They say that a gaffe, in politics, is speaking the truth at the wrong time. That certainly was the case when President Obama, meeting with Russian Premier Medvedev (back to P.M., I believe, since Putin's restoration as President), told Medvedev that "after the elections, we will have more flexibility" in our negotiations with them on mutual nuclear arms reduction. Problem was, there was an open microphone nearby and Obama did not know it.
Mitt Romney and others wasted no time in assailing the President's appeasement of "our enemy", calling him everything short of a Commie traitor. His statement's truth was proved by the reaction: how can one negotiate--leave aside the fact that the Russians are our partners in reducing nuclear arms and improving monitoring of nuclear facilities--when the prevailing response is a feral attack mode, forgetting that the Cold War ended 20+ years ago, and when the slightest new indication will be barraged with criticism? This will be true of many more issues going beyond foreign policy, as well: the debt ceiling, taxes, budgeting, etc. Nothing is going to happen until 2013, regardless of who wins the election. Nevertheless, it was truly a mistake, and by the President himself.
Defined by his Friends and a 8" X 10" Toy
A "reset" of a different kind from the one Obama has attempted--with some success--in his dealings with Russia came from one of Mitt Romney's leading campaign officers. In an unguarded moment, he explained to some reporters that Romney's right-wing stance on the issues for the primaries would be no burden in the general election campaign. "He'll be able to reset--like an Etch-a-Sketch" (I paraphrase).
This was one of those truths that would damage anytime or place that it would be spoken in public, particularly coming from Romney's own camp. Of course, the general election now will start with Rick Santorum's suspension of his campaign, so Romney has a transition period of 3-4 months to mix his pretend hard-right posture (though who really knows what's pretend and what is real with him?) with some flavoring of the moderate positions he will want to take on for the main event. It won't be quite "Etch-a-Sketch" fast, but the lingering impression that he gives anyway of a panderer willing to pivot on a dime and say anything to get himself elected was etched into more permanent form by this gaffe.
We Miss You Already, Ozzie
Ozzie Guillen left his position as the Chicago White Sox' manager in the offseason for a new contract with the newly-renamed, newly-ballparked Miami Marlins. He left behind a deep trail of public relations disasters, verbal outbursts, and provocative statements. So, it came as no surprise when he stepped in it verbally this week in an interview with Time Magazine, saying he "loved" Fidel Castro; he didn't mean it romantically, but instead marveled in "respect" for Castro's ability to survive decades of confrontation with his big bad neighbor, the US.
The problem was not what he said, but where he is when he said it. I'm no fan of Castro, who is without doubt a murdering, Stalinist tyrant who has caused incalculable damage to Cuba's economy over the last 50 years, but it is undeniably true that Castro has successfully given us the finger, defeating coup attempts we have sponsored as well as assassination attempts. So, Ozzie was right, but very wrong in provoking the local Cuban refugee population, who define themselves by their hatred for Castro.
Guillen was suspended for five games; he seems to have accepted his punishment, including giving a rambling public apology, rather than stand upon his rights to free speech, which surely have been violated by his employer. This has nothing to do with baseball (though Castro was supposedly a serious major league prospect in the '50's: imagine how history might have changed if he had made it!) or the conduct of his job, and everything with toning down his un-American opinions (he's a native Venezuelan, the current Latin American bugaboos for national zealots) to appease his self-righteous local fan base.
The Chicago press jumped onto the Marlins' side; rather than just "Ozzie's like that, you have to get used to it" or even defending his right to an unpopular opinion (what one should expect from journalists), their opinion was to the effect of "we're so glad you're gone so we don't have to deal with this anymore". Actually, they don't realize that Guillen was broadly popular as a guy daring to speak his mind honestly--a rare quality in public figures these days--and I think it's because they feel guilty for not exposing some of the more lurid things he said back in Chicago.
I've admired the Marlins' past ability to rise to the top (two World Series championships in a fairly short history), then disperse and rebuild, despite a weak fan base and a (previously) crummy stadium. I'm writing them off this time, though.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Four Rounds Down, Four Teams Left
As I post this, one of the key games of this year’s men’s NCAA basketball tournament will be getting underway—U. of Kentucky vs. its cross-state rival, the U. of Louisville. I promise not to tailor this posting to what may be occurring before my eyes in that one.
Kentucky, of course, is the #1 seed of the entire field, the pre-tourney favorite, and a team that has, so far, fully justified its rating. I won’t say that they toyed with their four opponents so far, but none of the games were close in the end. The key one for them up until now was their revenge victory over Indiana University, the only team to defeat the Wildcats in the regular season. They were charged up from the beginning, and, though the Hoosiers caught up and even led briefly in the second half, there was never doubt (in my mind, anyway) that they would win.
Louisville is the lowest seed remaining, at #4 in its region (called, technically, the “West”), but no longshot—after all, the Cardinals did win the Big East tournament. They have shown a lot of heart and resilience, as well as employing well coach Rick Pitino’s trademark full-court press for the full 40 minutes. Since the second round*, a tough battle against #5 seed New Mexico, Louisville has battled adversity or, in the case of their third-round match vs. #1 regional seed Michigan State, a favored opponent with talented, more famed players. The toughest game was actually in the regional final against regional #7 Florida—the tourney’s biggest overachiever, in terms of its seeding (though it gave a very good account of itself, showing the quality of the Gators’ late-season play, in the Southeastern Conference semifinal against Kentucky just before the tournament started): Louisville trailed most of the game and needed a late surge to pull out the victory.
I see the current matchup as, potentially, the greatest challenge Kentucky faces in its route to the championship. Louisville’s press could expose the closest thing Kentucky has to a weakness, its backcourt play. Point guard Marcus Teague is talented, but he is still a freshman and far from being the most accomplished of their starters. Louisville may be able to unnerve him or, worse, get him in early foul trouble.
If that happens, it will reflect too well on Pitino and badly on Kentucky’s coach John Calipari. Pitino’s team’s best game, against Michigan St., was like this one in Louisville’s having a full week to prepare (I wonder if he’s been able to keep them off the streets of New Orleans). Calipari has come up short in the later rounds before, despite having the best talent in the field: he has to have known what is coming and developed strategies to beat the press. I suspect that, if his star Anthony Davis is fully healthy (he had a minor knee injury in the last game), one will be to have Davis help out with that task. Davis is a fine ballhandler who was a point guard in the Chicago high school system until a late growth surge made him a spidery, agile shot-blocking big man ripe for the pros--he’s projected as the first pick in the pro draft.
In the other semifinal, I’m going with Ohio State over Kansas. Both teams were rated #2 in their regions, but the Buckeyes have looked far more impressive, with the exception of a few minutes when Kansas’ late surge allowed the Jayhawks to defeat its regional top seed, North Carolina. I honestly believe Ohio St. deserves the game more (Kansas won two earlier games—against Purdue and Florida State--they did not really deserve); both teams are equally talented, though Ohio St.’s top players have shone more so far, and finally, if Kentucky defeats Ohio St. in the final I stand to win the office pool. Confirmation bias, anyone?
* I refuse to go with the NCAA’s new labeling of the preliminary round, which has only four games with eight teams, all seeded below #10 in their regions, as the first round. It’s probably a sneaky move toward expanding the field yet again, and I’m not buying into it; until at least half of the teams in the tourney play it will remain “the preliminary round” in my commentary.
Kentucky, of course, is the #1 seed of the entire field, the pre-tourney favorite, and a team that has, so far, fully justified its rating. I won’t say that they toyed with their four opponents so far, but none of the games were close in the end. The key one for them up until now was their revenge victory over Indiana University, the only team to defeat the Wildcats in the regular season. They were charged up from the beginning, and, though the Hoosiers caught up and even led briefly in the second half, there was never doubt (in my mind, anyway) that they would win.
Louisville is the lowest seed remaining, at #4 in its region (called, technically, the “West”), but no longshot—after all, the Cardinals did win the Big East tournament. They have shown a lot of heart and resilience, as well as employing well coach Rick Pitino’s trademark full-court press for the full 40 minutes. Since the second round*, a tough battle against #5 seed New Mexico, Louisville has battled adversity or, in the case of their third-round match vs. #1 regional seed Michigan State, a favored opponent with talented, more famed players. The toughest game was actually in the regional final against regional #7 Florida—the tourney’s biggest overachiever, in terms of its seeding (though it gave a very good account of itself, showing the quality of the Gators’ late-season play, in the Southeastern Conference semifinal against Kentucky just before the tournament started): Louisville trailed most of the game and needed a late surge to pull out the victory.
I see the current matchup as, potentially, the greatest challenge Kentucky faces in its route to the championship. Louisville’s press could expose the closest thing Kentucky has to a weakness, its backcourt play. Point guard Marcus Teague is talented, but he is still a freshman and far from being the most accomplished of their starters. Louisville may be able to unnerve him or, worse, get him in early foul trouble.
If that happens, it will reflect too well on Pitino and badly on Kentucky’s coach John Calipari. Pitino’s team’s best game, against Michigan St., was like this one in Louisville’s having a full week to prepare (I wonder if he’s been able to keep them off the streets of New Orleans). Calipari has come up short in the later rounds before, despite having the best talent in the field: he has to have known what is coming and developed strategies to beat the press. I suspect that, if his star Anthony Davis is fully healthy (he had a minor knee injury in the last game), one will be to have Davis help out with that task. Davis is a fine ballhandler who was a point guard in the Chicago high school system until a late growth surge made him a spidery, agile shot-blocking big man ripe for the pros--he’s projected as the first pick in the pro draft.
In the other semifinal, I’m going with Ohio State over Kansas. Both teams were rated #2 in their regions, but the Buckeyes have looked far more impressive, with the exception of a few minutes when Kansas’ late surge allowed the Jayhawks to defeat its regional top seed, North Carolina. I honestly believe Ohio St. deserves the game more (Kansas won two earlier games—against Purdue and Florida State--they did not really deserve); both teams are equally talented, though Ohio St.’s top players have shone more so far, and finally, if Kentucky defeats Ohio St. in the final I stand to win the office pool. Confirmation bias, anyone?
* I refuse to go with the NCAA’s new labeling of the preliminary round, which has only four games with eight teams, all seeded below #10 in their regions, as the first round. It’s probably a sneaky move toward expanding the field yet again, and I’m not buying into it; until at least half of the teams in the tourney play it will remain “the preliminary round” in my commentary.
Current Events, Recent Movies
I am one of that rapidly disappearing breed who looks to the movies for something besides escapist entertainment. Not that I expect some socially redeeming value in every film, but once in a while, yes. Frankly, though, I am not getting any of it lately, particularly nothing that one could call political relevance.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
One film that tried, but failed, to produce against that objective was The Ides of March. That had a presidential campaign as the backdrop for a morality play about how dirty politics can spoil even the best-intentioned. The good candidate/bad person foil of the story, played by George Clooney, had a behavior profile somewhat like the naughtiness that we have subsequently learned John Edwards was up to in 2008, but Edwards’ story is ho-hum today, certainly put in the shade by Barack Obama’s arc of growth, challenge, and upright behavior. In other words, although the cynicism seemed a good tone for any political year, it didn’t hit the right notes in 2011 to inform, challenge, or modify our prevailing political mood (which is—what?—I will return to this later).
One of 2011’s top films was Iron Lady, in which Meryl Streep gave an Oscar-winning performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Streep’s craft was on full display as she became Thatcher in her political prime, and also in her senility later on—the reference point for the storytelling. Thatcher’s politics—which prominently featured extreme austerity during a recession, just as today’s Conservative government in Britain is attempting—could have provided an interesting angle to examine current affairs, but that was nowhere present. Alternatively, her style and her political pairing with her American contemporary and fellow traveler, President Reagan, could have provided a window on the reality behind the hero-worship US Republicans offer him today. Instead, the focus was all on biography: Reagan’s character appears for a few seconds to dance with Maggie, the twelve years or so of her government flash(back) by with the only real attention being to her blundering bravado—ultimately successful—in the Falklands War with Argentina, and one of the more interesting storylines proposed—how a grocer’s daughter developed the gravitas needed to capture her party’s leadership and win her first general election—is never really completed.
The top-grossing film of 2012 has surely already been released, and it is Hunger Games. This movie is set sometime in a regressed future North America called Panem, headed by a dictatorial capital peopled by folks with clearly degenerate habits (clothes, makeup, and, in particular, entertainments). Those nasty folks enjoy an ugly “reality show”, just as unreal, phony, staged as today’s ones, but much more exploitative and gory. Our heroine—the superb Jennifer Lawrence—is caught up in a desperate life-and-death struggle as she wins the contest then has to toe a treacherous path to keep her political masters from tossing her into their continental wastebasket with the other proles.
Clearly, there is just a touch of old-fashioned, libertarian, anti-cosmopolitan American values going on in the story of Hunger Games, and the trajectory of “extreme reality” entertainment seems plausible. But all of it—the setting, the ugly future economy, the court intrigues in the capital—are just the setting for the real story, the struggles of our brave, wise, and overwhelmed heroine. At least that’s so in the movie; I haven’t read the books. What I’d like to see more (in the next two—or more--installments, certain to appear in the next couple years now that this one has been such a big hit) is how his dysfunctional society can possibly function as it does, and how it got to this fractured juncture.
The movie with this year as its title was far from topical, though many still believe it to be so. 2012 had plenty of excitement, with the special effects teams turned loose on various continents and magnificent displays of total annihilation. The storyline—of a family which defied all odds to survive the catastrophe—was nothing short of ridiculous, though, and the politics and the earth science (I presume here) bear no relation to anything.
The most cogent political framing in a movie last year was Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, which for me was an alternate-reality telling of SARS, the bird flu epidemic that never quite happened in the early years of the last decade. The story felt very authentic in many ways—the politics of managing health risks, the nature of emergency medical research, the varying responses—greed, riot, desperation, acceptance—which the public would experience. In spite of a (reported) death toll in the millions, though, it didn’t seem to satisfy the public appetite—not enough car crashes, splatter, sex, rock ‘n’ roll, or something of the like—and the movie cut a very shallow swath through our society last summer and disappeared without much of a trace.
Finally, in my review of recent material I want to mention two movies from 2010 which had much more to say about our world, which, whether we like it or not (see here, Internet fans!) is dominated by the political, economic and military reality which seems nowhere to be found in today’s crop of film (at least American film). Up in the Air captured the essence of the 2008-09 Great Crater and its distorting effects on our society, and Hurt Locker put out there a (dramatized) real-world drama of incredible tension, a subject otherwise totally ignored by the 98% of us not directly touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What movies are waiting out there to be made? One, I think, is the bio of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who chose to volunteer to fight in Afghanistan, was killed by friendly fire, with the army covering it up: Where Men Win Glory. There is certainly a Michael Moore movie (or a Michael Moore-type movie) about the economy, probably focusing on the mortgage/foreclosure crisis which remains unsolved. Lastly, I expect to see some sort of ruthless expose of the Tea Party--not the membership, but the money and power behind it and what it seeks.
At Least There's One Topical Release
For some unknown reason, there is a major motion picture release coming with a re-make of The Three Stooges. The leads are no great draw, and the concept an absurd notion, in that those who remember the original should be way beyond having any interest, while those who don't remember it can't imagine why it should be made.
