Update on 2006 Elections

Lots of bobs and weaves, as expected, since my August 20 "Excessively specific" forecasts. One big new piece this week, though, requires some attention.

La Cage Aux Foley

The Republican spin machine has shut down in mid-cycle due to the Foley scandal. Pundits across the land are throwing up their hands and saying they simply don't know the effect this one will have. The Tarot (a/k/a "terra") Scare Card campaign was working to some extent (aided by some good financial news and lowering gas prices), and Republican operatives were starting to feel privately confident about the outcome (approaching their public bravado). Now, the general impression seems to be, who knows?

We will have to wait at least two weeks for the Foley scandal effect to harden into reliable polling data, and it will only be reliable once the initial surprise factor and 24-hour news coverage settles down. See below for polling information on the key race we're following here in New Mexico, NM-01, between the Republican incumbent Heather Wilson and her Democratic challenger, NM Atty. Gen. Patricia Madrid.

Regardless of the pundits' floundering, we can pose a couple of notions on the effect here:
1) A couple of races will take major swings. Foley's, of course, was a safe Republican seat (as they say, he was "cruising" before the scandal) that now leans Democratic. The Republicans have come up with a notable substitute candidate, but his name will not be on the ballot, and the Democratic candidate's status has gone from long-shot to made in the shade.
A second race directly affected by the scandal is that of NRCC Chairman Reynolds (NY-26); surprisingly, he was already in a tough race, but now he will need to divert more of the Republican Congressional campaign's funds to his own coffer if he wants to survive. That could have some domino effect elsewhere, too. Apparently, Clay Shaw in a district adjacent to Foley's is taking a hit as well.

2) Turnout from Republican "values voters" (estimated at about 10% of the electorate) will be negatively affected, I'd guess about 20%. This effect will be distributed unevenly, but think of it as a 2% hit, on average, to Republican vote levels, and maybe more in Bible Belt districts (and there are many of those in key races this year; I'm looking particularly at Indiana, where two Republicans are seriously in difficulty, Arizona, and in Florida, Foley's home state).

3) More names will get caught up in the coverup of Foley's transgressions, but at this point it is impossible to predict which ones. Apart from Reynolds, most of the Republican leadership are in safe seats, but there could be some guilt by association with Foley, and a couple of other closeted gay Republicans or their aides may decide either to out themselves or get pre-emptively outed by scared party folks.

4) The only way Democrats are likely to get hurt by this is if they focus too much upon it (for example, by referring to something in the episode as a crime, which is unproven at this point), by picking too much on the amiable, typically incompetent, but mostly ineffectual Bushite pack Joker Speaker Hastert, or if they are revealed to have been involved in ABC News' initial scoop of the explicit Instant Messages Foley sent. Harping on Foley and the coverup in particular, or taking a tack that is morally arrogant could re-energize now-despondent Republicans. On the other hand, the Foley episode does underline three broader themes the Democrats should utilize: hypocrisy, corruption, and poor Congressional oversight.

5) Most races will not be decisively affected as they are gerrymandered for sure success for incumbents.

Based on the negative impact, I would shift my projection of the outcome from 221-214 Republican to 218-217 Republican, and the overall margin nationally from 53-47 Democrat to 53-45 (I'll take advantage of this to show something for 3rd parties, which probably should've had one percent in my previous estimate). The projected results combination amounts to an electoral scandal of redistricting, which may or may not get much attention on Election Night.

(I'm indebted to my friend David Bebout for the coinage of the subtitle. "La Cage Aux Folles" was the French movie about two aging queens who decide to break out of their "Birdcage".)

Senate Update

At this point, I see no reason to change any of my substantive predictions and find that most of my individual expectations are being borne out. Republican incumbents going down (but not Foley-related going down) are, clearly, Santorum (PA), Burns (MT), and Chaffee (RI). DeWine (Ohio) still looks like a loser to me (current polls show it a dead heat), and, as I expected, the open seat in Tennessee (ex-Frist's) will be a nail-biter leaning toward the Democrats. That makes five seats picked up for the Dems, who need six. The open seats previously held by Democrats in MN (Klobuchar the Dem. candidate) and MD (Cardin being the nominee, not Mfume as I thought earlier) are now looking relatively safe.

On the downside, I'm still expecting No Talent (MO) to disappoint us and survive. Jack Carter's within 6 points of Sen. Ensign (NV) in the most recent polls, but the experts still are considering this seat safe (!?), and I'm still expecting it to be a late-night, narrow Democratic loss. Menendez (NJ) and Kean, Jr. are in a race that will go down to the wire--I'm still scared, but I'll feign boldness and continue to say the incumbent will end up winning (this one could be decided on reduced Republican turnout--there are lots of suburban NJ Republicans who will be wringing their hands about the leadership's moral failures). I still think George Allen (VA) losing is a longshot. Lieberman looks like he will win, after all, but as I say that will only be a problem if the Democrats end up 50-49 and he's the swing vote they need.

So, I'm still predicting 50-50, Republicans win. The suppression of Republican turnout I'm expecting should affect these races, too, but I see that affect as only solidifying the seat pickups I already expected.

Wilson, Madrid, and Zogby

I read yesterday a shocking poll result on the House race we're watching most closely, the Albuquerque district NM-01. The respected pollster Zogby International now shows Madrid ahead of Wilson, 50-40, whereas all previous polls had the race a dead heat or very close to one. TPM Cafe has the result (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/polltracker?page=1), part of a blizzard of poll results released in the past two days which may or may not be invalidated by La Cage Aux Foley.

I wanted more info on this result, so I went to Zogby's web site. They are being very careful not to draw attention to that particular result--I got the distinct impression that they don't quite believe it yet. Most of their press releases of this exercise of polling in 15 key contested House races held in the current Congress by Republicans don't mention this one in the highlights, but, if valid, this is the most dramatic and essential finding they had to report. Zogby's polling was done Thursday-Sunday, and the pollster looked in more detail at the results Thursday/Friday, i.e. before Foleygate, and Saturday/Sunday. He/they found that the Democratic margin, in aggregate, of those 15 races was 44-40 before, and 44-40 after.

This doesn't tell the whole story for me, though. Zogby's releases don't talk about individual races and whether the margin shifted (probably not enough sample), and these 15 races are neither a random sample of the national electorate, nor would they necessarily have been conducted on the same time frame. Also, last weekend was just when the story burst forward, with the coverup allegations coming out only gradually, and mostly later.

I feel that our race of interest here may be very sensitive to this issue. The district has a very high Hispanic population, 40% or more, and many Hispanics of the area--professionals, seeking the American dream-- are indeed what I would consider to be "values voters", and their party identification is somewhat soft. (This is a generalization I would not apply to about half of them, who are very strong, motivated Democrats.) Madrid has the chance to gather them up--she's the Hispanic in the race, after all.

All of us residents of New Mexico (at least those of us who ever watch the network channels) have been bombarded with a crossfire of nasty ads. Wilson's ads now are emphasizing her independence from Bush (they barely note that she's a Republican), but the many nationally-sponsored Republican ads are full of slimy innuendo about her opponent. Madrid's have been little better, but they are successfully emphasizing the themes that Wilson is a loyal Republican who's backed the war in Iraq. And, yes, I have seen some footage with her and Foley side-by-side in front of the microphones: is it possible she was also part of Foley's Congressional Coalition for Exploited Youth (or whatever it was benightedly called)?

Finally, New Mexico is going Democrat, big-time, in the statewide races, with Sen. Bingaman and Gov. Richardson winning in routs. They will have resources to offer to Madrid. I expect the next polls will show a reduced margin, but I think the race is hers to lose now, and I'm putting it in the Democratic column, along with the ones for Foley's and Reynolds' seats.

My math still leaves the Democrats one seat short in each house: you can imagine what a mess these last two Bushite years will be, if I'm right. I'm thinking that the public will be scandalized by the outcome, which will set the stage for further Republican deterioration in 2008, unless they find a new formula for success. This bird can't fly no mo'.

