touch Cleaning is an exigent thing. When the real improvement comes, I will switch in an instant.

Here’s my vision of what that would be: a shaving mask. The idea would be sort of like the orthotic devices which good footwear places are now customizing to the foot. You would have a shaving pattern chosen: moustache shape, close on the chin and cheeks, trim the sideburn, etc. Place your face into the mask, and the computer-controlled microrazors would execute the pattern, clean the stubble, apply the after-shave and disinfectant. Now that would be something worth paying for!

American World Order

That’s the name of a book review in the NYTimes of March 5. The review, written by Martin Walker of UPI, is of “The Case for Goliath”, by Michael Mandelbaum (review at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/books/review/05walker.html) credits Mandelbaum with an original take on the old “world government” debate: should we have one? What form? How do we get there? How could having one make things better than now?

Mandelbaum’s neo-realist thesis, at least according to Walker, is that we don’t have to have that debate anymore. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have world government, and it is US. As in USA. Or at least, close enough.

The idea is novel, and exciting enough to me that I’m going to go out right away and get the book. Then, I’ll get back to you. In the meantime, what I’m looking to see is if the author has actually thought this through, as if he believed what he said. If the US were to be understood to be, and recognized more or less formally, as global governor, how could that system work better than it does today?

My thought is, the US government would need a sounding board, an international panel of friends from fellow republics, which would have as its main purpose telling us when we’re wrong. That way, we could pause and rethink before we decide to discard a decent respect for world opinion and plunge forward blindly and solitarily. Like with Tony Blair, but less sycophantic.

In fact, just like the Brams of our federal government: I think there would be so many aspirants for this panel, powerless though it would ultimately be, that we’d have to beat them off with a stick.

Dreams of 1994, and the Odds Against

James Traub has a long article in tomorrow's NY Times about the Democrats and their efforts to take control of one or both houses of Congress. My take on the article is that the party is deeply divided on the question of whether to let Democrats be Democrats, and that "framing" has taken over for policies and their advocacy.

It took a long time to get to the real point, in the discussion with Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Emanuel is very bright and knows his stuff, which made it hard to disguise the fact that the House of Representatives elections are fixed in favor of incumbency. No 1994-style sweep seems possible, because there are too few competitive districts. Only the Supreme Court's overturning of the partisan 2004 Texas redistricting could tilt the balance to a level playing field, and I'll let you guess the odds on that occurring: you get two choices (slim or none). 20:1 against the Dems gaining control of the House.

The Senate is a slightly different story: there are enough open seats and competitive races to shift the majority from the 55-44 to something like 50-49 (with Bernard Sanders replacing Jim Jeffords as the Democratic-leaning independent from Vermont). That would be a real victory, even with Ace of Spades Bushite Cheney casting the potential tie-breaking vote, but I'd suggest the odds are about 4-1 against.

We're looking at Rhode Island (CQ: " leans Republican") and Pennsylvania as likely pickups for the Dems (notwithstanding the fact that I have gotten 15 solicitations from prominent Democratic leaders for Bob Casey, Jr., and haven't yet seen his picture or any of his positions on any of the solicitations), and there are some other promising races with strong Democratic candidates: Montana, Ohio, Tennessee (Frist's vacated spot), and Missouri. I think we're headed for heartbreak, though, on election day--one or two incumbent Democrats will be upset, and Ohio and Missouri will disappoint (as usual). In other words, this year's election will be much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Unfortunately, I'm getting used to this. Despite the desperately obvious failure of "the tyranny of Bushite misrule", these elections will be "localized" in most states, with Republican candidates frequently successfully diverting attention away from the federal government's shortcomings under their party's control and focusing on those rare cases where they have been able to separate themselves from the administration (like the Dubai port fiasco).

The stage will be set for 2008 as follows: reduced majorities for Republicans in both houses, the Senate close enough to ensure a near stalemate. The 3-D Presidency of 2007-2009 (Dumb Duck Dubya) will continue with neo-con judicial activism being the principal feature of governance. Hillary will have an enormous warchest going into 2008, as the Republicans can't seem to field an opponent credible enough to require her to spend any of the huge amount she already has. She will need it, as there is no lobbyist, electoral, or campaign reform in sight.

There will be some interest in whether the Republicans will go with an Establishment candidate (as they have in every election since 1940) or whether a neo-Establishment anti-Bushite like McCain will be permitted to win the nomination by the Powers That Be. I'd bet against the latter (what are the odds on George Allen? That's a bet I might take), but I'll admit I'm worried: McCain's got integrity and guts (or did, until his recent sucking up to party power that commenced in 2004); he personifies credibility on national security (so he'd be attractive to swing voters), and his troglodytic positions on domestic and social issues will cause him little harm (being very close to the status quo, and therefore not sounding very revolutionary). His biggest obstacle will be convincing the Republican moneymen that he means it when he offers his support to the Bushites (he doesn't); I'm not convinced they're nimble enough to get the point of an anti-Bushite Republican candidacy (despite its clear potential appeal), simply because Dubya is so close to their heart that they can't believe how badly he is "screwing the pooch".

My tactic this year is to tell the telemarketers from national party organizations and their front groups that I'm investing locally. As for the local races, Bill Richardson should win in a landslide as governor, and Congressman Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman should both win handily. The one seriously contested local race of importance is for the Second Congressional District, based around Albuquerque, where Republican Heather Wilson is running away from her President and is in a tight race with Attorney General Patricia Madrid--one of the dozen or so truly competitive races in the country, as things now stand. Unless Heather makes a dramatic announcement and switches party (100:1 against), I could see throwing a few bucks into Madrid's hat.

Squeaker in Taos

The election for mayor was as close as predicted, but the wrong guy one (see "Bobby Duran, no mas" in the last 15th-monthly). Count stands at 887-867, subject to the recount which will be announced this week, but there is little reason for optimism. The early balloting was held in the mayor's office (!), replete with handouts, pictures, etc. on the brilliant administration to date.

I can't see how anything good will come of it, and Duran's opponent, Gene Sanchez, will probably not run again. Still, these are nonpartisan elections in this overwhelmingly Democratic town, and the councilmen elected (our prediction was on target there, with Darren Cordova and Rudy Abeyta winning) seem reasonably sincere, both more articulate and clear in their positions than the newly elected (previously appointed) mayor is.