The one thing I have to say for it is that it is a reasonably good characterization of the Republican nomination contest. "Mitch-a-sketch" Romney is Moe, calling all the shots, bullying the others. Newt, clearly, is Curly. That leaves "S.P. Rick" Santorum as Larry, I guess, while Ron Paul could do a reasonably good Shemp, if he should be called upon.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Biased NCAA Preview
I'm massively a fan of major college basketball, and this has been a banner year for the teams I back--probably the most exciting for me since 1985 and 1986. With one or two exceptions, all my top 10 faves are right there in the mix on the national scene. Here they are, in order, and with comments explaining some of my emotional ties:
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
1) U. of Kentucky--#1 in the nation, by a good distance now. I've been a fan since the early '60's; suffered through the infamous Rupp's Runts team loss to the all-black Texas Western team in the NCAA championships (and Kentucky integrated their team soon after, not coincidentally).
2) U. of Louisville--They had fallen back, to the edge of the top 25, but proudly rose to the occasion and are playing in the Big East Championship as I write. They should be about a #5 regional seed regardless of whether they win tonight. Louisville was my hometown for a formative period in my life; been a fan since the days of Wesley Unseld, and I thrilled to their 1986 championship. See Pervis Ellison. I'm also a fan of Rick Pitino, backing his teams at U. of K. and the Knicks. For awhile the rivalry between UK and UL was such that one was not allowed to back both, but that has eased a bit. In the old days, UK would not play Louisville and risk its prestige as top dog in the state, but the change to playing once a year has defused that jealousy/ire.
3) U. of New Mexico--They just finished winning the Mountain West tournament, which should raise them up to about a #4/#5 seed, as well. Their team pulled off several strong wins on the road this year. The Lobos were a team I backed before I ever lived in the state; I liked things like their team name, the fact they played in "The Pit", some of their players over the years.
4) Syracuse University--The 'Cuse should remain #2 seed in the whole nation, despite losing yesterday to Cincinnati. They have a lot of depth and will be hard to beat in the tourney--at least until the regional finals (the "Elite Eight"). They've dropped a notch or two in my esteem with a decision to move from the Big East after this year, primarily for lame Big Football money-related reasons, and I'm not sure what to think of the Penn St.-esque allegations made against a member of their coaching staff. I lived in Syracuse in my pre-teens, and became a backer, even though longtime coach Jim Boeheim is a little distasteful to me.
5) U. of Virginia--As they often do, this year's team has overperformed for its level of talent. They were upper-middle in the ACC and will get a berth around #7/#8 in their region. Lived there, saw many an event at University Hall; they have a few treasured wins there against arch-foes Duke and North Carolina.
6) Indiana University--The one team that has beaten my #1 this year, with a famous last-second three-pointer. Almost invincible at home, like most of the Big Ten teams this year, they have lost often, in conference, on the road. The alma mater of both my parents, I find it more than acceptable to back them since Bobby Knight left.
7) Yale University--Not one of their better years, and they have been eclipsed in the Ivy League (halfway decently competitive) in recent years by Harvard, of all teams. My alma mater, of course--also, my cousin played for the team in the '60's.
8) Villanova--An off year for them, but they did have some good moments. Obviously, playing in the Big East is extremely tough for a small college if you don't have the horses. They earned a permanent place in my heart with their performance in that historic NCAA championship game in 1985 in which they were underdog at something like 20-1 odds against a great Georgetown team, winning by two points after playing out of their minds all game, setting an all-time record for field goal percentage (I want to say 78%.) See Ed Pinckney.
9) Connecticut--An OK season for the defending champs; they may make the tourney. They've won some big games for me over the years, so I was all in favor of Kemba Walker and his heroic leading of the team to post-season magic last year.
10) tie--Notre Dame, Butler--After incredible runs as runner-ups the last two years, Butler fell off this year. The Fighting Irish are the one team to defeat Syracuse this year, and they seem always to overachieve. They've been a great addition to the Big East. I admired Butler's plucky play, and it was a tough call who to back in last year's championship game vs. UConn. As for Notre Dame, they won my heart when the broke the longest winning streak in major college basketball history, beating Bill Walton's UCLA team. See Austin Carr.
Honorable mention to the Cincinnati Bearcats, the team of Oscar Robertson and Kenyon Martin.
I can do a reasonably good job of ranking these teams because they do sometimes play each other, and I just look into my heart when that happens.
A bit more on Kentucky: their team is an atypical one for coach "One and Done" John Callipari, who's been there five years or so, had great success, but no titles yet. What's different this year is that the engine of the team's success this year is not the penetrating, driving point guard of so many of his past teams--Derrick Rose at Memphis, and John Wall and, most recently, Brandon Knight at Kentucky (they do have one, freshman Marcus Teague, who's likely to turn pro after his freshman year, but he's not the star of the team). Instead, it's the usual outstanding crop of freshmen, but big guys--with Anthony Davis being one of the best talents to emerge in years. The team has shown great heart in tough games, with today's game with Florida and the comeback against Mississippi State a couple weeks ago as examples. I think they could definitely go all the way, though their lack of depth probably will mean that an early foul trouble situation to one of their two or three top players--Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, or upperclassman Jones--could lead to a dicey outcome. The game when that happens will be their supreme test, and a test of whether Callipari has fully prepared his (rapidly-improving, once again mostly one and done) team.
College basketball is a coach's game, so the story of these teams is about half the history of their coaches and their characteristics, and half the kind of players they can attract and polish.
I don't want to give too much away, as I am an active participant in "bracket pools"--and I particularly recommend the "survivor pool" version, where you pick one winning team each day and cannot repeat teams. My picks for the Final Four are Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas, and Ohio State (I'm not sure that will be feasible with the seedings), and my longshot picks to make tourney run would be VCU (like last year), Purdue, South Florida, Murray State, and, if they are even selected for the tourney, Drexel. Also, I'm looking for both New Mexico and Louisville to make the final 16--probably one of them will end up losing to one of my other faves.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Quickie for Super Tuesday
Tonight will once again be a lot of to-do about not-so-much. There are 11 states, but I'm not very interested in the count of number of states won--that might've been interesting in the early stages when candidates were trying (and failing) to develop irresistible momentum, but now it's about delegates and the possibility of Rick Santorum and/or Newt Gingrich preventing Mitt Romney's nomination.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Instead, my interest for the evening will be around three questions. Those three--which are not worth staying up to find out, as they probably won't be known until midnight or later--are the following:
1) Can Santorum lose a major state he should win (Ohio), due to a sustained challenge from Romney?
2) Can Romney pull an upset in a close three-way race in Tennessee?
3) Will Romney win more delegates on the night than his three opponents combined?
If any of 1), 2), or 3) end up with a "yes" answer, the nomination battle will essentially be won. Although delegate counts vary widely, all indicate that Romney has more delegates won than his opponents combined; if he can do the same tonight, he will be well on his way toward making his nomination inevitable.
1) is important because, so far, when Romney and his minions have applied the full weight of their money and influence, he has won; if he can do that again in Ohio, it indicates Santorum will not be able to stop him. If Santorum can hold off Romney in Ohio despite 3), it may still be a battle.
Finally, if Romney can push aside Gingrich and Santorum in Tennessee, it will indicate that the failure to combine forces against Romney will eventually doom his challengers.
My predictions, for the record, are 1) yes; 2) no; 3) yes.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Quickie for Oscar Night
I've already given my previews twice: once before half the movies came out, and once drawing upon the Golden Globes results. From the predictions and scuttlebutt out there, I have the feeling I'm going to be very dissatisfied with the award-winners, but I have hopes to be pleasantly surprised in a couple of categories, and I always enjoy (and usually get a bit emotional about) the event itself.
For this post, I will list the category and which one I would've selected if I had a vote, and then contrast with the one "everyone" is expecting to win in parentheses; if I have no objection to the indicated winner, I'll just show that in parens. I haven't been participating in any of those contests to predict winners, so I haven't done my research on the "minor" categories such as documentaries, shorts, etc. So I'll just leave most of them out.
Best Picture: The Descendants (The Artist)
Directing: Terence Malick, The Tree of Life (Martin Scorsese, Hugo)
Actor: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jean Dujardin, The Artist)
Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn (Christopher Plummer, Beginners)
Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (Viola Davis, The Help)
Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, The Help (Octavia Spencer, The Help)
Animated Feature: (Rango)
Art Direction: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Cinematography: The Tree of Life (Hugo)
Costume: (The Artist)
Documentary: Pina (?)
Film Editing: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Foreign Language: (A Separation, Iran)
Makeup: (Albert Nobbs)
Music: (The Artist)
Song: (The Muppets)--the fact that only two songs were nominated is shameful.
Sound Editing & Sound Mixing: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Hugo)
Visual Effects: (Harry Potter)
Writing (Adapted): The Descendants (Moneyball)
Writing (Original): Bridesmaids (Midnight in Paris)
A few closing comments: I would not be upset for Best Acturess if Davis or Meryl Streep win. Similarly, I'll be happy for Clooney if he gets Best Actor and not too upset if Dujardin gets it in his one bonne chance. I will be very upset if The Artist wins best screenwriting. I think Hugo is not really in the running for Best Picture but might end up with the most awards for its technical merits, and that's OK. The Best Director nominees are all extremely well-qualified, which makes my longshot pick of Malick a bit unrealistic.
Best Supporting Actress should've gone to Shailene Woodley for The Descendants, which wasn't nominated; Octavia Spencer's best hope is that her colleague in The Help, Jessica Chastain, looks like a long-term multi-nominee so people will overlook her this year, but the fact that the favored candidate shares a nomination with someone in the same movie does suggest that there could be an opening for one of the other nominees, perhaps even a surprise for Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids.
I do not agree that this was an unusually weak year, but I think the retrospective view will be that (or maybe that the Academy made huge errors in overlooking other films) if The Artist is chosen for all the big awards. It's a light entertainment, cute and well-made but not too engaging and with no lasting effect. I think the default pick of Christopher Plummer as Supporting Actor is a poor one with high-quality alternatives: though he's undoubtedly a great actor, nobody saw his movie--maybe Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, in which he did well in a relatively minor role, would've been a better vehicle.
Finally, the Best Picture favorite, far and away, is The Artist, with The Descendants being the second choice; however, if I were betting, I would put money on Hugo, probably about a 15-1 choice, that could pull an upset. This would disappoint few, and it follows the leading indicator of most nominations; I see it winning 4-6 Oscars prior to the Best Picture announcement, which might put it in top spot for the night even without it.
For this post, I will list the category and which one I would've selected if I had a vote, and then contrast with the one "everyone" is expecting to win in parentheses; if I have no objection to the indicated winner, I'll just show that in parens. I haven't been participating in any of those contests to predict winners, so I haven't done my research on the "minor" categories such as documentaries, shorts, etc. So I'll just leave most of them out.
Best Picture: The Descendants (The Artist)
Directing: Terence Malick, The Tree of Life (Martin Scorsese, Hugo)
Actor: Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Jean Dujardin, The Artist)
Supporting Actor: Kenneth Branagh, My Week with Marilyn (Christopher Plummer, Beginners)
Actress: Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn (Viola Davis, The Help)
Supporting Actress: Jessica Chastain, The Help (Octavia Spencer, The Help)
Animated Feature: (Rango)
Art Direction: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Cinematography: The Tree of Life (Hugo)
Costume: (The Artist)
Documentary: Pina (?)
Film Editing: The Artist (The Artist, or Hugo)
Foreign Language: (A Separation, Iran)
Makeup: (Albert Nobbs)
Music: (The Artist)
Song: (The Muppets)--the fact that only two songs were nominated is shameful.
Sound Editing & Sound Mixing: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Hugo)
Visual Effects: (Harry Potter)
Writing (Adapted): The Descendants (Moneyball)
Writing (Original): Bridesmaids (Midnight in Paris)
A few closing comments: I would not be upset for Best Acturess if Davis or Meryl Streep win. Similarly, I'll be happy for Clooney if he gets Best Actor and not too upset if Dujardin gets it in his one bonne chance. I will be very upset if The Artist wins best screenwriting. I think Hugo is not really in the running for Best Picture but might end up with the most awards for its technical merits, and that's OK. The Best Director nominees are all extremely well-qualified, which makes my longshot pick of Malick a bit unrealistic.
Best Supporting Actress should've gone to Shailene Woodley for The Descendants, which wasn't nominated; Octavia Spencer's best hope is that her colleague in The Help, Jessica Chastain, looks like a long-term multi-nominee so people will overlook her this year, but the fact that the favored candidate shares a nomination with someone in the same movie does suggest that there could be an opening for one of the other nominees, perhaps even a surprise for Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids.
I do not agree that this was an unusually weak year, but I think the retrospective view will be that (or maybe that the Academy made huge errors in overlooking other films) if The Artist is chosen for all the big awards. It's a light entertainment, cute and well-made but not too engaging and with no lasting effect. I think the default pick of Christopher Plummer as Supporting Actor is a poor one with high-quality alternatives: though he's undoubtedly a great actor, nobody saw his movie--maybe Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, in which he did well in a relatively minor role, would've been a better vehicle.
Finally, the Best Picture favorite, far and away, is The Artist, with The Descendants being the second choice; however, if I were betting, I would put money on Hugo, probably about a 15-1 choice, that could pull an upset. This would disappoint few, and it follows the leading indicator of most nominations; I see it winning 4-6 Oscars prior to the Best Picture announcement, which might put it in top spot for the night even without it.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Carter Scott-Heron Hitchens Joe Pa St. Houston
A Scattering of Deceased Celebrities
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
For this post I wanted to comment on the passing of several noted individuals in recent days/weeks/months. I searched in vain on Google for a collective noun used to refer to dead people: there was one suggestion, by a Krishaan13, for "an edward cullen of dead". I had a feeling my teenaged offspring would know WTF this might be: their response was "are you kidding? He's a vampire in 'Twilight'".
I don't want to give any publicity to "Twilight", but Krishaan13 has a point: the only real collectivities among dead would be vampires and zombies (undead, really, but that's nitpicking). Still, I'm opting for my own word choice of "a scattering". There are many things we do with dead people: embalm and bury, cremate, (to be crude) dismember, leave out for the scavengers (the Zoroastrian way), but they all have the effect of scattering--ashes of the cremated being the clearest example.
The individuals I will discuss briefly in this post went their separate ways, as one would expect of such a scattering. All of them have in common fame through the arts or sports, so they have won their celebrity by doing something which has contributed to our culture of discretionary activity. I will try to strike the right balance of respect and judgement, relying upon (or hiding behind) the fact that I never knew any of them personally.
Let's Start with The Kid
Of all these, I see Gary Carter as being the one who most successfully achieved harmony between his fame and successful expression of his talent. He played baseball well and with great enthusiasm, smiled a lot on and off the field, and generally did things right. He was a jock who didn't pretend to meddle beyond his game, but clearly he was a pretty smart jock--his position was catcher, the on-field general (when done well), and he taught himself French when he was drafted by the Montreal Expos to help him fit in better.
There is one memory above all else with Carter, who was known always as "The Kid" for the simple joy he showed. 1986 World Series Game 6, bottom of the 10th inning, the RedSox had taken a 5-3 lead against his Mets in the top of the inning (homerun by Dave Henderson). Carter came up with two outs, nobody on, and got a clean single. OK, the most he could contribute physically was one run, but it was his attitude which showed his teammates, the world (and his opponents?) that the Mets still believed they could do it. And, three or four batters later, Carter having already scored, Mookie Wilson hit his unforgettable grounder through Bill Buckner's legs and the Mets were still alive (they would win Game 7 the next day).