If I were Running Things, Pt. 1

I'm inspired by the bald Italian gangster guy in "Miller's Crossing": "Running things; it's not all it's cracked up to be." A periodic series.

Soccer
I was watching an English Premier League game on TV last night (Everton vs. Newcastle). Something happened that often does--first one team had a guy red-carded (sent off for repeated or severe violation--you can't replace him), then the other team did. The resulting 10 vs. 10 style of play was improved, as it almost always is.

So, my first radical change would be to cut down the number of players on each side by one. The result should be a little less crowding in the box, and generally a little more open play.

Ah, you say, but the players would get too tired this way! Arguable, but you've merely identified the other major improvement I would make: allow two substitutions per half (a third in the first half in case of emergency) instead of three for the whole game. Two more additional substitutions when games go beyond their regular time in cup competitions. The real problem is that there's too much standing around.

Electoral College
Personally, I would junk the whole thing: I can't figure out why we would ever want to have a President that couldn't get more votes than his/her opponent(s). I accept that a runoff might help ensure a clearer decision in the cases (probably quite frequent) that no one gets more than 50% of the votes.

The gimmick passed by the California state legislature--that California would give its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who got the greatest national popular vote--is too clever and a clear sign of desperation. The idea is that other states would join on the bandwagon; the more that joined in, the greater the probability the popular vote winner would inevitably get the electoral vote nod. I don't think that too many other states share California's particular frustration, and most would correctly calculate that their leverage would be maximized in the short-run by staying out until others go in. So nothing more would happen, and once in a great while (like in 2004) California's electoral votes would defy their voters' choice.

If, though, we can never get rid of the ancient monstrosity, I would make some reform to it. Principally, I would make universal the rule that applies to Nebraska and Maine, that of Congressional district-level selection of electors. Each district would through its vote determine one elector, and two would be determined by the statewide count. The resulting campaigns would be less a high-stakes set of statewide win/loss gambles in a few swing states; the effort would be more diffused, but also focused on areas within states that never got any attention before.

This also would reduce the inequity--each voter would be contributing to the determination of exactly three electors. Finally, it would also throw a complicating factor into the politics of redistricting, one that would quickly lead toward needed national guidelines.

Statehood

It's been about 50 years since we last added any states to the Union (Alaska and Hawaii). It's time for three more.

First, of course, would be the District of Columbia. It's been taxation without representation there since the entity was established; the three Electoral votes DC gets hardly count, as they are a given for the Democrats, not worth a campaign event for either party.

There are no good arguments for denying DC Congressional representation (I mean, representatives that can vote!), only bad ones. The notion that DC representatives are all federal employees and thus shouldn't get involved in state politics is a stupid one; nowadays more of the fed workers live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and you don't hear any suggestion they should be disenfranchised. The old argument that DC can not govern itself, as evidenced by the quality of its governmental leadership, has now been substantially addressed.

The only real arguments against DC are pragmatic and partisan ones. First, that it may take a Constitutional amendment to make DC a state, and that's a lot of trouble. Second, that DC senators and representative would almost surely be Democratic, and thus would contribute to the Republicans' imminent loss of control in Congress.

The second additional state would be Puerto Rico. It's time to put up or shut up with all this "commonwealth", "territory", or "domain" stuff. The weird thing is that the US Democratic party is aligned with the status-quo party, while the Republicans are aligned with the Statehood party. This is a formula for stalemate; as with DC, the Republicans would surely not want statehood to become a reality for partisan reasons. PR gets a pretty good deal under the current associate membership arrangement--citizenship without taxation, and the heavy military enrollment level probably counts as a net plus for the residents. The absence of representation or Electoral College votes rankles, though, and it's about time that we recognize that it's the fact of the Hispanic majority there that prevents PR becoming a state, and do something about it.

The third state I would add is one I've never heard mentioned: I believe that Americans Abroad should have direct representation. They are numerous enough, for one thing. The second point is that they are effectively disenfranchised. I know; when I was living abroad, I tried several times but couldn't get New York (my previous residence) to send me an absentee ballot; they couldn't be bothered. Of course, NYS was more than happy to receive my state taxes (and to penalize me when they sent notices I never received to addresses I had departed years before, and yes, they had been informed of the changes). Third, AA would represent a distinctive and important additional perspective (let's call it "influenced by global thinking") to debates on both domestic and foreign issues. Fourth, their partisan leanings are not at all certain, and thus this proposal could be advanced on a bipartisan basis.

I was thinking that perhaps we should consolidate a couple of states--the Dakotas would be the ones. They were originally one territory, and now that North Dakota has depopulated beyond the point where its population would earn it a single representative, and South Dakota's down to one, also, it would make some sense. The problem is that I can not think of a single reason why the residents of those states would accept consolidation. Yes, I know the title here was "If I Were Running Things", but still, I don't need to run things down their throats. It would also make sense to separate Northern and Southern California, as they have different issues, different cultures, and are often broadly opposed to one another; on that one, I'll let them take the initiative. If they have a referendum to split, and it passes, I'd endorse the idea.

I was a little concerned about having a nice pattern of stars for the revised flag with 53 stars, but actually it works pretty well. Seven rows, having a sequence alternating eight and seven stars per row, with eight stars for both the top and bottom rows. Do the math, or draw a picture. It looks nice.

Good Virtual Fences Keep out Virtuous Neighbors

Watched some of the debate on the enabling of detainee trials and unwarranted surveillance. The highlight of it was the debate in the House Judiciary Committee on the detainee bill and the vote whether to recommend the bill "favorably". Some of the House Republicans got the wrong message and thought they were able to vote their consciences and the vote was to report the bill "unfavorably" (this was later reversed, off-camera).

The debate on the detainee bill in both houses was around whether to give the Bushites 80% of what they wanted or 70%, the 10% being a provision that prohibits appeals to "habeas corpus" by those detainees who are not American persons. This one is certain to go to the Supreme Court and be decided by a 5-4 margin, one way or the other. One would have to think that it will be struck down eventually, which suggests a way the detainees may gradually have their day to have their cases come forward.

The point I didn't hear in the debate was the fact that "habeas corpus" would have to come, not from the detainee himself, but from some other party who gives a hoot about the fact the government is holding an individual. Gradually, then, the names of detainees would enter the US, people who might be looking for them (or their representatives in organizations like Amnesty International) would bring suit and then the government would need to present some evidence that the person is held for some valid reason. This will require the captors to expend a lot more energy than they do now in substantiating the captivity of many of those who have been simply dumped their and forgotten, and that will address the sin that the whole Guantanamo fiasco represents to most of the world.

As far as electronic surveillance goes, the idea that people actually think no Big Brother can listen to them seems absurd to us all these days. Instead, the assumption we all share is that someone could be listening, if they wanted, and you better watch what you say when it comes to certain issues. The question of whether someone gets a secret warrant on a routine basis is not central, except to the surveillance organizations who have to process the paper.

The final travesty of this session of this insubstantial Congress is the issue of the Stupid Border Fence. Apparently Congress had a little trouble signing onto the "stupid" part; they're looking for something that's mostly really "smart" with a relatively small "stupid" component. It probably doesn't matter, anyway, since they didn't appropriate the money to build anything--it's the intention to build a smart wall that matters?

Pity. I thought maybe they had something with the idea of a huge masonry wall, built by thousands of Mexican immigrants, which would thus drive up the cost of labor of the Mexican immigrant construction workers throughout this region and thus improve even more the rising value of already completed construction (i.e., my home). I certainly didn't think this had anything to do with the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country: most immigrants have come, and will continue to come, through legal channels, and then they just overstay their visas or ignore their visas' limitations on activity.