Carter had a long, successful career. He was known for his bat (a power hitter, with adequate batting average) more than his glove (and he had running speed well below average), but he had a good arm when young and was always considered a good defensive catcher and in-game adviser to pitchers. He had a good long career; he was sometimes overshadowed by other catchers of that era (Johnny Bench and Carlton Fisk), but eventually had no problem being inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. He never got to manage in the big leagues, and brain cancer took him out before his time, but there are no blemishes on his life record.
Gil Scott-Heron: Tall Shoulders
The recording artist Gil Scott-Heron died last May, but I have failed to comment previously. There is no doubt that Scott-Heron helped to lay the foundation for the hip-hop movement which followed. His raps had style, wordplay, rhythm, and--what's largely missing today--musicality. Probably the closest among today's artists to his approach is Kanye West--too bold, too creative, insufficiently respectful toward the powers that be.
Gil Scott-Heron is remembered most for a mistaken prophecy: "The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised." Depending on your perspective or the context you choose, it may or may not have happened, but surely it includes cameras and it will be broadcast (or narrowcast, but most likely both). He didn't anticipate the democratization of TV-ready, hand-held cameras, but his real point was that the revolution will come from the grassroots, and events (thinking of the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and other recent political developments) have proven him right in this regard.
My favorite piece by Scott-Heron was "Living in a B Movie" from the "Reflections" album in the early '80's. The theme was a hard-hitting attack on Ronald Reagan, a B-movie President "when what we really wanted was John Wayne." Now, I never wanted John Wayne for anything, much less President, but he is accurately expressing the nationalistic longing which led to Reagan's election.
Gil Scott-Heron mostly disappeared from about 1990 on, emerging to produce an album shortly before his death. It turns out he had major drug problems--getting busted repeatedly--and poor health. Unfortunately, his art has largely faded from public consciousness, and it was too topical for all the references to be understandable to young people today, but give it a listen, to hear how well his early rap blended spoken lyrics, jazz, and blues.
Christopher Hitchens: Proud Iconoclast
British-turned-American critic and author Hitchens died in December from complications of throat cancer. He lived hard, wrote hard, and, apologies to Bruce Willis, died hard. He admitted that it was a lifetime of drinking and smoking that did him in, but he didn't regret that lifestyle, nor did his fervent advocacy of atheism change on his deathbed. Unlike some of the others in this post, I think he had his problems before he was ever famous.
Hitchens reliably produced bold and outrageous arguments, over a very wide range of topics, extremely well-written and researched, which made him popular with his editors. Not so much his opponents, and he made a lot of them. I would say that his thinking was more strenuous than coherent. For example, he favored the Iraq invasion of 2003 for humanitarian reasons. A reformed Trotskyite, he opposed socialism but favored Marxism. Politically, he was basically unreliable: he favored Nader in 2000 and Bush in 2004: I'm sure he had his reasons, but I doubt that they made sense to anyone but himself.
He had a lot of good qualities, too. For me, the best was that he was an expert on George Orwell, whom he admired greatly. Except for a soft spot around the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union, he was a consistent opponent of all totalitarianism and a strong believer in democracy and liberty, especially the American brand of it. From what I've seen, I would rate him as an excellent literary critic. He will be missed.
Paternal Respect
Joe Paterno was one of the greatesst college football coaches, but he stayed around just a little too long (or maybe way too long). He didn't know how to quit, and he eventually had to be forced from his job at Penn State by the scandal. The medical report will say he died of lung cancer, but I would say that it was the shame and humiliation that killed him. It turns out he was never a smoker; the exposure to some poison happened perhaps sometime long in his past, but to me it is clear that it was the emotional injury which caused his disease to rise up and defeat him.
He was not charged, could never have been charged, much less convicted, but he was guilty--of silence in the face of credible, horrendous allegations--in the minds of those who were not diehard fans. He may have done his duty to report, but he put up with no action being taken, and for many that was too much.
Certainly by the end he was something of a figurehead as a coach, but his teams were always formidable: disciplined, full-sized, well-prepared on offense, and gamebreakers on defense. The list of top pros who came out of his teams, at every position, is nearly endless. He gave the game a lot, but the lesson of his career is that college presidents should beware of a sports coach becoming too much the symbol of their school.
No Saints Here
Certainly not Whitney Houston, the most celebrated of these recently departed (the reference above takes Paterno's nickname--"Joe Pa"--and expands him to the status of a state icon, "Joe Pa St.") Houston had a talent, which was taking the phrasing and styling she learned as a gospel singer and bringing that, with passion, to pop music.
I will say that she has had a major influence on the genres of pop and R&B, seen in such as Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, and, of course, Jennifer Hudson. One technique in particular that she popularized, rolling notes up and down on a singular syllable, has been replicated frequently in recent years, given the fancy name "melisma", but really in my book of music it's just slurred notes.
Anyway, she was said to have a generous soul, but she had a messed up life. I feel sympathy for her, but I regret that she got the Michael Jackson treatment in her afterlife. It's a bit embarrassing.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Political S&T
First, a short discussion on the complex issue of contraceptive insurance in the implementation of the Federal health care bill. We have opined on this issue as long ago as 2009: contraceptive insurance needs to be a part of the standard package of health care insurance available to all Americans. Reduction of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and all the attendant effects; these benefits make contraceptive insurance a public policy necessity.
With the Obama Administration's concession last week that religiously-sponsored hospitals and universities would not have to contribute to these offerings, it is hard to find exactly what basis they would have to continue to oppose the policy. Insurers will instead pay for them--it probably was fairly easy for the insurers to calculate and confirm to the Federal health administrators that the cost to the medical system would be lower by paying for these features, than for the alternatives. Any opposition from the religious community is based on sheer bloody-mindedness: they would oppose contraception for anyone, and rather than allowing people to make the choice whether to use birth control, they would block it for all. For me, the only question was whether the contraceptive rider should be free to those who choose it, but apparently its economics pay for itself.
That being the case, it is pretty hard to find the justification for opposing the policy on the grounds of expanding personal freedom, or on the grounds of opposition to abortion, either. The ship has sailed on allowing people access to contraception (some 50 years ago); I see this issue fading pretty quickly, as the petty disputes about whether the "morning-after" pill constitutes abortion will hardly be compelling.
The Santorum Blip
Rick Santorum pulled off a couple of big upsets over Mitt Romney last week in Republican votes in heartland states. In terms of delegate strategy, the losses by Romney were not serious, but they did re-open--once again--the battle for control of the nomination contest, or at least for perception of its control. Romney had taken command with an impressive win in Florida, but his strategists gave a low importance to the contests in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, leaving an opening for Santorum, who won all three.
As has been the case in the past, the show of strength by a Romney challenger in individual states immediately translated into a dramatic change in the national surveys of Republicans. All of a sudden, Santorum is polling about equal with Romney nationally. Romney still has a big advantage in every strategic sense: more money, better organization, and more delegates than all his opponents combined; however, the party's primary voters remain unconvinced of his inevitability. As long as that remains true, his nomination is not, in fact, inevitable, even if every Republican campaign in living memory suggests otherwise.
But, if you were to ask me if Rick Santorum is the man who can win it--my reaction would still be to say: 1) impossible; and 2) if only!
Electoral Strategy Fakes
I am suspicious of either party disclosing strategy at this early stage: what they say may have some validity, but the real strategic decisions are yet to be made.
A good example is the "Road Map to Victory" I received from the Obama campaign recently. It has some good information, for example, the number of electoral votes each state has, and their early assessment that they believe they can start with all the states John Kerry won in 2004, totalling (after the 2010 Census) 246 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed.
They then offer four "paths" to get to the required number, or just beyond. The first is the West Path, featuring CO, NM, and NV--what they don't say is that they slipped IA in there to get to 272. They are more straightforward with the Midwest Path: add OH and IA to the Kerry states, and you get exactly 270 (hey, what about the Omaha Congressional district in NE, which Obama won in 2008?) The South Path requires just NC and VA, plus Kerry, to get to 274, though I think that the whole NC play (which includes having the party convention in Charlotte) is a head fake. Finally, the Expansion Path adds to the West Path the state of AZ--a longshot if Obama doesn't get Gaby Giffords campaigning actively for the ticket, which I think is a lot to ask of her--and, once again, IA, but has quietly backed out the Kerry states of NH and PA to land at 272.
The bottom line on these strategies: add PA to the critical states of focus I identified last year--VA, NV, OH, and IA (and take NH off the list if it's Romney). FL and MO are missing from these strategies, which is disappointing, as both have close Senate races critical for the Democrats if they are to hold any kind of majority. This strategy discloses the long-term plan of building organizations in key states--CO, IA, VA, NM, NV, OH, etc.--to make the strategic position one of strength, forcing the Republicans to counter in these and miss opportunities that may exist elsewhere. As such, it is true as far as it goes, but I think there are some alternatives remaining undisclosed (such as a late Super PAC bombing run in FL, now that Romney has shown how well that works and that the Obama campaign has reluctantly conceded they will need to go the S-PAC route).
As for the Republicans, the word is that the real strategy will be discussed only among the elites--the big money givers, Congressmen, party national committee--and anything that's out there in public is not the real strategy. This I can believe; I also think that Karl Rove is going to be right in the war room, calling the shots. Given the weakness of their eventual Presidential candidate, whether he be Tea Partier, Bushite, or Salamander, their real strategy has to be to hope for a Democratic blunder and dig in, throwing big money into closely contested Congressional races.
Tactical Investment
My friend Norman Goldman (.com), speaking on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio the other night, was referring to the secret Republican strategy, which he described (and I paraphrase) as bailing on this Presidential race, holding Congressional losses to a minimum and planning for Chris Christie for 2016. He concluded that the appropriate response for progressives was to put their money into House and Senate races this year, as Obama's re-election feels assured to him.
With all due respect to Norm's acumen, though, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, the battle for control of Congress may end up being the one that keeps us up late on Election Night; however, I think the shortest route to success in that battle is an Obama victory of landslide proportions. We need to run the score up like the 49ers in those '90s Super Bowls (Norm, it was Denver they beat 55-10!); only that will carry the Democrats through in some of the House races that would otherwise lean Republican, and those very tight Senate races in swing states (NM, NV, WI, FL, MO, VA being examples).
I think the Obama Road Map is fine for showing where the ground game will be fought and won, but the battle for Congress will be an air war, battled with the big money on the air waves, and I see it focused in three states where the Republicans and their 2010 Congressional gains will be vulnerable: PA, OH, and FL.
If you're a little guy like me, your money isn't going to make the difference in these field of fire ordnance saturation encounters. After I make a single contribution to each of the big 5--Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, the Democrati Governors' Association, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--each with my own plea for campaign reform after this election cycle, mind you--I will keep my powder dry for tactical contributions down the stretch in selected campaigns, and I may make myself available for some volunteer work in my beloved New Mexico. More on this later.
With the Obama Administration's concession last week that religiously-sponsored hospitals and universities would not have to contribute to these offerings, it is hard to find exactly what basis they would have to continue to oppose the policy. Insurers will instead pay for them--it probably was fairly easy for the insurers to calculate and confirm to the Federal health administrators that the cost to the medical system would be lower by paying for these features, than for the alternatives. Any opposition from the religious community is based on sheer bloody-mindedness: they would oppose contraception for anyone, and rather than allowing people to make the choice whether to use birth control, they would block it for all. For me, the only question was whether the contraceptive rider should be free to those who choose it, but apparently its economics pay for itself.
That being the case, it is pretty hard to find the justification for opposing the policy on the grounds of expanding personal freedom, or on the grounds of opposition to abortion, either. The ship has sailed on allowing people access to contraception (some 50 years ago); I see this issue fading pretty quickly, as the petty disputes about whether the "morning-after" pill constitutes abortion will hardly be compelling.
The Santorum Blip
Rick Santorum pulled off a couple of big upsets over Mitt Romney last week in Republican votes in heartland states. In terms of delegate strategy, the losses by Romney were not serious, but they did re-open--once again--the battle for control of the nomination contest, or at least for perception of its control. Romney had taken command with an impressive win in Florida, but his strategists gave a low importance to the contests in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, leaving an opening for Santorum, who won all three.
As has been the case in the past, the show of strength by a Romney challenger in individual states immediately translated into a dramatic change in the national surveys of Republicans. All of a sudden, Santorum is polling about equal with Romney nationally. Romney still has a big advantage in every strategic sense: more money, better organization, and more delegates than all his opponents combined; however, the party's primary voters remain unconvinced of his inevitability. As long as that remains true, his nomination is not, in fact, inevitable, even if every Republican campaign in living memory suggests otherwise.
But, if you were to ask me if Rick Santorum is the man who can win it--my reaction would still be to say: 1) impossible; and 2) if only!
Electoral Strategy Fakes
I am suspicious of either party disclosing strategy at this early stage: what they say may have some validity, but the real strategic decisions are yet to be made.
A good example is the "Road Map to Victory" I received from the Obama campaign recently. It has some good information, for example, the number of electoral votes each state has, and their early assessment that they believe they can start with all the states John Kerry won in 2004, totalling (after the 2010 Census) 246 Electoral Votes of the 270 needed.
They then offer four "paths" to get to the required number, or just beyond. The first is the West Path, featuring CO, NM, and NV--what they don't say is that they slipped IA in there to get to 272. They are more straightforward with the Midwest Path: add OH and IA to the Kerry states, and you get exactly 270 (hey, what about the Omaha Congressional district in NE, which Obama won in 2008?) The South Path requires just NC and VA, plus Kerry, to get to 274, though I think that the whole NC play (which includes having the party convention in Charlotte) is a head fake. Finally, the Expansion Path adds to the West Path the state of AZ--a longshot if Obama doesn't get Gaby Giffords campaigning actively for the ticket, which I think is a lot to ask of her--and, once again, IA, but has quietly backed out the Kerry states of NH and PA to land at 272.
The bottom line on these strategies: add PA to the critical states of focus I identified last year--VA, NV, OH, and IA (and take NH off the list if it's Romney). FL and MO are missing from these strategies, which is disappointing, as both have close Senate races critical for the Democrats if they are to hold any kind of majority. This strategy discloses the long-term plan of building organizations in key states--CO, IA, VA, NM, NV, OH, etc.--to make the strategic position one of strength, forcing the Republicans to counter in these and miss opportunities that may exist elsewhere. As such, it is true as far as it goes, but I think there are some alternatives remaining undisclosed (such as a late Super PAC bombing run in FL, now that Romney has shown how well that works and that the Obama campaign has reluctantly conceded they will need to go the S-PAC route).
As for the Republicans, the word is that the real strategy will be discussed only among the elites--the big money givers, Congressmen, party national committee--and anything that's out there in public is not the real strategy. This I can believe; I also think that Karl Rove is going to be right in the war room, calling the shots. Given the weakness of their eventual Presidential candidate, whether he be Tea Partier, Bushite, or Salamander, their real strategy has to be to hope for a Democratic blunder and dig in, throwing big money into closely contested Congressional races.
Tactical Investment
My friend Norman Goldman (.com), speaking on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio the other night, was referring to the secret Republican strategy, which he described (and I paraphrase) as bailing on this Presidential race, holding Congressional losses to a minimum and planning for Chris Christie for 2016. He concluded that the appropriate response for progressives was to put their money into House and Senate races this year, as Obama's re-election feels assured to him.
With all due respect to Norm's acumen, though, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, the battle for control of Congress may end up being the one that keeps us up late on Election Night; however, I think the shortest route to success in that battle is an Obama victory of landslide proportions. We need to run the score up like the 49ers in those '90s Super Bowls (Norm, it was Denver they beat 55-10!); only that will carry the Democrats through in some of the House races that would otherwise lean Republican, and those very tight Senate races in swing states (NM, NV, WI, FL, MO, VA being examples).
I think the Obama Road Map is fine for showing where the ground game will be fought and won, but the battle for Congress will be an air war, battled with the big money on the air waves, and I see it focused in three states where the Republicans and their 2010 Congressional gains will be vulnerable: PA, OH, and FL.
If you're a little guy like me, your money isn't going to make the difference in these field of fire ordnance saturation encounters. After I make a single contribution to each of the big 5--Obama for America, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee, the Democrati Governors' Association, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--each with my own plea for campaign reform after this election cycle, mind you--I will keep my powder dry for tactical contributions down the stretch in selected campaigns, and I may make myself available for some volunteer work in my beloved New Mexico. More on this later.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
S.B. Sunday Sports Report
Today, of course, is Stupid Bowl Sunday; the trick will be finding enough things to do so that we do not sit around watching the endless pregame, postgame, and during-game blathering. I'm hopeful that my son's Sunday tennis practice will go on as usual; that would keep me busy driving back and forth--I can still catch some of the telecast if the game is engaging enough.
The usual pattern is for a tense first quarter as each team tries and fails to establish a running game, then some key turnovers or big passing plays setting the stage for one team taking a significant lead, with the trailing team becoming gradually more desperate, and the leading team's blitzes becoming more all-out, leading to blowout conditions. This is certainly a possibility for tonight's game, but I'm hopeful that whichever team ends up trailing will keep its cool, as both certainly have the capability to score in bunches.
Though the betting favorite is New England, there is big money coming in for the New Jersey Giants: the point spread has shortened since the opening line, and many of the "experts" are predicting the mild upset, which would be a repeat of the huge upset Eli Manning and the Giants pulled against the Patriots four years ago, when they were seeking to achieve only the second undefeated NFL championship season in history (after the '73 Dolphins). The Giants also won a closely-contested regular season game with the Patriots during the regular season last fall. What I find to have little merit is the argument that the Giants have the momentum coming into tonight's game: the Patriots have a ten-game win streak, during which they have sometimes shown the ability to score at will.
My prediction is for a high-scoring game: possibly some early scores leading to a wide-open second half, or just a lot of late-game heroics from both sides. I will go with a score which will win me the office pool, NE 30, NJ 28. With this score the Pats would fail to cover the 3-point spread, but the teams would surpass the over/under line of 54 (see below for a--by now, too late to be useful--analysis of the final digits of teams' final scores in past Super Bowls).
One thing is certain: tonight's game featuring two of the teams with the largest fan bases, representing large TV markets, will get great ratings. Regardless of the S.B. outcome, the NFL is to be congratulated on fully satisfactory season, recovering from the threat of disaster with the preseason lockout. Give the owners credit--and I basically hate their guts, all of them--they gave ground in time and got a good agreement, which the players seem not to have accepted.
Chelsea-Man U.
Tonight's American football game would need to do a lot to reach the emotional excitement of this morning's English football game from Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium--televised on Fox's regular network, with (intense Arsenal fan) Piers Morgan coming over from CNN to help out with the broadcast.
The teams have had a great rivalry in the last decade, often decisive in the Premier League competition, and sometimes even in the Champions League; each has suffered rare home losses at the hands of their opponent (Chelsea, for example, lost a key Champions League game at home last spring, probably cooking the goose of last year's coach), and most of their games have been close ones (the Champions League final in Moscow four years ago being an example: Chelsea lost in penalty kicks when John Terry slipped while taking his shot).
This week's game had all the hoopla but a little less at stake: Chelsea fell off the pace with a shaky spell late last fall, while Manchester United has so far been outplayed by its crosstown rival, Manchester City, whose surge of expensive player purchases has finally paid off this year with a solid team getting more than its share of good fortune. Man U. needed a win to get back to a virtual tie with "City", while Chelsea needed not to lose to hang onto fourth place (fourth being the critical dividing line at season's end between those teams getting a place in the Champions League and those in the second-level Europa competition).
The game had three distinct phases, something like the S.B. experience I described above. The first third of the game was scoreless, with Chelsea tentative and Man U. unable to use its ball possession to do much, either. The second third--bridging both sides of the halftime break--was all Chelsea: first, an "own goal" (going off a defender) set up by superior ball control by Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge. (His move--pushing it along the end line, which eliminates the possibility of an offsides call, then centering the ball backwards at close range toward teammates and defenders--has been producing a lot of these own goals recently.)
Then, after the half, Chelsea scored two brilliant goals: the first off a wonderful cross from Fernando Torres with a well-timed volley from the back post by Juan Mata, the best of Chelsea's additions this season. Torres has been struggling to score, but partly that is because he draws a big crowd of defenders, and he used that effectively to create a wide space for Mata to convert the perfect pass. The third goal was a free kick by Mata headed in by David Luiz.
Some may have thought that 3-0 lead with 30 minutes left was a safe one, but I knew better. Man U. applied the pressure and was rewarded with two penalty kicks in the next 15 minutes, both converted by arch-foe Wayne Rooney, the second penalty award being a faulty call by the referee. (Why does Man U. always get awarded the penalty kicks, and their opponents, never?) Their third goal, with 10 minutes left, was well-earned, badly defended, and converted by Chicharrito--Javier Hernandez of Mexico--the most recently-acquired and deadliest of Man U.'s many weapons. The last 10 minutes were wild and woolly, Chelsea's ace goalie Petr Cech doing well, but Man U's De Gea making the save of the match on another Mata free kick in the last five minutes.
The 3-3 result did not fully satisfy either team--both coaches complained of the refereeing afterwards--but at least Chelsea impeded Man U's chances to retake first place, while avoiding a damaging loss. (I predicted a 2-2 score on Chelsea's website, correctly calling for goals from Rooney and Mata.) Chelsea's goals for the season are straightforward: finish no worse than 4th in the EPL, and win either the F.A. Cup or the Champions League. Man U. has been eliminated from both of those competitions, so for them it's all about winning the Premier League battle with City.
NBA Update
The players and the coaches hate the compressed, shortened regular season, but I don't share their opinion: their normal regular season is too long, too slack in terms of effort and stakes. This season there was not enough preparation and conditioning, and that combined with the concentrated weekly load of games has led to a rash of injuries, and those are having a strong influence on the battle for playoff positions.
The Miami Heat still looks to be the best team--they have now augmented their Big 3 of James-Wade-Bosh with a better supporting cast--though the best records belong to the upstart Oklahaoma City Thunder (the Durant-Westbrook axis has been dominant) and the Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose defending his MVP title well). The defending champion Dallas Mavericks have fallen off the pace as I predicted in my preseason review, and the Lakers and Celtics, who have been injury-ridden, are also underperforming. The big suprise of the early season has been the strong play of the Philadelphia 76ers; they are such a surprise that they haven't even been scheduled for national TV games thus far, so I don't have much to say about them. I will say that they destroyed our local team, the Bulls, when Chicago showed up short-handed and tired, and that they have a mix of underrated veterans (like Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand) and rising stars (like their young point guard Jrue Holliday). More healthy teams in the East is definitely a good sign for the league, so this helps make up for the disappointments from the Amare Stoudamire/Carmelo Anthony Knicks and Deron Williams' Nets.
Footnote on Super Bowl Betting Squares
The usual pattern is for a tense first quarter as each team tries and fails to establish a running game, then some key turnovers or big passing plays setting the stage for one team taking a significant lead, with the trailing team becoming gradually more desperate, and the leading team's blitzes becoming more all-out, leading to blowout conditions. This is certainly a possibility for tonight's game, but I'm hopeful that whichever team ends up trailing will keep its cool, as both certainly have the capability to score in bunches.
Though the betting favorite is New England, there is big money coming in for the New Jersey Giants: the point spread has shortened since the opening line, and many of the "experts" are predicting the mild upset, which would be a repeat of the huge upset Eli Manning and the Giants pulled against the Patriots four years ago, when they were seeking to achieve only the second undefeated NFL championship season in history (after the '73 Dolphins). The Giants also won a closely-contested regular season game with the Patriots during the regular season last fall. What I find to have little merit is the argument that the Giants have the momentum coming into tonight's game: the Patriots have a ten-game win streak, during which they have sometimes shown the ability to score at will.
My prediction is for a high-scoring game: possibly some early scores leading to a wide-open second half, or just a lot of late-game heroics from both sides. I will go with a score which will win me the office pool, NE 30, NJ 28. With this score the Pats would fail to cover the 3-point spread, but the teams would surpass the over/under line of 54 (see below for a--by now, too late to be useful--analysis of the final digits of teams' final scores in past Super Bowls).
One thing is certain: tonight's game featuring two of the teams with the largest fan bases, representing large TV markets, will get great ratings. Regardless of the S.B. outcome, the NFL is to be congratulated on fully satisfactory season, recovering from the threat of disaster with the preseason lockout. Give the owners credit--and I basically hate their guts, all of them--they gave ground in time and got a good agreement, which the players seem not to have accepted.
Chelsea-Man U.
Tonight's American football game would need to do a lot to reach the emotional excitement of this morning's English football game from Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium--televised on Fox's regular network, with (intense Arsenal fan) Piers Morgan coming over from CNN to help out with the broadcast.
The teams have had a great rivalry in the last decade, often decisive in the Premier League competition, and sometimes even in the Champions League; each has suffered rare home losses at the hands of their opponent (Chelsea, for example, lost a key Champions League game at home last spring, probably cooking the goose of last year's coach), and most of their games have been close ones (the Champions League final in Moscow four years ago being an example: Chelsea lost in penalty kicks when John Terry slipped while taking his shot).
This week's game had all the hoopla but a little less at stake: Chelsea fell off the pace with a shaky spell late last fall, while Manchester United has so far been outplayed by its crosstown rival, Manchester City, whose surge of expensive player purchases has finally paid off this year with a solid team getting more than its share of good fortune. Man U. needed a win to get back to a virtual tie with "City", while Chelsea needed not to lose to hang onto fourth place (fourth being the critical dividing line at season's end between those teams getting a place in the Champions League and those in the second-level Europa competition).
The game had three distinct phases, something like the S.B. experience I described above. The first third of the game was scoreless, with Chelsea tentative and Man U. unable to use its ball possession to do much, either. The second third--bridging both sides of the halftime break--was all Chelsea: first, an "own goal" (going off a defender) set up by superior ball control by Chelsea's Daniel Sturridge. (His move--pushing it along the end line, which eliminates the possibility of an offsides call, then centering the ball backwards at close range toward teammates and defenders--has been producing a lot of these own goals recently.)
Then, after the half, Chelsea scored two brilliant goals: the first off a wonderful cross from Fernando Torres with a well-timed volley from the back post by Juan Mata, the best of Chelsea's additions this season. Torres has been struggling to score, but partly that is because he draws a big crowd of defenders, and he used that effectively to create a wide space for Mata to convert the perfect pass. The third goal was a free kick by Mata headed in by David Luiz.
Some may have thought that 3-0 lead with 30 minutes left was a safe one, but I knew better. Man U. applied the pressure and was rewarded with two penalty kicks in the next 15 minutes, both converted by arch-foe Wayne Rooney, the second penalty award being a faulty call by the referee. (Why does Man U. always get awarded the penalty kicks, and their opponents, never?) Their third goal, with 10 minutes left, was well-earned, badly defended, and converted by Chicharrito--Javier Hernandez of Mexico--the most recently-acquired and deadliest of Man U.'s many weapons. The last 10 minutes were wild and woolly, Chelsea's ace goalie Petr Cech doing well, but Man U's De Gea making the save of the match on another Mata free kick in the last five minutes.
The 3-3 result did not fully satisfy either team--both coaches complained of the refereeing afterwards--but at least Chelsea impeded Man U's chances to retake first place, while avoiding a damaging loss. (I predicted a 2-2 score on Chelsea's website, correctly calling for goals from Rooney and Mata.) Chelsea's goals for the season are straightforward: finish no worse than 4th in the EPL, and win either the F.A. Cup or the Champions League. Man U. has been eliminated from both of those competitions, so for them it's all about winning the Premier League battle with City.
NBA Update
The players and the coaches hate the compressed, shortened regular season, but I don't share their opinion: their normal regular season is too long, too slack in terms of effort and stakes. This season there was not enough preparation and conditioning, and that combined with the concentrated weekly load of games has led to a rash of injuries, and those are having a strong influence on the battle for playoff positions.
The Miami Heat still looks to be the best team--they have now augmented their Big 3 of James-Wade-Bosh with a better supporting cast--though the best records belong to the upstart Oklahaoma City Thunder (the Durant-Westbrook axis has been dominant) and the Chicago Bulls (Derrick Rose defending his MVP title well). The defending champion Dallas Mavericks have fallen off the pace as I predicted in my preseason review, and the Lakers and Celtics, who have been injury-ridden, are also underperforming. The big suprise of the early season has been the strong play of the Philadelphia 76ers; they are such a surprise that they haven't even been scheduled for national TV games thus far, so I don't have much to say about them. I will say that they destroyed our local team, the Bulls, when Chicago showed up short-handed and tired, and that they have a mix of underrated veterans (like Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand) and rising stars (like their young point guard Jrue Holliday). More healthy teams in the East is definitely a good sign for the league, so this helps make up for the disappointments from the Amare Stoudamire/Carmelo Anthony Knicks and Deron Williams' Nets.
Footnote on Super Bowl Betting Squares
A little empirical data from the history of the first 45 Super Bowls:
The winning team's last digit of the final score is well distributed: all 10 digits have at least 3 occurrences, with the leading ones being 7 (7 times), 1 and 4 (6 times) and 6 (5).
Not so the losing team digit: 2 and 8 have never occurred, and 5 only once for the losing team (last year). 7 and 0 are the winning choices for losers: the loser has had a score ending in 7 twelve times, and 0 eight times (though never a shutout).
In terms of the 55 combinations, there are 27 that have never occurred and 16 that have happened once. The leading combination is 7-4 (or 4-7) which has occurred 5 times in 45 years. Ones that have occurred 3 times are 1-5 and 0-7, and the following have occurred twice: 7-7, 6-0, 5-0, 7-3, 6-3, 4-3, 9-0, 4-1, and 7-1.
I hope this has told you all you need for me to tell you--if not, too bad! Please note I'm only looking at final scores--quarter-end odds may differ.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Money and Politics
For the most important issue emerging from the 2012 election campaign, you would search vainly in both the transcripts of the 18 (so far) Republican debates and President Obama's overly-lengthy State of the Union address this week. Also, disappointingly, nothing on the topic can be found in Esquire's "79 Things We Can All Agree On" that I discussed (see the next post down), even though it is something that a huge majority of people would agree--and I'm talking about Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling following on the 2008 campaign, swept away the campaign finance restrictions on private organizations, not affiliated with individuals' electoral campaigns. I have condemned the ruling, not so much on the legal merits (about which I don't claim to be expert) but on the horrendous impact it would have on national campaigns, which already are enormously over-expensive and with the quality of the effect of all that spending continuously deteriorating.