There is a humanitarian argument, though, for a smart border watch system which uses a variety of methods, particularly well-placed lights and cameras, to alert the border police and help them detain those sneaking in. The bill will be well-implemented if it does something to disrupt the coyote industry--the people who make a living arranging for people to cross the border in unsafe ways, often arranging to rob the migrants themselves. Many people are getting killed trying to come in.

Plus, there's so many jobs to be gained looking at cameras! Perhaps we could train people to do this at their homes, through the Internet?

The Boeotian

A quick one: Remember we posted the results of looking up "Bushite" at Merriam-Webster Online (January, 2006)? http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2006/01/from-merriam-webster-online-bushite.html

Anyway, one of the 10 similar words they came up with was "Boeotia", which I had to look up, remembering only that it was a state in ancient Greece. Checked with Wikipedia: it's a strategically located area (still an active place name), the big city in ancient times was Thebes (blown up real good, for good, by Great, Alexander the). Here's the key point, at the end of the article:

Pejorative term
As a result of Athens' proud assertion of its cultural superiority, first of all compared to its closest, rural neighbours (bad luck for them, there was no convincing reason), the word Boeotian or Beotian (the adjective derived from and word for the inhabitants of Boeotia) has been adopted in many classical and antique languages as a pejorative term for backward people, simpletons etc.

So, there we have it: Boeotian (pronounced Bo-EE-shun, I think) is, in some sense, a synonym for Bushite. I feel affirmed.

In Memoriam

On the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, I'm going to try to stay non-partisan. That was how we were, then.

Of the various 9/11-related entertainments, I would say the special "9/11" (the one hosted by Robert De Niro), which focused on the heroism of the FDNY, was particularly moving. "Path to War (Pt. I)" was not as obnoxious as I had been led to believe, and at least as entertaining and educational as the average episode of "24".

I will say that I think those poll questions to the effect of "Are you safer now than you were on September 11, 2001" are kind of ridiculous. Safer than 9/11/01? Of course: who knew then how far that madness could go? Now we have some semblance of crazed normality. Safer than 9/10/01? Of course not.

On 9/11/01 I was in England, just returned from a business trip to Miami (it happens to be the anniversary of my wedding). We looked at the TV in disbelief at the end of a long workday, and, when we were able, we reassured our friends that we were not there at the scene. I cannot claim that I had any personal losses on that day.

On the other hand, I was across the street from the WTC in 1993 when they tried to take it down with a truck bomb. We dodged it that day, but the principles of the WTC as a target and the will of Islamic fanatics to attack it had been established: 9/11/01 only changed the level of our confidence that we could continue to dodge the attacks. I don't even think Osama was involved in that first one.

We need to focus on the worldwide struggle to eliminate those who are turning toward fanatical jihadism by eliminating their emotional, psychological need to turn that way. Ours is a struggle for the hearts and minds; to the extent we have managed to avoid attacks within the US since then (with crossed fingers), it is because our country gives no fertile soil to the seeds of such a philosophy. By showing that there is another way.

We hear that Pakistan has thrown in the towel and agreed not to pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda in some remote border regions adjoining Afghanistan. The US and NATO should explicitly state that we will not abide by that agreement, then do what is necessary to eliminate that safe haven. We should not, however, fool ourselves that the problem will go away when we have succeeded in doing that, and when we get Osama and al-Zawahiri. Still, we have the right to avenge ourselves, and a practical necessity to prevent safe havens for those who have authored the outrages of 9/11/01, Bali, Madrid, Casablanca, and London.

Finally, it has been reported that Anbar Province of Iraq is now a no-hope zone for our military mission, with the most powerful force being, not just Sunni militants, but Al Qaeda itself. Anbar is a very large province, extending from the outskirts of Baghdad to the Jordanian border. If this troubling report is true, it definitively shows the failure of the mission in Iraq. We need to consult with our allies, including those in the Mideast, and even hostile nations like Iran and Syria, and determine how to root this evil out. Much as we would like to end the US involvement in Iraq, we can't leave an open wound like that.

Mid-Monthly 1:8

Reviews of Import:
The Case for Goliath, by Michael Mandelbaum

I promised you reader(s) that I would read it, and I did. The thesis of the work is what attracted me: it is summarized in the subtitle, “How America Acts as the World’s Government in the 21st Century”. I hadn’t heard this expressed in just that way before, though the basic idea is quite straightforward. Generally, the author (whose day job is reporting on foreign affairs for Newsday) supports it well, though I would quarrel with the tense of the verb and the time period described—I’d say rather that he demonstrates “How America Acted as the Closest Thing to the World’s Government, Especially Right after the Cold War”.

A government needs to provide certain public benefits to the governed, and Mandelbaum covers a range of them and demonstrates that there’s value to the rest of the world (ROTW) in what America has done, in its own interest, in the areas of military security, diplomacy, trade, and financial guarantees. The arguments come from the bipartisan, internationalist, realist school of foreign affairs which has predominated in America since World War II; they’re well supported by references to similarly-inclined scholars and analysts, and they stick pretty close to well-established facts. To be sure, Mandelbaum’s world that we govern is limited to the community of democratic (or, at least, non-Communist), free-trading nations, but since the Cold War ended, that has included the majority of nations and people.

OK, so far so good. Mandelbaum’s argument breaks down in three areas: the legitimacy of the USA as the world’s government, the other functions of government which the USA does not do for the ROTW, and finally, the expectation he tries to build that what has been recently, will continue.

Mandelbaum’s section on the political science notion of legitimacy doesn’t even try to make the argument that the USA’s governance is legitimate beyond its borders. He does make reference to traditional concepts of legitimacy, as with the Chinese Emperor of ages past, where the fact of predominance is its own justification, but he chooses instead to posit legitimacy in the modern world in a democratic, legalistic notion. In that sense, it’s the U.N. which is the legitimate organization, but of course it has no power beyond what the national governments and its limiting Charter allow it. Basically, in USA Rule there’s no taxation, and no representation (if there were, it wouldn’t be Dubya in the White House, that’s for sure). The real argument for the legitimacy of USA Rule comes later, in which Mandelbaum implies clearly that there’s a tacit consent among the leadership of many nations to let the Americans handle some of these difficult issues, though they would never admit to it and reserve every right to criticize.

There are a number of areas in which modern governments are heavily involved from which the USA’s world governance is conspicuously absent: housing, welfare for the poor and elderly, labor relations, transportation, regulation of corporate activities, and the broad categories of public health and safety—these don’t come up at all in the argument. All right, it’s a libertarian kind of governance, and, like many governments, there are some no-go zones where its power is not felt so keenly. More surprising is that Mandelbaum does not go more deeply into one area in which America exerts its power in the affairs of other nations, that being justice. In the sense of enforcing its view of who exactly are terrorist organizations, what drugs are illegal, and bringing fugitives under lock and key, America is indeed “the world’s policeman”.

The major inconsistencies and the great weakness of the thesis center around Mandelbaum’s lack of a transformational vision for America’s role in the future. He seems to think things will go along as they have, subject only to the willingness of the American people to foot the bill.

The first part of the argument is that there are no other likely candidates to take on the role that the USA has taken on. He specifically focuses on debunking any notion of a genuine world government coming into being or that Europe has anything to contribute in dealing with these global issues. We can agree that it is difficult to imagine the political circumstances which would lead the national governments to yield their sovereignty, but it is not hard to come up with major issues for which they have proved totally inadequate to address without one: AIDS, poverty, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, global warming, fossil fuel depletion, demographic whiplash, etc. Most of these are glossed over, with the exception of the nuclear one which he features in his argument of Goliath’s benign rule, and that is one I would argue specifically is failing dramatically before our eyes in these days: we kept the slingshots out of many would-be David’s hands for a long time, but we’ve got to come up with a new deal here or someone’s going to take it between the eyes. The simple fact is that we can only intimidate nations from taking up nukes until they defy us and do so, then we have to switch our strategy to deterrence.