What I basically expect, and there is already plenty of evidence of it, is that the unlimited spending from the uncontrolled Super PAC organizations is going to produce a very strong reaction from the public. There will be a decline in turnout from usual Presidential election years because of all the negativity (and possibly from other methods the Republicans are trying to use in some states to suppress voting), but the stronger reaction will be revulsion at the sewage put on the television ads and their frequency during the general election campaign.
I see no chance at all that there will be any serious ceasefire in the money war going on this year (Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown have made a truce regarding their Senate campaign in Massachusetts, but that could easily be broken if one or the other finds things not going well under the restriction). The Super PAC's will weigh in most heavily on some of the closely-contested Senate and House races. Will the influence of negative advertising paid by outside money benefit the campaigns of its big-money backers--as it has often done in the past--or will voters recognize they are being bought and sold and produce a backlash? I am not optimistic about that, but I am hopeful that the bad taste that will remain in all of our mouths (or at least those of the districts whose stations will bombard us with poisonous gas) will lead us to speak out and purge the vitriol.
There are two main directions this reaction should take in 2013--To the Supreme Court's equating of speech with money, and of corporations having the same rights as people, the only response sufficient would be a constitutional amendment to the effect that "Corporations are not people; and only people can contribute to electoral campaigns." This will be difficult, but it needs to be established--this is the only way. When the public will is sufficiently motivated on a bipartisan basis, an amendment can be passed in months--an example being the repeal of Prohibition. There are a couple of online petitions I have seen and supported, one from Sen. Sherrod Brown and one from a group called Democracy for America and signed by Bernie Sanders. I know my Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is supporting some action. As I believe this is--and must be--a movement with bipartisan support, I will also be looking for initiatives coming from Democrats and Independents (besides Bernie) that I can support. Basically, I want to use this year to show consistently my support for change, and I expect the blowback to materialize next year, with serious debate and votes on initiatives.
Unfortunately, even a constitutional amendment will not be enough to clean up our elections. PAC's and companies could still buy time for unofficial statements on political issues that are not specifically endorsing or attacking individual candidates; these ads were already prevalent before Citizens United. There is legislation to provide for Federal financing of campaigns for Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, but I don't think it will get too far: incumbents like the advantages they have which this legislation would reduce, and libertarians don't like the idea of the government paying for elections.
What I want is the equivalent of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Elections should be reduced to a period of three months (six including the primaries), with no paid advertisement whatsoever on political topics. The television stations should be required to put the candidates on in public forums (and get paid for their time). On this issue, I am willing to support measures in the interim which offset the disastrous trend that I see, but I will not let go of it until this poison on our political system is purged.
My Donation Strategy in 2012
I ignored virtually all appeals for money last year--I'm not interested in fattening anyone's war chest, as that just makes them more eager to do battle with their money. I will not be able to lay off entirely this year, as this election is--or could be--very consequential; however, I intend that any money I give this year will be accompanied by a personal statement (there are lots of opportunities to do it) that my #1 issue is campaign financing, and that I expect the candidates I support to be in favor of humans' political expression in years to come.
Today's Primary
I've already expressed my opinions enough: I don't expect today's Florida primary to change anything. Newt, Santorum, and Paul will hang around for a longer or shorter time, possibly doing some additional damage to Romney, but I feel that the outcome is inevitable. For the record, my prediction for Florida: Romney 41, Gingrich 34, Santorum 13, Paul 11. Santorum has done pretty well and will get some sympathy vote despite this being a winner-take-all primary in which he has no chance. Paul has already moved on to Maine, a caucus state in which he believes he can score some delegates.
The Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling following on the 2008 campaign, swept away the campaign finance restrictions on private organizations, not affiliated with individuals' electoral campaigns. I have condemned the ruling, not so much on the legal merits (about which I don't claim to be expert) but on the horrendous impact it would have on national campaigns, which already are enormously over-expensive and with the quality of the effect of all that spending continuously deteriorating.
What I basically expect, and there is already plenty of evidence of it, is that the unlimited spending from the uncontrolled Super PAC organizations is going to produce a very strong reaction from the public. There will be a decline in turnout from usual Presidential election years because of all the negativity (and possibly from other methods the Republicans are trying to use in some states to suppress voting), but the stronger reaction will be revulsion at the sewage put on the television ads and their frequency during the general election campaign.
I see no chance at all that there will be any serious ceasefire in the money war going on this year (Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown have made a truce regarding their Senate campaign in Massachusetts, but that could easily be broken if one or the other finds things not going well under the restriction). The Super PAC's will weigh in most heavily on some of the closely-contested Senate and House races. Will the influence of negative advertising paid by outside money benefit the campaigns of its big-money backers--as it has often done in the past--or will voters recognize they are being bought and sold and produce a backlash? I am not optimistic about that, but I am hopeful that the bad taste that will remain in all of our mouths (or at least those of the districts whose stations will bombard us with poisonous gas) will lead us to speak out and purge the vitriol.
There are two main directions this reaction should take in 2013--To the Supreme Court's equating of speech with money, and of corporations having the same rights as people, the only response sufficient would be a constitutional amendment to the effect that "Corporations are not people; and only people can contribute to electoral campaigns." This will be difficult, but it needs to be established--this is the only way. When the public will is sufficiently motivated on a bipartisan basis, an amendment can be passed in months--an example being the repeal of Prohibition. There are a couple of online petitions I have seen and supported, one from Sen. Sherrod Brown and one from a group called Democracy for America and signed by Bernie Sanders. I know my Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is supporting some action. As I believe this is--and must be--a movement with bipartisan support, I will also be looking for initiatives coming from Democrats and Independents (besides Bernie) that I can support. Basically, I want to use this year to show consistently my support for change, and I expect the blowback to materialize next year, with serious debate and votes on initiatives.
Unfortunately, even a constitutional amendment will not be enough to clean up our elections. PAC's and companies could still buy time for unofficial statements on political issues that are not specifically endorsing or attacking individual candidates; these ads were already prevalent before Citizens United. There is legislation to provide for Federal financing of campaigns for Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, but I don't think it will get too far: incumbents like the advantages they have which this legislation would reduce, and libertarians don't like the idea of the government paying for elections.
What I want is the equivalent of multilateral nuclear disarmament. Elections should be reduced to a period of three months (six including the primaries), with no paid advertisement whatsoever on political topics. The television stations should be required to put the candidates on in public forums (and get paid for their time). On this issue, I am willing to support measures in the interim which offset the disastrous trend that I see, but I will not let go of it until this poison on our political system is purged.
My Donation Strategy in 2012
I ignored virtually all appeals for money last year--I'm not interested in fattening anyone's war chest, as that just makes them more eager to do battle with their money. I will not be able to lay off entirely this year, as this election is--or could be--very consequential; however, I intend that any money I give this year will be accompanied by a personal statement (there are lots of opportunities to do it) that my #1 issue is campaign financing, and that I expect the candidates I support to be in favor of humans' political expression in years to come.
Today's Primary
I've already expressed my opinions enough: I don't expect today's Florida primary to change anything. Newt, Santorum, and Paul will hang around for a longer or shorter time, possibly doing some additional damage to Romney, but I feel that the outcome is inevitable. For the record, my prediction for Florida: Romney 41, Gingrich 34, Santorum 13, Paul 11. Santorum has done pretty well and will get some sympathy vote despite this being a winner-take-all primary in which he has no chance. Paul has already moved on to Maine, a caucus state in which he believes he can score some delegates.
Monday, January 23, 2012
79 Things Upon Which "We" All Can Agree
Last week, returning from a business trip, I needed a magazine to read. Esquire had a cover with the heading "An Issue for our Divided Times" and the related cover story "Agree: Bill Clinton and 78 Other Thing We Can All Agree On".
I picked it up: I'm looking for areas to broaden the "new consensus", and ya gotta like the preposition they ended their title with(see above!) Anyway, Bill Clinton was a good choice for their theme: even Newt Gingrich, his nemesis, seems to remember Clinton fondly, and, since he got a bit older, Clinton's testosterone seems to have given him a break, releasing him from his sex addiction (or was it the open-heart surgery and the vegetarian diet that did it?), and allowed him to turn his talents wholly to worthy pursuits.
So, yeah, I read the opening interview with Bubba and the editors' promise that they would present 78 other "things that, regardless of party, region, or class, we can agree are great, lousy, true, false, beautiful, stupid, delicious, or crazy."
Alas. There wasn't much more upon which to build a political consensus. Turns out "we" are the Esquire readership--or their perception of it--which is a moderate, metrosexual, manly sliver of our society. Not that I have anything against that particular fragment; they're better than many. It's just not a sort of a "we" that one would recognize as being representative of American society.
Very little of it was political, none of it a statement as clear as their choice of Clinton. Most of it, as you'll see, was tendentious opinion about stuff that doesn't matter much or about their taste in the arts, drinking, and fashion. You'll also see that they started pretty well (put their good ones up front), then lost the thread, and then they wandered into a bunch of random short pieces they had lying around.
I'll try to categorize the other 78 (either quoted or paraphrased) in a few groups and give a little backing thought to my classification. Starting positively,
We Do/Should All Agree:
#1 Bill Clinton. see above
#5 "The electoral college should be abolished." Score one for Esquire!
#7 "Boss (on Starz) is as good as anything...on HBO." (see my recent post on that show, and note my comments on the Oscar nominations made this week)
#21 "the worst...Followed closely by the NCAA." (see #20 below, or my posts on the subject)
#22 "SNL is pretty good these days." Could've been written 25 or so of the past 35 years, but I will admit that my children have caught the bug in the last year or so.
#24 Navy Seals. OK, I get the point of this one (OBL); you need say no more.
#26 "Tina Fey is a national treasure."
#40 The National Parks.
#42 "Turkey: Also the Man." Corny line, but the sentiment is right (see #41 below, and Rick Perry should read the argument--it's short, Rick.)
#56 Bruce Springsteen. Yes; anyway, this is someone on whom everybody used to agree, 25-30 years ago.
#66 "There's no way to master all the...data in the world." They've got an article about someone who's trying to do that, and they're justifiably skeptical.
#69 "...Dr. Ralph Steinman deserved his Nobel Prize." He's the guy who died after they decided to award him, before he found out about it. No reason to penalize him just because his luck was all-time bad.
#73 "Larry Summers is an a--hole." Even Larry would agree, objectively speaking.
#75 Martin Scorsese. Probably someone doesn't like his movies; that person would probably hate all movies.
We Agree to Some Extent, That Is, I Agree:
#4 "The Sarah Palin episode in American politics is a bafflement." Yes, but I disagree that it's over.
#9 "Sooner or later, the Monday after Super Bowl must become a national holiday." The Stupid Bowl should be played every year on Feb. 13--they don't need it to be a holiday because it starts in the evening!--and Feb. 14 the men should make up for it with a holiday for their women.
#12 "Kids, Career, Marriage: In That Order." That's fine for those with kids, I guess, but that's not everybody.
#13 "Kevin Durant is the best combination of talent and personality in sports today." He's good, all right, but what about Derrick Rose?
#19 "...you can always find one area of agreement between polar opposites." Cute graphic with Venn diagrams--the best one is the intersection of Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga, being "Shoulder pads have their uses."
#23 "The United States needs an active manned space program. With its own spaceships." Well, not exclusively so, but we should have our own.
#37 "Men are Men." Dissing the trend of faddish articles about the disappearance of men; I do agree about the recent lead article "The End of Men", in The Atlantic, by a woman who led men on about commitment for most of her life and then decided it was better that she should never marry.
#41 "Mark Wahlberg is the man." I've grown to respect him since Boogie Nights.
#44 "Howard Schultz is the most interesting billionaire in America." He's OK, but there are others.
#54 "Screening for Cancer, like screening for a lot of other diseases, ain't all it's cracked up to be." The point being, what's the point of detecting if you can't do anything about it? It does absorb a lot of money, certainly.
#57 "In retrospect, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest mistakes our country has made in our lifetimes." Some of us are old enough and would argue that Vietnam was a bigger mistake (at least 5X the US deaths); and, to nitpick, the first war with Iraq was no mistake.
#58 "Most people really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a handgun."
#63 "Marijuana should be as legal as cigarettes or alcohol."
#68 Roast Chicken. Well, I like it, anyway.
#70 "There is nothing we all agree on." They give some good examples of things most, but not all, people agree about, but then why did they make this whole piece trying to argue the contrary? Because it would/might sell more magazines, surely.
#71 "We can all agree to hate a few things." They give 15 examples, and true to form, it's about 20% each for Yes/Maybe/No Way/Who Cares?/What are you talking about? This post is already too long, or I'd give examples, and Esquire hasn't put the list on its website yet.
#79 "Things are not so bad." I agree, though I don't think that many others do--but does that make the pessimists right? I'll give Esquire some credit here for arguing a minority point of view, though it's hardly the case that "we" all agree.
Totally disagree:
#3 Chris Christie owes his popularity to being fat. Quite the contrary.
#6 "Bono should sing more, talk less, and never write at all." Sure, sing, but I actually like his writing in the Times. They're jealous they didn't score him.
#10 "The Obama presidency has been a disappointment for everyone involved." I read that as meaning "for everyone" (and of course I disagree); if they mean everyone in the Administration I think they have to back that up a bit.
#11 "Even if he's accomplished more...than any of his five predecessors." That's what I was talking about!
#14 "Whoever rebranded rich people as 'job creators' should win some kind of award..." No, that person should be fired, then shot, then eaten.
#20 "Banks are the worst." My self-serving opinion: not all banks! More objectively: Insurance companies are the worst, and particularly health insurance.
#25 "Baltimore is America's next great underdog city..." I've heard some people speak well of it, but I'm not convinced of its greatness nor its uniqueness. Cleveland?
#27 "Economics isn't dismal; it's foolish." No, you are! It's not foolish to try to understand economic behavior, it's just sad that there is so little agreement about this "science"--for example, it should not be allowed for someone who calls himself an economist to say that reducing tax rates will not reduce tax revenue.
#45 "Nobody ...replaced..what the young Eddie Murphy brought to movies." Certainly it wasn't done by the older Eddie Murphy, but I do think there are claimants.
#46 "The same can probably be said for Julia Roberts." I was never a big fan, though she did a good Erin Brockovich impersonation.
#48/#49 "Everybody roots for Jennifer Anniston...and wonders why nothing...ever works out for her." I like her OK--no strong feelings--but not everyone does.
#50 "Same for Billy Joel." OK, the same for me, too, but from a different starting point: not everyone feels the same.
#51 Woody Harrelson: Who Doesn't Love Him? OK, the same again. Some really don't like him. Actually, Esquire just wanted to use the interview they had with him. It was kind of interesting, not as surprising as they think: he's trying to live clean but finds it hard to do.
#55 "Past Results are no indication of future performance." examples being Robert Downey, Jr., Indianapolis Colts, Lindsay Lohan, and Mitt Romney's former position in favor of abortion. As an empiricist, I must object and argue that the seeds of the reversal of fortune of each were always present.
#59 "There are so many instances when medium rare is not the call." If they're talking about beefsteak, I disagree: it's always the call.
#60 "They Greeks can f--k off for all we care." Some--Greeks, people who care about their indirect effects on the US economy--would disagree, and I'm one (no, not Greek).
#61 "After all this...scripted dramatic television is the most satisfying of all the entertainment media." I'll take movies, music, and TV sports over that one.
#76/#77/#78 "Tim Tebow has us all riled up about football (and God) again....soccer is really going to be big in this country...even though we all agree that's not true." Three statements that couldn't all be true, though they could be, and are, all false.
Couldn't Care Less:
#15 "The 100th birthdays of Julia Child, David Packard, and Fenway Park are worthy of celebration." Most would choose 1 of the 3.
#16 "Not to mention those of Arizona and New Mexico." 1 of 2, and I'm partial to that one.
#28/#29/#30 (see #27) Ezra Klein worship. He's OK, but the whole thread was lame.
#32/#33 Russell Banks. Lyle Lovett. No explanation--tell me why. Like or no like?
#34/#35/#36 "It's still better to read the paper on paper...Especially The New York Times, the only essential newspaper left. Except for the Harrisburg Patriot-News." Basically, just filler: on #34, I'm changing my mind; on #35 I can't really say it's the only one, and I've been reading it almost exclusively online for years, and regarding #36, I know nothing about Harrisburg's paper; do you think anyone else does?
#38 "You can ask a man anything except how much money he made last year." Go ahead and ask, if you want. What about asking a woman?
#52/#53 "No cocktail should take more than 45 seconds to make"; picture, recipe of some (unnamed) cocktail with egg whites, sugar, half and half, Heyman's Old Tom gin, etc.
#62 "Berenice Bejo should be in more movies". They have a nice picture of her in a negligee and a short interview. (she's the wife of the director of The Artist and stars in it)
#64 "Everybody loves a good dip." They have a recipe they like for pimento (sp) cheese dip.
#67 They've got an article about a new Jeopardy! hero who taught himself all the subjects he didn't know.
Buh?
#2 "J.B. Smoove and Larry David are the best black-white duo since Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder...."
#8 Siri. No further comment necessary? Do we love it, hate it, or ignore it? I couldn't tell. Maybe I should ask Siri what they are talking about...
#17 "Speaking of Arizona Muse." (see #15/16 above)
#18 The Egg McMuffin. See #8 Siri above. They show a picture with lots of them; is that supposed to make me hungry or puke?
#31 "The moment you hit the water." Sometimes good, sometimes (like when it's freezing, when you bellyflop, when you fall from 300 ft. up) not so much.
#39 "The Tiny-Suit thing is getting a little silly." I have no idea what they are talking about.
#43 "Ashley Greene can go any way she wants to, it's all up to her." picture of a fetching woman in a body suit (last month's cover model?)
#47 Watermelon. Some like it, some loathe it, even without the seeds.
#65 "Counter-terrorism is getting complicated." It always has been. They have a researched article on four old white geezer would-be militiamen who got stung by a provocateur and a guy from Homeland Security on the make. It's just complicated because they're white and not Muslim.
#72 Tim Gunn. They have his picture; I don't recognize him at all.
#74 "Sinclair Lewis was right: It carries the cross and comes wrapped in the flag." I looked this up: the reference is to "When fascism comes to America...", but this is a truism: it was the case when fascism came anywhere, that's always how it came. So we can agree, but it doesn't mean much.
The Final Tally:
We all Should/Do Agree--14
We Agree To Some Extent, That Is, I Agree--17
Totally Disagree--21
Couldn't Care Less--16
Buh?--11
I picked it up: I'm looking for areas to broaden the "new consensus", and ya gotta like the preposition they ended their title with(see above!) Anyway, Bill Clinton was a good choice for their theme: even Newt Gingrich, his nemesis, seems to remember Clinton fondly, and, since he got a bit older, Clinton's testosterone seems to have given him a break, releasing him from his sex addiction (or was it the open-heart surgery and the vegetarian diet that did it?), and allowed him to turn his talents wholly to worthy pursuits.
So, yeah, I read the opening interview with Bubba and the editors' promise that they would present 78 other "things that, regardless of party, region, or class, we can agree are great, lousy, true, false, beautiful, stupid, delicious, or crazy."
Alas. There wasn't much more upon which to build a political consensus. Turns out "we" are the Esquire readership--or their perception of it--which is a moderate, metrosexual, manly sliver of our society. Not that I have anything against that particular fragment; they're better than many. It's just not a sort of a "we" that one would recognize as being representative of American society.
Very little of it was political, none of it a statement as clear as their choice of Clinton. Most of it, as you'll see, was tendentious opinion about stuff that doesn't matter much or about their taste in the arts, drinking, and fashion. You'll also see that they started pretty well (put their good ones up front), then lost the thread, and then they wandered into a bunch of random short pieces they had lying around.
I'll try to categorize the other 78 (either quoted or paraphrased) in a few groups and give a little backing thought to my classification. Starting positively,
We Do/Should All Agree:
#1 Bill Clinton. see above
#5 "The electoral college should be abolished." Score one for Esquire!
#7 "Boss (on Starz) is as good as anything...on HBO." (see my recent post on that show, and note my comments on the Oscar nominations made this week)
#21 "the worst...Followed closely by the NCAA." (see #20 below, or my posts on the subject)
#22 "SNL is pretty good these days." Could've been written 25 or so of the past 35 years, but I will admit that my children have caught the bug in the last year or so.
#24 Navy Seals. OK, I get the point of this one (OBL); you need say no more.
#26 "Tina Fey is a national treasure."
#40 The National Parks.
#42 "Turkey: Also the Man." Corny line, but the sentiment is right (see #41 below, and Rick Perry should read the argument--it's short, Rick.)
#56 Bruce Springsteen. Yes; anyway, this is someone on whom everybody used to agree, 25-30 years ago.
#66 "There's no way to master all the...data in the world." They've got an article about someone who's trying to do that, and they're justifiably skeptical.
#69 "...Dr. Ralph Steinman deserved his Nobel Prize." He's the guy who died after they decided to award him, before he found out about it. No reason to penalize him just because his luck was all-time bad.
#73 "Larry Summers is an a--hole." Even Larry would agree, objectively speaking.
#75 Martin Scorsese. Probably someone doesn't like his movies; that person would probably hate all movies.
We Agree to Some Extent, That Is, I Agree:
#4 "The Sarah Palin episode in American politics is a bafflement." Yes, but I disagree that it's over.
#9 "Sooner or later, the Monday after Super Bowl must become a national holiday." The Stupid Bowl should be played every year on Feb. 13--they don't need it to be a holiday because it starts in the evening!--and Feb. 14 the men should make up for it with a holiday for their women.
#12 "Kids, Career, Marriage: In That Order." That's fine for those with kids, I guess, but that's not everybody.
#13 "Kevin Durant is the best combination of talent and personality in sports today." He's good, all right, but what about Derrick Rose?
#19 "...you can always find one area of agreement between polar opposites." Cute graphic with Venn diagrams--the best one is the intersection of Tim Tebow and Lady Gaga, being "Shoulder pads have their uses."
#23 "The United States needs an active manned space program. With its own spaceships." Well, not exclusively so, but we should have our own.
#37 "Men are Men." Dissing the trend of faddish articles about the disappearance of men; I do agree about the recent lead article "The End of Men", in The Atlantic, by a woman who led men on about commitment for most of her life and then decided it was better that she should never marry.
#41 "Mark Wahlberg is the man." I've grown to respect him since Boogie Nights.
#44 "Howard Schultz is the most interesting billionaire in America." He's OK, but there are others.
#54 "Screening for Cancer, like screening for a lot of other diseases, ain't all it's cracked up to be." The point being, what's the point of detecting if you can't do anything about it? It does absorb a lot of money, certainly.
#57 "In retrospect, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the biggest mistakes our country has made in our lifetimes." Some of us are old enough and would argue that Vietnam was a bigger mistake (at least 5X the US deaths); and, to nitpick, the first war with Iraq was no mistake.
#58 "Most people really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a handgun."
#63 "Marijuana should be as legal as cigarettes or alcohol."
#68 Roast Chicken. Well, I like it, anyway.
#70 "There is nothing we all agree on." They give some good examples of things most, but not all, people agree about, but then why did they make this whole piece trying to argue the contrary? Because it would/might sell more magazines, surely.
#71 "We can all agree to hate a few things." They give 15 examples, and true to form, it's about 20% each for Yes/Maybe/No Way/Who Cares?/What are you talking about? This post is already too long, or I'd give examples, and Esquire hasn't put the list on its website yet.
#79 "Things are not so bad." I agree, though I don't think that many others do--but does that make the pessimists right? I'll give Esquire some credit here for arguing a minority point of view, though it's hardly the case that "we" all agree.
Totally disagree:
#3 Chris Christie owes his popularity to being fat. Quite the contrary.
#6 "Bono should sing more, talk less, and never write at all." Sure, sing, but I actually like his writing in the Times. They're jealous they didn't score him.
#10 "The Obama presidency has been a disappointment for everyone involved." I read that as meaning "for everyone" (and of course I disagree); if they mean everyone in the Administration I think they have to back that up a bit.
#11 "Even if he's accomplished more...than any of his five predecessors." That's what I was talking about!
#14 "Whoever rebranded rich people as 'job creators' should win some kind of award..." No, that person should be fired, then shot, then eaten.
#20 "Banks are the worst." My self-serving opinion: not all banks! More objectively: Insurance companies are the worst, and particularly health insurance.
#25 "Baltimore is America's next great underdog city..." I've heard some people speak well of it, but I'm not convinced of its greatness nor its uniqueness. Cleveland?
#27 "Economics isn't dismal; it's foolish." No, you are! It's not foolish to try to understand economic behavior, it's just sad that there is so little agreement about this "science"--for example, it should not be allowed for someone who calls himself an economist to say that reducing tax rates will not reduce tax revenue.
#45 "Nobody ...replaced..what the young Eddie Murphy brought to movies." Certainly it wasn't done by the older Eddie Murphy, but I do think there are claimants.
#46 "The same can probably be said for Julia Roberts." I was never a big fan, though she did a good Erin Brockovich impersonation.
#48/#49 "Everybody roots for Jennifer Anniston...and wonders why nothing...ever works out for her." I like her OK--no strong feelings--but not everyone does.
#50 "Same for Billy Joel." OK, the same for me, too, but from a different starting point: not everyone feels the same.
#51 Woody Harrelson: Who Doesn't Love Him? OK, the same again. Some really don't like him. Actually, Esquire just wanted to use the interview they had with him. It was kind of interesting, not as surprising as they think: he's trying to live clean but finds it hard to do.
#55 "Past Results are no indication of future performance." examples being Robert Downey, Jr., Indianapolis Colts, Lindsay Lohan, and Mitt Romney's former position in favor of abortion. As an empiricist, I must object and argue that the seeds of the reversal of fortune of each were always present.
#59 "There are so many instances when medium rare is not the call." If they're talking about beefsteak, I disagree: it's always the call.
#60 "They Greeks can f--k off for all we care." Some--Greeks, people who care about their indirect effects on the US economy--would disagree, and I'm one (no, not Greek).
#61 "After all this...scripted dramatic television is the most satisfying of all the entertainment media." I'll take movies, music, and TV sports over that one.
#76/#77/#78 "Tim Tebow has us all riled up about football (and God) again....soccer is really going to be big in this country...even though we all agree that's not true." Three statements that couldn't all be true, though they could be, and are, all false.
Couldn't Care Less:
#15 "The 100th birthdays of Julia Child, David Packard, and Fenway Park are worthy of celebration." Most would choose 1 of the 3.
#16 "Not to mention those of Arizona and New Mexico." 1 of 2, and I'm partial to that one.
#28/#29/#30 (see #27) Ezra Klein worship. He's OK, but the whole thread was lame.
#32/#33 Russell Banks. Lyle Lovett. No explanation--tell me why. Like or no like?
#34/#35/#36 "It's still better to read the paper on paper...Especially The New York Times, the only essential newspaper left. Except for the Harrisburg Patriot-News." Basically, just filler: on #34, I'm changing my mind; on #35 I can't really say it's the only one, and I've been reading it almost exclusively online for years, and regarding #36, I know nothing about Harrisburg's paper; do you think anyone else does?
#38 "You can ask a man anything except how much money he made last year." Go ahead and ask, if you want. What about asking a woman?
#52/#53 "No cocktail should take more than 45 seconds to make"; picture, recipe of some (unnamed) cocktail with egg whites, sugar, half and half, Heyman's Old Tom gin, etc.
#62 "Berenice Bejo should be in more movies". They have a nice picture of her in a negligee and a short interview. (she's the wife of the director of The Artist and stars in it)
#64 "Everybody loves a good dip." They have a recipe they like for pimento (sp) cheese dip.
#67 They've got an article about a new Jeopardy! hero who taught himself all the subjects he didn't know.
Buh?
#2 "J.B. Smoove and Larry David are the best black-white duo since Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder...."
#8 Siri. No further comment necessary? Do we love it, hate it, or ignore it? I couldn't tell. Maybe I should ask Siri what they are talking about...
#17 "Speaking of Arizona Muse." (see #15/16 above)
#18 The Egg McMuffin. See #8 Siri above. They show a picture with lots of them; is that supposed to make me hungry or puke?
#31 "The moment you hit the water." Sometimes good, sometimes (like when it's freezing, when you bellyflop, when you fall from 300 ft. up) not so much.
#39 "The Tiny-Suit thing is getting a little silly." I have no idea what they are talking about.
#43 "Ashley Greene can go any way she wants to, it's all up to her." picture of a fetching woman in a body suit (last month's cover model?)
#47 Watermelon. Some like it, some loathe it, even without the seeds.
#65 "Counter-terrorism is getting complicated." It always has been. They have a researched article on four old white geezer would-be militiamen who got stung by a provocateur and a guy from Homeland Security on the make. It's just complicated because they're white and not Muslim.
#72 Tim Gunn. They have his picture; I don't recognize him at all.
#74 "Sinclair Lewis was right: It carries the cross and comes wrapped in the flag." I looked this up: the reference is to "When fascism comes to America...", but this is a truism: it was the case when fascism came anywhere, that's always how it came. So we can agree, but it doesn't mean much.
The Final Tally:
We all Should/Do Agree--14
We Agree To Some Extent, That Is, I Agree--17
Totally Disagree--21
Couldn't Care Less--16
Buh?--11
Thursday, January 19, 2012
A Spherical Oscar Re-Preview
The Golden Globes awards last Sunday provide a good view into the Oscars. Not so much into the nominations, which will be announced soon and should be already fully baked, but the format of the Globes' top movie awards, though, with separate categories for Drama vs. for Comedy/Musical, helps identify the two top contenders for Best Picture, Actor and Actress. (Other categories like Director, the Musical ones, and Supporting Actor/Actress, strangely, are combined into one award; also Screenplay, which Oscar breaks into Original and Adapted).
So, it would seem that Best Picture will end up a showdown between The Artist and The Descendants, that Best Actor will be between Artist's Jean Dujardin and Descendants' George Clooney, and that Best Actress will end up being a battle between The Iron Lady's Meryl Streep and My Week With Marilyn's Michelle Williams. I would buy into each of those as a current state of play assessment.
While the movie-about-a-movie gambit in Artist plays well with Hollywood's movie industry population, I do not think its silent French accents will do quite as well as it did with its foreign press (the voters for the Golden Globes). I see it winning for Musical Score and Art Direction, but Clooney, Payne and Company winning the big awards. Director could be interesting: Marty Scorsese won for Hugo at the Globes and his chances should not be discounted, but he was (finally) recognized a couple of years ago for The Aviator, so he's not owed. Woody Allen would get some consideration--he should be nominated--but for his habit of dismissing award shows. I like Alexander Payne's chances, but I'd be thrilled if Terence Malick pulled off a surprise (for Tree of Life) and will be disappointed if he is not at least nominated.