Mandelbaum states that “a world government would, by definition, have responsibility for establishing order everywhere,” but how much does the USA, which “acts as the world’s government” do that? We can all see the deficiencies of the United Nations under its current, post WWII Charter, but Mandelbaum exercises no effort trying to imagine improvements to it, or a pact among the more powerful nations to bring about a more democratic international body. As for Europe, no one is looking for a restoration of the imperial rule of the ROTW by Europeans, but I would argue they are taking on the heavy lifting of solving problems of bringing together many nations with different cultures, languages, economic status under a single governmental roof (even if a cacophonous one), particularly as they take on the tasks of expansion to Eastern Europe and consider the possibility of including Turkey.

The second big quarrel has to do with the domestic support needed for America’s role abroad. Mandelbaum clearly sees America’s foreign policy as “unitary”—something the nation does, united, bipartisan. He says that it’s not so hard for other nations’ representatives to buttonhole someone in a responsible position for American foreign affairs and to influence them. At the same time, though, he states (and I agree) that these policies are driven by an elite—of politicians, academics, and military and economic professional analysts—with the mass of the American public largely uninterested but supportive when it affects it directly. He has little to say, really, about the costs or the benefits to this mass, and the last thing he seems to want is for the public to actually take notice and get involved in these stratospheric affairs. For example, he is quite ready to acknowledge that foreign governments and foreign peoples had very legitimate concerns about the Iraq invasion from the beginning (expressed both through private diplomatic channels and through public demonstrations), but he never once acknowledges that there was also very significant opposition to the policy at home at the time, as well.

I am not one who believes that these matters should be left to the “experts”, who make the policies we all then get to rally behind. In particular, it is this lack of vision which is their blind spot: I would argue that American strategic policy in the 1990’s was so weak because it was entirely based on improvisation: our experts had utterly failed to envision the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there had been no thinking about what the world might be like without the Cold War; thus, the opportunity that was present then was largely squandered, until 9/11/01 which gave us something more pressing to think about.

I think that, unreasonable as it is to expect other nations’ peoples to permit gladly the USA’s government to govern them, even at no charge, it is even more unreasonable to expect the American people to continue to foot the bill (using today’s catchphrase, with their “blood and treasure”) without telling them more of the truth and giving them a clearer understanding of what is to be accomplished, how, why, and for how much. Finally, I would expect Mandelbaum, or any advocate for continuing the general line of America’s internationalist, free-trading, realist school, to bring a stronger argument that the American people’s long-term interest lies in getting involved and becoming more knowledgeable about the world, its problems, and possible approaches to solving them.

Singularity Sky, by Charles Stoss

Changing pace dramatically here, this science fiction novel came strongly recommended, and I, in turn, have to recommend it strongly as well. It's been accurately categorized as "space opera", but is also a well-crafted story of political and social intrigue with its share of satire (my personal favorite genre). I found it included a lot of the most recent notions about Einsteinian physics, theoretical spacecraft (and star war) engineering, nanotechnology applications, etc. It combines some of the best features of Dune and of cyberpunk, notably a human Diaspora, people much like us dealing inadequately with future shocks and alien civilization, and a preference for anarchistic modes of self-governance as the best way of accommodating our accelerating technology, without a clear idea of how to get there. Personally, I would prefer to have some of our futurist thinkers consider how we can accelerate our social development so as to be able to handle our expanded powers, but....

Two Almost Post-Fidel Movies
Fidel is almost gone, though it doesn't seem as though that will be very momentous with Raul still around to enforce Stalinism. I saw two recent movies, though, that I thought worthy of some comment that have some connection with Cuba.
The Lost City was Andy Garcia's dream project. He doesn't explain it in terms of family connection, but it would seem to be the story that he has always heard at the family dinner table, adapted for Hollywood. He directed, produced, and starred in it--amazingly enough, he's not credited with the screenplay.
I hope he wasn't responsible for the sound on this--it was awful, at least in the cinema where we saw it (an art house). Muddy, with lots of mumbling. Visually, it was quite nice: filmed in the Dominican Republic, I think.

As a piece of history, I'm not qualified to comment, though I think it captured accurately the spirit of a segment of population before the revolution: liberal, white, urban. It was a state of mind that aspired to make the country better, inevitably terribly disillusioning living within the Batista dictatorship. I liked the segments when his brother went off and joined with the revolution, and the portrayal of Che Guevara. There was an interesting notion which might interest the survivors, post-Fidel/Raul: a couple of references to the liberal constitution of 1940, to which Batista paid occasional lip service but never observed, while Fidel claimed he would restore it (before he got into power, of course). Perhaps it could be revived.

I have to admit that I liked Miami Vice, the TV series, more than it deserved. Yes, the plots were totally formulaic, but there was a stolid earnestness about it (particularly Edward James Olmos) that felt real, and its use of rock music to help set the scene was a milestone, much-copied in latter days. Michael Mann proved he still had the chops with Collateral, so I was pretty keen to see this movie.

I can give it only a mixed review. Jamie Foxx was good as Rico--no surprise there, though he changed the role considerably. Gong Li was, of course, gorgeous, but also interesting as a Cuban/Asian (?) who had the smarts to be the consigliere of the drug runners, but somehow wasn't smart enough to see her doom approaching. The idea of her character going over to Cuba with Sonny in a fastboat for a couple days' of mojitos and partying was a good one, timely and provocative (also filmed in the D.R.?) The use of computer technology as a key tool for the drug runners was a good update to the standard package. Plenty of good action sequences.

The plot was no more than the usual formula, I'm afraid. And I miss the old Gina (her role, as usual, was next to nothing)--why couldn't they get Saundra Santiago back? I'm sure she's still in form; I see she was in The Sopranos, in the revival of Nine, etc.

Mid-Monthly 1:7

The 2006 Elections at 22,000 miles
Maybe that’s not quite the right number--I'm thinking of the Lagrangian point in which a stationary orbit is achieved without need for braking or acceleration-- but that is what I’m aiming for. There’s still a long way until Election Day, with a lot of tactical bobs and weaves yet to come, but I’m trying to achieve a stable perspective on a strategy which can get us through this year without tears.

So, let me attempt to be clear: I would love for the Democrats to defeat the Bushite forces and gain control of one or both of the Houses of Congress. I even think we should make the effort—if it were to happen somehow, the impact would indeed be massive. I just don’t think we will succeed, so I don’t think we should build up our expectations. Gaining some seats without getting control of either House will be a good result; it probably does not justify an all-out effort in terms of emotions or resources.

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom of the moment that the House of Representatives is somehow more likely than the Senate as a target for Democratic takeover. There are different problems in each case—districting is rigged for incumbents in the House, the math is stacked in favor of the Republicans in the Senate. I think that discerning participants in our electoral charade should try to identify close races in the House in their neighbourhoods, getting behind the candidates where Dems have a chance to gain. Similarly, in the Senate, where there are lots of targets of opportunity, you may also have a good chance to support actively an anti-Bushite candidate in your state or a neighboring one who has a shot of winning.

At 23,000 miles, it’s easy to see that the Republicans will look to blunt the Democrats’ hopes for a national referendum on the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by playing the Scare Card from their tarot deck (see, it’s not “terra”, it’s “tarot”). The real danger for the Republicans is if the electorate ever becomes focused on the legislative shortcomings of this Congressional session: phony “Gay Waving” and “Flag Marriage” amendments didn’t do the trick for anyone, even the Red Meat-eaters. This Tarot Scare Card approach has much more promise in neutralizing the Democrats’ campaign and reducing the game to locally-driven outcomes; after all, everyone should know that is how these elections get decided, anyway (even in 1994, it was so).

The stakes are not as high in the state level elections, but the probabilities of victory are much higher. The Republicans hold a 28-22 lead in governorships now, and the odds are good that the Democrats can reverse that, or do even better (even without winning California from Schwarzenegger). About ¾ of states have gubernatorial elections this year. There are a couple of solidly favored Democratic pickups, such as New York and Arkansas. About 20 races have clear favorites for re-election, or from the incumbent’s party, half of them from each party.