The Globes showed that sentiment is running low for J.Edgar, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (was it too late to be considered for the Globes?) The Help would have been a serious contender for top honors except that it was released too soon. It's too soon for me to admit that my initial foray into the previews, before most of the movies were even released, missed the mark, but it doesn't look good for my advocacy of Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
The award for Best Animated Film is usually a formality, but this year's contest could be a spirited one between the production starpower of Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson for The Adventures of Tintin, challenged by two critically-approved comedies, Puss 'N Boots and Rango. My kids' vote is for P'NB: that's who should decide the category (not my kids, specifically, but kids).
Finally, I think the Globes' Foreign Language film award for A Separation from Iran would be a likely indicator (though the Oscars' electorate is mostly American, and thus automatically anti-Iranian, the movie's director made a good move by choosing to make a political statement on behalf of his people--and implicitly against the regime). Wim Wenders' Pina was not nominated for the GG's but may have an outside chance in the Oscars.
Besides being a good indicator of final Oscar winners, the Golden Globes also tops off the television award season with a few select awards. The only one I want to comment on was the one given to Kelsey Grammer for Best Actor in a Series for his role in Boss. This searing drama--seen, I'd imagine, by few people on the Starz network--and Grammer's performance as a ruthless, corrupt Chicago mayor fighting off intrigues from his rivals and a hidden, debilitating illness is far from a reality show, much more dramatic than something like The Wire--almost Shakespearean in its archetypal situation and its high-stakes political battles. The show hooked me from the start and left me with my jaw dropped by the end of most of its eight episodes.
Ricky Gervais' hosting was deemed somewhat tame this year. I think it was mostly perception--the element of surprise was gone for those watching him; the talent was laying for him (and for Harvey Weinstein, who was getting abused mercilessly all night for his usual vote manipulative tactics). It seemed that the crowd of stars, starlets, and production folk were having a great time getting sloshed. More power!
So, it would seem that Best Picture will end up a showdown between The Artist and The Descendants, that Best Actor will be between Artist's Jean Dujardin and Descendants' George Clooney, and that Best Actress will end up being a battle between The Iron Lady's Meryl Streep and My Week With Marilyn's Michelle Williams. I would buy into each of those as a current state of play assessment.
While the movie-about-a-movie gambit in Artist plays well with Hollywood's movie industry population, I do not think its silent French accents will do quite as well as it did with its foreign press (the voters for the Golden Globes). I see it winning for Musical Score and Art Direction, but Clooney, Payne and Company winning the big awards. Director could be interesting: Marty Scorsese won for Hugo at the Globes and his chances should not be discounted, but he was (finally) recognized a couple of years ago for The Aviator, so he's not owed. Woody Allen would get some consideration--he should be nominated--but for his habit of dismissing award shows. I like Alexander Payne's chances, but I'd be thrilled if Terence Malick pulled off a surprise (for Tree of Life) and will be disappointed if he is not at least nominated.
The Globes showed that sentiment is running low for J.Edgar, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (was it too late to be considered for the Globes?) The Help would have been a serious contender for top honors except that it was released too soon. It's too soon for me to admit that my initial foray into the previews, before most of the movies were even released, missed the mark, but it doesn't look good for my advocacy of Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
The award for Best Animated Film is usually a formality, but this year's contest could be a spirited one between the production starpower of Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson for The Adventures of Tintin, challenged by two critically-approved comedies, Puss 'N Boots and Rango. My kids' vote is for P'NB: that's who should decide the category (not my kids, specifically, but kids).
Finally, I think the Globes' Foreign Language film award for A Separation from Iran would be a likely indicator (though the Oscars' electorate is mostly American, and thus automatically anti-Iranian, the movie's director made a good move by choosing to make a political statement on behalf of his people--and implicitly against the regime). Wim Wenders' Pina was not nominated for the GG's but may have an outside chance in the Oscars.
Besides being a good indicator of final Oscar winners, the Golden Globes also tops off the television award season with a few select awards. The only one I want to comment on was the one given to Kelsey Grammer for Best Actor in a Series for his role in Boss. This searing drama--seen, I'd imagine, by few people on the Starz network--and Grammer's performance as a ruthless, corrupt Chicago mayor fighting off intrigues from his rivals and a hidden, debilitating illness is far from a reality show, much more dramatic than something like The Wire--almost Shakespearean in its archetypal situation and its high-stakes political battles. The show hooked me from the start and left me with my jaw dropped by the end of most of its eight episodes.
Ricky Gervais' hosting was deemed somewhat tame this year. I think it was mostly perception--the element of surprise was gone for those watching him; the talent was laying for him (and for Harvey Weinstein, who was getting abused mercilessly all night for his usual vote manipulative tactics). It seemed that the crowd of stars, starlets, and production folk were having a great time getting sloshed. More power!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I've Seen Enough
I watched the Republican candidates' debate the other night on Fox News, and my conclusion is that I don't need to see any more of them. The entertainment value of these telecasts has dissipated, and their political importance is evaporating very quickly.
The name of the game Monday night (MLK Day) was for each candidate to try to one-up the others by showing he was more "conservative"--in the South Carolina context, this meant more militaristic, more xenophobic, lower on taxes for their flat rates, cutting more from government assistance programs, putting responsibilities and authorities with states rather than the Federal government. Everyone except Ron Paul joined in the game at every opportunity, and the large, vocal crowd applauded the red meat being thrown out to it.
Mitt Romney, with a big opportunity to exploit his opponents' divisions, win a plurality in South Carolina, and get an even stronger hold on the lead for the nomination, generally showed himself willing to match his most rabid opponents. A good example was his flat refusal to consider negotiations with the Taliban. As President, he will no doubt see things differently, but in SC it was more politic to refute his foreign policy advisor's position (he blamed it on VP Biden and ignored his advisor's position stated in the question) and stick with a determination to fight and eliminate them (something well beyond our capability). He was caught out once, by Rick Santorum, advocating a tougher position on voting by felons than he actually administered as Massachusetts Governor, but that's one issue that is truly a state-administered one, so his position as President would be legally irrelevant.
Paul was certainly willing to play when it came to taxes--the others merely suggested tax reductions, but he said "why not a 0% rate?"--to service and aid reductions, and to devolution to states. He challenged the consensus and the crowd, though, on our military policy. He argued against "these undeclared wars", the huge quantity of overseas bases, and the concept that spending more on military brings improved defense of our country. His argument to apply a Golden Rule toward other nations was heckled and booed, but Paul is contributing something new to the debate of what is truly "conservative", something the national party is unwilling to consider but that many of the party faithful--and probably a growing number--will find attractive.
The worst of the worst was Rick Perry. Pandering to the evangelical base by arguing that the Obama Administration has "a war on religion" and that we can have "no space" between our policy in the Middle East and Israel's--something which is hardly going to assist us in making peace there--these things are nothing more or less than we should expect from his limited political strategy options at this point. Fox's Brett Baier threw him a poisoned piece of bait with a question about religiously-motivated violence in Turkey, and Perry went for it. He accused Turkey of being like "Islamic terrorists", questioning whether he would allow them to stay in NATO. The Muslim-baiting got by the crowd without a murmur, but the comments did not escape the notice of political forces in Turkey, one of our critical allies, a democracy, a major regional power in the Middle East and one generally having a positive influence on international affairs. Again, his pandering to the evangelicals is totally expected, but his willingness to advocate outrageous and poorly-considered policies is, once again, clear evidence that he is in over his head. Fortunately, it seems he has no chance of success in SC, and I would presume he will pull out shortly (as he did--for 12 hours or so--after his failure in Iowa).
As for the other two jokers, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, there are several points to make. One is that both can be reliably expected to be "bold" in coming up with extreme positions. They are very interested in pointing that out, and they are having some success--apart from the activity of hammering away at the presumptive nominee and exposing his weaknesses. I think there is emerging the possibility of a tag-team strategy between the two which would have some hope of countering Romney, state by state: Gingrich would hammer Romney in the "Santorum states", Santorum hacks at Romney in "Gingrich states". Newt's states would be the Southern ones, Santorum's the Midwest, Rust Belt, and others where the social issues predominate. If their combined efforts--and they are very close allies, probably just couldn't agree that one should drop out in favor of the other--can keep Romney from winning most of the states by focusing the "anti-Romney, non-Paul" forces in each on a single candidate, they might be able to prevent Romney's attaining the votes for a first-ballot victory.
I don't really see that as a big success, though; either would likely be a worse President than Romney, if it came to that; from the Republicans' point of view, either would be a weaker opponent to Obama. And it would put Ron Paul in the potential role of kingmaker--it probably wouldn't work to the benefit of either Santorum or Gingrich.
In other words, I'm getting used to the idea that Romney will be the major party opponent, and I think any plausible alternative (other than fantasy scenarios like a stalemate, no candidate nominated, complete fracture in the party) would be worse. Romney has plenty of exposed weaknesses that make him look very much like a true successor of Bushism: his advocacy of tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations, his history of flip-flopping, his support of big government Republicanism. We don't need this charade to continue, and its ability to hold our interest is over.
The name of the game Monday night (MLK Day) was for each candidate to try to one-up the others by showing he was more "conservative"--in the South Carolina context, this meant more militaristic, more xenophobic, lower on taxes for their flat rates, cutting more from government assistance programs, putting responsibilities and authorities with states rather than the Federal government. Everyone except Ron Paul joined in the game at every opportunity, and the large, vocal crowd applauded the red meat being thrown out to it.
Mitt Romney, with a big opportunity to exploit his opponents' divisions, win a plurality in South Carolina, and get an even stronger hold on the lead for the nomination, generally showed himself willing to match his most rabid opponents. A good example was his flat refusal to consider negotiations with the Taliban. As President, he will no doubt see things differently, but in SC it was more politic to refute his foreign policy advisor's position (he blamed it on VP Biden and ignored his advisor's position stated in the question) and stick with a determination to fight and eliminate them (something well beyond our capability). He was caught out once, by Rick Santorum, advocating a tougher position on voting by felons than he actually administered as Massachusetts Governor, but that's one issue that is truly a state-administered one, so his position as President would be legally irrelevant.
Paul was certainly willing to play when it came to taxes--the others merely suggested tax reductions, but he said "why not a 0% rate?"--to service and aid reductions, and to devolution to states. He challenged the consensus and the crowd, though, on our military policy. He argued against "these undeclared wars", the huge quantity of overseas bases, and the concept that spending more on military brings improved defense of our country. His argument to apply a Golden Rule toward other nations was heckled and booed, but Paul is contributing something new to the debate of what is truly "conservative", something the national party is unwilling to consider but that many of the party faithful--and probably a growing number--will find attractive.
The worst of the worst was Rick Perry. Pandering to the evangelical base by arguing that the Obama Administration has "a war on religion" and that we can have "no space" between our policy in the Middle East and Israel's--something which is hardly going to assist us in making peace there--these things are nothing more or less than we should expect from his limited political strategy options at this point. Fox's Brett Baier threw him a poisoned piece of bait with a question about religiously-motivated violence in Turkey, and Perry went for it. He accused Turkey of being like "Islamic terrorists", questioning whether he would allow them to stay in NATO. The Muslim-baiting got by the crowd without a murmur, but the comments did not escape the notice of political forces in Turkey, one of our critical allies, a democracy, a major regional power in the Middle East and one generally having a positive influence on international affairs. Again, his pandering to the evangelicals is totally expected, but his willingness to advocate outrageous and poorly-considered policies is, once again, clear evidence that he is in over his head. Fortunately, it seems he has no chance of success in SC, and I would presume he will pull out shortly (as he did--for 12 hours or so--after his failure in Iowa).
As for the other two jokers, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, there are several points to make. One is that both can be reliably expected to be "bold" in coming up with extreme positions. They are very interested in pointing that out, and they are having some success--apart from the activity of hammering away at the presumptive nominee and exposing his weaknesses. I think there is emerging the possibility of a tag-team strategy between the two which would have some hope of countering Romney, state by state: Gingrich would hammer Romney in the "Santorum states", Santorum hacks at Romney in "Gingrich states". Newt's states would be the Southern ones, Santorum's the Midwest, Rust Belt, and others where the social issues predominate. If their combined efforts--and they are very close allies, probably just couldn't agree that one should drop out in favor of the other--can keep Romney from winning most of the states by focusing the "anti-Romney, non-Paul" forces in each on a single candidate, they might be able to prevent Romney's attaining the votes for a first-ballot victory.
I don't really see that as a big success, though; either would likely be a worse President than Romney, if it came to that; from the Republicans' point of view, either would be a weaker opponent to Obama. And it would put Ron Paul in the potential role of kingmaker--it probably wouldn't work to the benefit of either Santorum or Gingrich.
In other words, I'm getting used to the idea that Romney will be the major party opponent, and I think any plausible alternative (other than fantasy scenarios like a stalemate, no candidate nominated, complete fracture in the party) would be worse. Romney has plenty of exposed weaknesses that make him look very much like a true successor of Bushism: his advocacy of tax reductions for the wealthy and corporations, his history of flip-flopping, his support of big government Republicanism. We don't need this charade to continue, and its ability to hold our interest is over.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
With God on Their Side
The much-anticipated Saints-Lions game was indeed a good one, but the clear highlight of NFL's Wild Card weekend was the last game between the Steelers and Tim Tebow's Denver Broncos.
The Broncos played boldly and well, and Tebow's passing put his critics to shame, but the Steelers managed a late comeback to tie the score. I think Pittsburgh's destiny was sealed, though, when they essentially chose to let the clock run out on the last play of regulation time, setting up an ineffectual Hail Mary that never happened on the last play rather than trying an improbably long field goal. Clearly they decided to trust in fate.
Fate was not kind, though. The Steelers lost the coin toss to begin the overtime, and on the first play from scrimmage, the Broncos connected on an improbable 80-yard pass and run touchdown to end it.
Tebow's famous prayers were once again answered. Unlike how I feel about politicians doing it, I don't mind sports heroes giving praise to the Lord(s) as they see Him/Her/It/Them, even if it's kind of boring for the rest of us to hear. They have been blessed in some form, and it is humility that is appropriate, if sincere, that they give credit to something beyond themselves.
My only regret about it is that I hadn't posted my feelings going into the game. I heard all the "experts" picking the Steelers, but I didn't like the combination of Rothlisberger's unreliable leg (I think it was a bit of a factor, though not major), the absence of the Steelers' top running back, Denver's home field, and Tebow's dangerous karma and competitive instincts (they were on full display in the critical game against the Bears I saw some three weeks ago). I did post my qualms about the Steelers' chances in a comment after my last post of 2011.
The Broncos played boldly and well, and Tebow's passing put his critics to shame, but the Steelers managed a late comeback to tie the score. I think Pittsburgh's destiny was sealed, though, when they essentially chose to let the clock run out on the last play of regulation time, setting up an ineffectual Hail Mary that never happened on the last play rather than trying an improbably long field goal. Clearly they decided to trust in fate.
Fate was not kind, though. The Steelers lost the coin toss to begin the overtime, and on the first play from scrimmage, the Broncos connected on an improbable 80-yard pass and run touchdown to end it.