The key fact is that there are an incredible number of races “too close to call” (11 in the CQ analysis, 9 in the Times’), and most of those deadlocked races have Republican incumbents. These races will be determined by turnout, local issues, and tactical blunders, and so it is reasonable to expect about half of those close ones will fall each way. The numbers this way fall out with about 27-28 Democratic governors emerging from the elections.

Having a majority of governors doesn’t buy the Democrats anything directly in terms of national power, but it will have subtly positive effects. It will tend to undermine the notion that the Republicans are the natural governing party; coupled with (equally likely) parallel victory in state legislatures, it will set the stage for improvements in the next redistricting after 2010 (or at least to block attempts for gerrymandering additional seats in favor of the Republicans). Again, the recommendation here is to back local candidates who have a chance to defeat Bushites.

These judgments add up to an endorsement of Dean’s DNC strategy for 2006: build up strength in the states, don’t waste all the resources in a futile attempt to get control of Congress. In essence, give up some of that 20% chance of winning control of a house of Congress in favor of improving the odds for the Presidential race in 2008. I almost hate to say it, as I am no Deaniac, but it’s so. Yes, DNC has been on my gift list this year, but I prefer advocating direct contributions to local candidates over the centralized placement of political operatives in, say, Idaho. My feeling is that, if there are in fact any Idahoans who want a strong Democratic party organization in their state, they are the ones who should organize it.

Israel-Hezbollah Battle in the Spin Zone

The claims ring out from both sides as the ceasefire takes hold: “We won!” “No, we did!” It seems very clear to me, that if the other side is still in the field to dispute it, you have not “won” the war. So, the question is, which side has lost more?

Hezbollah seems to believe that it can still make the claim to have “won the war, after losing every battle” (once again, “Idiot Wind”). I think it more realistic to think that they can still win the peace. Militarily, they were not wiped out; when you’re facing the Israelis, that’s certainly something. Their assets have been “degraded”, though; who knows how many fighters, but certainly a lot of their fighters’ dependents. Their ability to guarantee protection to civilians in South Lebanon, and their claim to being the force that can maintain territorial control of the region, won back from the Israelis after prolonged struggle in the ‘80’s—each of those has taken a severe hit.

The best news for Hezbollah is that they seem to have the field all to themselves in rebuilding the heavily-damaged region, with lucre from the deep, oily pockets of Iran greasing the effort. This makes little sense to me: the U.N., the French, even the Americans should be looking to get their names on some of the rebuilding projects, preferably by using rival Shiite groups: Hezbollah comes in for some heavy condemnation from those who are not their partisans, for bringing on the wrath of Israel. If one were serious about the propaganda war, now would be the time to do some undermining. If that won’t do—and I understand the USA, France, and U.N. insisting on working only through national actors, even if I don’t agree with it—then through foreign aid to the government of Lebanon. I think this post-Syria-client-state version of the country can’t be considered a “failed state” yet, as it hasn’t had enough time, nor any enthusiastic sponsorship.

Hezbollah could hold a reasonable aspiration to co-opt the military of Lebanon and exercise its thirst for power through it, but I don’t believe they will do it. It looks to me instead a lot like the old I.R.A.: basically an armed force for ethnic nationalism that will never have a clue how to govern, either leading a state or within a coalition of parties within one. And, if you know my point of view by now, you will know I have no truck with nationalism of any kind (much less the dysfunctional ethnic kind), but I do recognize that ethnic aspirations must be given their opportunity to breathe in and out their noxious gases, or something even more evil-smelling will emerge.

Now, as for Israel: the nation, its military, and the civilians of the northern part of the country have all suffered some damage, but (except for a few unlucky civilians and soldiers), nothing fatal. More like a hit to their prestige, a p.r. loss (if they were still in the battlefield on that front, which is doubtful), and a reminder of their insecurity. After all, it is correct that one lost war, even one lost battle, could spell the end for the Israeli state.

On the other hand, I think there has been a fatal blow inflicted on the hopes for sustained government behind Ehud Olmert, who sought to replace Sharon as the natural, centrist leader of Israel. The good news is that the philosophy of Sharon’s Wall has been routed: in a world in which Israel’s foes can have medium-range missiles, there is no safety behind a mere wall. Hopefully, recognition of this weakness will inspire some thinking more creative than “let’s build a wall and keep them out”.

The bad news is that the immediate benefactors of Israel’s less-than-totally-successful (i.e., failed) battlefield offensive seem to be the crowd opposed to making peace, Netanyahu and the like. They seem to feel that the fact that the Palestinians and their allies rejected the armed retreat which was Israeli unilateral withdrawal as real peacemaking should embolden their advocacy of…what? Increased settlement in the West Bank? Bushite pre-emptive strikes on Syria and Iran? Going back into Gaza? I don’t know, but it does seem that the downward spiral in Israeli political confidence is going to continue, and that means nothing good. The people in Israel seem bewildered by this new regional power alignment and are looking for a man on horseback. The forces for peace there took a double knock and look demoralized, as first they had to surrender the high ground and get behind the retaliatory offensive in Lebanon (as a practical response), and then they can’t even feel vindicated by the outcome.

Rating System for Rock ‘n Roll

I’ve been feeling the need these days to compare and rate rock bands over the decades, trying to come up with favorites, and looking for a shorthand approach to evaluation. I’ve decided to use a measurement approach that uses a four-point scale, like the standard grading system, and that looks at four dimensions of a band’s quality: the music, the lyrics, the vocals, and the production values.

The approach I’m advocating is a music consumer’s one, not one that would be used by professional musicians, or even by the critics who’ve been on their own little trip for about 20 years now. So, you won’t hear me talking about the “chops”, “hooks,” or “riffs”—these are insider terms that distance one from the experience of the music itself

The rating levels are pretty versatile; the general approach would be to look at the consistency and quality of the work of the rock entity (the band, along with the producers, or the soloist, with their backup band and producers) as a whole. For some long-lived groups, like Dylan, the Beatles,* the Stones, or U2, though, it would make more sense to talk about their work over a period of a few years. It could also make sense to rate an individual release—an album, or even a single song.

The rating system, clearly, wouldn’t apply to something like classical music, or even to jazz unless there are vocals. I think of rock without vocals as basically a novelty tune or act—it’s not the full deal and wouldn’t rate so highly, justifiably. It could be applied to something like country music, or blues.

So, the ratings and how I’d interpret them:
4.0 (A+)-- Consistently outstanding
3.7 (A)—Consistently strong, or strong and occasionally outstanding.
3.3 (A-)—Strong
3.0 (B+)—Very good
2.7 (B)—Good, and occasionally better than just good
2.3 (B-)—Just good enough
2.0 (C+)—Adequate, or sometimes good and sometimes awful
1.7 (C)—Not really good enough
1.0 (D+)—Bad
0.5 (F)—Varies between bad and truly disgusting
0.0 (F-)—Consistently disgusting

My tastes in lyrics are for some verbal wit, some punching power, and I look for effectiveness in overall effect. All things being equal, I prefer there to be some meaning of social import, rather than just expressing an emotion or telling a story. This may sound like a preference for that critically-disdained qualities, being “didactic,” or “preachy”, but I think we’ve got a lot to learn, and if the only way we can learn is through our art (i.e., if we can’t think on our own, or read and learn from it, or even absorb something from the TV or computer screen), then there has to be something in our art worth learning.

When it comes to the vocals, I like a combination of some musical quality and range, mixed with some less-pure emotional quality in the delivery. Gut-bucket without any melody doesn’t do it for me; neither does the sterile operatic. Harmony is good but not required. As you can see, I give great weight to the words and how they are delivered, and I’m not a fan of “disposability” in my popular music: I’m looking for meaning that sticks with you, that improves rather than dissipates over time.

I’m on shaky ground, no doubt, by reducing musical quality to a single category, but I also find that it’s the only way to cover the tremendous diversity of non-vocal musical sound. For example, some would place a premium on “danceability” and would elevate “the beat” to a full-fledged dimension. I feel this does an injustice both to that music which doesn’t seek to just bang out a rhythm and that music which does; in other words, the “slow songs” which de-emphasize rhythm are legit for some purposes, and even something like hip-hop should be rated on how it takes the core rhythmic sound and augments it with other tones (being penalized if there’s nothing there but a beat).

My preference in musical sound is polyphonic, and that’s what I look for in production values, too: layers of sound that can be identified and enjoyed. I’m not one of those who believes that “less is more”, but I expect the additional layers to add something besides schmaltz. The muddy sound production of many garage bands is, for me, just adequate (2.0); I give it a passing mark because it does suit the music and vocals. OK, better production values might accentuate the weak vocal or musical qualities more, so they’re in a no-win situation; the solution is to have better music, lyrics, vocals, and production.

The final score is the sum of the quantities (5 minus the individual dimension rating) squared. This “Pythagorean” method, as opposed to just summing the values, gives greater emphasis on the dimensions which are seriously deficient, which I think is appropriate. The lower the score, the better: A perfect score would be four, which I’ll try to avoid giving out, as I would a disease. Anything below 10 is very high quality; three stars plus. Half A’s and half C’s would be about 25. Anything above 40 is lousy, the equivalent of one star (or none).

To put the method into effect, I’ll take a stab at one band from each of the decades from the ‘60’s through the current one. We will probably return to this method in the discussion and comparison of bands, albums, and individual songs in the future.

‘60’s—The Supremes: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.5; Music 2.5; Production 3.3. Total: 16.4The ratings, and my judgment of the group, should be pretty self-explanatory. Sweet music, but shallow. “Love Child” is the only song of theirs I can think of that actually had something to say.

‘70’s—The Doors: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.7; Music 3.5; Production 2.7. Total: 13.8I penalize them a bit for inconsistency in the quality of lyrics: there are some truly great ones (and some howlers), and for mediocrity in production.

‘80’s—Talking Heads (going for the later version here, Speaking in Tongues and thereafter): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 3.0; Music 4.0; Production 3.7. Total: 8.9The question here is how much to hit them for the generally-indiscernible meaning of their lyrics. I do a bit here, but also feel that the lyrics do contribute to the overall effect, which I would describe as “energetic, optimistic, a bit naïve”.

‘90’s—Beck (Odelay/Mutations): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 2.5; Music 3.7; Production 4.0. Total: 11.2Much like THeads, but I hit him harder for intentional obscurity in his lyrics; Beck seems often to be picking out his words just for their sounds; the effect is all over the place, and I’d say it’s pretty much hit-or-miss. Still, there are plenty good sounds; it’s fun.

‘00’s—Bright Eyes: Vocals 3.0; Lyrics 4.0; Music 3.5; Production 3.5. Total 9.5. I picked Oberst—and here I’m thinking clearly of “I’m Wide Awake: It’s Morning”, as opposed to the lesser (and non-vocal) “Ashes from a Digital Urn”, as representing a new trend, very difficult for me to evaluate. Some of the current artists—and I’m thinking also of Modest Mouse, Dresden Dolls—sound just awful the first time, but with repeated listenings, the quality emerges. Actually, I like that.

I saw that Dylan was quoted recently saying that production quality in the last 20 years has declined, and that he hasn’t heard anything good lately in that regard. I think he’s about one-third right; in my view, the quality from the major labels these days is consistently high (would be considered outstanding by the standards of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s), but not innovative. Perhaps he is only indirectly pointing out how great was the production quality on his recent albums with Daniel Lanois; we’re waiting to see about Dylan’s new one.

* With the Beatles, it will probably make most sense to consider separately the rating of the Lennon songs, the McCartney songs, and Anything Else. Only the production values would be the same, e.g. George Martin=top rating.

Common-sense Consumerism: Bathing
We address here the simple, but perennial question: shower vs. bath? The subjective rationalistic approach starts by thinking of the origin of these two modern contrivances. Naturalistically, the shower comes from bathing at a waterfall, whereas a bath comes from the experience of bathing in a warm spring pool. Both of these natural experiences are highly touted, for good reason. The question before us is partly which of the artificial versions gives a better imitation of the original, partly which of the original experiences is better, from the points of view of being invigorating and a good cleansing.

The drawback of most waterfalls is that the temperature is not optimal (warm water being better for cleansing); the drawback of a bathtub is that there is no continual refreshing of the pool of water (such as you may get in a natural pool with decent drainage).

The basic bathtub also lacks that refreshing feeling of a water massage that you can get from a shower or waterfall. So, the Jacuzzi innovation with its water jets is still a clear improvement (with the limitation of poor water replacement, which means you have to continue to bathe in the water that has just washed off your dirt, still remaining).

I haven't the data, but I'd have to think there is a clear conservation preference for the bath over the shower in terms of water consumption; the obverse side of not having to bathe in your own dirty water.

I think the 21st-century improvement in each will be the development of improved filtering systems which will allow shower water to be re-used (perhaps not for a shower, but for something else in the home), and which will allow Jacuzzi bath water to be recycled, cleaner, back into the tub.

We Existential Lottery Winners should marvel at how much better we have it than the olden days (when the spouse, or loyal servant, would dump the bucket of hot water into the tub every so often). Similarly, the low-flow shower head has combined with the shower massage attachment to improve greatly the shower experience--in terms of cleansing, invigoration, and water consumption.

I deliberately have not introduced the time factor into the equation, in the sense that a proper bath requires more time than a proper shower. The shower thus fits more practically into most people's daily lives, and this suggests there may be an opening for the development of the "Power Bath", which seems oxymoronic to us, but with the right apparatus could be a standard of excellence in the future.

Mid-Monthly 1:7--Special Insert on the 2006 Elections

I. Conventional Wisdom and The Big Picture

I have now received about 40 solicitations—no exaggeration--for money on behalf of Bob Casey, who’s running for Senate in Pennsylvania against the odious Rick Santorum. The roster of endorsers has been a Who’s Who of popular Democratic politicians and operatives, including James Carville, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and so on. All of them focus on the misdeeds of Santorum; none included so much as a photo or position paper or speech excerpt from Casey; all of them got tossed. Now, finally, I received one (from Barack Obama) that actually includes something from Bob Casey himself. This may move me to contribute to Casey, as his cause is no doubt just.

The main reason not to contribute is the reason I have chosen not to reply to the solicitations from the campaigns of Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkins, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, etc. These people are already going to win; they don’t need my money (OK, I’m not that sure about Cantwell, and I’m not too impressed with the job she’s done, either, but I figure that she should win).

Here is a fact that should shock: reviewing the Congressional Quarterly’s current assessment of the 468 Congressional races (435 House, 33 Senate), Santorum is the only incumbent currently favored to lose—further, his is the only seat CQ actually favors to change party (including vacated ones). They do have two Senate races rated as “No Favorite”, and a total of 13 House races in that category.

I’m sure that part of this is CQ being overly cautious: they don’t want to rub either of the party organizations the wrong way or be accused of partisanship. Much better to mislead, though I think they will get much more willing to call shots realistically once it gets close to Election Day. Then there won’t be time to dish opprobrium at them; the candidates will be much too busy dishing each other. Plenty of time still to cover their tracks and get more of the races correct. I can guarantee that, few as they may be, there will be more than one seat in the House or Senate changing party lines this year.

But still, I think there won’t be so many. The game has been rigged for incumbents, and for minimizing contested races, especially in the House.

I think there is a very strong case to argue that this Congress has been so poor, both ineffectual and ineffective—the efforts at “gay waving and flag marriage” amendments, and the immigration fiasco all being typical—that one should simply say “get the bums out” and urge ousting of incumbents of either party, everywhere. I’ve tried this argument once or twice on posting boards, and it works well. I think independents, in particular, would buy into it.