Tebow's famous prayers were once again answered. Unlike how I feel about politicians doing it, I don't mind sports heroes giving praise to the Lord(s) as they see Him/Her/It/Them, even if it's kind of boring for the rest of us to hear. They have been blessed in some form, and it is humility that is appropriate, if sincere, that they give credit to something beyond themselves.
My only regret about it is that I hadn't posted my feelings going into the game. I heard all the "experts" picking the Steelers, but I didn't like the combination of Rothlisberger's unreliable leg (I think it was a bit of a factor, though not major), the absence of the Steelers' top running back, Denver's home field, and Tebow's dangerous karma and competitive instincts (they were on full display in the critical game against the Bears I saw some three weeks ago). I did post my qualms about the Steelers' chances in a comment after my last post of 2011.
Friday, January 06, 2012
With All That Time, This Was the Best You Could Do?
Iowa's Republicans did accomplish something with the endless run-up to their exciting, symbolically important, but practically meaningless caucuses this week. The combination of a long campaign and dozens of debates did serve Iowa's traditional purpose of eliminating candidates not ready for the marathon ahead. Cain, Bachmann, and Pawlenty were winnowed out, with Perry and Gingrich's runs probably permanently crippled. These are good things.
Still, the anti-Romney forces in Iowa had a very long time, reviewed several potential options, and the one they ended up choosing was....Rick Santorum? Sanctimonious P. Rick?
This has to be one of the worst ideas for a major party Presidential contender in history. As Larry Sabato pointed out today, Santorum's defeat in 2006 by Bob Casey was historically bad; the 17+ percent margin was the second-worst defeat by an incumbent Senator in two decades.
It's not just that his political positions are odious, though they clearly are. His manner is off-putting, a combination of arrogance, prudery, and whininess that is going to be very unpopular once people get to know him. He affects a stance of moral superiority, yet his ethics are demonstrably defective. He has extreme positions on social issues--about which most Americans are tired of fighting--and nothing useful to say about economic issues, the ones for which Americans truly hunger for ideas. Foreign/military policy? He claims expertise, but again has little to say.
I've held off from condemning his candidacy because his level of support was nonexistent; I mistakenly thought he was going nowhere fast. With his win (I think the recount may show that, instead of losing by 8 votes, he actually won, though the count is just a popularity contest with no delegate implications), he will gain some additional support, some money, but he has no organization, no natural base, no plan. And he's the one who's supposed to stop Mitt Romney?
Gingrich went to New Hampshire for the purpose of going after Romney one more time; I see him dropping out and endorsing Santorum before South Carolina votes. Rick Perry is skipping NH but has decided to contest SC--some claim it is to help Romney, which it will do, nominally (though he won't get many votes). I don't think he has anything that complicated in mind; he's just never lost an election before and doesn't know that once you get beaten, you stay beaten. Huntsman still hasn't given moderates a credible reason why they should choose him, and there aren't that many of them left in the party, anyway.
So, it will quickly boil down to Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, as long as he lasts. If Romney wins SC, Florida and Nevada will follow and it will be over quickly. If Santorum can somehow win SC, though, or yield to someone who can (though I don't know who--Huckabee?), it could go on for awhile. But I think that the Iowa result basically has put Romney onto a path to the nomination that he would have trouble losing.
Still, the anti-Romney forces in Iowa had a very long time, reviewed several potential options, and the one they ended up choosing was....Rick Santorum? Sanctimonious P. Rick?
This has to be one of the worst ideas for a major party Presidential contender in history. As Larry Sabato pointed out today, Santorum's defeat in 2006 by Bob Casey was historically bad; the 17+ percent margin was the second-worst defeat by an incumbent Senator in two decades.
It's not just that his political positions are odious, though they clearly are. His manner is off-putting, a combination of arrogance, prudery, and whininess that is going to be very unpopular once people get to know him. He affects a stance of moral superiority, yet his ethics are demonstrably defective. He has extreme positions on social issues--about which most Americans are tired of fighting--and nothing useful to say about economic issues, the ones for which Americans truly hunger for ideas. Foreign/military policy? He claims expertise, but again has little to say.
I've held off from condemning his candidacy because his level of support was nonexistent; I mistakenly thought he was going nowhere fast. With his win (I think the recount may show that, instead of losing by 8 votes, he actually won, though the count is just a popularity contest with no delegate implications), he will gain some additional support, some money, but he has no organization, no natural base, no plan. And he's the one who's supposed to stop Mitt Romney?
Gingrich went to New Hampshire for the purpose of going after Romney one more time; I see him dropping out and endorsing Santorum before South Carolina votes. Rick Perry is skipping NH but has decided to contest SC--some claim it is to help Romney, which it will do, nominally (though he won't get many votes). I don't think he has anything that complicated in mind; he's just never lost an election before and doesn't know that once you get beaten, you stay beaten. Huntsman still hasn't given moderates a credible reason why they should choose him, and there aren't that many of them left in the party, anyway.
So, it will quickly boil down to Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, as long as he lasts. If Romney wins SC, Florida and Nevada will follow and it will be over quickly. If Santorum can somehow win SC, though, or yield to someone who can (though I don't know who--Huckabee?), it could go on for awhile. But I think that the Iowa result basically has put Romney onto a path to the nomination that he would have trouble losing.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Hopes for a New Year
I've got a lot of them, even limiting myself to those I'd choose to post on this blog. I may post some follow-ups later.
Sports
First, of course, my Reds: Though I'm not crazy about either of the pitcher swaps they made in the offseason (with Cubs and Padres), I think they are going into the 2012 season with both a decent pitching staff and a good everyday lineup. With the Brewers, Cardinals, and Cubs all weakened, I think they could win the division this year. I don't see them as World Series material, but once in the playoffs, there's always a chance (just see the example of the Cardinals last year).
Chelsea has basically blown its chances in the Premier League--last weekend's embarrassing 3-1 loss at home to Aston Villa being just the latest evidence--but, it is the leading surviving team in the Champions League. They should de-emphasize the League matches and focus upon the Champions League--their next matchup will be against Napoli, and that will require all their ability. The Blues have plenty of offense, but have been subject to sudden lapses on defense, way too often.
In college basketball, I have very high hopes for my regular teams: Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and on behalf of my parents' alma mater, Indiana (I'm OK with them since Bobby Knight left). In the next poll, I think SU and UK will be 1-2, with U of L and IU in the top 10. So, I'm not just thinking rooting interest in the Final Four, but a possible title. The Tar Heels and Buckeyes appear to be the chief rivals, and I will enjoy seeing them fall.
NBA-wise, I'm very optimistic about the upcoming season. The players and coaches don't like the heavy, short regular season necessitated by two months' loss of play, but I do.
US Politics
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up about the behavior of this nation's electorate, but I feel that there's a decent chance the Republicans could get a well-deserved repudiation this year. I stand by the viewpoint that they had forfeited their privilege of governing by 2008 and have not done anything to change that since then.
Really the only reason for my optimism is the weak field they are putting out for the Presidential nomination this year. Where President Obama should be in a nearly-desperate situation given the domestic economy (unfair, but it's reality), I see him winning easily against any candidate except Romney, and I see his chances as better than 50-50 even against him.
The bad news is that the campaign up until now could not have gone better for Mitt, and if things don't change soon (by South Carolina), he will have the nomination practically won by Feb. 1. And in the Palmetto State (a/k/a the Hardcore Confederate State), it appears that the right-wingers (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul) will split their votes, giving Romney a chance for a win he clearly should not expect. If he can somehow win there, Florida's primary will wrap it up for him.
Romney will present a challenge in critical Mideastern and Upper Midwestern states (PA, OH, MI, IA, maybe WI) that Obama would badly need for a safe Electoral College victory, and it appears that there will be nearly unlimited funds from Super PAC's to buy an advantage. If Obama loses a couple of those, he might have to pick up VA, AZ or FL (beyond states like CO, NM, NV).
And, the general election campaign could go very badly for Romney, opening the way for a decisive victory on the order of the one Obama produced in 2008 in spite of everything. If that happens, the Democrats could regain the House and hold onto the Senate. I actually think there's a chance for the Democrats to retain a Senate majority even in a close Presidential race.
I kept a stone wall against campaign contributions in 2011 (with one minor exception for Emily's List), but I will be loosening the wallet a bit this year. This is not because I can suddenly afford it, and I hate--absolutely hate--the fact that the Obama Administration has not made a move to challenge the current campaign finance regime (or lack thereof). I'm only going to do it because it's necessary, and I will try to be tactically astute and strategically sound. The fact that Ben Nelson has decided not to run again in Nebraska helps--now I can give to the DSCC without fear that it will be wasted on DINO's. Frankly, I felt that all those appeals to give before some arbitrary deadlines in 2011 were phony and unconvincing.
My hope is that after the totally expected orgy of negative ads and obscene levels of spending in 2012, both parties will turn, exhausted and bleeding, to legislation that will somehow limit the ugliness in future elections. It will be my #1 political priority, and I hope it will enter Obama's list as well--after, of course, he makes the most of the current monstrous system this year.
Finally, on a local level, I'm waiting to see how the Congressional districting turns out in my section of the northwestern Chicago suburbs before I decide whether I will retain my New Mexico voter registration (I certainly could do so), or switch to the area where I'm working and spending most of my time. If I get a chance to vote against Joe Walsh, or against Bobby Schilling (see my 2010 election post for the significance of the latter), that would be interesting. Otherwise, the Senate race in NM will be a close and a critical one.
Economic and International Politics
My hopes are more for GDP growth than reduction in unemployment or a big stock market rally. The key thing is to avoid a new recession, and I think that should be possible.
As far as the Euro is concerned, I will think there may be some triage, with Greece being reluctantly jettisoned (as I've suggested, that could be a big opportunity for Turkey), and with Italy and Spain salvaged. The nations (excepting Britain) are reluctantly going to allow stronger regional control over national budgets, and that is a formula that will ultimately solve the problem. Britain may decide to seek something like an associate membership, along with Sweden, Turkey, Greece, and a couple of others: trying to get the benefits of trade without the political mess.
I'm going to continue along this rather outlandish tangent of predictions and suggest a couple unexpected countries where the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority will rise: Russia (it's started, but I think/hope it will go much further) and Israel. I hope (but don't expect so much) there will be some sort of progress in the talks to make peace in Afghanistan, with participation of some Taliban elements, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
Personally, I want to wish the best for all friends and family--health, wealth, and happiness!
Sports
First, of course, my Reds: Though I'm not crazy about either of the pitcher swaps they made in the offseason (with Cubs and Padres), I think they are going into the 2012 season with both a decent pitching staff and a good everyday lineup. With the Brewers, Cardinals, and Cubs all weakened, I think they could win the division this year. I don't see them as World Series material, but once in the playoffs, there's always a chance (just see the example of the Cardinals last year).
Chelsea has basically blown its chances in the Premier League--last weekend's embarrassing 3-1 loss at home to Aston Villa being just the latest evidence--but, it is the leading surviving team in the Champions League. They should de-emphasize the League matches and focus upon the Champions League--their next matchup will be against Napoli, and that will require all their ability. The Blues have plenty of offense, but have been subject to sudden lapses on defense, way too often.
In college basketball, I have very high hopes for my regular teams: Kentucky, Louisville, Syracuse, and on behalf of my parents' alma mater, Indiana (I'm OK with them since Bobby Knight left). In the next poll, I think SU and UK will be 1-2, with U of L and IU in the top 10. So, I'm not just thinking rooting interest in the Final Four, but a possible title. The Tar Heels and Buckeyes appear to be the chief rivals, and I will enjoy seeing them fall.
NBA-wise, I'm very optimistic about the upcoming season. The players and coaches don't like the heavy, short regular season necessitated by two months' loss of play, but I do.
US Politics
I know I shouldn't get my hopes up about the behavior of this nation's electorate, but I feel that there's a decent chance the Republicans could get a well-deserved repudiation this year. I stand by the viewpoint that they had forfeited their privilege of governing by 2008 and have not done anything to change that since then.
Really the only reason for my optimism is the weak field they are putting out for the Presidential nomination this year. Where President Obama should be in a nearly-desperate situation given the domestic economy (unfair, but it's reality), I see him winning easily against any candidate except Romney, and I see his chances as better than 50-50 even against him.
The bad news is that the campaign up until now could not have gone better for Mitt, and if things don't change soon (by South Carolina), he will have the nomination practically won by Feb. 1. And in the Palmetto State (a/k/a the Hardcore Confederate State), it appears that the right-wingers (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Paul) will split their votes, giving Romney a chance for a win he clearly should not expect. If he can somehow win there, Florida's primary will wrap it up for him.
Romney will present a challenge in critical Mideastern and Upper Midwestern states (PA, OH, MI, IA, maybe WI) that Obama would badly need for a safe Electoral College victory, and it appears that there will be nearly unlimited funds from Super PAC's to buy an advantage. If Obama loses a couple of those, he might have to pick up VA, AZ or FL (beyond states like CO, NM, NV).
And, the general election campaign could go very badly for Romney, opening the way for a decisive victory on the order of the one Obama produced in 2008 in spite of everything. If that happens, the Democrats could regain the House and hold onto the Senate. I actually think there's a chance for the Democrats to retain a Senate majority even in a close Presidential race.
I kept a stone wall against campaign contributions in 2011 (with one minor exception for Emily's List), but I will be loosening the wallet a bit this year. This is not because I can suddenly afford it, and I hate--absolutely hate--the fact that the Obama Administration has not made a move to challenge the current campaign finance regime (or lack thereof). I'm only going to do it because it's necessary, and I will try to be tactically astute and strategically sound. The fact that Ben Nelson has decided not to run again in Nebraska helps--now I can give to the DSCC without fear that it will be wasted on DINO's. Frankly, I felt that all those appeals to give before some arbitrary deadlines in 2011 were phony and unconvincing.
My hope is that after the totally expected orgy of negative ads and obscene levels of spending in 2012, both parties will turn, exhausted and bleeding, to legislation that will somehow limit the ugliness in future elections. It will be my #1 political priority, and I hope it will enter Obama's list as well--after, of course, he makes the most of the current monstrous system this year.
Finally, on a local level, I'm waiting to see how the Congressional districting turns out in my section of the northwestern Chicago suburbs before I decide whether I will retain my New Mexico voter registration (I certainly could do so), or switch to the area where I'm working and spending most of my time. If I get a chance to vote against Joe Walsh, or against Bobby Schilling (see my 2010 election post for the significance of the latter), that would be interesting. Otherwise, the Senate race in NM will be a close and a critical one.
Economic and International Politics
My hopes are more for GDP growth than reduction in unemployment or a big stock market rally. The key thing is to avoid a new recession, and I think that should be possible.
As far as the Euro is concerned, I will think there may be some triage, with Greece being reluctantly jettisoned (as I've suggested, that could be a big opportunity for Turkey), and with Italy and Spain salvaged. The nations (excepting Britain) are reluctantly going to allow stronger regional control over national budgets, and that is a formula that will ultimately solve the problem. Britain may decide to seek something like an associate membership, along with Sweden, Turkey, Greece, and a couple of others: trying to get the benefits of trade without the political mess.
I'm going to continue along this rather outlandish tangent of predictions and suggest a couple unexpected countries where the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority will rise: Russia (it's started, but I think/hope it will go much further) and Israel. I hope (but don't expect so much) there will be some sort of progress in the talks to make peace in Afghanistan, with participation of some Taliban elements, Pakistan, India, and Iran.
Personally, I want to wish the best for all friends and family--health, wealth, and happiness!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