But my heart isn’t in it. One reason is that it is hypocrisy on my part: I consider my Representative, Tom Udall, to be one of the 10-15 best in Congress, and I would never consider advocating his removal. More to the point, it isn’t going to happen: the chances are zero that Tom loses, as with 80% or more of the other races.

So, the best I can say is, “When there’s doubt, err in the direction of throwing him out.” That’s for the non-partisan sites; elsewhere, it’s simply “Defeat Bushites”.

II. Excessively Specific 2006 Election Predictions

So, what we’ve got is something like NCAA Bracketology: go with the chalk (always the incumbent, or the incumbent’s party), even though you know there will be some upsets out there. Otherwise, you pick the wrong races and you get two errors. Of course, if you do that (as CQ has done), you end up with a lot of reasons to bore your readership.

The pundits have focused on the House contest for control, as opposed to the Senate (or the much-greater possibility that Democrats may end up reversing their 28-22 deficit in governorships). This sets up Conventional Wisdom’s The Day After Election Day Mainstream Media storyline, in which the public votes 53-47 for Democrats in the House, but the Republicans cling to a (reduced) majority. Along with the Smokescreen/Sideshow Saga of Sad, Lonely Lieberman (whether he wins or not).

I don’t have the staffers or the trustworthy data to look at 435 House races and make calls on them. Reading CQ’s recap of the 13 races they’ve rated even, though, I think every one of them should be considered a better-than-even chance for a change of party lines. A good example is Tom Delay’s seat (the only one currently rated even in the whole South): a well-financed, well-regarded former Democratic Congressman vs. a potential write-in movement (or two, or three) and a guy who can’t get himself off the ballot. Yes, the district favors Republican candidates, but actually not so much as you might think: DeLay didn’t feel he needed to gerrymander excessively to keep his district in the old days. So, I’ll apply that argument and give a first-order estimated result for the House: 12 Republican seats switch to the Dems, 1 the other way, a net gain of 11 for the Democrats, leaving them down 214-221.

For me, the contest for House control is symbolized by the one competitive race here in New Mexico, the Albuquerque-centered district currently represented by Republican Heather Wilson, the only woman veteran in the House. She has backed the Bushite GWOT, but has been a noticeable dissenter on a few occasions, which she has taken frequent opportunity to highlight as evidence of her “independence”. She has a tough opponent in state Attorney General Patricia Madrid, and her district’s demographics, party registration, and electoral history would all be classified as “Leans Democratic”. Her pro-military stance wins her support in a district with a lot of military personnel…

—whoa! Here is where the crux of the matter lies: apart from support for the general Bushite agenda, and more specifically Heather’s status as a card-carrying member of the Republican party caucus in good standing, what I think this particular election, and possibly the whole deal, may come down to is whether those in the military, and their friends and families, think that supporting a continuation of America’s role as referee in an Iraqi Civil War is really “supporting the troops”. Right now, though, I’d agree with CQ and say the seat “Leans Republican”, narrowly, that is. Meanwhile, Patricia Madrid is not my favorite Democratic politician, but because I know this race, and know how competitive it is, she will get my discretionary dollar.

Actually, though, my interest is much greater in the battle for control of the Senate. This is also an uphill battle, though for different reasons than the House: no gerrymandering is possible here, and as a result, a much greater percentage of the races are going to be seriously competitive. Democrats are well-organized, well-financed, with a lot of strong candidates, many of whom need have little fear of incumbents.

The problem for the Democrats is the math. The 55-45 deficit they now have means they need to pick up 6 seats out of 100, a bit higher percentage than the 15 out of 435 they need in the House. But remember, only a third of the seats are at risk this year. 40 Republicans, vs. only 27 Democrats, get to hold their seats without an election this year. Five more seats are in overwhelmingly Republican states in which the incumbents do not face strong challenges, so one would have to agree they are clearly safe: IN, MS, TX, UT, and WY. Democratic seats which look safe for re-election (including Bernie Sanders taking the place of Jeffords as “independent voting Democratic from Vermont”) number 12: CA, DE, HA, WI, MA, NM, NY, ND, WV, FL, MI, VT. That leaves 16 races that are somewhat or very competive, but the Dems would have to win 12 of them (to get to 51, and thus defeat Cheney’s potential tie-breaking vote). Nine of those 16 are held by Republicans seeking re-election, four by incumbent Democrats who are running to hold their seats (including Lieberman and New Jersey’s appointed Senator, Bob Menendez), and three vacated seats (replacing Democrats Sarbanes in MD, Dayton in MN, and the Bushite Frist in TN). Winning control for the Democrats thus means taking six (out of the 10) from the Republicans while losing none of the six they already hold.

Now, the “excessively specific” forecasting I promised: First, the bad news:
AZ—Jon Kyl, ME—Olympia Snowe, and VA—George Allen. Each has no more than about 10% chance of losing (Allen’s crypto-racist remarks will actually help him outside the suburbs, though they could cripple his national ambitions).

As with the Republican side, I see three contested Democratic seats as ultimately being high-probability wins for the incumbent’s party: WA—Cantwell (90%), NE—Ben Nelson has effectively positioned himself to capture the conservative Democrats and moderate independents (80%); and MD—Mfume (assuming he wins the primary) will restrain his strident rhetoric (80%).

Those six more holds make the score 48-42, leaving 10 for more detailed analysis.

OH—I see DeWine’s chance of losing as very promising here, due to the state’s voters making a silent rebellion against 2004, and with Secretary of State Blackwell focused on his own dim chances for Governor instead of fixing his party colleague’s race. 70% chance of Dem pickup.
RI—Lincoln Chafee is stuck in the wrong party, and he will pay this time. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
PA—It’s Bob Casey’s race to lose, and he won’t if he comes out of hiding and actually runs for his own seat, rather than just letting his proxies do it for him. 80% chance of Dem pickup.
MT—Burns has been trying to lose this one; he will shut up and try to let the state’s natural Republican majority carry him. In this case, though, the Democrats control the statehouse and the tide is going against him. 60% chance of Dem pickup.

I’m going to display a little optimism here: the odds I’ve quoted would suggest the Dems would win three of those four, but I’m going to predict all four will go Democratic, and safely enough that the races will be called by bedtime (12 a.m. eastern, 11 p.m. central). This will leave the score at 48-46 Bushites, change the key storyline to the battle for control of the Senate, and leave insomniacs biting their nails over the remaining six races:

CT—As I have elsewhere indicated, there’s a 90% chance the Dems will end up with the vote in the caucus, based on a 50% chance of a Lieberman win and a 20% chance he will turn traitor and either go with the Republican caucus or abstain in the battle for control (see “Worst-Case Scenario” below). The race may be decided by bedtime (the results will come relatively early), but if it goes Lieberman’s way everyone will still need to sweat it, in case his vote becomes a critical one.
NV—I don’t buy the conventional wisdom that Ensign’s seat is safe vs. Jimmy Carter’s son Jack. 40% chance of losing.
MN—I have to accept the argument that the Republicans have a strong candidate in Mark Kennedy, and that the state is no longer a sure thing for Democrats. 50-50.
NJ—I am really worried about this one: Jersey Democrats have the machine, but have used it badly, and Kean, Jr. is a formidable foe. 50-50.

If the Republicans pick up a seat in either MN or NJ, the game is over, unless Jack Carter pulls the upset in Nevada. My chosen scenario, though, calls for narrow party holds in both, a late-night loss for the Dems in Nevada, someone who is presumed a Democrat winning in CT, and a 49-49 count with two races still too close to call at 2 a.m. Eastern:

TN—Republican Corker will hold the early lead, but the Democratic machine officials controlling the Memphis precincts will stubbornly hold out their returns and see what size majority they need to get their man Harold Ford in. I give the Democrats a 60% chance of pulling out a victory which will be ripe for challenge and/or litigation.
MO—Similar situation to TN, but reversed. The Democrats have as their candidate a touted “strong candidate” in Claire McCaskill, but the rural vote for Bob “No” Talent will pull him alongside and then, finally, narrowly ahead. Missouri disappoints, once again. 40% chance for Democrats.

III. One More Red Nightmare

As I envision it, then, the Senate will end up 50-50, requiring no particular shenanigans to retain control for the Republicans (albeit shakily) and progressive activists will once again gain a moral victory while losing. If something (else) goes wrong, though, for the Bushites (such as losing Nevada or Missouri), they would still have two cards to play:
1) Stonewalling seating Harold Ford—if the Republicans can put the outcome into question, and throw this one into Recount City, they can block seating him indefinitely. Based on the 2000 election, who would doubt they could or would do so?
or
2) Worst-Case Scenario: If the Democrats somehow get to 51-49, with the 51st vote being Joe Lieberman, then some nasty backroom dealing could go down for his decisive vote. Bushite Ace of Spades Karl Rove (who claims to be “a personal friend”) will remind Joe of every slight he suffered at the hands of his erstwhile party, as well as all the nice things the Republicans have said about him in the general election campaign (not to mention withholding all support from their party’s putative candidate). This will not be enough, though.

So, what is the offer that Sour Joe will not be able to refuse? The talking heads’ talk of Lieberman as Defense Secretary in place of Rumsfeld earlier this year was just that, I think. Rumsfeld would veto that concept, as would Dubya, and would Lieberman really be stupid enough to give up a fresh six-year term for two years as Chief Scapegoat, followed by eternal damnation? I think not. Nor do I think that Richard Lugar, who is no fan of Bush’s Iraq war, would roll over and let Lieberman take the Chairmanship of Armed Services.

I think the bait would be an offer to head up a “non-partisan” committee to study the Iraq War, with the unofficial commission being to find a way to get American soldiers out of the firing line by November, 2008. I think he would find it his duty to take such an offer, perhaps abstaining from the vote on control of the Senate (which in certain circumstances, like Ford’s seating being blocked, might still leave it to Cheney’s tie-breaker). This would leave the Senate essentially deadlocked, the House nearly so, but then the Bushites have no legislative agenda left, anyway.

Not to be (too) cynical, but such a deal would leave a perfect scenario for John McCain to lead the nation in a 2008 election-year effort to re-focus GWOT on something other than Iraq’s problems, and possibly revive Rove’s dreams of a generation of Republican control of government. In this scenario, the public good that would be the end (or near-end) of American casualties in Iraq—something that would seem to benefit all--would come at the cost of any chance of putting the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule in the dock of Congressional inquiry with subpoena power—the Bushites’ current nightmare.

Frankly, at this point I don’t trust Lieberman: I missed on the question of whether he would do the dirty deed and run as an independent if he lost the primary, and I do hold it against him.

My thinking is also colored by my recent re-reading of Gore Vidal’s historical novel 1876. My objectives were to once again enjoy Vidal’s cutting wit and to re-visit just exactly how that election was stolen from popular vote winner Samuel Tilden—in the Electoral College, and beyond.

Superficially, 1876 parallels 2000: the Electoral College formally trumping the popular vote, and even some of the details, like the Supreme Court getting sucked in, the Democratic loser fighting nice while the Republicans played for keeps, and Florida (!) playing a key role (though of the three or four states stolen for eventual President Rutherford B. Hayes, Louisiana’s theft was the most egregious).
If one looks at the historical significance of 1876, though, there are a couple of gaps in the parallels which might fit better with this year’s program. First was that the key issue in the 1876 election was the sleaze and corruption of the administration of Republican Ulysses S. Grant: that was not present in 2000 (really, though some would argue Clinton’s sexual misconduct and impeachment would qualify), but the issue of Republican official corruption will certainly be present this year. Second was the deal which settled the election. Essentially, the Southern Democrats gave up their party’s Presidential candidate after the election in exchange for a promise to remove Federal troops from the remaining Southern states in which they were posted, in effect ending the Reconstruction period.

My best hope is not that Bushite control of the Federal government will be ended—I think that’s too farfetched. It is that another electoral mess, this time goring the elephant, will lead to a deal bringing about real improvements in processes and methods—public financing of federal elections, the elimination of the Electoral College, and national standards for voting machines and counting of votes.

The Great Connecticut Senate Circus

I’ve just gotten off the “move-on.org” forum, wading through dozens of pro- and anti-Lieberman posts on the supposed topic of “What are the most important goals for move-on to pursue over the next four years.” That and dozens more of pro- and anti-Israel postings (mostly the latter). Move-on’s forum has a big problem, that the forum’s structure encourages people to talk past each other and pay no attention to previous postings, resulting in tens of thousands of postings that hardly anyone sees, but that is beside the point.

The point is that move-on, and the entire political focus of the moment, is missing the big picture when it comes to this election. It may be important to take Lieberman out, it may be important that Lamont would be a better senator, but it is not nearly the most important election in 2006.

The key to the Republican power structure supporting TBMR (the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule) is that party’s control of both houses of Congress. This has prevented any real consideration of the Iraq war, of Bushite abuses of power, of the continued defenceless status of the electoral system to abuse, the continuation of the anti-democratic Electoral College, the continued ignoring of global warming, the environment, the unbalanced tax system, etc.

The Connecticut Senate race is one of those that has virtually no bearing on the Republican control of Congress. There is, at most, about a 10% chance that the Democratic seat in Connecticut (currently rated as “safe Democratic” by Congressional Quarterly) could escape the Democratic caucus in the next Congress (the 50% chance Lieberman could win as an independent, times the 20% chance that the race will be so ugly that Joe will decline to join the Democratic caucus).

I disagree also with the notion that Karl Rove loves this race: his Republican candidate has 0% chance of winning a seat. If there were any chance, that would be important; however, all reasonable observers agree that either Lamont or Lieberman would still win the race, even if Lieberman goes through with the race as an independent and thus cuts into Lamont’s vote.

If Rove really thinks that this race will give him the opportunity to tag the national Democrats as extremists, he’s wrong. But I don’t think he will make that mistake. Both the RNC and the DNC should hold their funds out of this race and focus on those where there is a real competition between a Republican and a Democrat. And I think both parties are smart enough to see this. This race, and the attention given to it, are a smokescreen.

Hillary's a bore; so's Vilsack...

...so which of them will be the candidate of the Democratic Leadership Council? Well....
that was my take on the dreadful C-SPAN appearances of the two. Vilsack is the current chairman of the DLC, and HRC the long-time fave. Or not, I don't know. It's their decision, and that's the biggest problem.

Anyway, Her Royal Clinton was asked to give a speech about the New Initiative or something, a project the DLC commissioned her, which she tried but failed to give to both Vilsack and Evan Bayh. Or so I gathered.

So there she was.

I want to talk about the Clintonites (gotta watch to get that first "n" in there when I type; could be a serious error), anyway, the Clintonites' 2004 selection, Gen. Wesley Clark. I have now to admit that he was my personal choice as The Guy for 2004, too early.

After a big buildup from the Clintonistas (somehow easier to type), Clark became the favorite for a fleeting instant after the Iowa caucuses and Dean's blowup. What killed him was actually the endorsement Clark got from Michael Moore. Coincidentally, just at that point of time, it hit the fan that Michael Moore made publicly a characterization of the Bushite President as a deserter. I heard several DC talking heads actually saying that the fact that Clark didn't repudiate Moore's endorsement (!) meant Clark was "beyond the pale".

!(how about just Moore's technically-inaccurate-but-ethically sound characterization, from which Clark frequently requested to disassociate himself? )!

The big collapse came on Tim Russert's show, Clark's momentum (which had been spared the rude insults of the Iowa cacuses) fizzled in that week of the New Hampshire primary. He won Oklahoma, though! How many other Democrats in this race can say that? (have to check re: Gore).

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.